The truth in Black and white: An apology from The Kansas City Star. In a six-part investigation, @KCStar finds it "scorned generations of Black Kansas Citians and...robbed an entire community of opportunity, dignity, justice and recognition."

I'm teaching a class on race and after reading bell hooks we've moved on to @JohnHMcWhorter. Fact: liberals/progressives generally will never critique the poor moral choices of disadvantaged blacks and tend to blame black morality on "white racism." https://t.co/GEvSKupDox via

Meanwhile conservatives, generally, struggle to confess that Jim Crow was a (Christian) conservative movement. This is why we can't make any progress in 2020. The idea that black people *and* white people *both* have zero moral culpability on our past or present is fiction.

It's not "racist" for a white male to say black men in urban areas commit more crimes in their own neighborhoods and, therefore, are more likely to have contact with police. And it's false that men who commit violent crime & property crime are only doing so because of poverty.

Yes, evangelical Christians, in Jesus name, supported and defended Jim Crow, resisted integration, and struggle with white nationalism as an idol in 2020. Absolutely! Many of their pastors are cowards for never addressing or aiding and abetting it.

Yes, there are cultural patterns in disadvantaged black communities that are not derivative of white racism but emerge from the fact that black men & women, just like white men & women, chose, on purpose, actions that lack virtue & wisdom. Why? B/c all humans are morally flawed.

Oh are we talking about Sheryl Sandberg again? Well, your reminder that disabled feminists, LGBQT feminists, and feminists of color criticised her ‘lean in’ deal from day one. Don’t let anyone retcon that out of existence.

Like, a pretty narrow slice of feminists actually endorse and support corporate feminism, they’re just white, nondisabled, straight, cis, and noisy so their voices have a bigger reach.

So if your impression is that ‘feminism’ gave her a ‘free pass’ maybe you should question your overall impression of feminism rather than continuing to centre a handful of people as ‘thought leaders’ or whatever.

Critics within feminism have been doing this work for a long time and have been getting shat on it for about as long and I'm tired of seeing them erased. But what do I know — I am, after all, not a feminist.

But I WILL say, from my not-a-feminist perspective, that people who aren’t feminists who are criticising feminism should maybe understand the movement more deeply beyond a handful of high profile celebrity feminists.

When it's railroading time, you get railroads.

When the railroads turn into the personal satrapies of rail-barons, you get trustbusters.

A couple decades ago, it was online service time. We had the users, the telcoms systems, the computers, the modems, so we got platforms.

1/

We had that, but we lacked something important: effective antimonopoly enforcement. Lax merger laws allowed companies with access to capital markets to buy out or neutralize all their competitors, so we got monopolies.

Right on schedule, we're getting digital trustbusters.

2/

Now, some people aren't technically sophisticated, but they do understand a lot about competition law. That's how you get meat-and-taters antitrust proposals like @amyklobuchar's #CALERA, which address the structural problems with antitrust

Klobuchar's bill is hugely important. The reason we have monopolies is that we stopped enforcing anti-monopoly law 40 years ago. Monopoly isn't a tech problem, it's everywhere from sneakers to glass bottles to pro wrestling to candy to

Klobuchar's CALERA doesn't just seek to apply antitrust law to tech - it also explicitly restores the pre-Reagan basis for fighting monopolies: we fight monopolies because they concentrate power and corrupt our politics. All monopolies are guilty unless proven otherwise.

5/

The reason that so many conservative evangelicals these days appear to be moral relativists is that they *are* moral relativists.

They would deny this, of course. But that doesn’t make it any less true. Here's why.

They’ve bought into the premise that all statements are either fact or opinion: facts are objective and verifiable; and everything else is opinion—subjective and unverifiable. In other words, they've bought into full-fledged modernism.

From there, the secular path to moral relativism places all moral statements in the “opinion” category. On this view, morality is subjective—dependent on cultural context, historical background and the like.

Conservative evangelicals recoil from this approach, as they should.

So instead, they place morality in the “fact” category, claiming that moral truth is objective and empirically verifiable.

And how is moral truth empirically verified? The Bible, of course. Problem solved.

This is tempting, for two reasons. First, Scripture is entirely true; and much of that truth pertains to morality.

Second, apart from special revelation, it’s difficult to imagine where we might go to find empirical verification of moral truth—you can't *see* moral properties.