UnHerd’s Post

"...once one specifies that substance, one is proposing a particular political conception of justice. So, the Equal Liberties Argument makes some headway against the feminist criticism because it shows that political liberalism can be feminist. But it does not achieve the authors’ goal of showing that political liberalism must be feminist." And hence again, thinkers attempt to inject thought into theory, to print what is possibly impossible as possibility, to argue fiction into reality. And everyone does that, from both sides, or a multitude of. Nice 6am read:

🚨Preprint alert! In a new paper, I test an intervention designed to reduce affective polarization among American partisans. This intervention works by reminding Republicans and Democrats they might not know as much about politics as they might think. Epistemic humility shows potential as a new way to mitigate partisan antipathy. Thanks to UMBC's CAHSS for research support! #polarization #partisanship #dunning-kruger #overconfidence https://lnkd.in/eZZ7EB48

https://lnkd.in/gW62kjvH - another insightful commentary from David Washington in the wake of the ‘Big Mother’ debate!

Meet The Planners: Rhetoric & Public Address Division, Jonathan J. Edwards, University of South Carolina The Rhetoric & Public Address division encompasses scholarship across the spectrum of approaches in rhetorical theory and criticism. This includes but is not limited to topics such as activist and resistance movements, athletics, education, gender policies, gun regulations, migration, and the politics/elections.

Many readers have probably heard, and a few may even have used, the slogan: “the personal is the political.” But where did this phrase come from? How did we get here? Read the full article here: https://loom.ly/n0tqTpQ

2023 exposed the moral vacuum of Conservatism, 

Do I really need to be telling Americans that censorship makes us dumb? That it limits our ability to assess reality and to make the decisions that are best for us, both as individuals and as a society? Do I really need to be telling progressives that progress is impossible without the freedom to think, speak and argue? And do I really need to be telling social justice warriors that social justice is a mere pipe dream in any society that hews to a single, rigid ideological narrative—or that unfreedom of expression oppresses the oppressed and empowers the powerful? https://lnkd.in/grewbRb3

But no bias when one is a liberal: https://lnkd.in/g45akhgY Check your parts, not your ideology and see my column today

I've been told that my political posts are conservative. If you think that, then you are missing the full extent of my messaging. I believe that today's progressives have settled for a "watered-down form of progressivism," one that is behaving hypocritically and accumulating centralized power for itself. Don't be fooled by "faux" pretenders. Demand real progressivism that stands for human rights and the expansion of human freedoms in ways that allow self-actualization. Integrate; don't sub-divide. Bridge-build; don't censor. Give away power; don't hoard it. Heavy-handed control prevents the birth of the next stage.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER PLESSY: THE FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY AND THE POTENTIALS FOR ELITEST AND DEMOCRACY AND THE POTENTIALS FOR ELITEST AND NEUTRAL ANTI-DEMOCRACY NEUTRAL ANTI-DEMOCRACY - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gPq8iZQ8 The United States Supreme Court faces a dilemma as the twenty-first century approaches. The Shaw case demonstrates the weakness of elitist anti-democracy, and there are those who urge the Court to avoid any type of anti-democracy."° Certainly, African-Americans and other racial minorities may agree after Shaw, Miller, Croson, and Fordice. The arguments for avoiding elitist anti-democracy remain sound. However, democratic law creation continues to place human and minority rights at risk.3 0 7 The lessons from Plessy concerning the oppressive nature of democratic law creation involving social relations and personal choices continue to be relevant as the twenty-first century approaches.308 The best, though imperfect choice for the Supreme Court seems to be neutral anti-democracy which assures that social relational choices such as marriage and whom to befriend at a public school will remain free from the interference of popularly supported law. Changes in social, religious or scientific values and thinking will not make those freedoms vary depending on the political allegiances of legislators or philosophical predilections of Supreme Court majorities. Though neutral antidemocracy may not guarantee that the popular desires of AfricanAmericans or other minority communities for more representation will be satisfied by democratic law creation, neutral anti-democracy, at least, guards against all public opinion being translated into oppressive and unfair law. #Racism #Ethnicity #Colorblindess #reactionformation #Plessy #Brown #SCOTUS #AmericanStudies #residentialsegregtion #segregation #whitesupremacy #JimCrow #JimCrowLaws #democracy