Early Access: You Go High, We Go Low (Rough)
Hey team! Here is the rough cut for the new Alt-Right Playbook.
I have actually already done my rewrites and recorded the final audio, but I haven't edited it yet, so this version is with my temp narration. About half a page's worth of the script was cut before I drew the slides, so you may notice a few parts where a slide is up for a while and doesn't seem to perfectly reflect what is being discussed. That's because the sections in question have been significantly reduced in the final version!
Beyond that, the only major change needed is the end credits. And we'll see if I end up throwing in a few new slides when I do the final edit. (I've got a bunch of unused ones because the lines they were supposed to go with weren't in the temp script; they'll be in the final version.) Also, hey, I got access to a decent mic for once, so the final audio will (hopefully) sound much better than the temp!
That's all for me. Happy Halloween. Talk to you in a few days.
-I
Comments (14)
Serious question: Does this mean we should back Michael Avenatti in 2020? Do we need someone who seems to care about winning above anything else?
I don't know a lot about Avenatti, but winning at all costs isn't intrinsically helpful. Some costs aren't worth paying, and his win is only helpful if he can align the system with a better set of values. Of the people who seem to be gearing up to run, I'm probably more enthusiastic about Warren or (with caveats) Harris.
In a nutshell: the <i>means</i> cannot justify the <i>ends.</i> There's a reason both lawful <i>neutral</i> AND lawful <i>evil</i> were removed from D&D... <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#cite_note-11" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#cite_note-11</a>
This. Is. So. Great! I've been writing and re-writing a blog post about this as commentary on a Buddhist slogan. Also inspired by your commentary on Bringing Back What's Stolen. That there is no equivalency between violence as an act of dominance and control and violence used to protect and defend human rights.
Really liked it, I would suggest that at the end, when you talk about beliefs and have the dots representing points of view, (17:25) you make the alt right a dark red, almost black, or a redish grey, so as to mark the continium of thought between the right and the alt right. As it stands, it looks like the republicans and the alt right have nothing to do because the three currents are represented as three unconnected dots. Or maybe group them differently ? :)
I think the context of the video makes it clear that they are related, even if the visuals don't.
THANK YOU. This speaks to so many frustrations I have had. There are things I feel like I cannot talk with my liberal compatriots about without inuring significant censure because they violate this values-neutral idealism. Your describing it like this gives me a lot more language to talk around the issue without setting off a powder keg.
thank you. yes. exposing the weaknesses and failures of US liberals is so necessary right now. we gotta get our shit together.
I needed to share this video in an argument like a day ago, so needless to say I can't wait to share the final version.
Love it. I happened to be thinking about similar issues at the moment so yeah, super timely for me.
Idk if you particularly care but it might be a good idea to drop a link to ur previous Alt Right playbook when you talk about the republican strategy of not participating being their “thing” If only to just get ahead of the “they are only doing what Democrats have done for years!!” Comments... they are flat wrong but... maybe getting ahead of them will be helpful.
By previous, I mean the one where you discuss when the Republican Party shifted gears to eventually lead themselves to where they are now
Man I wish I could share the video now! So good!
On orientation day at my law school, our dean gave us this message of the US Court system as one built around an almost platonic idea of justice. Courts, in theory, should be these value neutral systems that only dispense pure justice. One week into reading case law, I have never seen a single case in my textbook where judges weren't biasing the system to suit their values, be it condemning victims of violence to avoid imposing tortious liability on property owners, to condemning an abuse victim to jail for defending herself. There is no such thing as objective justice in this system, and it is earth shattering to contend with this fact.