"Leftist" twitter (i use quotation marks bc twitter leftists are bogus, not that Leftist ideology is bad) makes real progressives look really bad. And if you're wondering, *Britney Spears voice* I'm Not a Liberal, Not yet a "Leftist"

I'm fairly progressive. Elizabeth Warren was my #1. I know there are associations ppl make w white women who support her, but my black self liked her bc she has progressive values and seems fit to hold office. Bc progressivism in practice needs someone who knows how to govern.
She was called a snake by "leftists" for myriad reasons, but one of them was not quitting so Bernie could win. LMAO. Seriously.
That's when I noticed twitter "leftism" was a cult of personality. Bc if the closest person ideologically to Bernie is a snake for differing on her healthcare plan (not ideologically btw, just practically), then this shit is about that man. Not ideology.
Twitter "leftists" also have a race problem. HUGE race problem. "Solving class will help racism" is a STUPID political philosophy anyway, bc foundationally American economics is racist. Literally we're a world super power bc we didn't pay slaves for a century
but the way they talk about black folk who aren't aligned with them on everything is WILD. They call them everything but a coon. The comments under Cori Bush's tweet simple mentioning she was meeting with Clyburn got so much aggressive pushback. Go look.
Cori Bush HAS to have a good relationship with the majority whip to successfully get shit done. That's how politics work. (That's another thing I'll get to later, "leftists" don't seem to understand politics.)
But the vitriol toward Clyburn was disgusting. He takes donations from Big Pharma. I get that. But the response to a mere meeting taking place between House leadership and an incoming freshman congresswoman was outsized and wild disrespectful.
But the vitriol to black ppl who aren't exactly as progressive as they is always V E R Y B I G.
The sudden vitriol from white "leftists" on Obama is WILD. He was by no means a perfect president, but they drag that man like he's garbage. I saw a couple someones tweet that the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is just a "lifestyle brand" now. FUCK YOU.
Literally the first black man who held that seat. EVER. And did so for 8 years w dignity, and accomplished so much, despite a republican congress for 6 and some turncoat democrats for the first 2.
with Mitch McConnell loudly vowing to make him a one term president.
A majorly important part of that Black Presidency was his and Michelle's embrace of black art and culture. Musicians, actors, BLACK artists of all sort were up in that white house. He's culturally important to many in that way. He made our art mainstream.
And when this extremely important and influential black man continues that and creates lists and bigs up black ppl who would otherwise be invisible to so many ppl, he's reduced to a "lifestyle" brand.
White "leftists" reducing the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT to a "lifestyle" brand like he didn't get us the strongest healthcare legislation the US has ever seen. It needs work, for sure. But before him, there wasn't much. The climate that allows for M4A exists in large part bc of him
I saw "leftists" disrespecting JOHN LEWIS bc he supported Biden. HOW THE FUCK DARE YOU?
That dude was taking asswhoopings just to be considered equal before your daddy was even a twinkle in his daddy's nutsack. The audacity. How fucking dare you?
Oh and then Kamala. Where to begin?
This part takes much longer conversation which I haven't the energy for, but "leftists" grossly exaggerated Kamala's record as AG and pushed the oft repeated "Kamala is a cop" line. Here's a piece debunking that stuff: https://t.co/FwAIx8BdKG
The conversation from "leftists" about Kamala is astonishing to me. Things like "Kamala is a cop" (and all the (righteous!) rah rah about the crime bill) is unfair bc it ignores context and what was expected of black politicians in her time.
Unfortunately some Black "leftists" are guilty of this ahistoricity too. Yes, black folk have always been radical and revolutionary, but so many black folk have been politically moderate. And are still somehow more progressive than a lot of their white counterparts.
being "tough on crime" was the way to win elections. For white AND black constituents. "Tough on crime" was often the only way for black politicians to win races where they'd have white constituents. "Defund the police" would never fly.
For white and black *politicians

More from Twitter

Today's Twitter threads (a Twitter thread).

Inside: Dependency Confusion; Adam Curtis on criti-hype; Catalytic converter theft; Apple puts North Dakota on blast; and more!

Archived at: https://t.co/Osts9lAjPo

#Pluralistic

1/


This weekend, I'll be participating in Boskone 58, Boston's annual sf convention, where I'm doing panels and a reading.

https://t.co/2LfFssVcZQ

2/


Dependency Confusion: A completely wild supply-chain hack.

https://t.co/TDRNHUX0Ug

3/


Adam Curtis on criti-hype: Big Tech as an epiphenomenon of sociopathic mediocrity, not supergenius.

https://t.co/MYmHOosTk3

4/


Catalytic converter theft: Rhodium at $21,900/oz.

https://t.co/SDMAXrQwdd

5/

You May Also Like

I like this heuristic, and have a few which are similar in intent to it:


Hiring efficiency:

How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?

What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?

How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:

* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work

How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.

(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)

How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.
(1) Kushner is worth $324 million.
(2) Since 2016, Kushner has connived, with Saudi help, to force the Qataris (literally at a ship's gunpoint) to "loan" him $900 million.
(3) This is consistent with the Steele dossier.
(4) Kushner is unlikely to ever have to pay the "loan" back.


2/ So as you read about his tax practices, you should take from it that it's practices of this sort that ensure that he's able to extort money from foreign governments while Trump is POTUS without ever having to pay the money back. It also explains why he's in the Saudis' pocket.

3/ It's why the Saudis *say* he's in their pocket. It's why emoluments and federal bribery statutes matter. It's why Kushner was talking to the Saudi Crown Prince the day before the murdered Washington Post journalist was taken. It's why the Trump administration now does nothing.