reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @RobertMSterling
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
(Warning: long rant) My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue. I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues. Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious. And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left. Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly. I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own. Here are the facts: Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over. Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept. Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it. These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements. Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this: These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not. These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened. When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice. They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit. And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety. When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.” They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep. And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes. When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst. These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person. And they blame you. Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them. For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit. In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations. In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism. > “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.) > “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.) > “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?) > “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.) In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection. > “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.) > “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.) All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells. You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it. Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do. If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
H-1B DATA MEGA-THREAD 🧵 I downloaded five years of H-1B data from the US DOL website (4M+ records) and spent the day crunching data. I went into this with an open mind, but, to be honest, I'm now *extremely* skeptical of how this program works. Here's what I found 👇 https://t.co/7MtC1bD8oV
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Before I start, one note: All charts in this thread are for applications that were “certified” (in other words, approved for entry into the H-1B lottery). I filtered out applications the gov rejected. All numbers here are therefore for visas employers actually and realistically attempted to obtain.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
To start with, this program is MASSIVELY popular with employers. The program has a statutory limit of 85,000 visas per year, but employers routinely receive approval for more than 800k applications per year (868k, or 10x the limit, in 2024). https://t.co/26GLDYnoJ0
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Contrary to what I expected, the average salary for an H-1B is relatively low—slightly under $120k this year. Given that much of the H-1B debate pertains to tech workers, I (incorrectly) assumed the average would be higher. But this is the beauty of data, right? https://t.co/8yFMYSLbai
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
You can see that salaries are disproportionately weighted toward the lower bands: 17% are < $75k (blue) 21% are $75-100k (orange) 22% are $100-125k (pink) 15% are $125-150k (teal) In other words, ~75% are jobs paying < $150k. Only 25% are $150k+, and, of those, only 2.5% are $250k+ (purple).
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
I (roughly) categorized job descriptions into computer/software/IT-related roles (teal) and everything else (gray). Almost all the prominent job categories are tech-related. The two top categories, for software developer roles, are 1.1M over five years by themselves. https://t.co/5YWdZNzGJu
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Basically every role with 30k+ H-1B applications is for a STEM field, with the exception of accountants and auditors (49k). Most of them IT-related, at that. There’s a little more variety in roles with smaller numbers, but the overall tilt towards STEM remains throughout.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Let’s review applications by employer (again, with teal representing IT roles and gray being everything else). There are some HUGE numbers here. 15 companies alone received approval for 20k+ applications each. We’ll go back to employers momentarily. https://t.co/aRx95MHh0n
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Looking at applications by employer NAICS code, 5415 (computer systems design) absolutely dwarfs everything else: 1.2M applications over five years. The next two largest are 6113 (universities) and 5416 (consulting). As consultants like to say, let’s double-click into this. https://t.co/F8yJTFYugo
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
NAICS code 5415 (computer systems design) is the category for many of the larger employers we saw above. Some of the companies here—Google, IBM, Salesforce—are household names. But what about the other large applicants here, which aren’t as familiar (Cognizant, Infosys, Tata)? https://t.co/fuyApnGK8C
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
As it turns out, these are ALL Indian companies that import H-1B tech workers en masse: Cognizant (93k) Infosys (61k) Tata Consultancy Services (60k) Wipro Capgemini HCL Compunnel Tech Mahindra Mphasis These aren’t American companies that needed international talent to fill critical roles. They’re foreign companies that appear to have been founded to place overseas tech workers into US companies as contractors.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
What jobs are these companies seeking visas for? A metric f**k ton of IT and software roles. Over the past five years, 80k+ computer systems analysts (Cognizant is the big player here). 50k+ systems engineers/architects (Cognizant + Tata). Programmers (looks like Wipro and Mphasis concentrate here) and IT project managers (Infosys).
