Yes, there is a political and moral reason for why I stand with Dowd. But these links are intuitively, theoretically, and historically valid - irrespective of party ideology. It is why social scientists need to have room to study phenomena like #hatespeech, #stochasticterrorism, and more.

There is the "Our Finest Hour" speech, the "I have a Dream" speech, the "Tear Down this Wall" speech, and now we were gifted with the "Your Countries are Going to Hell" speech.

This is what my screen looks like right now as I edit my lecture (removing dead spaces, tangents, adding in asides). I am literally constructing a new reality - one that suits my best interest. 1/2

Reality is constructed byte by byte. If your Facebook feed is of a certain type then you will see something like this almost everyday, and then your favorite influencer explains to you the evils of "those" trans people, then you will come to be a transphobe. 1/2

Folks jumped on Klein. Can't help but think his thought processes were informed by the fact that, like Kirk, he is a public talker even if nowhere near as inflammatory or disingenuous. We need to always think about the underlying emotions powering our thoughts.

This is what politicization of the Justice Department results in.

Donald Trump wants the government to decide what you can and can't watch on TV. This should alarm you—no matter how you feel about Trump, no matter how you feel about Jimmy Kimmel. Here's what’s at stake 🧵⬇️

There is no way these cooks are always finishing with one or two seconds left on the clock in these cooking shows.

Unfortunately, there is a significant portion of our country that does not believe in a free press. Like they just don't. It is worse, in their minds, to question authority.

Even if you don't use the phrase "words are violence", it is obvious that in 2025 everyone - across the political spectrum - acts as if they do. I think there is a heightened awareness of the impact words have on people's actions, and people rationally want to cut it off at the source.

The function of ideologues in any given ideology is to make sense of the internal contradictions in that ideology. The goal is to make the ideology, maybe not intellectually coherent, but emotionally so.

Trying to combat what we consider a false narrative with what we consider a more accurate and "truer" narrative is admirable, but bound to fail in our current environment. 1/2

Right?

In an odd way, I understand the relationship between capitalism and political stability better now. I am wondering if I should *invest* time in applying for a fellowship to a certain organization. I can't be sure it won't be labeled something by the administration.

I see MAGA supporters as representing a "new" ethnocultural group in this country - one bound together by an admixture of ancestry, religion, and political ideology. As such, I can and do interpret this vigil as a community affirming its collective story, honoring a hero embodying its ideals.

The reason more conservatives are not upset about our descent into authoritarianism is not hypocrisy or misunderstanding the situation. It is because the targets of state power are not yet entities they have positive sentiments towards. We like to make things more complicated than they really are.

No need to talk about this as some kind of contradiction from people who supposedly value free speech. Groups always generate justifications that allow them to explain away contradictions in their ideology. Here are three in a row. And now you can still say you are for free speech.

Influencers build communities of dutiful fools, promising that if you subscribe to their channel and buy their merch, they will speak long and hard about the bad "others" way down in the valley.

Groups are not unique. Conditions are. People want to go where they feel seen and valued. It's what women and minorities are essentially advocating for when they advocate for DEI.

This regulation of sentiment is like slave master stuff. "You better feel the way I want you to feel. If I think you don't I'm going to whip you good." Many who could lose their jobs are now in the position of shucking and jiving to keep from getting whipped.

It was obvious to me several years ago that political ideology of many conservatives is actually a new identity. Under those conditions, that identity group will want DEI in institutions where they feel they are not represented. youtu.be/oksjiz4QXeA

Groups are not unique, conditions are. This person is observing the same situation women and minorities were observing for decades - a lack of representation of the group which they identify. Conservatives, as a group, will want the same remedy as women and minorities.

If this meme is true - I've used this report in my classes and was going to use it in the next edition of my textbook. Once the world heard @mehdirhasan.bsky.social quote from it, it had to go. Goes against the narrative. It's weird to feel like you are in some early moments of a Nazi-like regime.

Been playing with a "just get home safe" analogy for professors, whose job now is a minefield. The getting home safe isn't about physical violence, but psychological and financial violence. Our "ICE Masks" as it were, might need to be a hyperfocus on anti-doxxing strategies and courses on PR.

So through @whropublicmedia.bsky.social new app, I have been streaming First Nation's Experience (FNX). It's finally TV, but it's the first time I've been able to consistently immerse myself in some form of Native expression. Hope at some point there is some type of political commentary show.

This is indeed the problem we have. The problem is not social media, it's the actual content being trafficked there. America gets their understandings of social phenomena from podcasters hyper-incentivized to narrate that phenomena in inflammatory ways.

#cybercriminology #sociology #AcademicTwitter #CyberSecurity

One thing sociology has taught me is that what seem to be unique characteristics of individuals or groups, are in reality responses to *unique conditions.* It makes total sense for some now to rest on ideological justifications that have been embraced by victims of hate speech in the past.

There's a national park in Wales called Snowdonia, and it seems like it would be a place where the Avengers would be fighting a super villain. Maybe he's some kind of temperature controlling mastermind holed up in a fortress in... Snowdonia.

I'm surprised I don't see these kinds of questions more often. unless you know where to look, most of our explanations are framed for us by politicized influencers for the audiences they've captured/trying to capture. Hard to find that kind of content online.

We have very inhuman ways of understanding why we do very human things. Humans make decisions about people and politics not based on logic and reason, but emotion and connection. Once we fully understand that, we can begin dealing with this seemingly intractable problem of polarization.

Because most news organizations these days are ultimately profit seeking entertainment organizations, we can expect wapo to try and position themselves as a high-end New York times for conservatives. If they aren't doing that already.

Well lemme try and look at this from a different angle...a more constructive one, I think. youtu.be/K2Swu6YU_T8

I mean, isn't everyone doing free speech the "right way" if the bar is set so low now? At this point, on what logical grounds does one have for criticizing any political speech that is not a threat or call for violence? The incidents of the last week end all serious discussion.

If every time I spoke to my neighbor, they complained about some other group causing "us" problems, I don't want to talk to that neighbor. It never occurs to us that if our favorite influencer(s) always makes us feel negative about another group, then the problem is the influencer, not the group.

The academic interest in exploring the phenomenon of stochastic terrorism was, it seems, suppressed by conservative elements. It's our loss. We don't have an effective theoretical framework for understanding under what conditions statements by influential people lead directly to harming others.

Social scientists have the same problem scientists had before microscopes - there are social forces impacting us, but "seeing" them is hard. Convincing someone of something called "social forces" is about as difficult as convincing someone invisible microbes, not the devil, is making them sick.

From @theconversation.com "How to avoid seeing disturbing content on social media and protect your peace of mind" theconversation.com/how-to-avoid...

It's the most censorious period in my life as well. Unlike censoring specific words (n-word, c-word) or ideas (biological determinism), this regime is trying to surveil and discipline...emotions. It is the most aggressive attempt at censorship a regime can undertake.

I am having a hard time reconciling "Charlie Kirk was a fierce advocate of open dialogue and free expression" with "we must identify and persecute everyone who is insufficiently mournful"

"They celebrated his death. They must be held accountable." We use the phrase, "they must be held accountable" all the time. It's instructive to do a mental exercise: What are the norms being transgressed and what are the sanctions for that transgression? The answers could be revealing.

Most of the public saw the "influencer/businessman" persona - a performance meant to gin up discord and exploit it politically/economically. His bigotry was real, but he was a jerk on purpose. But when not performing, he would act like a respectful, God-fearing young man. Nah can't be. Right?

How we talk to ourselves as we write ourselves as we edit ourselves.

Hey Elon. I have some clients for you.