User Overview

Followers and Following

Followers
Following
Trendsmap

History

Total Followers - Last Year
Daily Follower Change - Last Year
Daily Tweets - Last Year

Tweet Stats

Analysed 14,416 tweets, tweets from the last 33 weeks.
Tweets Day of Week (-7:00h)
Tweets Hour of Day (-7:00h)
Key:
Tweets
Retweets
Quotes
Replies
Tweets Day and Hour Heatmap (-7:00h)

Tweets

Last 50 tweets from @SethAbramson
Seth Abramson Retweeted ·  
Interesting analysis of me and @jordanbpeterson's chat and Jordan Peterson and post modernity more generally from @SethAbramson - what do you lot think?

threadreaderapp.com/thread/9979809…
58 275
Ignore this. Media previously said the obstruction probe would end in February, even as lawyers were saying the justice system doesn't work that way and these things *can't* be predicted like that. The same thing applies now. And Mueller's larger probe *will* continue into 2019.
  · Twitter Lite · en
93 213
Replying to @SethAbramson :
2/ Indeed, a CNN report is already walking this back and saying that at *best* Mueller said this to Giuliani as a negotiating tactic to try to get Trump to sit down for an interview. And even then, many legal experts, myself included, are doubting that Mueller said even *that*.
  · Twitter Lite · en
12 54
Ignore this. Media previously said the obstruction probe would end in February, even as lawyers were saying the justice system doesn't work that way and these things *can't* be predicted like that. The same thing applies now. And Mueller's larger probe *will* continue into 2019.
JUST IN: Giuliani: Mueller plans to finish Trump obstruction probe by Sept. 1 hill.cm/egYzOs4
  · SocialFlow · en
38 67
  · Twitter Lite · en
93 213
Seth Abramson Retweeted ·  
Turns in U.S. foreign policy toward Qatar happen to correspond with Qatar's disposition toward helping the Kushner family with 666 5th Avenue, a skyscraper burdened by hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. on.msnbc.com/2Kz1ih2
  · TweetDeck · en
578 883
Seth Abramson Retweeted ·  
House Financial Services Democrats to Mnuchin: Did you or another Trump-connected official direct the Treasury to obscure, destroy, or withhold info implicating Trump, Trump officials or his associates, including, but not limited to, SARs on Michael Cohen’s financial activity?
896 1,653
Trump's defense to the most serious allegations ever made against a U.S. president is the Spaghetti Defense

Anything that'll stick even a second
  · Twitter Lite · en
261 977
@SethAbramson Well, if he follows through on his tweets tomorrow I am sure many of us will be waiting to hear your thoughts. Happy Sunday Seth, take care.
  · Twitter Lite · en
0 4
Replying to @SkinMD13 :
@SkinMD13 Thanks I'm sure I will be talking about them down the line somehow
  · Twitter Lite · en
0 9
Seth Abramson Retweeted ·  
If @FBI operation was for political purposes, FBI wouldn't have kept Operation Crossfire Hurricane such a closely guarded secret. Clinton campaign & American public would have known about it in 2016. But we didn't. This was a legitimate & necessary counterintelligence operation.
2,409 6,496
I know people want me to comment on Trump's stupid Sunday tweets. So here's my comment: like most of his tweets, today's are mere brain farts with no force in law whatsoever. Trump has just made up facts and thinks the justice system will bend to his reality. It can't and won't.
  · Twitter Lite · en
688 2,320
Replying to @SethAbramson :
2/ The worst-case scenario here is that Trump succeeds in temporarily diverting valuable resources to a wild-goose chase that—like all the other Keystone cop operations he's tried to run via Devin Nunes—will end up biting him in the ass and uncovering *more* inculpatory evidence.
  · Twitter Lite · en
225 1,205
I know people want me to comment on Trump's stupid Sunday tweets. So here's my comment: like most of his tweets, today's are mere brain farts with no force in law whatsoever. Trump has just made up facts and thinks the justice system will bend to his reality. It can't and won't.
  · Twitter Lite · en
688 2,319
PS2/ Re: "The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially...socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence."

That's why we have statutes on sexual assault and domestic violence.
  · Twitter Lite · en
35 216
Replying to @SethAbramson :
PS3/ For Jordan Peterson to say that the *only* way to regulate dangerous young males is to socially shape the behavior of females rather than, um, *regulate dangerous young males* e.g. via statutes applicable to any person is a total nonsense from the standpoint of an attorney.
  · Twitter Lite · en
77 364
PS/ @jordanbpeterson you won't find a single prosecutor or criminal defense attorney who would in a million years talk about violence against women without discussing domestic violence, which is far more common than any other type and usually arises in monogamous relationships.
  · Twitter Lite · en
52 316
Replying to @SethAbramson :
PS2/ Re: "The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially...socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence."

