All of them! (Guess I’m just a conformist with boring mainstream opinions…)
04.03.2026 20:47
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
All of them! (Guess I’m just a conformist with boring mainstream opinions…)
US foreign policy during the Cold War also driven by “the threat of ideas”? The ideas of decolonisation, racial equality, and socialism were seen as inherently threatening and requiring coups, massacres, wars, and dictatorships to keep at bay, all under the exact banner you seem to want to wave.
not mention how incredibly hollow the West’s defence of “freedom” against communism was. Like, you write:
"Since 1776, the idea of freedom—the idea of democracy—has been perceived as a mortal threat by the autocrats of the world", and repeatedly link this with the Soviet Union, but wasn't...
I suspect we have similar outlooks on the present world situation, and the analogy to the interwar years seems apt, but isn't it a glaring omission to contrast the RBO conception with value-laden approaches both before (Cold War defence of “the free world”) and after (now, hopefully), but then...
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
(between images of a map showing the nearly 2,000 No Kings Day events planned for March 28) NO THRONES. NO CROWNS.
There are nearly 2,000 events on the No Kings Day map in all 50 states (and 10 countries). March 28 will be the largest protest in American history. Find your local event or plan a protest in your area: www.nokings.org?SQF_SOURCE=i...
Dear members of the board, My name is Luke Roelofs and I am writing in my capacity as a private individual, not on behalf of any group or institution. I would like to urge the board, at its upcoming meeting, not to endorse the "University of Texas System Expectations of Academic Integrity and Standards for Teaching Controversial Topics". This document threatens to seriously impair both the freedom and the quality of education available at UT system schools. Let me start by saying that I agree with many of the values and aspirations laid out in this proposal: as a teacher at the University of Texas at Arlington, I do not wish to teach material that is not germane to my courses, and I always seek to present different views fairly. I would never "coerce, indoctrinate, harass, or belittle" my students. Existing institutional rules and requirements, as well as everything in the academic culture I value and see among my peers, already suffices to prohibit such behavior. However, it should be obvious that on the topics this proposal is most interested in - those which are "controversial", or "reasonably disputed" - it will also be controversial, and open to reasonable dispute, what exactly counts as germane to a course, or as fairly presenting differing views. Consequently, what is really at stake is *who is empowered to decide* whether a given topic is worth discussing, or being presented fairly. Centuries of tradition, and the basic principles of a liberal society that values debate and diversity of thought, hold that it should be faculty themselves who are empowered to decide what is germane to a course, which views to present, and what is a fair way to present them. This is best both for preserving a pluralistic political sphere and for ensuring that students have the greatest range of opportunities to learn from experts in their chosen fields.
Centuries of tradition, and the basic principles of a liberal society that values debate and diversity of thought, hold that it should be faculty themselves who are empowered to decide what is germane to a course, which views to present, and what is a fair way to present them. This is best both for preserving a pluralistic political sphere and for ensuring that students have the greatest range of opportunities to learn from experts in their chosen fields. The proposal under consideration would instead, implicitly, make this something that university administration is empowered to micromanage. Moreover, given recent events at other Texas universities, it would carry the clear message that university administration is expected to micromanage classroom debate with one eye always directed at the state government, at politicians who might seize on any grey area or uncomfortable discussion as a reason to fire a faculty member or defund an institution. This would create a climate of fear and self-censorship - or, more precisely, would further contribute to the climate of fear and self-censorship that has already descended on higher education in this state, making it harder to attract the best faculty and harder to provide our students with the quality of education they deserve. So far, the UT system has avoided humiliating itself in the manner of TTU or A&M, by banning Plato or any mention of "gender" from syllabi. For a the sake of Texas students, I would urge the board to reject this proposal, which would be the final nail in the coffin of Texas higher education. Yours sincerely, Dr. Luke Roelofs
Just submitted online testimony to the board of regents opposing this. Gonna paste the text of it below:
Come be my colleague!
UT-Arlington is hiring for academics who work on sustanability and the environment.
Submit CV, cover letter, research statement, teaching statement, and 3 references by February 15th!
uta.peopleadmin.com/postings/33223
I think one thing people outside Minnesota don't understand is that after Good and Pretti were killed by feds while observing, the most normal people you could imagine have made peace with the fact that they could be next, and they are still out there because they say it's the right thing to do.
St Brigid of Kildare
Happy St Brigid’s Day! St Brigid helped spread Christianity in Ireland, becoming the abbess of a powerful convent. When a nun came to her, pregnant and scared, St Brigid laid hands on her belly, prayed, and induced a miraculous abortion.
