Scott Wilson
@scotwil.bsky.social
Appellate advocate and lover of one woman.
You want us to distinguish between "dissidents" (apolitical and therefore virtuous) and "the resistance" (political and therefore irrelevant). But everything is political, especially your right to live a "normal life." Maybe get out on the street with us and then tell us who we are.
January 31, 2026 at 3:48 PM
You want us to distinguish between "dissidents" (apolitical and therefore virtuous) and "the resistance" (political and therefore irrelevant). But everything is political, especially your right to live a "normal life." Maybe get out on the street with us and then tell us who we are.
🙄
Most of the evidence that Rauch analyzes has existed since 2016.
In coming days, I expect elaborate acknowledgments from Rauch with respect to the wetness of water, Catholicism of the Pope, and the existence of cowflop in barnyards.
Pundits like this are a part of the problem.
Most of the evidence that Rauch analyzes has existed since 2016.
In coming days, I expect elaborate acknowledgments from Rauch with respect to the wetness of water, Catholicism of the Pope, and the existence of cowflop in barnyards.
Pundits like this are a part of the problem.
January 25, 2026 at 4:38 PM
🙄
Most of the evidence that Rauch analyzes has existed since 2016.
In coming days, I expect elaborate acknowledgments from Rauch with respect to the wetness of water, Catholicism of the Pope, and the existence of cowflop in barnyards.
Pundits like this are a part of the problem.
Most of the evidence that Rauch analyzes has existed since 2016.
In coming days, I expect elaborate acknowledgments from Rauch with respect to the wetness of water, Catholicism of the Pope, and the existence of cowflop in barnyards.
Pundits like this are a part of the problem.
This is dead on. The column was a disingenuous apology for theocracy
December 23, 2025 at 3:00 PM
This is dead on. The column was a disingenuous apology for theocracy
What a shame. Now the Atlantic has a Charlie Kirk apologist on staff
December 23, 2025 at 4:57 AM
What a shame. Now the Atlantic has a Charlie Kirk apologist on staff
"I’d told him that I wanted to understand his journey from liberal Democrat and environmental activist to MAGA insider and Kennedy-family heretic, on the theory that by examining his odyssey, I might better understand what separates us and help narrow the political divide."
What a pile, Michael.
What a pile, Michael.
November 24, 2025 at 4:07 AM
"I’d told him that I wanted to understand his journey from liberal Democrat and environmental activist to MAGA insider and Kennedy-family heretic, on the theory that by examining his odyssey, I might better understand what separates us and help narrow the political divide."
What a pile, Michael.
What a pile, Michael.
Thanks for our daily dose of New York arrogance. You have zero idea what lies East of the Hudson.
November 8, 2025 at 4:55 AM
Thanks for our daily dose of New York arrogance. You have zero idea what lies East of the Hudson.
Another utterly useless exercise in trying to understand fascism, after almost 10 years of useless exercises. Fascism appeals to people. It's not more complicated than that. And there is no middle ground between fascism and democracy. All you can do is beat it, and you do that by standing up to it.
October 30, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Another utterly useless exercise in trying to understand fascism, after almost 10 years of useless exercises. Fascism appeals to people. It's not more complicated than that. And there is no middle ground between fascism and democracy. All you can do is beat it, and you do that by standing up to it.
Quinta, do you have any idea how juvenile this frame is?
October 19, 2025 at 1:38 PM
Quinta, do you have any idea how juvenile this frame is?
Ah, yes. The Triumph of the Shill.
October 8, 2025 at 1:03 PM
Ah, yes. The Triumph of the Shill.
Finan sort of agrees with the fascists. I mean, he thinks they have a point, right? And the Atlantic prints it.
September 2, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Finan sort of agrees with the fascists. I mean, he thinks they have a point, right? And the Atlantic prints it.
How can you be this obtuse? The choice is between using the available legal tools to fight authoritarianism, or simply surrendering. It's not a "Sophie's Choice" - there's no choice at all. Surrender is the same as losing the fight. If you fight, you have a chance. How is that not clear?
August 13, 2025 at 2:17 PM
How can you be this obtuse? The choice is between using the available legal tools to fight authoritarianism, or simply surrendering. It's not a "Sophie's Choice" - there's no choice at all. Surrender is the same as losing the fight. If you fight, you have a chance. How is that not clear?
How can you be this obtuse? The choice is between using the available legal tools to fight authoritarianism, or simply surrendering. It's not a "Sophie's Choice" - there's no choice at all. Surrender is the same as losing the fight. If you fight, you have a chance. How is that not clear?
August 13, 2025 at 2:16 PM
How can you be this obtuse? The choice is between using the available legal tools to fight authoritarianism, or simply surrendering. It's not a "Sophie's Choice" - there's no choice at all. Surrender is the same as losing the fight. If you fight, you have a chance. How is that not clear?
What a stinking pile. The Floyd unrest responded to a murder by police that we all watched. Jan. 6 responded to a deliberate, self serving lie told by an authoritarian president. The two could not be more different in source and justification. Yet you connect them and suggest equivalence.
July 31, 2025 at 3:44 AM
What a stinking pile. The Floyd unrest responded to a murder by police that we all watched. Jan. 6 responded to a deliberate, self serving lie told by an authoritarian president. The two could not be more different in source and justification. Yet you connect them and suggest equivalence.