That's why we have statutes on sexual assault and domestic violence.
  · Twitter Lite · en
35 216
@SethAbramson Seth, time to switch gears (not that this isn’t interesting), but your thoughts on trump right now (legally would be of high importance)
  · Twitter Lite · en
0 3
Replying to @SkinMD13 :
@SkinMD13 No I'm not getting drawn into Trump's stupid tweets on a Sunday
  · Twitter Lite · en
2 52
Dude you're an academic and your second cite here is Reddit
  · Twitter Lite · en
130 658
Replying to @SethAbramson :
PS/ @jordanbpeterson you won't find a single prosecutor or criminal defense attorney who would in a million years talk about violence against women without discussing domestic violence, which is far more common than any other type and usually arises in monogamous relationships.
  · Twitter Lite · en
52 316
Dude you're an academic and your second cite here is Reddit
On the New York Times and “Enforced Monogamy” jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/…
  · WordPress.com · en
358 1,238
  · Twitter Lite · en
130 658
Seth Abramson Retweeted ·  
(THREAD) Supposed post-postmodernist Jordan Peterson got famous opposing Bill C-16 in Canada—discussing his opposition in a lecture ("Fear and the Law"). But Peterson knows nothing about law—and a real post-postmodernist would've held a different view. Hope you'll read and share.
352 659
Seth Abramson Retweeted ·  
JUST IN: Mueller probing Israeli businessman who presented strategy to Trump Jr on winning 2016 election: report hill.cm/RsGAt2Y
  · SocialFlow · en
456 948
Remember how I wrote to @rustyrockets that Jordan Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) is "out over his skis" every time he discusses *anything* outside his discipline?

I've already touched on that observation from my own (attorney's) perspective, but this is 900% more awesome by volume:
So apparently Jordan Peterson has a section in his book about lobster social behavior. I’ve never written a long twitter thread before but YOU COME INTO ~*MY*~ HOUSE? Let’s talk marine invertebrate social behavior:
3,282 9,951
66 330
I've said several times that I believe we will see the permanent fracture of the Republican Party into two factions (one dubbed the Republican Party, another something along the lines of the Trump Party) in the next decade or so, and this PR-driven announcement is a hint of that.
Roger Stone: I'll run a candidate against Pence if he runs for president in 2020 hill.cm/VF4jOOY
  · SocialFlow · en
81 142
428 1,220
I think I am just going to continue posting these harassy emails since I can only assume that folks – like podein01@gmail.com – who think it's OK to bombard someone's email account with this crap shouldn't mind getting some responses.

They're always guys, too. 🙄
715 2,135
Replying to @AshaRangappa_ :
@AshaRangappa_ My favorite is how he misspelled "betters"

irony, thy name is almost every racist asshole ever
28 264
Seth Abramson Retweeted ·  
Mark Warner: "I don’t understand what the President doesn’t get about the law that says if you have a foreign nation interfere in an American election, that’s illegal." (via CNN) snappytv.com/tc/8001443
2,590 7,321
@PoulChapman The law can't/doesn't *create* mutual combat any more than non-discrimination statutes *ensure* discrimination won't happen. "Fighting words doctrine" exists in significant part for the same reason non-discrimination statutes do: to manifest our values and discourage hate speech.
1 6
Replying to @SethAbramson :
@PoulChapman It's an *incredibly* powerful statement when the laws of a nation say they will *protect* someone who kicks the shit out of you because the thing you said to them is so odious to the values of the nation and any safe, civil society that we sort of think you deserved to be beaten.
1 8
@SethAbramson Would love analysis of Peterson's claims about the actual law. Even though I love the "sure, you can disrespect someone, but don't cry if they punch you", that does feel like asking a powerless person to wage battle on their own
1 2
Replying to @PoulChapman :
@PoulChapman The law can't/doesn't *create* mutual combat any more than non-discrimination statutes *ensure* discrimination won't happen. "Fighting words doctrine" exists in significant part for the same reason non-discrimination statutes do: to manifest our values and discourage hate speech.
1 6
@SethAbramson You're defending your follower count going down?

