becoming genuine Nazis.

It raises questions about how we portray unsavory characters and what we say about ourselves when we do.

And the creators of this sort of content themselves don’t escape its effect. When you say something offensive ironically or in character, you are still giving yourself permission to say it. Which poses a danger on its own, as evidenced by the many online trolls who posted and memed themselves into

South Park can claim Cartman is the perpetual antagonist of the show, but legions of chuds watch because they like what he says and identify with him.

This parallels the old argument that no movies work as anti-war, because portraying combat to any extent can draw people who thrill at the spectacle of it.

Others on here have pointed out this issue in the context of Sicario (2015), where right-wingers watch the movie aspirationally despite its nominal attempt to indict the events it portrays.

In my experience driving in Manhattan before congestion pricing, you could still pretty consistently get up to “serious injury” speeds (25-40 mph) on the avenues, even when the streets are a bit clogged.

Yeah, I’m struggling to see the line between the “Janowitzian synthesis” and a Weberian model. Except in situations where all lawyers tell you something is illegal (which sounds rare), you as a soldier are either going to exercise your own discretion about an order, or not.

I wrote about unit self defense in this piece in a very different context. It’s always been a slippery slope. But whatever the contours, unit self defense is not an available defense to invading a country without legal cause. A state can’t use it to backfill a defense to their armed attack.

Of course, I am not an expert, though, so if someone who is wants to point out that the author is totally wrong and that kind of thing doesn’t exist to any extent worth noting in Africa then I’m open to hearing about it.

As people are pointing out elsewhere, liberalism has always struggled to be born in the places it has arisen. So the idea that that’s also the case in Africa doesn’t seem super controversial to me.

Likely not, but I’m willing to entertain the idea of a widespread (though probably not universal) pre-modern tradition where families and communities are relevant political units rather than individuals, which seems to have been common across the world.

“Any kind of amorous relationship between same-sex partners in Igboland is done in secret. It is an abomination to mention such a relationship in Igbo culture.”

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

I think where it almost becomes a new thing at a larger scale is when discrete and insular minorities can band together and more effectively advocate for a place in the political community than they could in isolated local contexts.

I’m open to hearing about what the author has in mind on that. But seeing as liberalism already allows cultures to pursue their own definition of the “good life” so long as fundamental rights are respected, I worry about what we are compromising on.

Yeah the answer seems to be “not great.”

Interestingly, the author appears to be Nigerian (not sure if he’s Igbo)

NYC next plz

I think Vermeule has permanently ruined the phrase “common good” for me, I can’t read it anymore without cringing a little.

Would you rather communities in the southern US decide who to imprison without constraints from the national government like the Bill of Rights?