No, that's a kind of abstract rationalization, not an accurate diagnosis of reality.
It also assumes that all people who are homeless could cure that condition without at minimum some pretty serious coercion from the state. And even then not all people can be rehabilitated. This is just a fact. And so the euphemism becomes a bait and switch (intentional or not) to use the fixable condition of those down on their luck to justify helping fentanyl addicts and schizophrenics live indefinitely in squalor in a park or behind a train station or wherever else.
This is also a good example of the kind of fuzzy thinking I referenced above.
That last paragraph has me doubting all of this. If the people in the field already use that terminology they should have some set of results that show how it helps.
My perception (which I grant is unscientific) is that the opposite is happening. People are more pissed off at the homeless than they have been in decades because of the loss of public parks, libraries, mass transit, and similar accommodations to addicts and people with serious mental health problems. And it's the people that insist on terms like 'people experiencing homelessness' most likely to tell them that frustration with the situation is a personal moral failing.
What does 'humanize the homeless' even mean, and how does the change accomplish it? How would we measure it and how would we know if it's working or not?
I don't think you know. I don't think anyone knows, or that there is an answer that doesn't assume a bunch of highly contested premises. Which is the whole problem. At this point it also doesn't escape notice that those who prefer and aggressively promote this sort of terminology, when given the opportunity, have tended to use it to enable the most dangerous and destructive behaviors of people with serious addiction and mental problems. The system is adapting to the tactic.
No, what is happening is people becoming wise to the game, which is to play on the natural empathy of the unsuspecting in order to change terminology in such a way as to backdoor in substantive and at times quite major policy changes that were never adequately understood or debated. Even if this particular instance really is in good faith the time is nevertheless long since passed to say no to it.
No, the language policing, weird euphemisms, and attempts to use fuzzy language to stymie clear thinking has become utterly ridiculous. As much as I wish it was grown ups putting a stop to it instead of Republicans it's what needs to happen. People into this sort of thing will lose now and need to lose over and over until such time as heads are removed from asses.
Anyway, homeless, homeless, homeless. No person without a home has been harmed by the writing of those words.
I believe the endorsement by Clyburn was the critical moment for the center lane of candidates. That seemed to signify Biden would get the black vote which was both where Bernie was weakest and on whose votes many of the remaining primary states would turn.
Even with this info I am not convinced it was the wrong decision. It was on Biden and those closest to him to have a sense of his cognitive status.
I assure you anything they build in the future will be named for whichever corporation is willing to pay them the most money for the rights, as God intended.
That stuff seems dumb. But it also included giving the RFK stadium site back to DC which was step 1 to getting the Skins back in the city. Sad to see that dream die for another generation.
Why don't you just make the leap to accepting that for whatever merits intersectionality the theory has (it probably has none and the people that think it does are probably not very smart, no matter how many degrees they have), 'intersectionality' as politics is just an excuse for vicious racism and a-holes to act like a-holes? Tell everyone who asks you about it that's what you believe, unapologetically.
You can still support other liberal stuff like everyone getting decent health insurance and SNAP and equality before the law and that kind of thing. These aren't mutually exclusive. It also ain't 2020 anymore and there are no consequences for telling these people they're morons. I don't even agree with you on Israel and I can still comfortably say these things. For example, I think the Biden admin should have completely cut off military aid to Israel, but you don't see me supporting college students that put on those dumb rags and shout at Jews, as if any Hamas militant wouldn't lop their heads off and put a video on YouTube of them doing it.
It's funny because right up until 1/6 I thought there was much more of a 'there' with the Bush-Cheney axis than with Trump. They at least had something like a vision, even if the top of the ticket wasn't bright enough to fully appreciate how radical it was. I remember people (not normal people but like people at the university food co-op) speculating that maybe Bush would lose the election to John Kerry then try to stay in power with some kind of game of constitutional chicken, signed off on by SCOTUS 'just like the 2000 election.' But then he left without a fuss and of course Obama picked up a number of the balls he left and kept walking with them.
But anyway I'm too principled to start doing the Hitler comparisons with anything happening today. If the past is a different country when we talk about the US then it's a different planet when we talk about that guy.
