Biden's 2023 budget would hike taxes on the ultra-rich and corporations, boost defense and police spending
Biden’s budget seemingly trying to please both sides to some extent.
Biden's 2023 budget would hike taxes on the ultra-rich and corporations, boost defense and police spending
Biden’s budget seemingly trying to please both sides to some extent.
I recalled hearing about John Wayne needing to be restrained by 6 security guards over getting offended over a Native American woman Sacheen Littlefeather speaking up for indigenous portrayal in movies and persecutions. Clint Eastwood making a dumb joke, while she was had to have bodyguards escort her.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/ne...n-1973-317550/
Plenty of actors from the 30s weren't open racists. Not an excuse.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
Principles can push people to make difficult choices. It's still better to have them than not.
I'm not saying this is you, but I'm noticing an undercurrent of discussion of Ukraine, where some people are trying to push an ideology of ignoring principles. In some cases they seem pissed off that events aren't supporting their version of the world, and people aren't living down to expectations. Some of them liked Russia as a bulwark against western progressivism, though there is also a cohort interested in playing Russia off China, who seem worried that concern about principles is keeping that from happening.
I'd agree that the main worry about Russia is its nukes. The whole argument about trying to avoid World War 3 doesn't quite match Russia's performance against a country they outnumber. There wouldn't be a long war between nations, partly because no one wants to be on Russia's side.
The nukes are a major concern, but that is a different type of worry than a long protracted land war.
With Biden's comments, I don't see the harm. It is a classic gaffe in that he said something true and inconvenient. But it's useful to signal to Russia that he's pissed off as a way to encourage them to stop being the bad guys in a situation where there is moral clarity. I can't imagine there's anyone who thinks Biden is okay with what Russia did, or that it would be useful to stick to that fiction.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
There was an argument that what Wayne wanted to do was worse than what Will Smith did.
But Wayne was successfully restrained. Smith smacked Chris Rock.
On loaded questions, there is also the question of how third parties view it.
If I'm asked something and I say it's a loaded question, there are multiple responses from whoever asked me a question. They could rephrase it. They could argue that it's not loaded and that I'm dodging. But there are also other commentators, who could point out something that two people arguing in good faith may be missing.
We should still strive to avoid loaded questions. By their nature, they're not meant to be answered. If someone knows what they're doing, it's a sketchy rhetorical strategy. If they don't know what they're doing, they may have a poor understanding of the views of people who disagree with them. It's best to ask questions for clarity, rather than to try to score points.
The New Yorker article covered some of the pushback against Rufo.
I get the argument that it's important to treat others as equals, but what exactly does that mean? Does it mean there's no hint of an obligation to make any accommodation for the other person? What are the proposed laws involve spending of taxpayer money? Platitudes are not policy.
I usually but not always vote for Republicans. My congresswoman is Grace Meng, if that helps anyone ascertain what candidates for Congress, or local office I might have the option of voting for.
The US' low birthrate is relevant in the difficulties people will have adopting. It's an interesting point about whether transitioning can be more like a fad for some people (I get you're summarizing your understanding of a counterargument rather than expressing your own views here.) I really wouldn't know how many people that's the case for. If it's ten percent, that would still represent a major policy problem.
We are seeing Lia Thomas dominate her sport. When competing against men, her numbers were worse. There would be a variety of reasons for why trans athletes aren't dominating multiple sports, including age (sports is dominated by younger people who have trained for a while) and culture.
If someone goes on an anti-capitalism rant it seems fair to respond in kind.
Braun's view that the states should have decided seems to justified from a flawed understanding of the civil rights act, and the fourteenth amendment. He did correct himself pretty quickly. A big question is what the policy should be for all lawmakers. I completely understand having an ungenerous take on what Braun said, but that would also allow Republicans to have an ungenerous take if a Democrat says something misguided and corrects themselves in a few hours. If the argument is that Braun shouldn't be able to do that, it means the next time a Democrat says something dumb, that should define the party, even if the Democrat quickly clarifies themselves.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
What's the other side here? What did the article leave out?
If an organization publicly announces than an LGBT author's behavior disqualifies her for a prize, without being clear about what the behavior was, that's going to shape the coverage.
If an organization makes a claim about someone's character/ behavior, they should have the receipts. The onus is on them to back up anything they day about her publicly, especially since it does seem likely that in the world of LGBT publishing allegations of a troubling hostility towards trans people and their allies is toxic for one's reputation.
If it's a bad thing to be hostile towards trans people and their allies, it is a bad thing to wrongly accuse someone of that. So there should be sufficient evidence to show everyone else that you can back up these kinds of statements.
Why is the New York Times mistaken to cover this?
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
It isn't on them at all, that's absurd. The first lesson in any class on public relations is to be succinct and just state your action and get out and you're just plain wrong if you believe otherwise because otherwise you're just getting yourself stuck in the weeds.
There's no defending this issue, there's no one wrongly accused here just an author known for being a hothead on line who said some trans-phobic things and then defended other people who said even worse things in her defense and so as a consequence it was decided that she wasn't someone they wanted to exemplify.
There's no cancel culture narrative here, just consequences for behaving badly.
It's time to admit that you got duped by a one sided article and didn't do the research to see if it was true. It happens to everyone at one time or another so no harm,no foul once you admit it and move on.
Last edited by thwhtGuardian; 03-28-2022 at 04:16 PM.
Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!