Hmmm.
0 1
Replying to @DekenbaB :
@DekenbaB I notice but don't worry about follower count. It kind of is what it is, and I have to be true to what I believe this feed to be.
1 20
@SethAbramson I'm just here for the occasional dog photo.
0 18
Replying to @andyandrist :
Don't worry, all—this feed hasn't become a Jordan Peterson rebuttal node. I just *occasionally* like to write on *other* (non-Russia) topics I'm interested in. Of course, every time I do *hundreds* unfollow the feed. That's just the nature of internet discourse platforms in 2018.
58 716
25/ Metamodernism is solution-oriented—as is any post-postmodernism, as post-postmodernisms must be reconstructive rather than deconstructive and dialogic rather than dialectical. Peterson's war on C-16 was deliberate demagoguery and *proves* that he's no post-postmodernist. /end
21 107
Replying to @SethAbramson :
PS/ This is only a thread about the element of C-16 Peterson was harping on; it wasn't on non-discrimination statutes generally. Covering transgender persons under non-discrimination statutes for me is a no-brainer—it's a clear yes (i.e., we should)—but that's a different thread.
21 109
@SethAbramson Seth Abramson, post-postmodern is a very awkward moniker, i.e. when it comes to e.g. art and art movements, postmodernism, as I see it, gets folded into a greater Modernism, it represents the fulfillment of the Renaissance project, it's ongoing, that is
1 2
Replying to @Donald_Lindeman :
@Donald_Lindeman Hi Donald—I'm aware that Modernist scholars refer only to "modernisms" (plural) as a way to stay relevant and postmodernist scholars define postmodernism as "anything after Modernism" so that they too can stay relevant. But my interest is in the discourse—not academia's vagaries.
2 13
24/ This configuration of the C-16 question has the value of a) maintaining avoidance of prior restraints, b) strongly discouraging intentional—rather than accidental—misgendering and c) underscoring the strength and resolve of a class of persons otherwise seen as purely victims.
19 76
Replying to @SethAbramson :
25/ Metamodernism is solution-oriented—as is any post-postmodernism, as post-postmodernisms must be reconstructive rather than deconstructive and dialogic rather than dialectical. Peterson's war on C-16 was deliberate demagoguery and *proves* that he's no post-postmodernist. /end
21 107
23/ But what if we told those who want to deliberately misgender others as a personal insult that if you do and if you then *get your fucking ass kicked*, the law may not deem that a crime because your deliberate misgendering constituted "fighting words" (i.e. consent to combat)?
21 98
Replying to @SethAbramson :
24/ This configuration of the C-16 question has the value of a) maintaining avoidance of prior restraints, b) strongly discouraging intentional—rather than accidental—misgendering and c) underscoring the strength and resolve of a class of persons otherwise seen as purely victims.
19 76
22/ When we imagine a transgender person who is misgendered as a victim only, the only possible result is a statute protecting that victim. Allowing for only that one possibility allows demagogues like Peterson to get famous by playing one side of a artificially narrow question.
18 79
Replying to @SethAbramson :
23/ But what if we told those who want to deliberately misgender others as a personal insult that if you do and if you then *get your fucking ass kicked*, the law may not deem that a crime because your deliberate misgendering constituted "fighting words" (i.e. consent to combat)?
21 98
21/ A metamodernist thought experiment imagining how or when a person misgendering another person and/or a transgender person being misgendered might be both aggressor and victim at once would immediately light upon the possibility of mutual combat in response to a misgendering.
18 71
Replying to @SethAbramson :
22/ When we imagine a transgender person who is misgendered as a victim only, the only possible result is a statute protecting that victim. Allowing for only that one possibility allows demagogues like Peterson to get famous by playing one side of a artificially narrow question.
18 79
20/ Having a "fighting words doctrine" is preferable to a "prior restraint" on speech—a government telling people what they can and can't say—because it discourages (rather than restrains) certain speech by saying that the law might not be on your side if you get your ass kicked.
23 89
Replying to @SethAbramson :
21/ A metamodernist thought experiment imagining how or when a person misgendering another person and/or a transgender person being misgendered might be both aggressor and victim at once would immediately light upon the possibility of mutual combat in response to a misgendering.
18 71
19/ So—for instance—if a white man calls an African-American man the n-word, in many jurisdictions if the African-American man then assaults the white man "fighting words doctrine" will be an affirmative defense against a criminal conviction. It theoretically acts as a deterrent.
17 86
Replying to @SethAbramson :