This is hard because it's outside of my theological framework. I think most Republicans are mostly cynical runners of interference for plutocrats plus a rump of culture warriors running the gambit of cynical and mean spirited to just kind of dumb. To play off Walter Sobchak, in order to treat them as National Socialists, I'd need to be convinced they had an ethos. Or at least more of one than the current thing that has their own idiotic media apparatus yanking them around by the balls.
I challenge you to find any instance at OT of me comparing any living American politician to the famed Austrian. Maybe you'll surprise me but I don't think you can.
With respect to Trump I've long said Berlusconi or maybe some kind of Peronist from Latin America were the more appropriate parallel.
I think DeSantis would suck from a public policy perspective and I'd never vote for him but I'll bite and say I don't think he would pose the unique dangers of Trump. Hard to see him attempting some sort of 1/6 type incident or abusing the power of the office beyond what we've come to expect over the past few decades. So bad but normal bad.
I get that too. But the goal of the party should not be retaking Congress with narrow majorities or trying to come out on the right side of the margin of error for electoral college purposes. It should be the kind of trifecta Obama won with in 2008. I have no idea how anyone could expect us to get there from where we sit today, or where we have sat at any time since 2016. Not without some pretty significant changes.
Heh I mean, I can acknowledge that sort of thing but I'm probably not the person or type of person you're looking for to do it, given my own stated priors and history of commenting here.
I will say that one of the most disorienting things for me about aging is the way issues just kind of vanish. Something can be the all encompassing thing for years and then one day it's just not and even bringing it up gets you confused looks. Ymmv but I think the healthiest way to adapt is to just accept that collective amnesia is a constant of the human condition. So you go out every day and make the case for whatever you think the right thing is, and hope that sometimes you get it or something near enough. The last thing anyone should expect is an accounting, not in this life anyway.
I guess it depends on how committed we are to talking in terms of certainties. I did not think people predicting Harris blowouts were credible, and there were plenty of people out there saying that such predictions were not credible.
There were also plenty of people predicting things with no apparent basis in the humdrum reporting of the polls that floated within the margin of error all the way down the stretch. However no team goes into a contest predicting they have no chance at all. It just doesn't happen.
All of which is to ask, what is it you're looking for exactly?
I hear you, Phil, but I don't think that matters. Maybe in 2016 that could be said, but not now. We spent the last 4 years saying that putting Trump back in the oval office was the unthinkable. And then it happened anyway.
I think there are other possibilities. It's possible that the real inflection point was Biden's decision to run. I think his legacy is going to be downright destroyed because of it. I don't love saying that because he's a politician I have some fondness for, but the truth is what it is.
It is also possible that the fundamentals of this election around inflation were so bad that it was unwinnable, or very close to it.
Now, I obviously am a fan of hashing this out. The Democrat brand has found a way to alienate a lot of people over the last 15 years, including a lot of people that should be considered core constituencies. It's worth understanding why that is and correcting. Indeed, correcting after a defeat is the only thing worth doing. However this does not preclude the possibility that this was doomed anyway.
I agree that Biden has been and remains the most invisible president I can recall, and it has made the transition stranger.
Still, not really seeing the rebellion or buyer's remorse David has suggested a couple of times now. If anything it's just a continuation of Trump season 1, where, charitably speaking, he defies the conventional wisdom about decorum and what's normal.
Sometimes it works out and he gets his way, sometimes he doesn't, but I don't see any sign of his party getting ready to oppose him on anything serious.
My suspicion is that where they frustrate him it will be because of the chaos in their Congressional delegation, and the slim majority, not because they're trying to clip Trump's wings.
Again, I appreciate the writing, but continue to be completely baffled by posts suggesting there is some sort of corrective or change in the Republican party towards a guy they elected a mere 6 weeks ago, who dominated the primary to the point he barely even had to contest it, and with whom virtually all current Republican office holders of any significance have fallen in line. The GOP is his party. If you are in the GOP, he is your man, and he has yet to actually be sworn into office. What are we even talking about?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
This is where I kind of agree with Saul. I'd say f 'em and go home for Christmas.
"
No, that's a kind of abstract rationalization, not an accurate diagnosis of reality.
