The phrase "Left, Right, and Center unite against Tyranny" keeps coming to mind. Not that I know how to make that happen. But wouldn't it be nice.

Another one that got me thinking was this interview with Quinn Slobodian, professor of international history at Boston University, about neoliberalism and what it means in our present moment and historically. I disagreed with a lot, but his ideas helped me understand things pca.st/rb64dnp0

A recent episode of The Gray Area helped me to see our present moment in a light that makes a bit more sense to me - an interview with Alana Newhouse about her framing of the current ideological divide as between "brokenists" and "status-quoists" pca.st/ezb94hkl

I can't imagine trying to put together a cohesive show about our present moment that presents something like a solution; it feels very much (and for the first time in my 44 years on the planet) like we're riding the wave of history without a rudder.

I'm all for the DEI policies. It's the term"buy-cott" that makes me feel like I'm being eaten by worms.

Stop trying to make "buy-cot" a thing. It's never going to be a thing.

I imagine that graphic novelizations of literature might be a great accommodation for aphantasic kids who struggle in English classes. For most students, books without pictures are an essential way to connect with the vast world of literature, history, social science, and tons of stuff.

There is nothing wrong with graphic novels - it is absolutely reading and I get tons of pleasure from them. I don't know much about aphantasia but it seems like they're a help and I'm glad of it. My point is that learning to engage with a text that isn't illustrated is important for most kids.

Reading graphic novels is absolutely reading. Also, learning to engage with text without pictures is an important skill that isn't built by reading graphic novels. This is what most of the people you're arguing with are trying to express when they say it isn't really reading.

The fact is, engaging with and showing the inconsistency of a person's ideas is still the most powerful way to limit the reach of ideas you disagree with. I realize that sharing this opinion is likely to get me on some block lists, and that's fine. Nobody has to talk to me who doesn't want to.

On the second point, deplatforming is effective when the person you're trying to oust has less platform than you. Otherwise, rather than starving them of viewers, these efforts will ultimately extend their reach.

On the first point, if everyone is a Nazi nobody is a Nazi. Having the concept of Nazi remain as a strong taboo is important to me, and watering it down has the unintended impact of making actual Nazis seem more palatable to normies.

The only argument for banning them requires two (insane) logical jumps. One, it requires you to think of anyone whose opinion you disagree with on trans issues as an actual Nazi, and two it requires you to accept de-platforming as an effective tactic in public discourse.