I normally disagree with this guy, but recent events seem to have pushed him toward common sense.
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1854334397157384421
Printable View
I normally disagree with this guy, but recent events seem to have pushed him toward common sense.
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1854334397157384421
5 is wrong, you're either Human, or not.
This is the kind of "common sense" thing that sounds good, seems simple, and that most people would agree on - which is the appeal of people offering easy answers, I guess. So who decides what language is simply "not polite" and what is offensive? Is calling someone the N or C word merely "impolite"? Do "normal" people never engage in anti-social conduct? (I'd label most Trump events as "anti-social", based on calls to "own", "kill", "destroy", "lock-up" political opponents, etc.) At what point does anti-social behavior preclude participation in the broader society?
Sorry. I'm just sick of the "it's simple common sense" crowd this afternoon....
Yes i can see that, platitudes of the political environment are tiresome.Quote:
Originally Posted by early morning
now I live in Trumpy country with Trump political signs on my block, but in the city I lived with the opposite, the virtue signaling of the kindness brigade.
these signs lined my former block:
Attachment 6112
Who decides what is “kind “ and what is not? Some human interactions are obviously unkind. Others are not so simple to determine and are considered “simple facts” by some and “hatefulness” by others.
does the fact that I want controlled borders of the United States and undocumented workers recognized and treated as such make me one of the people who think “humans are illegal?” What is that even about?
That is a good list of guidelines for either party and one could speculate who needs it more. Being the die hard environmentalist I take exception to number 2. Firstly, the GOP pretty much denies any human related climate change, so there is no reason to manage it, if that is the implication. And secondly, what he calls limits are goals in another language. Establishing goals is a logical way to manage it. What he says either doesn't make sense or is bad sense.
Agreed, the environmental statement is not clear - then again, most statements can be parsed into pretzels, lol. Personally, I like IL's old neighborhood sign better. But still, it's just a list of platitudes. I like that it begins with "in this house", which would indicate that the planters of said sign want us to know they are good people. Which is quite constitutional, what with the first amendment and all. Interpretation is going to be made by the reader regardless - like I interpret Trump signs to mean the householder supports racism, chauvinism (at best), hatred of "other" in all forms, and is ignorant of the financial consequences of the economic platform (or pile of sticks) of the current Republican party. So - what's worse? Signaling virtue, or signaling hatred?
Ok, that was sort of rant-y with less point than I intended, sorry. My filters are a bit out of whack atm.
Trying to be kind here, I offer the idea that when people like you assign people like me the label “haters” and “racist” and “chauvinism at best “”(whatever is that anyway) that fuels Trump victories and divisiveness. Also I think you forgot “transphobe.”Quote:
Originally Posted by early morning
but mainly it’s the “hater” label I think it’s so overused it doesn’t even have any meaning.
Look, you've made it pretty clear that you are not a MAGA follower, and my comments aren't directed at you, or at any specific person. But I tend to revert to that old "if it walks like a duck" idea. If someone supports a person who has been convicted due to a sex crime, who has laughed about sexual aggression, who encourages violence - then why, in heavens name, do those supporters think that others are going to see them as kind, concerned, tolerant Americans?? If you sleep with the dogs, you're going to smell like the dogs, yes? So how can you be surprised that other people don't want to ignore the dog smell??? (I like dogs, btw. This is not about dogs or their actual smell) We are all tarred with the brushes of the company we keep, and the MAGA crowd is tarred with misogyny, racism, and the encouragement of violence.
****Transphobe comes under the "other" I was referencing. Chauvinism (at best) is just that - the BEST attitudes towards women I see in the MAGAs I know is chauvinistic. From there, it descends to varying degrees of paternalism, ending in misogyny. I see it as a spectrum of not wanting women on a equal footing as men. Sorry I was not clear, clarity is not always my strong suit these days. Older brain, and all that.
And ok, it's fine for the right to "fuel divisiveness" but not the center or the left? Huh. Missed that memo...:~)
Looking at the popular vote, I find it hard to believe our country is infested with seventy-five million “haters”. If it was, we’d have long since gone the way of Syria or Bosnia.
My bet is that victims in Gaza, Syria, etc would be greatly relieved if they experienced ONLY the “violence” of the words that seem to discombobulate some people aligned with the political left. Yeah, I think they could put up with those words, having experienced a real shitshow of violence in their world.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
in the aftermath of analyzing what the Democrats did wrong, I keep hearing how it was such a mistake for Kamala to skip the Joe Rogan podcast.
I don’t know that it was. Rogan would probably be easy on her, he’s not all that invested in particular politicians, though he endorsed Trump after a while. But I don’t see that format as strength for Kamla. They got far enough negotiations that her team asked Rogan for a list of questions in advance, and they wanted to know if he edited the podcast. These questions are not necessarily bad.
It was a huge win for Donald Trump, mainly because that format suits Donald Trump. Three hours of bros sitting around bullshitting is pretty much what the Donald is good at. I haven’t listened to that podcast, not sure I will. A few years ago I listened regularly to Rogan in selected bits (seldom the entire 3 hours show) before he became repetitive on his pet subjects, but now he is too predictable.
That's probably the same outlook which caused the FEMA official in North Carolina to order FEMA workers to ignore any households with 'Trump advertising' on their property. I wonder how widespread that sort of thing is?Quote:
Originally Posted by early morning
I think they fired that FEMA person:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20g31ln2wgo
Around here, there are some addresses our emergency services will not enter without law enforcement presence. This generally doesn't have anything to do with the political affiliation of the residents.
Here is the true reason why the Democratic ticket lost at the presidential level this year:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=00bGPh...ZW4gYWNyZXM%3D
it is undisputeable that if their candidate had gotten up on stage to sing the theme from Greenacres, she would’ve won!
First off, I am not advocating for any such nonsense, just pointing out that people can interpret many different things from the same list of statements. You see Thump, I see a disgusting bigot. Same person, different viewpoints. So what?Quote:
That's probably the same outlook which caused the FEMA official in North Carolina to order FEMA workers to ignore any households with 'Trump advertising' on their property. I wonder how widespread that sort of thing is?
And the FEMA person should have been fired. As this guy should have been, but he's a white policeman, and he was apparently under the influence of "sleep aids", so he's off the hook:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/us/oh...ats/index.html
Maybe the FEMA worker should have blamed sleeping pills.
She actually blamed FEMA itself, implying that her bigotry was institutional within the agency.Quote:
Originally Posted by early morning