I’ve seen all those times it’s been used inappropriately, but this seems like a valid use case — we don’t need to throw the word out entirely just because it’s sometimes been weaponized by partisans.
I confess that I haven’t read the article, but on the face of it this doesn’t seem unreasonable - if Hamas actually planned out the rapes as a war/terror tactic to help achieve their aims, that’s different than individuals just committing the acts on their own because they felt like it, and the verb is warranted.
Well maybe if she got creative — eg a special campaign event where she invites all the male voters in the district to join her for a night at the theater.
Not sure what your point is with this - there are so few spots that it doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t get in, regardless of race? Or it matters just enough that we need AA for Black applicants but not quite so much that we should care about Asians being turned down because of their race?
I think you're moving a little too fast here. The place to start is with agreeing on the definition; then to agree on whether/when it qualifies as "evil". It's hard enough to achieve the first part, much less both of these things, but that agreement is essential for having a productive debate.
Tangentially, notice that the definition you posted says "discrimination *against* a person" -- this is not necessarily the same thing as discrimination *for* a person that just happens to negatively affect others not in that racial/ethnic group. Or at least that would be a point of negotiation.
Maybe some people. Others are just playing with the fact that as with many other categories, we have an intuitive sense of what the criteria for a "Christmas movie" are, but we mostly haven't taken the time to explicitly list them out, and it can be difficult to define the border precisely. See also "is a hotdog a sandwich".
Hmm, you're right, i guess i was mixing up the stories -- what I get for commenting at work. So I guess I'm not up on exactly what Bennet is faulting the Times for regarding the laptop story. It's hard to keep track of what specific outlets decided vs what was "in the air" at the time.
Re Hunter overall, I wasn't connecting that to the NYT coverage assessment -- I just think that there's enough eyebrow-raising information that I'm on the side of "odds are there was some inappropriate involvement", even though there's no smoking gun or basis for legal action.
There are two separate topics here -- (1) what should we think today about the level of Joe's involvement with Hunter's activities, and (2) Were the mainstream news outlets right to quash the story about Hunter's laptop at the time?
(2) is the topic at hand -- the story that was suppressed because it was "not confirmed" or "Russian disinformation" or whatever was later found to be accurate. You & North have your opinion about its relevance, and Trump supporters have theirs, but is it really the job of a national media source to preemptively decide in that moment that the public shouldn't be informed about it and make up their own minds? Can we at least agree that Twitter went overboard by deleting the Post's tweet about it?
Re (1), I will just say that there's a difference between "nothing's been proven" and "there's no link" -- switch the players around a bit and this same amount of smoke would be plenty enough for many on the left to be yelling Fire.
I've seen that too, and it rings true. Discontent on the right leads to things like "Take back America", "Make America Great Again", etc., but liberals generally seem to be looking elsewhere. Probably related to that Scott Alexander point about "America" as a concept being right-coded.
I'm just saying that Trump is attractive to many who are not social conservatives, so I would be cautious about generalizing across Trump supporters in a way that takes that for granted.
When my wife started her job at a school in a working class town here in Connecticut a couple decades ago, she found herself largely among Democrats, but some of what her colleagues talked about didn't sound like the SoCal democrats that we had left behind -- yes they were largely pro-union, pro-govt spending, pro-choice; but also anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, etc. A lot of these folks ended up becoming Trump supporters.
Trump spotted (or intuited) the under-served market and figured out the pitch to make the sale to them. It's pretty impressive, in a horrible way. Often hard to tell when he's leading the crowd vs when he's just figuring out where they're heading and getting himself out in front.
OK, i guess here's where we hit the agree-to-disagree point -- I see the connection you're making, but to me that seems too high-level and tenuous to draw the cross-population conclusions in your earlier comment. But I don't have a sense of how I would argue the point further.
I don't have a source either but I've seen similar content. David French has written (bitterly, frustratedly) about how American Evangelicalism has hitched its wagon to Trump.
However, that still doesn't mean that Trumpism is defined by social conservatism, just that social conservatives have adapted themselves to him. It's hard to see what he could say or do that would make them leave him (apart from maybe him saying he's become a Democrat). He channels populist rage and frustration against a largely secular liberal elite ruling class, but that can coexist with multiple even contradictory social/political viewpoints.
Yes, broadly I think people tend to over-generalize based on either their own experience or what they want to believe in order to support their ideological/political commitments. Nothing specific to particular groups of people, whether by political affiliation, race, etc. ASDI.