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
The chart here shows each company’s average salary for each role. I’ve added a shaded gray band between $80-120k to highlight where the preponderance of salaries fall. I’ve spent my career in M&A and corporate finance, and I’ve been involved in a lot of budget and hiring decisions. Unless we’ve overpaid every developer and IT person at every company I’ve ever worked for, $80-120k for roles like this is NOT market.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
The H-1B program isn't just Indian companies requesting visas for IT workers, though. The list of companies seeking visas for accountants is a who's who of Big Four and other prominent accounting firms. EY is crushing the competition with 16k+ applications. https://t.co/qjXuo7545Y
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
EY also has the largest share of employers seeking visas for finance-related jobs, followed by investment banks Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citibank. https://t.co/akMpmioWSZ
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Here are the roles for which EY sought visas, along with average salaries. Everything from accountants (16k) to computer systems analyst (7k) to actuaries (600 or so). EY isn't even a major player in the world of actuaries! There's zero reason why they couldn't hire these people domestically.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Google, not surprisingly, had 45k applications for software developers alone. https://t.co/3BMjUvpkrl
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
You can see where I’m going with this. A casual perusal of the data shows that this isn’t a program for the top 0.1% of talent, as it’s been described. This is simply a way to recruit hundreds of thousands of relatively lower-wage IT and financial services professionals.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
America needs to be a destination for the world’s most elite talent. But the H-1B program isn’t the way to do that. I’m going to stop posting for now, but let me know if there are any other visualizations that would be helpful. If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
The Trump-Hitler story is a psyop. I mean that literally, not figuratively. It’s a military-grade, multi-stage psychological operation, engineered to re-energize demoralized Harris supporters and—through stigmatization—reduce turnout among Trump supporters. Here’s how it works: STEP ONE: PAYLOAD The most important component of any weapons system is the payload—that is, the material that actually detonates and causes explosive damage. In a psyop, the payload is a generally a narrative; in the case of this psyop, the narrative is that Trump is a fascist, a Hitler-sympathizer, and an outright Nazi. If your initial reaction here is to laugh at how trite and cliched this is, you’re not wrong; you would think, after eight years of trying to will this fake narrative into existence ex nihilo (“don’t you folks get that he’s literally Hitler?!”), the Democrats and their media allies would eventually have moved on. But there are two reasons why they’ve exhumed this beaten and dead horse, and why they’ve done so just 14 days before the election: Reason 1: They’re desperate. Kamala is behind in nearly every national poll, and, in particular, she has forfeited a meaningful level of support among Latinos, black men, and Arab-Americans. With white Americans breaking for Trump more heavily than ever before, the Harris campaign can’t afford even the slightest of shifts in voting patterns among swing-state minority demographics. Reason 2: Unfortunately, the fictitious Nazi claim, on the margins, is effective. Most Americans, burned out on nearly a decade of continuous media hoaxes (from “fine people on both sides” to injecting bleach to the origins of Covid to Hunter Biden’s laptop), will see through it and immediately disregard it. Remember, though, that just a handful of swing states will decide this election; even more specifically, members of the aforementioned minority groups will likely be the fulcrum within those states. If, by calling Trump a fascist, the Harris campaign and the media can motivate even a small number of these people to get off the fence and support Harris, and if they can also demoralize a small number of would-be Trump voters in the same states to stay home on Election Day, it could make all the difference. STEP TWO: THE LAUNCH VEHICLE A weapon is no good if it can’t be delivered to its intended target. In the case of this operation, the first stage of the launch vehicle was The New York Times and The Atlantic, which published their stories within hours of each other. Ask yourself, what are the odds that two prominent news outlets, both of which are highly friendly to the Democratic establishment but which are (notionally) independent from one another, would publish two separate articles with the same narrative, within hours of each other on a date exactly two weeks before the election? Exactly. STEP THREE: CHAIN REACTION The New York Times and The Atlantic offer credibility for the narrative’s nucleus, but what they can’t offer is widespread distribution. Americans get their news from a range of sources that is wider than ever, and—as much as it