I am reading and reviewing books of @SamHarrisOrg this December, with the extra time available after work. First book I read is following.
More from Book
One can make an analysis of how many right wing groups published books before Modi in power and after Modi in power.
Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?
The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all
Right wingers.
This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.
There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +
Mangalore are the prime of them.
There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.
We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won
more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.
Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not
a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not
Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?
The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all
Every time I read @NAN_DINI_ ji's writings, I'm reminded that while juvenile writers like Twinkle Khanna and Saggy Ghose are published by MSM, talent like this is restricted to personal blogs. Will this ever be remedied? https://t.co/1oAO7I4i6G
— \u0926\u093f\u0935\u094d\u092f\u093e (@divya_16_) December 9, 2020
Right wingers.
This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.
There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +
Mangalore are the prime of them.
There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.
We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won
more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.
Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not
a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not
People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There\u2019s a magic trick that\u2019s going to get played on us every day during the 2020 election cycle. It\u2019s a fairly simple trick, once you see it.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) February 17, 2019
I\u2019d like to talk about leadership and governance.
And the compass, the navigation, the travel, and the corrections.
(thread)
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
We had a conversation on the podcast about the racialization of dog breeds, where we talked to @BronwenDickey, the author of Pitbull: The Battle Over an American Icon.
In the 1930s, Pitbulls — which, as Bronwen pointed out to me over and over, don’t constitute a dog breed but a shape — used to be seen as the trusty sidekick of the proletariat, the Honda Civic of canines. (Think of “the Little Rascals” dog.)
.
That began changing in the postwar years and the rise of the suburbs. A pedigreed dog became a status symbol for the burgeoning white middle class. And pitbulls got left behind in the cities.
Aside: USians have flitted between different “dangerous” breeds and media-fueled panics around specific dogs. (anti-German xenophobia in the late 1800s fueled extermination programs of the spitz, a little German dog that newspapers said was vicious and spread disease.)
Some previously “dangerous” dogs get rebranded over the years — German shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers. But the thing their respective periods of contempt and concern had to do is that they were associated with some contemporarily undesirable group.
Michael Tesler in @FiveThirtyEight bringing some data to bear on my tweets about @ReverendWarnock\u2019s dog ad. A piece worth reading, and a reminder: It\u2019s never \u201cjust a dog,\u201d y\u2019all.https://t.co/ijQvTDOdvj pic.twitter.com/sp05Bhueob
— Hakeem Jefferson (@hakeemjefferson) December 15, 2020
In the 1930s, Pitbulls — which, as Bronwen pointed out to me over and over, don’t constitute a dog breed but a shape — used to be seen as the trusty sidekick of the proletariat, the Honda Civic of canines. (Think of “the Little Rascals” dog.)
.
That began changing in the postwar years and the rise of the suburbs. A pedigreed dog became a status symbol for the burgeoning white middle class. And pitbulls got left behind in the cities.
Aside: USians have flitted between different “dangerous” breeds and media-fueled panics around specific dogs. (anti-German xenophobia in the late 1800s fueled extermination programs of the spitz, a little German dog that newspapers said was vicious and spread disease.)
Some previously “dangerous” dogs get rebranded over the years — German shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers. But the thing their respective periods of contempt and concern had to do is that they were associated with some contemporarily undesirable group.