It also assumes that all people who are homeless could cure that condition without at minimum some pretty serious coercion from the state. And even then not all people can be rehabilitated. This is just a fact. And so the euphemism becomes a bait and switch (intentional or not) to use the fixable condition of those down on their luck to justify helping fentanyl addicts and schizophrenics live indefinitely in squalor in a park or behind a train station or wherever else.
This is also a good example of the kind of fuzzy thinking I referenced above.
"
That last paragraph has me doubting all of this. If the people in the field already use that terminology they should have some set of results that show how it helps.
My perception (which I grant is unscientific) is that the opposite is happening. People are more pissed off at the homeless than they have been in decades because of the loss of public parks, libraries, mass transit, and similar accommodations to addicts and people with serious mental health problems. And it's the people that insist on terms like 'people experiencing homelessness' most likely to tell them that frustration with the situation is a personal moral failing.
"
What does 'humanize the homeless' even mean, and how does the change accomplish it? How would we measure it and how would we know if it's working or not?
I don't think you know. I don't think anyone knows, or that there is an answer that doesn't assume a bunch of highly contested premises. Which is the whole problem. At this point it also doesn't escape notice that those who prefer and aggressively promote this sort of terminology, when given the opportunity, have tended to use it to enable the most dangerous and destructive behaviors of people with serious addiction and mental problems. The system is adapting to the tactic.
On “Fani Willis Disqualification Ruling: Read It For Yourself”
She failed to successfully prosecute the strongest case against Trump. It's inexcusable.
"
Another thing that could not possibly have been handled worse.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
No, what is happening is people becoming wise to the game, which is to play on the natural empathy of the unsuspecting in order to change terminology in such a way as to backdoor in substantive and at times quite major policy changes that were never adequately understood or debated. Even if this particular instance really is in good faith the time is nevertheless long since passed to say no to it.
"
No, the language policing, weird euphemisms, and attempts to use fuzzy language to stymie clear thinking has become utterly ridiculous. As much as I wish it was grown ups putting a stop to it instead of Republicans it's what needs to happen. People into this sort of thing will lose now and need to lose over and over until such time as heads are removed from asses.
Anyway, homeless, homeless, homeless. No person without a home has been harmed by the writing of those words.
On “From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge”
I believe the endorsement by Clyburn was the critical moment for the center lane of candidates. That seemed to signify Biden would get the black vote which was both where Bernie was weakest and on whose votes many of the remaining primary states would turn.
Even with this info I am not convinced it was the wrong decision. It was on Biden and those closest to him to have a sense of his cognitive status.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
I assure you anything they build in the future will be named for whichever corporation is willing to pay them the most money for the rights, as God intended.
On “From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge”
What a cluster.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
That's one I wouldn't put money on. Never should have changed it but now that it's done it's never going back.
"
That stuff seems dumb. But it also included giving the RFK stadium site back to DC which was step 1 to getting the Skins back in the city. Sad to see that dream die for another generation.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
Why don't you just make the leap to accepting that for whatever merits intersectionality the theory has (it probably has none and the people that think it does are probably not very smart, no matter how many degrees they have), 'intersectionality' as politics is just an excuse for vicious racism and a-holes to act like a-holes? Tell everyone who asks you about it that's what you believe, unapologetically.
You can still support other liberal stuff like everyone getting decent health insurance and SNAP and equality before the law and that kind of thing. These aren't mutually exclusive. It also ain't 2020 anymore and there are no consequences for telling these people they're morons. I don't even agree with you on Israel and I can still comfortably say these things. For example, I think the Biden admin should have completely cut off military aid to Israel, but you don't see me supporting college students that put on those dumb rags and shout at Jews, as if any Hamas militant wouldn't lop their heads off and put a video on YouTube of them doing it.
On “Are Republicans Waking Up?”
It's funny because right up until 1/6 I thought there was much more of a 'there' with the Bush-Cheney axis than with Trump. They at least had something like a vision, even if the top of the ticket wasn't bright enough to fully appreciate how radical it was. I remember people (not normal people but like people at the university food co-op) speculating that maybe Bush would lose the election to John Kerry then try to stay in power with some kind of game of constitutional chicken, signed off on by SCOTUS 'just like the 2000 election.' But then he left without a fuss and of course Obama picked up a number of the balls he left and kept walking with them.