might offend those who took out $200k in student loans to attend Columbia J-school—most of them don’t turn to the so-called paper of record or to a once-great literary magazine intellectually bankrupted by the widow of the guy who invented the iPhone. Fortunately for the orchestrators of our psyop, though, if there’s one thing the media hates even more than Donald Trump, it’s missing out on all the clicks and impressions from a hot story. Within hours of the two original articles going live (within minutes, in some cases), virtually every other mainstream publication released a derivative article that summarized the salacious claims in the source articles. By the end of the day yesterday, there were hundreds of such releases, from CNN, NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, ABC, CBS, Newsweek, Axial, Business Insider, the Huffington Post, NPR, and just about any other publication one could name. These derivative articles don’t merely disseminate the narrative’s DNA further; they also serve to reinforce it and provide it (false) legitimacy, creating the unjustified impression that dozens of outlets have looked into this, rather than just two. When Americans open up Facebook and see countless articles from countless different sources all saying the same thing, they become far more susceptible to the narrative, even if they might otherwise be skeptical. The sheer volume of logos and headlines overwhelms the mind’s natural hesitation to question propaganda. It’s devious, but it works. And the people who engineer missions like this know it. STEP FOUR: ITERATE AND PERPETUATE Earlier today, Kamala Harris read a statement decrying Trump’s supposed fascism; as I type these words, she’s regurgitating these claims in her televised townhall. Biden also provided a statement about the articles today. In doing this, they essentially rebooted the news cycle for the narrative, providing it fresh life and keeping it front and center in the media. If you’re getting a sense that the media focus comes in waves, it’s because it does (and, like everything else here, it’s deliberate and methodical). In the first 24 hours, the focus is on the original claims in the two source articles. In the subsequent 48 hours, once the original story starts to go stale, the media focus pivots to the reaction from prominent opponents of Trump, thereby creating another news cycle to reinforce the narrative. Thereafter, the media will launch yet another wave of news, this one focused on interviewing historians (all of whom will, conveniently, summarize the numerous and convenient parallels between Trump and the fascists of old), swing-state voters (all of whom, conveniently, will claim that Trump’s newly unveiled love of Hitler convinced them to get off the fence and support Kamala), and even so-called Trump supporters that have now decided not to vote for him. The goal is to keep the narrative in front of the audience for as long as possible, giving it time and space to metastasize further and continue corroding support for Trump. STEP FIVE: LAUNCH ANOTHER PAYLOAD We have 13 days until the election. If you think this is the last payload the Harris campaign and the media will launch into the discourse, you have far more faith in their decency than I do. Expect at least two more of these over the next two weeks, one of which—if I can hazard a guess—will center on fictitious claims of sexual misconduct and the second of which will focus on Trump’s business history. Just remember: If it looks like a psyop, walks like a psyop, and quacks like a psyop, it’s probably a psyop. Remain vigilant, keep your spirits high, and, most importantly, VOTE.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
My friend @Liz_Wheeler had a GREAT episode yesterday debunking these lies and tracking the op further back in time. Don’t miss it! https://open.spotify.com/episode/0UfxP2jvbGolL2GpmkwIGo
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
People need to stop overreacting about Kamala’s plan to reduce food inflation, as if it would lead to communism, mass starvation, and the end of America. I worked in M&A in the food industry. Here’s a step-by-step summary of what would actually happen: 1. The government announces that grocery retailers aren’t allowed to raise prices. 2. Grocery stores, which operate on 1-2% net margins, can’t survive if their suppliers raise prices. So the government announces that food producers (Kraft Heinz, ConAgra, Tyson, Hormel, et. al.) also aren’t allowed to raise prices. 3. Not all grocery stores are created equal. Stores in lower-income areas make less money than those in higher-income areas, as the former disproportionately sell lower-margin prepackaged foods (“center of the store”) instead of higher-margin fresh products like meat (“perimeter of the store”). Because stores in lower-income areas aren’t able to cover overhead (remember, even if their wholesale costs are fixed, their labor, utilities, insurance, and other operating expenses aren’t fixed… yet), grocery chains start to shut them down. Food deserts in rural areas and in low-income urban areas alike become worse. 4. Meanwhile, margins for food producers are also quickly eroding. Their primary costs (ingredients, energy, and labor) aren’t fixed, and their shrinking gross profits leave less cash flow available to cover overhead, maintain facilities, and reinvest in additional production capacity. 