Lex Myers

Techie. #AutisticElder. Social justice diplomat. Tooliberal to be a leftist; too leftist to be a liberal. Subverting tomorrow’s dominant paradigm today. ☸️

[Lex Myers @lexmyers]

Real rainbows have gradients, not stripes.

[John Markley @johndrewmarkley]

If we could simply tell young men, "yeah, women are no better than you, female sexual desire is every bit as amoral and bestial as male, it is what it is" from the get-go, much suffering could be avoided. But only a few weirdos on the internet are comfortable saying that.

[Lex Myers @lexmyers]

It's just like Sister Ray said...
https://t.co/0LCzLntG01

[METAVERZUZ @METAVERZUZ]

Gun to your head, name a song that’s over 6 minutes long.

[Lex Myers @lexmyers]

As someone who Was There, I can confirm that this is historically accurate. OG MRA Warren Farrell had been a member of NOW's board! His work was clearly based on second-wave feminism, all the way down to throwing hissy fits about humor in women's magazines.

[Etana @Etanarachel]

The manosphere- and in fact men's rights as a whole- is basically just "IDpol feminism for men". However much they may deny it, nearly all of them are building on a framework pioneered by feminism.

[T. Greer @Scholars_Stage]

On September 11th, 1893 the Chicago Parliament of World Religions was addressed by Swami Vivekananda. His theme: Hinduism and American Christianity’s shared commitment to religious “toleration.”

The 6000+ Americans in attendance gave him a standing ovation.

[Stuart Penney @StuartPenney1]

I never get tired of reading this passage from John Cooper Clarke's memoir "I Wanna Be Yours” about the time he performed at the Cambridge Folk Festival alongside #Donovan

[Eric Michael Garcia @EricMGarcia]

I thought Democrats opposed live executions on television.

[Lex Myers @lexmyers]

@EricMGarcia @gaymergir @Independent If you end up starting a Substack, I will pay for a subscription without a second thought. I’m sure that many others will as well!

[Carl @HistoryBoomer]

Of course, the people who need to hear this advice will mostly reject it (check some of my replies).

To be clear, it's fine to share your opinions about a current case, especially one that many people are using to draw big conclusions about society. If you want to criticize elected officials who have expressed opinions, go for it. Taking heat is part of their job.

But when you directly target people involved, trying to dish out your own punishment, you've crossed a line.

You're angry because one side is being treated unfairly? Even more reason why you shouldn't target people. Angry people are not thinking clearly.

You are not a judge. You do not have all the facts. I doubt if most people doxxing or SWATing have read even half the public material on the Cornell case, and then there's all the material they can't know about because it wasn't released.

I remember all the people screaming on social media at the Covington Catholic kids (2019) because they saw one short video clip. The longer video showed the kids had been more victims than instigators, but ignorant fools had already made up their minds.

“The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters.” — Terry Pratchett

Mob justice is never justice.

[Alice @AliceFromQueens]

“Son, I know you want to get back to soccer practice but let me tell you that a 3-way in a frat house can be fine if it’s consensual but not if it becomes a four-, five-, six-, et cetera, when she’s on ketamine. Now does that change if she snorts the K off your D? It depends…”

[Rob Henderson @robkhenderson]

Sexual assault frequently occurs at or near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in no small part due to the sustained efforts of prestige media to degrade relations between women and men but when an Ivy League student is allegedly victimized as a result of those very efforts, prestige media goes to defcon 1.

[Coddled Affluent Professional @feelsdesperate]

I sat my 7-year-old down and explained to him that dying industries (legacy media, academia, DNC politics) ride algorithmically driven cultural hysterias both because it’s the only way they can stay relevant and because their business models demand it.

He looked up at me and with a tear in his eyes asked, ‘so, for the sake of the journos, the assistant professors, and Dem Politics Inc, we’re obligated to attest to the moral urgency of the hysteria and act completely emotionally dysregulated?’

‘Yes,’ I answered him. ‘Yes, that’s right.’

And then we both sat quietly.

[Dilan Esper @dilanesper]

The problem with religious conservative takes on things like young people having drunken group sex isn't that they don't make some fair points-- they do-- but that their solution for everything is that nobody has sex at all until they are married, which doesn't work.

[Kristen Mag @kristenmag]

I can’t believe she still has this post up.

Imagine thinking it’s noble for a grown adult to name and shame 57 young men for the crime of…<checks notes>…receiving a rando two-word text message they may not have even seen.

[Lex Myers @lexmyers]

If you don’t get this extremely dated reference, just go to Amazon, search for “Reverse Harem Romance”, and try scrolling to the bottom of the list. Unless you’re *extremely* patient, you will never get there.

[Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇮🇱 @CathyYoung63]

The "women don't voluntarily have group sex" trope frankly blows my mind. Have people never heard of Plato's Retreat?

[Steve Morris @stevemorris__]

Whatever one thinks about the Cornell or Lindsey Clancy cases, I think we can all agree it's a great development that our increasingly illiterate, paranoid, and phone addicted society is now litigating wrenching, painful situations via algorithms

[Cassie Pritchard @hecubian_devil]

Yeah if you’re an academic choosing to do politics then you have to do a bunch of unpleasant stuff and get your hands dirty. If they want deference, then stay an academic where they have hierarchical authority over students and a formal system of respect.

If they want influence and to do politics in the broader world, then they need to accept that it comes with a bunch of tasks that can be demeaning and unpleasant.

Academics who want it both ways—the lofty perch of the teacher (deference), but also influence over fellow citizens in a democratic society (peer politics)—are operating unrealistically.

If you’re going to do politics, you need to persuade people. She chose to engage. She’s trying to be a *public* intellectual, not just a cloistered academic.

She *chose* to respond and she *chose* to respond with the pedagogical sneer of a professor shutting down an impudent student. That might work in a classroom with an annoying student who can be disciplined; it doesn’t work in politics where that annoying interlocutor has just as much of a vote as the academic does.

If she’s going to respond at all—to engage in the public work of politics and influence—then she should respond like someone who has basic competence in persuasion, and a materialist respect for her democratic peers (maybe not a *personal* respect, but an awareness that she doesn’t hold authority over other people in a democracy just because she has a PhD). If academics can’t do that, then they should stay out of politics.

[Etana @Etanarachel]

Jason Arday Actually Did a Lot of Harm https://t.co/h312jMn52i

[Tom Holland @holland_tom]

WHAT PREVENTS THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE PEOPLE?

The hired journalists who shamelessly mislead them.

WHAT CONCLUSION FOLLOWS?

That we should proscribe these writers as the most dangerous foes of our country, & circulate improving literature.

Robespierre (July 1793)

[Stella Tsantekidou @Stsantek]

I wish some people on the left would take responsibility about the way they defended Arday, which was to deny easily verifiable accusations
against him, which in turn helped make this an even more delicious anti-woke story for the right. It was obvious it would backfire, and it did. It was not kind and it was not moral.

[Thomas Prosser 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇵🇱 @prossertj]

In the Arday affair, the current left-wing campaigns are a near mirror image of the right-wing campaigns which preceded them. Both ignore nuances of the case, preferring a narrative which optimizes mobilization against enemies. The liberal should oppose both.