21–30 of 232 posts
One thing that I find interesting is how none of the great dystopian works of the 20th century featured celebrities as the ruling class. The antagonists are like Bond villains, smart, sophisticated, rational, cruel. A worthy adversary you could respect and feel good about struggling against. Our reality is that we've made our lives so advanced and comfortable, that our fantasies can try to become our reality. I guess…
It's pretty simple in my book and is why I expected Trump to have a good chance of winning the election. Both Trump and AOC are populists. They care less about what's factually true and more about whats emotionally true. Politics is not about being factually correct. You can be correct but still not have it your way. This is what Trump knew. Perception is reality. That's why it never make sense to judge a politician…
"Populist" is such a cop-out euphemism. We should call them out for what they really are: demagogues.
Below is towards the end of the article, so just in case any one feels more inclined to read it, here it is -
> I’m indebted to the following individuals for conversations that led to this post and feedback that improved it. I’d like to thank Arjun Balaji, Brendan Bernstein, Alex Hardy, Kevin Harrington, Mike Dariano, one anonymous Twitter user, and Nick Maggiulli for all the energy they invested in editing this piece. They improved this piece immensely.
> I’d also like to thank Nik Sharma, Drew Austin, and Adil Majid for the conversations that led to this post. Each of them contributed unique insights that I could not have arrived at on my own.
One thing that I find interesting is how none of the great dystopian works of the 20th century featured celebrities as the ruling class. The antagonists are like Bond villains, smart, sophisticated, rational, cruel. A worthy adversary you could respect and feel good about struggling against. Our reality is that we've made our lives so advanced and comfortable, that our fantasies can try to become our reality. I guess…
[flagged]
I think you proved OPs point.
This is a very common form of verbal sleight of hand.
* Step 1: Choose two disparate symbols.
* Step 2: Describe each in as vague of terms as possible.
* Step 3: Keep only the vague descriptions that are consistent between the two.
* Step 4: Imply that since the same reduced description fit both symbols, those original symbols are the same. Everything up to this point is a useful form of humor. It is this implication that is the false equivalence that zzzeek is referring to.
[flagged]
The Trump family are not likely criminals, they are criminals, guilty of perjury before congress (Jared), violation of the emoluments clause (Trump), intimidating witnesses (Trump), interfering with the AG (Trump), collusion with the Saudis (Jared), bribery (Trump), adultery (Trump), assault (Trump on his 1st wife). The only thing which is not out in the open (though highly likely to be at some point) is collusion wi…
So while it can be productive to state opinion that someone may be guilty of criminal acts. The key part is a trial and conviction, before pronouncing someone guilty. Using precise language makes it less likely to be spun around and arguing with others who disagree, I think.
For anyone just skimming comments - this is a very well written, well researched, thoughtful, and objective piece. That's pretty rare in today's climate. Definitely worth the read. It's the first time I can remember signing up for a newsletter voluntarily, despite my general distaste for those types of popovers.
The introduction's tacky and condescending tone lost me. Does it get better?
It's pretty simple in my book and is why I expected Trump to have a good chance of winning the election. Both Trump and AOC are populists. They care less about what's factually true and more about whats emotionally true. Politics is not about being factually correct. You can be correct but still not have it your way. This is what Trump knew. Perception is reality. That's why it never make sense to judge a politician…
People can downvote you, but that doesn't make what you're saying any less true. Analysts agree that Trump used these sorts of tactics to win the election.
AOC uses Twitter and social media well, just as Trump does, but are they really using it the same way, to the same ends? I have yet to see AOC just straight up lie like Trump does basically every time he opens his mouth. And many of AOC's policy proposals are backed up with historical precedent (especially the higher marginal tax rates for the wealthy).
Also, as far as I know, AOC is not implicated in any criminal behavior, whereas Trump and his family absolutely are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Trump family are not likely criminals, they are criminals, guilty of perjury before congress (Jared), violation of the emoluments clause (Trump), intimidating witnesses (Trump), interfering with the AG (Trump), collusion with the Saudis (Jared), bribery (Trump), adultery (Trump), assault (Trump on his 1st wife). The only thing which is not out in the open (though highly likely to be at some point) is collusion wi…
I think a qualification really helps here. By definition, criminal requires a guilty verdict. So while it can be productive to state opinion that someone may be guilty of criminal acts. The key part is a trial and conviction, before pronouncing someone guilty. Using precise language makes it less likely to be spun around and arguing with others who disagree, I think.