Agreed. There's no interpretation that doesn't suggest a worldview completely removed from reality except naked bad faith.
But the simplest explanation, if they're saying it in good faith, is they don't think genocidal extermination is a disqualifying "flaw" and are annoyed that people are holding it against Harris.
How did we go from 0 delegates, Neera Tanden, and mocking the Khive to this ghoul being crowned and annointed? Chomsky may be the world's most correct man.
Agreed. There's no interpretation that doesn't suggest a worldview completely removed from reality except naked bad faith.
This may or may not represent bad faith on their part but I think I can understand a worldview that makes it make sense. It's an extremely undergraduate academia worldview where you're given the grading rubric for an essay before you write it. Kamala has a paragraph on her website about [insert issue] that means she should get full points for it. Very much along the lines of "liberal box checking" being a thing I may or may not have mentioned out loud in previous situations.
I can... uhh... "understand" isn't the right word but I've seen Dems behave like that many times. Their candidate says something preposterous and libs treat it like it has already been accomplished while ignoring that the dem in question created the problem in the first place and zealously defended the problem right up until they started running.
Sure. It's basically the individual requirement of the grading rubric. When liberals are working for a cause they have a secondary interest in, they're less concerned with the actual outcomes of their policies than they are being able to claim credit for an accomplishment in that arena. So while they're focusing on the interests of capital, they also make sure to 'check a box' for each constituency that got them into office. In an infrastructure bill that gives billions away to oil companies while opening up even more land for exploitation, they'll 'check the box' for environmentalists by giving them electric car subsidies. And once a box is checked, there's no need to return to that entire topic. Obamacare checked the health care box for decades. If it weren't for Bernie, you would never have heard democrats mention it in our lifetimes again.
Gotcha that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining.
I'm kind of seeing that with libs excusing genocide. "She said she wants a ceasefire" and, like you said, box tipped. No need to 25th amendment Biden and actually stop it. She said she would do it several months from now so it's settled.
I've heard his contributions to Linguistics have mostly been set aside as the science has developed furth and further. I was referencing "manufacturing consent", which I admittedly haven't read through, but the "manufactured consent" concept is so useful to understanding how these things are done.
Agreed. There's no interpretation that doesn't suggest a worldview completely removed from reality except naked bad faith.
But the simplest explanation, if they're saying it in good faith, is they don't think genocidal extermination is a disqualifying "flaw" and are annoyed that people are holding it against Harris.
How did we go from 0 delegates, Neera Tanden, and mocking the Khive to this ghoul being crowned and annointed? Chomsky may be the world's most correct man.
This may or may not represent bad faith on their part but I think I can understand a worldview that makes it make sense. It's an extremely undergraduate academia worldview where you're given the grading rubric for an essay before you write it. Kamala has a paragraph on her website about [insert issue] that means she should get full points for it. Very much along the lines of "liberal box checking" being a thing I may or may not have mentioned out loud in previous situations.
I can... uhh... "understand" isn't the right word but I've seen Dems behave like that many times. Their candidate says something preposterous and libs treat it like it has already been accomplished while ignoring that the dem in question created the problem in the first place and zealously defended the problem right up until they started running.
Can you talk more about liberal box checking?
Sure. It's basically the individual requirement of the grading rubric. When liberals are working for a cause they have a secondary interest in, they're less concerned with the actual outcomes of their policies than they are being able to claim credit for an accomplishment in that arena. So while they're focusing on the interests of capital, they also make sure to 'check a box' for each constituency that got them into office. In an infrastructure bill that gives billions away to oil companies while opening up even more land for exploitation, they'll 'check the box' for environmentalists by giving them electric car subsidies. And once a box is checked, there's no need to return to that entire topic. Obamacare checked the health care box for decades. If it weren't for Bernie, you would never have heard democrats mention it in our lifetimes again.
Gotcha that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining.
I'm kind of seeing that with libs excusing genocide. "She said she wants a ceasefire" and, like you said, box tipped. No need to 25th amendment Biden and actually stop it. She said she would do it several months from now so it's settled.
deleted by creator
I've heard his contributions to Linguistics have mostly been set aside as the science has developed furth and further. I was referencing "manufacturing consent", which I admittedly haven't read through, but the "manufactured consent" concept is so useful to understanding how these things are done.
deleted by creator
He's linguistics' Lamarck - halfway correct but not enough.
We stand on the shoulders of scientists who were wrong but not totally wrong.