There’s nothing stopping a hivemind (as I define it in the post) from growing in a way that recognises and respects the value of individuals - but the Plurbhive is pretty clearly rapidly imperialistic in its actual choices, when not held back by the shallow morality of its “biological imperatives”.
The main throughline is that the Plurbhive (fairly obviously) doesn’t meet some very basic ethical requirements, but that this isn’t a necessary consequence of being a hivemind.
Been noting down my thoughts on Pluribus, and the more general question of how to be an ethical hivemind, and this post is part 1/3.
majesticequality.wordpress.com/2026/01/26/t...
Not one more cent for DHS and ICE. We have the power to end this.
Witnesses say a man was shot by a federal agent in south Minneapolis this morning. The Minnesota Star Tribune is on the scene:
www.startribune.com/ice-raids-mi...
Thanks for all who contributed to this billboard. Who can help extend the time it is up in Tarrant County?
ICE OUT For GOOD!
A general strike against fascist terror makes this one of the most politically important days in the lives of everyone reading this.
🤠 Hey, Texas faculty! As you prep for the spring semester check out our blog for tips + advice. 👇
1) Don’t self-censor, know your rights! 2) Report censorship of your teaching, research, or expression.
3) Organize your department. We are stronger together!
aaup-texas.org/blog/f/2025-...
Anti-war march in NYC, organized overnight. Happening right now, 8th Ave.
People care.
Third, thinking about time and eternalism: majesticequality.wordpress.com/2025/12/26/t...
Second, thinking about the meaning of sadness and the value of a life: majesticequality.wordpress.com/2025/12/26/t...
Posting some free-flowing thoughts prompted by the death of my Sebastian earlier this month. First, thinking about his mind and the sense in which he might have loved me:
majesticequality.wordpress.com/2025/12/26/t...
Incredible what you find when you start looking for data on the "white men can't get jobs anymore" phenomenon
www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2025/12/17/w...
Every society that has ever existed has had views that are mainstream and views that are fringe. The free-speech frauds who captured the discourse over the past decade understood this, but their true objection was that they did not unilaterally have the power to define which was which. For example, in a 2018 Times column, Weiss complained that “leftists” were engaged in a “concerted attempt to significantly redraw the bounds of acceptable thought and speech.” This was meant to sound sinister, menacing. In fact, this is politics. Every faction is always trying to “redraw the bounds of acceptable thought and speech.” In a free society, the government allows people to have those arguments. Such disputes are not a threat to free speech; they are free speech.
When I say that CBS News’s Bari Weiss understood this, you needn’t take my word for it. In November, shortly after being given the reins to one of the oldest broadcast-news organizations in the country, Weiss used identical language to describe her own project: “I think it’s about redrawing the lines of what falls in the 40-yard lines of acceptable debate and acceptable American politics and culture,” Weiss said at the Jewish Leadership Conference. “And I don’t mean that in, like, a censorious, gatekeeping way.” What’s the difference between her “redrawing the lines” of acceptable speech and other people doing it? What makes one “censorious” and “gatekeeping” and the other not? Well, because she gets to decide. That’s what so much of the free-speech panic was ever about: making sure the right people were in charge of what you see, hear, and read. Notably, this has very little to do with reporting the news, which is supposed to be what CBS News does. But if the point of installing Weiss was to ensure that she would gatekeep on behalf of right-wing interests, that is precisely what she appears to be doing.
The people who profited most from the cancel culture/free speech panic were less interested in actual freedom of speech than establishing their own control over public discourse. You don't even have to take my word for it. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/1...
Ha, I definitely intend to watch but haven’t yet. Currently planning to binge after Christmas, will post my thoughts then!
apart from the sheer inconceivable horror of the El Fasher massacre and its attendant horrors itself, the thing I'm feeling depressed about is that it probably won't matter.
these were people already on the utmost margins of the global system, who the world has already decided it doesn't care about
I mean i wouldn’t call this ‘monadic‘ since all the minds involved are divisible composites, but it might be isomorphic to some sorts of monadic view. And I don’t want to avoid the combination problem - I think once it’s resolved into its components, each component can be confronted and solved.
Totally, though I don't think it would be a "flip", a sudden moment when 2 become 1. Strictly there's always 3, but gradually building connections makes the one whole more integrated (and more closely resembling one of us) and the two parts less insulated (and less closely resembling two of us).
I think that‘s a big difference! There’s a huge modal difference for one thing (subjects in different locations *would* respond differently to, e.g., explosions in one of those locations, even if they. happen to currently be q. Identical)
