If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal. If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist. If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian. If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.

Ezra Klein on Charlie Kirk: You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it.... That was not all Kirk’s doing, but he was central in laying the groundwork for it. I did not know Kirk and I am not the right person to eulogize him. But I envied what he built. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness. In the inaugural episode of his podcast, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California hosted Kirk, admitting that his son was a huge fan. What a testament to Kirk’s project. Well said.

This wouldn’t all be happening if we all spent way less time on our phones

The administration just tasked the Office of Science and Technology Policy with promulgating new policies that make federally funded and conducted science REPLICABLE and FAVORABLE TO NULL RESULTS

This is the kind of Tax and Spend I’ll get behind

"Is Donald Trump a “dictator”? Did the events of January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., constitute an “insurgency”? Is Joe Biden “sharp as a tack”? Is the science of climate change “settled”? Are Javier Milei of Argentina, Marine Le Pen of France, and the AfD party in Germany “far right”? Is the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis a “conspiracy theory”? Was the persistence of the virus a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”? Does Anthony Fauci “represent science”? Does Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, “promote hatred”? Do “fact-checkers” check facts? Let’s ask a question about these questions: Why on Earth were we placed in a position of having to answer them? In an open society, perspectives on reality confront one another in forceful competition. Each may contain some particle of truth—or at least some useful information. So even the flat-earthers are allowed their say. Even the Bigfoot-seekers appear on the Discovery Channel. Somewhere among the nonsense, there may be something worth hearing. Because we don’t precisely know where or when, the conversation is never over. A vast diversity of perspectives should be promoted within an open society. It’s the intellectual equivalent of hybrid vigor. If we all think alike, a single fatal error, being shared by all, could destroy the world. These precepts are not original. They have long been part of the American DNA. The default, for us, has always been debate. When certain subjects, like slavery, were made taboo and removed from the possibility of discussion, towering figures arose and terrible conflicts were fought to restore the balance. However, the past four years have seen a sustained effort to overturn the principles of the open society. The just-departed administration, of which Biden was the decrepit figurehead, tried to impose, by threat or mandate, a version of reality that brooked no discussion. Supported by its allies in the media, the academy, and the bureaucracy, the administration became, in its own eyes, the guardian of truth."

Let YouTube into your home, let it twist your children

Is it true that Harris never argued a single case in a courtroom during her years as an attorney?

Great, but I’ll believe it when I see it put to the test. Until then, “suuure you’ll be neutral”

The top reader’s pic comment on ⁦@nickconfessore⁩’s NYT Mag article on the DEI debacle at U Mich:

“The rote incantations of a state religion.” This is an incredible exposé of academic DEI. It confirms so many things critics of DEI have been saying for years. Better late than never, NYT! Some highlights: 🧵

Nominate. A. Compelling. Candidate.

actually, the lesson from Helene is the opposite from that being promoted. In 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority was given the mandate for flood control in the valley of the Tennessee River and its tributaries. Over the next 40 years, they built 49 dams, which, for the most part, accomplished their goal. Whereas floods in the Tennessee were once catastrophic, younger people are mostly unaware of them. The French Broad River (Asheville) is an upstream tributary where flood control dams weren't constructed due to local opposition. Rather than the devastation of Hurricane Helene on Asheville illustrating the effect of climate change, the success of the flood control dams in other sectors of the Tennessee Valley illustrates the success of the TVA flood control program where it is implemented. Hurricane Helene did not show the effect of climate change, but what happens to settlements in Tennessee Valley tributaries under "natural" flooding (i.e. where flood control dams have been rejected.)

“Suicide Fence” on Au Train Bridge Ruins Local Tradition It’s the Cult of Safetyism’s ugliest-ever contribution to the Lake Superior shore 🧵 (1/14)

Liberals are completely losing their grip. The Constitution isn't "democratic enough" because it allowed Trump to become president, so their solution is to abolish it for the sake of democracy—how does that make any sense? Don't forget that the New York Times also questioned the First Amendment as an "unsettled issue," while George Monbiot from The Guardian suggested lottery elections because parliamentary ones "aren't democratic enough." This is terrifying. And I'm not saying this because I'm a Trump supporter - I'm saying this because I am a liberal!! nytimes.com/2024/08/31/books…

How is this still online

Any clue what this strange ring is in the sky above Dexter? Changed shape and moved slowly for ~10 minutes, then slowly dissipated

Thank you