***
- 1) Why boycotts, bans, and negative attention play right into the alt-right handbook. Very illuminating. If you only read one article today, make it this one. (Observer)
2) To stay organized for meetings, you need this ‘Ready for Anything’ pouch and this notebook.
3) Ways to Set Boundaries Between Your Work and Personal Life. (The Everygirl)
4) Have blackheads? This Tony Moly 3-step nose pack is a lifesaver.
5) Take a look inside a woman’s closet, and you can learn a lot about her. (Racked)
6) These Steve Madden sandals are the most comfortable, affordable going-out shoe, ever.
7) Examining what Americans think about marriage in 2017. (60 Minutes/Vanity Fair)
8) This French Connection printed blouse and this JOA off the shoulder top are must haves for spring.
9) Burnt out? How to get your life back in order. (Martha Stewart)
10) I bought this Cooper St. brushstroke print dress for a summer wedding. It’s amazing.
***
Why I Never Order Salad. Because it has more calories than the cheeseburger.
Which App I’m Loving. Clarity Money, it’s helping keep my financial house in order.
What I Can’t Stop Telling People About. This amazing, natural Farmacy Lip Bloom balm.
Great NO 1. I read an article about the DeploraBall where one of the attendees had said a few positive things about Trumps message on Twitter, and had been called a Nazi so many times she decided to just join up for reals. Black and white thinking, and hyperbolic responses to this kind of behavior seem to feed the beast. It’s like parenting in a way, if you want them to do something the first thing you should do is tell them they can’t (just like the article states). I think that we should all accept that the internet, media and social media isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. And at a certain point I don’t even care about changing their minds, I want them to have a change of heart. Now, how do we go about doing that?
The first article is strangely ahistorical and disingenuous. Among the many problems I have with it: “There is absolutely nothing that Milo has said (and more importantly, done) that ought to revoke his First Amendment right to give a speech on a college campus.” For a counter-point: https://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html This sort of doxxing is exactly what got him kicked off of Twitter. I think first amendment privileges and student safety can coexist. But frankly, not like this. Inciting pointed hate–which has real, material, physical and emotional costs–does not teach my students critical thinking or principles of free speech (I’m a professor at a large state university, FWIW). Other conservatives, who avoid simplistic ad hominem arguments would be welcome on my campus. But that is not what this is about. It’s an ahistorical, disingenous joke to suggest people reestablish norms of debate and discourse when the entire political context of this article is built on an election (and presidency) of violated norms.
Frankly, getting people to change their hearts and minds largely won’t matter without incentives for *elites* to change their minds. See in particular #3 in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/26/4-lessons-for-todays-womens-marchers-from-the-suffrage-movement
Boycotts, bans, marches, and other activities are incredibly effective if they can shift, move, or divide elites.
It’s not that a boycott or a ban can never be effective, it’s that it’s a double-edged sword. If the other side is relying on your boycott to spread their message, then it is, in some way, aiding their cause. I find it fascinating the one side has harnessed the anger and organization of the other to further its message, to the point that it probably could not garner the headlines it does without that assistance.
I hear what you’re saying, and thanks for your response. Current white supremacists did not invent the model of publicity via attention–I’m thinking immediately of pop conservatives like Ann Coulter, who uses vile and inflammatory arguments (again, often ad hominem) to stir up publicity. It can be an effective way to create attention, an imagined sense of victimhood, and a framework that justifies more attacks (as well as selling more books!). What is disingenuous is the advice that is posited by the author to opponents of white supremacy, which ignores the realities of shifted norms and behaviors in our political context. Moreover, his arguments ignore the powerful ways that this “double edged sword” can actually move elites to change (which is more important than getting white supremacists to change!)–history of social movements demonstrates this, from women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement.
I’m curious, how is Clarity Money different from LearnVest or Mint?
This was interesting! I agree with much of what Erin posted. Particularly the statement “What is disingenuous is the advice that is posited by the author to opponents of white supremacy, which ignores the realities of shifted norms and behaviors in our political context. ” I felt the article too easily suggests a dangerous alternative (doing nothing) because of the ‘double edged sword’. I have always been uncomfortable with Former First Lady Obama’s statement about going high when others go low. One of my biggest fears are white allies ideologically opposed to racism that will do nothing to resist impactful policies and behaviors enacted by this administration and alt-right supporters. I understand the authors argument and feel it is applicable when discussing pro-life and pro-choice policy (as an example), but I’m not sure it applies when discussing the racism/sexism/xenophobia espoused by the alt-right. Norms have indeed shifted and I’m not sure that you can use the same playbook. Anyways, thanks for always posting provoking articles…and amazing shoes… 🙂
How is the quality of the Steve Madden sandals? That brand was my go to for a long time then a few years ago it felt like the quality just fell off a cliff. Hope studying is going well! You’ve got this!
I think the quality is what I expected — not stellar, not bad, good but not great — but I’ve only had them for a couple of months.
worth being aware that the first link comes from Jared Kushner’s site, so may be worth taking it with a pinch of salt.
I bought the book the author wrote, and have been reading it a bit, he makes most of the same points in there. But it is good to point out that the publisher is The Observer, though I don’t know how involved Kushner is with it now that he has an official position.
I think the book is an important read. I read it a couple of years ago.
I am not sure how I feel about the author’s proposition, but I do understand the forces at work and they are real.
My first gut reaction was when he went into the First Amendment free speech bit. It drives me nuts when people apply the free speech argument to scenarios in which it is inapplicable. The First Amendment protects us from restrictions on our freedom of speech by the government. Even then, the government may place reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner of speech. I am not a con law scholar, but it drives me nuts the way this freedom (and others) are thrown around without true consideration as to their applicability.
I think his argument as to public colleges makes the 1st Amendment applicable. It’s probably why colleges have become such lighting roda for these protests/arguments, as they’re attached to the government. But I get the frustration. When people get fired for tweeting and they’re like, “I have rights.” I always think, yeah, we should be teaching this in high school because there are a lot of people wandering around thinking they can say anything without consequences.
I would be more inclined to cringe less in this particular example, if it were the college administrations cancelling the events 100% of the time. More often than not, it’s the club or the student org that is sponsoring the event that cancels it. In that instance, there is no implication of free speech because the ties between a student organization and federal funds/state actor are more tangential.
With Milo and Berkeley, I haven’t done enough research to determine whether it was the College Republicans who made the final decision to cancel or whether it was the university administration, so there may be a better argument there than in some of the other instances.
That said, I am not one who thinks these events should be cancelled unless there will be violence or, in Milo’s case, where the speaker threatens students (doxxing). I do believe that we should be encouraging the expression of different views in higher education even when it makes some people uncomfortable.