Right -- everyone who shops regularly will notice the price increases regardless of whether their paycheck makes up for it and whether they regularly buy on the low, middle, or high end;
and plenty of people have not in fact seen their pay rise at the same rate as inflation over this period.
Also it's nice that inflation has gone back down to normal levels, but telling people they should be happy about that is a little like saying "sure we were repeatedly jabbing you in the ribs with a stick the last couple of years, but we stopped now so why are you still complaining about your bruises??"
Ok - then let’s acknowledge that we’re talking mainly about a bunch of populists caught up in a cult of personality, not people with any kind of consistent political philosophy. For trend analysis, no looking back before 2016. Calling them conservative is just misleading - I dont care on a personal level, I’m just saying it’s like talking about what “Democrats” believe and wrapping in trends from before the race realignment.
I don't think it's coherent anymore (if it ever was) to talk about trends regarding "conservatives" while roping in the entire Republican party for your examples. Which "conservatives" do you have in mind with these observations -- social conservatives, economic/libertarian conservatives, or Trump supporters (who as a group are not particularly conservative at all, much to the chagrin of actual conservatives)?
On this one, I think there are reasonable points in both directions. On the one hand, food prices are obviously higher than they were a couple years ago - if Megan just said "hey this thing that used to result in a $40 grocery bill is now $50," then there wouldn't be much basis to argue.
But on the other hand, the impact of Megan's tweet is relying on a baseline expectation that doesn't apply to most people, who are not foodies who live in a big city and shop just where it's convenient to get to on foot. A "crockpot of chicken soup" would not have been $40 for most people a few years ago and wouldn't be $50 now. So I do understand the reaction -- it hits like the "I'm making $250K/year and living paycheck to paycheck!" tweets.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/1/2024”
Seen on X/Twitter:
"Babe, if I was accused of plagiarism, would you tear down all of modern academia to avenge me?"
"
I wonder how much they had to pay her to step down.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/25/2023”
I’ve seen all those times it’s been used inappropriately, but this seems like a valid use case — we don’t need to throw the word out entirely just because it’s sometimes been weaponized by partisans.
"
I confess that I haven’t read the article, but on the face of it this doesn’t seem unreasonable - if Hamas actually planned out the rapes as a war/terror tactic to help achieve their aims, that’s different than individuals just committing the acts on their own because they felt like it, and the verb is warranted.
"
Well maybe if she got creative — eg a special campaign event where she invites all the male voters in the district to join her for a night at the theater.
On “What is Israel’s Endgame in Gaza?”
I’m not affirmatively arguing for it, just saying it takes more work to get to your point than simply posting a definition.
"
Not sure what your point is with this - there are so few spots that it doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t get in, regardless of race? Or it matters just enough that we need AA for Black applicants but not quite so much that we should care about Asians being turned down because of their race?
"
I think you're moving a little too fast here. The place to start is with agreeing on the definition; then to agree on whether/when it qualifies as "evil". It's hard enough to achieve the first part, much less both of these things, but that agreement is essential for having a productive debate.
Tangentially, notice that the definition you posted says "discrimination *against* a person" -- this is not necessarily the same thing as discrimination *for* a person that just happens to negatively affect others not in that racial/ethnic group. Or at least that would be a point of negotiation.
On “What’s a Christmas Movie?”
Maybe some people. Others are just playing with the fact that as with many other categories, we have an intuitive sense of what the criteria for a "Christmas movie" are, but we mostly haven't taken the time to explicitly list them out, and it can be difficult to define the border precisely. See also "is a hotdog a sandwich".
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/11/2023”
Hmm, you're right, i guess i was mixing up the stories -- what I get for commenting at work. So I guess I'm not up on exactly what Bennet is faulting the Times for regarding the laptop story. It's hard to keep track of what specific outlets decided vs what was "in the air" at the time.
Re Hunter overall, I wasn't connecting that to the NYT coverage assessment -- I just think that there's enough eyebrow-raising information that I'm on the side of "odds are there was some inappropriate involvement", even though there's no smoking gun or basis for legal action.
"
There are two separate topics here -- (1) what should we think today about the level of Joe's involvement with Hunter's activities, and (2) Were the mainstream news outlets right to quash the story about Hunter's laptop at the time?