20/ Having a "fighting words doctrine" is preferable to a "prior restraint" on speech—a government telling people what they can and can't say—because it discourages (rather than restrains) certain speech by saying that the law might not be on your side if you get your ass kicked.
23 89
18/ Within the context of "mutual combat" we have something called the "fighting words doctrine"—which says that certain insults aren't protected by the First Amendment because they fundamentally operate as an invitation to a fist-fight and therefore run counter to public safety.
21 81
Replying to @SethAbramson :
19/ So—for instance—if a white man calls an African-American man the n-word, in many jurisdictions if the African-American man then assaults the white man "fighting words doctrine" will be an affirmative defense against a criminal conviction. It theoretically acts as a deterrent.
17 86
17/ In many jurisdictions, a criminal assault is reduced to a non-criminal violation if the two parties mutually consented to enter into physical combat—the term often used is "mutual combat." In such situations, the parties' implied consent to fight makes the fight non-criminal.
17 70
Replying to @SethAbramson :
18/ Within the context of "mutual combat" we have something called the "fighting words doctrine"—which says that certain insults aren't protected by the First Amendment because they fundamentally operate as an invitation to a fist-fight and therefore run counter to public safety.
21 81
16/ If we ask the facially silly but fundamentally metamodern and utilitarian question, "Could a person who is misgendering another—or who is being misgendered themselves—ever occupy the role of *both* aggressor and victim?" we suddenly discover that we've come to a new solution.
19 61
Replying to @SethAbramson :
17/ In many jurisdictions, a criminal assault is reduced to a non-criminal violation if the two parties mutually consented to enter into physical combat—the term often used is "mutual combat." In such situations, the parties' implied consent to fight makes the fight non-criminal.
17 70
15/ To be clear, these are metamodernist (post-postmodernist) thought experiments, and they are inductive—meaning, they muse on how overlapping metanarratives could produce a novel solution to an otherwise intractable problem. They do not assume a certain result is the right one.
19 68
Replying to @SethAbramson :
16/ If we ask the facially silly but fundamentally metamodern and utilitarian question, "Could a person who is misgendering another—or who is being misgendered themselves—ever occupy the role of *both* aggressor and victim?" we suddenly discover that we've come to a new solution.
19 61
14/ For instance, what could it possibly mean—a post-postmodernist might ask—for a person misgendering another person to simultaneously be aggressor and victim? By the same token, what would it mean if a transgender person who was being misgendered was both aggressor and victim?
19 67
Replying to @SethAbramson :
15/ To be clear, these are metamodernist (post-postmodernist) thought experiments, and they are inductive—meaning, they muse on how overlapping metanarratives could produce a novel solution to an otherwise intractable problem. They do not assume a certain result is the right one.
19 68
13/ By the same token, a post-postmodernist would know that to overleap the dialectical mode of debate one must—as a thought experiment—palimpsestically overlay dialectical binaries, thus imagining what would happen if each actor *simultaneously occupied several competing roles*.
20 70
Replying to @SethAbramson :
14/ For instance, what could it possibly mean—a post-postmodernist might ask—for a person misgendering another person to simultaneously be aggressor and victim? By the same token, what would it mean if a transgender person who was being misgendered was both aggressor and victim?
19 67
12/ In the case of C-16, a lawyer would know that "fighting words doctrine" is a possible non-binary solution to the binary debate that made Peterson famous; either he didn't know what that was or wanted to milk a dialectical mode of debate he doesn't believe in to become famous.
19 77
Replying to @SethAbramson :
13/ By the same token, a post-postmodernist would know that to overleap the dialectical mode of debate one must—as a thought experiment—palimpsestically overlay dialectical binaries, thus imagining what would happen if each actor *simultaneously occupied several competing roles*.
20 70
11/ For instance—separate from the C-16 debate and drawing no analogy—in tort law we have comparative negligence, or non-absolute contributory negligence, which says that in some situations a party can accuse another of victimizing them civilly and the law can find fault in both.
24 76
Replying to @SethAbramson :
12/ In the case of C-16, a lawyer would know that "fighting words doctrine" is a possible non-binary solution to the binary debate that made Peterson famous; either he didn't know what that was or wanted to milk a dialectical mode of debate he doesn't believe in to become famous.
19 77
10/ Were Peterson an actual post-postmodernist—and if he had knowledge of the law—he'd know that the law is more nuanced than two-dimensional binaries. The aggressor-victim binary only dominates the law if all you do is watch Law & Order all day. It's more complicated than that.