5. Grocery chains, which have finite shelf space, start to repurpose their stores (those they didn’t have to shut down, I should say) to sell more non-price-controlled items—everything from nutrition supplements to kitchenware to apparel—and less price-controlled food products. Your local Kroger or Safeway starts to look and feel more like a Walmart. 6. Food producers stop making products with lower margins. Grocery chain start competing with each other to secure inventory. Since they can’t compete by offering stronger prices (remember, producers aren’t allowed to raise prices here, and, even if they could, grocery chains no longer have the gross profit to bear price increases), they compete on things like payment terms. 7. Small grocery chains start to shut down entirely, or get sold to larger chains like Kroger. In addition to not being able to cover fixed costs, a major reason for this is because they can no longer reliably secure delivery of products, due to producers prioritizing sales to larger customers, which are able to leverage their stronger balance sheets to offer superior payment terms. 8. Smaller food producers—which typically sell via distributors, rather than directly to grocery chains—start to go out of business. Because these producers have an additional step their value chains, and because they have lower volumes over which to spread their fixed costs, their cost structure is inherently disadvantaged compared to major food producers. When grocery stores aren’t able to raise prices, cutting product costs becomes all the more important, and deprioritizing purchases from smaller producers is an easy way to do so. 9. As supply chains break down, lines start to form outside grocery stores every morning. Cities assign police officers to patrol store parking lots, and food producers draft contingency plans to assign armed escorts to delivery trucks. 10. The federal government announces a program to issue block grants for states to purchase and operate shuttered grocery stores. The USDA also seizes closed-down production facilities. 11. The government announces that prices for all key food costs—corn, wheat, cattle, energy, etc.—are also now fixed, to stop “profiteers” from gouging the now-government-operated food industry. 12. Shockingly, the government struggles to operate one of the most complex industries on the planet. The entire food supply chain starts imploding. 13. Communism, mass starvation, and the end of America quickly ensue. Hey wait a second
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
People need to stop overreacting about Kamala’s plan to reduce food inflation, as if it would lead to communism, mass starvation, and the end of America. I worked in M&A in the food industry. Here’s a step-by-step summary of what would actually happen: 1. The government announces that grocery retailers aren’t allowed to raise prices. 2. Grocery stores, which operate on 1-2% net margins, can’t survive if their suppliers raise prices. So the government announces that food producers (Kraft Heinz, ConAgra, Tyson, Hormel, et. al.) also aren’t allowed to raise prices. 3. Not all grocery stores are created equal. Stores in lower-income areas make less money than those in higher-income areas, as the former disproportionately sell lower-margin prepackaged foods (“center of the store”) instead of higher-margin fresh products like meat (“perimeter of the store”). Because stores in lower-income areas aren’t able to cover overhead (remember, even if their wholesale costs are fixed, their labor, utilities, insurance, and other operating expenses aren’t fixed… yet), grocery chains start to shut them down. Food deserts in rural areas and in low-income urban areas alike become worse. 4. Meanwhile, margins for food producers are also quickly eroding. Their primary costs (ingredients, energy, and labor) aren’t fixed, and their shrinking gross profits leave less cash flow available to cover overhead, maintain facilities, and reinvest in additional production capacity. 5. Grocery chains, which have finite shelf space, start to repurpose their stores (those they didn’t have to shut down, I should say) to sell more non-price-controlled items—everything from nutrition supplements to kitchenware to apparel—and less price-controlled food products. Your local Kroger or Safeway starts to look and feel more like a Walmart. 6. Food producers stop making products with lower margins. Grocery chain start competing with each other to secure inventory. Since they can’t compete by offering stronger prices (remember, producers aren’t allowed to raise prices here, and, even if they could, grocery chains no longer have the gross profit to bear price increases), they compete on things like payment terms. 7. Small grocery chains start to shut down entirely, or get sold to larger chains like Kroger. In addition to not being able to cover fixed costs, a major reason for this is because they can no longer reliably secure delivery of products, due to producers prioritizing sales to larger customers, which are able to leverage their stronger balance sheets to offer superior payment terms. 