(2) is the topic at hand -- the story that was suppressed because it was "not confirmed" or "Russian disinformation" or whatever was later found to be accurate. You & North have your opinion about its relevance, and Trump supporters have theirs, but is it really the job of a national media source to preemptively decide in that moment that the public shouldn't be informed about it and make up their own minds? Can we at least agree that Twitter went overboard by deleting the Post's tweet about it?
Re (1), I will just say that there's a difference between "nothing's been proven" and "there's no link" -- switch the players around a bit and this same amount of smoke would be plenty enough for many on the left to be yelling Fire.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/18/2023”
I've seen that too, and it rings true. Discontent on the right leads to things like "Take back America", "Make America Great Again", etc., but liberals generally seem to be looking elsewhere. Probably related to that Scott Alexander point about "America" as a concept being right-coded.
"
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/180/
On “It’s The Economy, Stupid, But That Depends on Your Definition of “Economy””
I'm just saying that Trump is attractive to many who are not social conservatives, so I would be cautious about generalizing across Trump supporters in a way that takes that for granted.
When my wife started her job at a school in a working class town here in Connecticut a couple decades ago, she found herself largely among Democrats, but some of what her colleagues talked about didn't sound like the SoCal democrats that we had left behind -- yes they were largely pro-union, pro-govt spending, pro-choice; but also anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, etc. A lot of these folks ended up becoming Trump supporters.
"
Trump spotted (or intuited) the under-served market and figured out the pitch to make the sale to them. It's pretty impressive, in a horrible way. Often hard to tell when he's leading the crowd vs when he's just figuring out where they're heading and getting himself out in front.
"
OK, i guess here's where we hit the agree-to-disagree point -- I see the connection you're making, but to me that seems too high-level and tenuous to draw the cross-population conclusions in your earlier comment. But I don't have a sense of how I would argue the point further.
"
I don't have a source either but I've seen similar content. David French has written (bitterly, frustratedly) about how American Evangelicalism has hitched its wagon to Trump.
However, that still doesn't mean that Trumpism is defined by social conservatism, just that social conservatives have adapted themselves to him. It's hard to see what he could say or do that would make them leave him (apart from maybe him saying he's become a Democrat). He channels populist rage and frustration against a largely secular liberal elite ruling class, but that can coexist with multiple even contradictory social/political viewpoints.
"
I’m fine with any of them, you were the one objecting.
"
Yes, broadly I think people tend to over-generalize based on either their own experience or what they want to believe in order to support their ideological/political commitments. Nothing specific to particular groups of people, whether by political affiliation, race, etc. ASDI.
"
Dismayed? Frustrated? Contemptuous? Self-deluded?
"
Right -- everyone who shops regularly will notice the price increases regardless of whether their paycheck makes up for it and whether they regularly buy on the low, middle, or high end;
and plenty of people have not in fact seen their pay rise at the same rate as inflation over this period.
Also it's nice that inflation has gone back down to normal levels, but telling people they should be happy about that is a little like saying "sure we were repeatedly jabbing you in the ribs with a stick the last couple of years, but we stopped now so why are you still complaining about your bruises??"
"
Ok - then let’s acknowledge that we’re talking mainly about a bunch of populists caught up in a cult of personality, not people with any kind of consistent political philosophy. For trend analysis, no looking back before 2016. Calling them conservative is just misleading - I dont care on a personal level, I’m just saying it’s like talking about what “Democrats” believe and wrapping in trends from before the race realignment.
"
I don't think it's coherent anymore (if it ever was) to talk about trends regarding "conservatives" while roping in the entire Republican party for your examples. Which "conservatives" do you have in mind with these observations -- social conservatives, economic/libertarian conservatives, or Trump supporters (who as a group are not particularly conservative at all, much to the chagrin of actual conservatives)?
"
On this one, I think there are reasonable points in both directions. On the one hand, food prices are obviously higher than they were a couple years ago - if Megan just said "hey this thing that used to result in a $40 grocery bill is now $50," then there wouldn't be much basis to argue.
But on the other hand, the impact of Megan's tweet is relying on a baseline expectation that doesn't apply to most people, who are not foodies who live in a big city and shop just where it's convenient to get to on foot. A "crockpot of chicken soup" would not have been $40 for most people a few years ago and wouldn't be $50 now. So I do understand the reaction -- it hits like the "I'm making $250K/year and living paycheck to paycheck!" tweets.
On “Free Speech, Harassment and Hypocrisy: What the University Presidents Got Right and Wrong”
That was on the New Haven Green, not at Yale (though adjacent to Old Campus). City property.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.