But anyway I'm too principled to start doing the Hitler comparisons with anything happening today. If the past is a different country when we talk about the US then it's a different planet when we talk about that guy.
"
This is hard because it's outside of my theological framework. I think most Republicans are mostly cynical runners of interference for plutocrats plus a rump of culture warriors running the gambit of cynical and mean spirited to just kind of dumb. To play off Walter Sobchak, in order to treat them as National Socialists, I'd need to be convinced they had an ethos. Or at least more of one than the current thing that has their own idiotic media apparatus yanking them around by the balls.
"
I challenge you to find any instance at OT of me comparing any living American politician to the famed Austrian. Maybe you'll surprise me but I don't think you can.
With respect to Trump I've long said Berlusconi or maybe some kind of Peronist from Latin America were the more appropriate parallel.
"
I think DeSantis would suck from a public policy perspective and I'd never vote for him but I'll bite and say I don't think he would pose the unique dangers of Trump. Hard to see him attempting some sort of 1/6 type incident or abusing the power of the office beyond what we've come to expect over the past few decades. So bad but normal bad.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
I get that too. But the goal of the party should not be retaking Congress with narrow majorities or trying to come out on the right side of the margin of error for electoral college purposes. It should be the kind of trifecta Obama won with in 2008. I have no idea how anyone could expect us to get there from where we sit today, or where we have sat at any time since 2016. Not without some pretty significant changes.
"
Heh I mean, I can acknowledge that sort of thing but I'm probably not the person or type of person you're looking for to do it, given my own stated priors and history of commenting here.
I will say that one of the most disorienting things for me about aging is the way issues just kind of vanish. Something can be the all encompassing thing for years and then one day it's just not and even bringing it up gets you confused looks. Ymmv but I think the healthiest way to adapt is to just accept that collective amnesia is a constant of the human condition. So you go out every day and make the case for whatever you think the right thing is, and hope that sometimes you get it or something near enough. The last thing anyone should expect is an accounting, not in this life anyway.
"
I guess it depends on how committed we are to talking in terms of certainties. I did not think people predicting Harris blowouts were credible, and there were plenty of people out there saying that such predictions were not credible.
There were also plenty of people predicting things with no apparent basis in the humdrum reporting of the polls that floated within the margin of error all the way down the stretch. However no team goes into a contest predicting they have no chance at all. It just doesn't happen.
All of which is to ask, what is it you're looking for exactly?
"
I hear you, Phil, but I don't think that matters. Maybe in 2016 that could be said, but not now. We spent the last 4 years saying that putting Trump back in the oval office was the unthinkable. And then it happened anyway.
"
I think there are other possibilities. It's possible that the real inflection point was Biden's decision to run. I think his legacy is going to be downright destroyed because of it. I don't love saying that because he's a politician I have some fondness for, but the truth is what it is.
It is also possible that the fundamentals of this election around inflation were so bad that it was unwinnable, or very close to it.
Now, I obviously am a fan of hashing this out. The Democrat brand has found a way to alienate a lot of people over the last 15 years, including a lot of people that should be considered core constituencies. It's worth understanding why that is and correcting. Indeed, correcting after a defeat is the only thing worth doing. However this does not preclude the possibility that this was doomed anyway.
On “Are Republicans Waking Up?”
I agree that Biden has been and remains the most invisible president I can recall, and it has made the transition stranger.
Still, not really seeing the rebellion or buyer's remorse David has suggested a couple of times now. If anything it's just a continuation of Trump season 1, where, charitably speaking, he defies the conventional wisdom about decorum and what's normal.
Sometimes it works out and he gets his way, sometimes he doesn't, but I don't see any sign of his party getting ready to oppose him on anything serious.
My suspicion is that where they frustrate him it will be because of the chaos in their Congressional delegation, and the slim majority, not because they're trying to clip Trump's wings.
"
Again, I appreciate the writing, but continue to be completely baffled by posts suggesting there is some sort of corrective or change in the Republican party towards a guy they elected a mere 6 weeks ago, who dominated the primary to the point he barely even had to contest it, and with whom virtually all current Republican office holders of any significance have fallen in line. The GOP is his party. If you are in the GOP, he is your man, and he has yet to actually be sworn into office. What are we even talking about?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.