8. Smaller food producers—which typically sell via distributors, rather than directly to grocery chains—start to go out of business. Because these producers have an additional step their value chains, and because they have lower volumes over which to spread their fixed costs, their cost structure is inherently disadvantaged compared to major food producers. When grocery stores aren’t able to raise prices, cutting product costs becomes all the more important, and deprioritizing purchases from smaller producers is an easy way to do so. 9. As supply chains break down, lines start to form outside grocery stores every morning. Cities assign police officers to patrol store parking lots, and food producers draft contingency plans to assign armed escorts to delivery trucks. 10. The federal government announces a program to issue block grants for states to purchase and operate shuttered grocery stores. The USDA also seizes closed-down production facilities. 11. The government announces that prices for all key food costs—corn, wheat, cattle, energy, etc.—are also now fixed, to stop “profiteers” from gouging the now-government-operated food industry. 12. Shockingly, the government struggles to operate one of the most complex industries on the planet. The entire food supply chain starts imploding. 13. Communism, mass starvation, and the end of America quickly ensue. Hey wait a second
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Guys don’t worry, White House aides say the president is lucid and engaged 25% of the day. https://t.co/UESAXvlFKH
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
It’s been amazing this week to watch the left invert every rhetorical device they’ve used since 2020, all to avoid having to criticize terrorists dedicated to Jewish genocide. It would be hilarious, if it weren’t so reprehensible. 2020: Silence is violence. 2023: People can’t be expected to comment on every situation. It’s okay to just keep silent, especially while events are still unfolding. ———————— 2020: If you’re nitpicking small details instead of focusing on the big picture, you’re doing so to avoid your complicity in atrocities. 2023: 40 babies weren’t actually beheaded. 40 babies may have been killed, and some of them may have been beheaded, but that’s not the same as 40 getting beheaded. Details matter. ———————— 2020: Universities must proactively take a stand and speak out in opposition to racism. “Academic freedom” is a false concept used to enforce oppression. 2023: Universities need to maintain neutrality and ensure that they do not make any statements that jeopardize the principle of academic freedom, which is a paramount virtue in the realm of scholarship. ———————— 2020: You must immediately and forcefully condemn an attack, even if investigations are ongoing. 2023: You can’t expect us to release statements opposing an attack within four days, when the facts are still being discovered. Israel hasn’t even allowed UN investigators at the scenes of these “alleged massacres.” ———————— 2020: People are responsible for their words, even if they are just working-class teenagers in small towns. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. 2023: Graduate students at the most prestigious university in the world are just kids and cannot be held accountable for statements they sign. This is cancel culture. ———————— 2020: Believe all women. 2023: Where is the physical evidence of these “alleged rapes”? ———————— 2020: It’s not enough to be non-racist. If you are not actively anti-racist, it means that you are, in fact, racist. 2023: How dare you question whether I support terrorists just because I haven’t actively spoken out against Hamas freedom fighters. ———————— 2020: We don’t get to tell people in affected communities how to deal with their pain in the aftermath of violence. 2023: It is Israel’s responsibility to ensure that violence doesn’t escalate. ———————— 2020: Anything that disproportionately affects one group of people is oppression and must be condemned. 2023: Settlers—a term that includes all Israeli Jews—are not civilians and are therefore all valid targets for attacks.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
I’m 38 years old. My wife and I have been married for 12 years now. God willing, if I can stay healthy and live that long, I’ll make it to 70 years of marriage with her one day. 70 years of falling asleep with my arm around the most kind and beautiful person I’ve ever met. 70 years of raising kids, and grandkids, and maybe even great-grandkids. A full family tree branching out from something we started together, flourishing across generations. 70 years of serving each other and our kids, sacrificing for our family, and loving each other. Seeing the world and having as much fun as we can, but persevering through the rare days that weren’t fun. Growing old together. Taking care of each other as infirmities set in and sickness becomes a little more prevalent than health. What a blessing it all is.
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
Stop scrolling! Don't shake this thread off! Introducing... Private equity firms as Taylor Swift looks! 🔥🔥 (Look what you guys made me do.) Starting with: BAIN CAPITAL (1/16) https://t.co/ohvqzRiCXf
@RobertMSterling - Robert Sterling
And... TPG (16/16) Wall Street friends, who are we missing here? https://t.co/jChrSaCdOP