31 103
Replying to @SethAbramson :
11/ For instance—separate from the C-16 debate and drawing no analogy—in tort law we have comparative negligence, or non-absolute contributory negligence, which says that in some situations a party can accuse another of victimizing them civilly and the law can find fault in both.
24 76
9/ Peterson is hostile to transgender persons—even regularly mis-citing data on such persons and on being transgender—because he holds an essentialist view of gender that originates in myth. So his postmodernism hides a retrograde philosophy. But where's his post-postmodernism?
28 113
Replying to @SethAbramson :
10/ Were Peterson an actual post-postmodernist—and if he had knowledge of the law—he'd know that the law is more nuanced than two-dimensional binaries. The aggressor-victim binary only dominates the law if all you do is watch Law & Order all day. It's more complicated than that.
31 103
8/ Agreeing to dispute the issue within a two-dimensional aggressor-victim binary makes Peterson *seem* a postmodernist, when of course he's a pre-Modernist. Peterson's pre-Modernism arises in his explanation for opposing C-16—which really has nothing to do with the law or power.
21 92
Replying to @SethAbramson :
9/ Peterson is hostile to transgender persons—even regularly mis-citing data on such persons and on being transgender—because he holds an essentialist view of gender that originates in myth. So his postmodernism hides a retrograde philosophy. But where's his post-postmodernism?
28 113
7/ Some C-16 supporters said misgendering a transgender person is an aggressive act that victimizes—thus, misgendering is a violent act and therefore an exertion of power. Peterson said criminalizing misgendering deploys power and victimizes him by restraining his free speech.
25 87
Replying to @SethAbramson :
8/ Agreeing to dispute the issue within a two-dimensional aggressor-victim binary makes Peterson *seem* a postmodernist, when of course he's a pre-Modernist. Peterson's pre-Modernism arises in his explanation for opposing C-16—which really has nothing to do with the law or power.
21 92
6/ To be clear, many of Peterson's adversaries in the C-16 debate also used a dialectical mode of debate—in fact, the very same aggressor-victim dialectic that Peterson himself used. Peterson and his opponents merely took a different view of who was an aggressor and who a victim.
24 90
Replying to @SethAbramson :
7/ Some C-16 supporters said misgendering a transgender person is an aggressive act that victimizes—thus, misgendering is a violent act and therefore an exertion of power. Peterson said criminalizing misgendering deploys power and victimizes him by restraining his free speech.
25 87
5/ Postmodern (more specifically post-structuralist) dialectics turns every situation into a tilt between two opposing forces that must do intellectual battle until one is vanquished. In the context of Bill C-16, the supposed post-postmodernist Peterson waged war via dialectics.
23 89
Replying to @SethAbramson :
6/ To be clear, many of Peterson's adversaries in the C-16 debate also used a dialectical mode of debate—in fact, the very same aggressor-victim dialectic that Peterson himself used. Peterson and his opponents merely took a different view of who was an aggressor and who a victim.
24 90
4/ As I said yesterday, the trait of this particular quadrant of the Left—again, with limited significance from a policy-making view—that Peterson is focused upon is its combination of deconstructive thinking and dialectical combat, all of which is predicated upon power dynamics.
25 100
Replying to @SethAbramson :
5/ Postmodern (more specifically post-structuralist) dialectics turns every situation into a tilt between two opposing forces that must do intellectual battle until one is vanquished. In the context of Bill C-16, the supposed post-postmodernist Peterson waged war via dialectics.
23 89
3/ Peterson has since then used the fallacy of composition—taking a part of a whole and attributing its traits to the whole—to argue that a small pocket of neo-Marxists in toothless academic cloisters a thousand miles from any public policy significance represent the entire Left.
28 134
Replying to @SethAbramson :
4/ As I said yesterday, the trait of this particular quadrant of the Left—again, with limited significance from a policy-making view—that Peterson is focused upon is its combination of deconstructive thinking and dialectical combat, all of which is predicated upon power dynamics.
25 100
 
Get Full Access Now
  • Register for a free 1 week trial.
  • Ad free.
  • No credit card required, takes seconds.
  • Access all standard features.
  • Detailed analytics, stunning visualisations and more.
  • After trial, pricing starts at just $25
Simply login via your preferred social media account :

Existing users, please login :

Our trial allows access to only the 8 hour timeframe for this page.

A Trendsmap Plus subscription provides full access to all available timeframes

Signup Now