Race, gender, sexuality — these aren't matters of shame or pride. They aren't the substance of anyone's identity. They're happenstance.
I honor the dignity/potential of every individual, but real pride is derivative of character and achievement. Pride isn't trivial; it's earned.
I love David. We disagree on some stuff. That’s normal.
But I don’t find YOUR proposition even a little persuasive.
Some dimwits have a near-superstitious prejudice against an imaginary category of persons.
They project their idiotic beliefs onto you/your children…That’s unfortunate, but why respond in a way that lets the bigot set the terms?
My daughter is beautiful — but not on account OR in spite of ‘her Blackness.’
What you’re missing is: retreating into the race taxonomy here empowers the bigot by laundering his bogus framing.
Dignify the person. Discard the artifice.
Here’s an analogy:
You’re put on trial for witchcraft. The evidence against you is objectively ridiculous… because witchcraft is totally fake. And it’s fake, even if the consequences of being convicted in these morally bankrupt proceedings are all too real.
Still, your lawyer insists the best defense you can muster is to say:
“Witches are good. Beautiful even. And I’m proud to be a practicing witch.”
Maybe they show you mercy, but at what price?
It’s prudent to know what that court believes (especially if it's bonkers), but pleading your case within its degrading parameters and incoherent categories is a compromise everyone should refuse.
You’re missing the point. The clear takeaway: the ‘unfair’ advantage ALREADY exists.
HFT desks buy the best available fiber + compute, which they use to scrape publicly available data. That slight edge = profit.
Buying enterprise API access amounts to the same thing, and that kind of service offering is hardly unique to Truth Social.
This isn’t ‘insider trading.’ It’s the reality of modern trading markets and social media platforms.
WAY more egregious and overt examples of self-enrichment to get animated about.
Nobody said the founders rejected the common good. The problem with this answer and every other answer on this topic I have seen is it completely bypasses the actual problem.
The question is not whether our founders used the language of the common good or wanted government to promote the welfare of its citizens. Of course they did. The question is whether the common good is secured by protecting unalienable rights within a limited constitutional order, or whether a ruling faction may define “the good” for everyone else and place it above individual liberty.
The founders believed deeply in the public good. They also understood that every ruler claims to represent it. That is why they tied legitimate power to consent, divided authority, protected conscience, and treated rights as limits on government rather than gifts from it.
This is the same inversion we watched happen on the left. The left argued that liberty and equal rights were insufficient whenever they obstructed equity. Now parts of the right argue that liberty and equal rights are insufficient whenever they obstruct the common good. The preferred outcomes are different, but the architecture is the same: our ends are righteous, therefore our use of power is justified.
Political movements never lack beautiful language for their ambitions. They speak of justice, virtue, safety, equality, order, solidarity, or the common good. The real question is what limits do they recognize when another human being’s conscience, rights, and freedom stand in their way.
"The common good" is to postliberalism as "social justice" is to Marxism.
Both are vacuous, misappropriated terms to justify authoritarian economic policies that they can't make a coherent argument for on the merits.
If you guys don’t mind hearing me discuss current events, I had a great conversation with the folk over at “Big Think”. If you’d like to hear it, here it is.
https://t.co/M9D4KAbRc8
"strange,” a “waste of energy,” morally “tepid,” “illiterate” — This is cheap ad hominem.
My views are clear: I privilege individualism over every kind of race essentialism. I'm not a *category.* This makes some people uncomfortable. That's unfortunate for them.
If you had a substantive counterpoint, you would have made it.
"strange,” a “waste of energy,” morally “tepid,” “illiterate” — This is cheap ad hominem.
My views are clear: I privilege individualism over every kind of race essentialism. I'm not a *category.* This makes some people uncomfortable. That's unfortunate for them.
If you had a substantive counterpoint, you would have made it.
👀 CNN anchor Elex Michaelson at end of politics panel discussion re: Ossoff 2028:
“As a Jew, some people read a little more Jewish than other people. And Jon Ossoff may not read as Jewish as Josh Shapiro does, for whatever that’s worth.”
In the last 30 days, 30,000+ new readers have joined @TangleNews
We have over 500,000 people signed up for multiple newsletters and should do $6m/year in revenue this year. 70,000+ paid subscribers. We have hired three full-time people in the last month, bringing our team to 15.
The "secret" is simple: Good content. Ideological diversity. Nuance. Elevating strong arguments from smart people on big, divisive topics, offering our own unique analysis, and then letting our audience make up their minds.
Following politics does not have to be sensational rage-bait. It doesn't have to be exhausting. It doesn't have to make you hate other Americans. You *might* have to read a bit, but you can change your mind, expand your views, more earnestly defend your convictions, all without going insane.