sina

<back to being a weirdo shouting at digital clouds>

you could pose the question as who did more long term damage to reconstruction: the first klan or the daughters of the confederacy?

revisionist history is one thing - think along the lines of early and stephens - it’s another thing to build a community around that revisionist history and actively do media work as it were

might have to dip back into blight’s race and union and cox’s work on the daughters of the confederacy

[noodling] the daughters of the confederacy as a fandom

just need to find a good definition of what constitutes a fandom and how they build influence

Visited by Madness

malört
cold brew coffee
a dash of nicotine

stir, serve with plenty of ice cubes and a neon twisty straw

how bad of a historiography take?

sometimes you can stay the right hook and fire up the repurposed t shirt now book cannon - truly the final argument of (online) kings

i wish we could do footnotes on here

cerberus is a good 3x boy and can be easily befriended with a bag of turkey lunch meat (the hellhounds ambrosia) and pets

podcasts

various ones

!!!!!!!

any horror recommendations?

really what constitutes a horror classification? like house of leaves is horror but it’s only spooky if you’re a realtor trying to sell the house

As with everything he says, this is wildly uninformed. Formula keeps getting better and saves lives. And modern research indicates that outcomes are roughly the same. There are reasons to breastfeed but your child isn’t suffering if you don’t

Thinking of the Republican civil war congress that was able to pass all sorts of real good legislation (banking act, rail act, landgrand college act) all because they didn't have to cooperate with the saboteurs who were singularly focused on ensuring they can own people without restrictions.

good thing beck’s misbegotten digital necromancy hasn’t found its way to lincoln and the rest of the second founding - though that choice is telling in itself

guys who bring up george washington a lot love to know absolutely zero historical or biographical information and just imagine he's a cool guy who would agree emphatically with whatever weird shit they're saying over beers after the militia meetup

Can a Group Allied With the Right Defend the 1st Amendment for All? — Assigned FIRE, a product of the “academic freedom” campaign, wants to protect free speech for everyone. Yet its stances show deference to religious views and a persistent anti-queer strain.

NEW: FIRE positions itself as an alternative voice for free expression, but an analysis by @billiejsweeney.bsky.social found deference to religious-based viewpoints in free speech debates — and in some cases, the elevation of those views over all others.

www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-new...

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

FSB boss: “Sergei, you post frog to make America Nazi”

Sergei: “Da”

Boss: “Why is frog now Antifa?”

Sergei: “…”

Boss: “Сергей!!!!”

Malort advent calendar. 7 are open. They are all Malort.

Week 1 of the Malört advent calendar is complete. You’re not gonna believe this

History Shows Why Birthright Citizenship is so Important The 14th Amendment aimed to overturn restrictive state laws while making the Constitution more inclusive.

Here's a short piece I wrote to explain to smart laypersons what the birthright citizenship clause is for and why it's in the Fourteenth Amendment. Excerpted from my forthcoming book. Ungated:

i don’t think any originalist has thought through consequences of a challenge to birthright citizenship

originalists suffer from myopia to the point they can’t skip a wee bit forward from reconstruction to the gilded age and observe what a challenge to birthright citizenship can evolve to

really the question is: how do you determine citizenship without birthright citizenship and what do you about the previous 150+ years of birthright citizenship?

birthright citizenship is genius or at least it has ended up being genius - solves a lot of problems, basically eliminating nuance

so much of the conservative legal revolution seems to outright reject the idea that democratic publics legitimately constituted can fix the meaning of the constitution without formal amendment.

also, let’s say wurman is right. well, we have had nearly 160 years of unlimited birthright citizenship that has been affirmed again and again by generations of Americans. whatever the original intent, that is what the birthright clause *means*.

their “evidence” is exceedingly narrow and exclusionary of a wide number of political actors whose views and visions shaped the 14th amendment. even if they weren’t very obviously backfilling their partisan political interests, their method is not history

bad actors like wurman are why i think it is important to place the birthright clause in the full context of section 1 and section 1 in the context of both dred scott and the two decades of antislavery and abolitionist agitation and political thinking that proceeded it

why not ask originalists what comes after 150+ years of birthright citizenship?

birthright citizenship is a tool without nuance so what happens when we inject “nuance” back into the citizenship question?

like what was the citizenship and immigration debate like during the gilded age?

•___•

During ratification of the 14th Amendment, senators discussed whether the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of immigrants and resoundingly concluded that it did. The text and history all point in one direction and the counter-arguments are patently fraudulent. I am going to lose my mind

going through kitano’s filmography starting w battle royale

Uber driver: so is everything comfortable back there
Me: do you think Mariah Carey lives on “all I want for Christmas is you” money and just eats berries off her belly like an otter
Uber driver: well that’s new