Categories For later read

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
A vitally important thread. Much isnt new, but is so in the air we breathe we forget how RECENT it is & therefore how unaccustomed we r to coping w/it. At the risk of hijacking her great observatns, theyre pivotal to points others have made re: Institutional Evangelicalism...1/12


1. The increased burden of sifting fact from fiction is one that only the economically privileged have the bandwidth to keep up with day-to-day, especially w/the SPEED of news generation we've seen in the last 6-10 years. This contributes to polarization & significantly... 2/12

... disadvantages blue collar America (on the left and the right) in an info economy, and is a massive catalyst for populist sentiments that make it exponentially harder for already-weak institutions to lead or swim against the tide (see Yuval Levin's "A Time to Build"). 3/12

2. I cannot agree more effusively with @sometimesalight's point re: social media & narrative. Social media platforms function as counterfeit institutions (social spaces that form identity via narrative, connection via shared purpose, & virtue via participation). 4/12

Prior to SocMed's ubiquity(approx. 2010), sifting/weighing primarily happened in traditional institutions (esp. churches) where perspectives tempered by wisdom, virtue, & relationship both evaluated & prioritized info. They served as both refuge & filter, solvent & catalyst. 5/12
This is so true! I imagine everyone accumulates a story that serves to make this point, but I'm afraid I can't resist sharing mine... 1/


Once, long ago, my manager came to me on a Friday afternoon: "Are you going to be here on Monday?" 2/

Now, this is the 1990s: to work from home, you needed a modem (!!) -- and at the time, I owned no computer so even that wasn't happening. So I was emphatically going to be there on Monday, if for no other reason that I had nowhere else to work. 3/

"Yes, of course I'm going to be here on Monday."
"Okay, we need to talk Monday."
"Is there something wrong? Can we talk now?"
"Let's talk Monday." 4/

My early-twentysomething self was (obviously?) very anxious, so I immediately went to the office of the senior engineer in the group (and my mentor), Jeff Bonwick to see if he knew of anything that I might have screwed up... 5/
THREAD: a point worth addressing is "how would/should VP respond if GOP retained its majority, then voted to suspend/amend a Senate Rule depriving the presiding officer of power." Paragraph 6 of the article wasn't as strong as it could have been, on that point.


The problem with that attack is encapsulated in the Senate's official history (cited graf 7) - https://t.co/UwF93b9YaA

The Senate's official history on its https://t.co/gLTPXi8eiT site recounts the Constitutional fact that the majority leader's presiding powers are derivative.

A power informally delegated by the VP can be taken back, so the Senate history accurately describes the majority leader as "an emperor without clothes." So, if the VP used presiding power to give priority to a senator moving a House-passed bill to the floor, and . . .

. . . the House purported to override that action by 1) self-recognizing the ML to do something different, and then 2) sustaining a point of order limiting the VP's presiding power, what would be the legal basis and remedy for that action?

Several principles intersect here that arise from agency rulemaking. But first, we have to recognize the Supremacy Clause - the Constitution is a superior law to any other law, rule or precedent.
1/ I really enjoyed interviewing @xuenay about his writing strategy for bridging different perspectives. My writing has improved a ton from integrating this strategy!

So how does @xuenay do


2/ Like with all of these models, this is inspired by interview @xuenay but not necessarily endorsed by him. There's a necessary translation process that goes from his head to my head to paper!

3/Let's first talk about beliefs and motivations. What's his primary motivation to start this process?

For him, it's a process of seeing people disagree, and feeling a visceral sense of frustration at people talking post each other.

5/ For him, it's almost a proprioceptive sense of two different shapes. One person is saying circle, and the other is hearing square. It's really important to make these shapes match up!

6/ There are two underlying values here. The less salient one is wanting a sense of admiration from others. It's really nice to get praise for creating good explanations that unify two viewpoints.
Unofficial roll call of senators endorsing removal: (thread)

1. Blumenthal


2.


3.


4.