I'm always amazed at the way theories get shoehorned into current events, even by supposedly respected (!) news publications. Trump is no mutant, no mule, no Black Swan. Neither was Hitler. Both...
I'm always amazed at the way theories get shoehorned into current events, even by supposedly respected (!) news publications. Trump is no mutant, no mule, no Black Swan. Neither was Hitler. Both were propelled into their positions by a series of events. The only reason this story was published seems to be to take advantage of comparing a figure called 'the Mule' to Trump. Never mind that many of us don't care for the man. Next he'll be calling it 'fake news'.
The ascendance of Trump lays squarely on the populace that voted for him including his opponents who persuaded themselves that they were more in touch with reality than the Donald. To me it appears that both parties were blindsided by themselves. They had owned the game for so long that they couldn't conceive of being overthrown. I definitely would have preferred someone else, but maybe a weaker person wouldn't have stood up to the parties' considerable efforts to destroy an outsider.
The best we could do now would be to learn from this shameful situation, but the press isn't teaching any lessons about it, rather it's trying to re-enthrone the previous status quo. I'm thankful I didn't take the bait and subscribe to the Times when it was on sale last month.
Maybe we're mistaken in looking for a powerful candidate who will bring balance to the Force. We do have a chance to vote for a more representative government Tuesday. See you at the polls.
Moderators feel free to toss this in the Politics pile. I just don't like people misusing Asimov.
Same here. However, unlike other articles I've seen which use Asimov's name just to draw attention to their non-Asimov point, this article actually spends most of its time focusing on Asimov's...
I just don't like people misusing Asimov.
Same here.
However, unlike other articles I've seen which use Asimov's name just to draw attention to their non-Asimov point, this article actually spends most of its time focusing on Asimov's works - and that's the basis on which I decided to post it here. I couldn't care less about the politics in this article; I was more interested in the stuff about psychohistory and the Foundation stories.
Haha, I'm not angry at you, Asimov. The Times has many well written articles. I just think Trump's style is being echoed in those who oppose him. I let it get to me in this case and shouldn't have.
Haha, I'm not angry at you, Asimov. The Times has many well written articles. I just think Trump's style is being echoed in those who oppose him. I let it get to me in this case and shouldn't have.
This is a good example of what I was complaining about in my recent post on news and articles. This is political content thinly veiled by the connection to a topic of interest. The political...
This is a good example of what I was complaining about in my recent post on news and articles. This is political content thinly veiled by the connection to a topic of interest.
The political aspect is clear and it's obvious that the tags should reflect that.
Asimov, you expressed confusion at my suggestion that some titles were bad just days ago.
But is the title bad? The article is mostly about Isaac Asimov and his Foundation stories, and the fictional science of psychohistory he invented in those stories. The title fairly reflects that.
Asimov, you expressed confusion at my suggestion that some titles were bad just days ago.
But is the title bad? The article is mostly about Isaac Asimov and his Foundation stories, and the fictional science of psychohistory he invented in those stories. The title fairly reflects that.
Yes, it's a bad title. It is disingenuous and misleading to explore a topic in order to set up a political connection while omitting any indication of that in the headline. It's also bad to post...
Yes, it's a bad title. It is disingenuous and misleading to explore a topic in order to set up a political connection while omitting any indication of that in the headline.
It's also bad to post politically motivated content on a sub about books while choosing not to inform people on that major characteristic of the article through tags.
As you chose the article, you are responsible for how that title represents the information to us.
I didn't even think to put a "politics" tag on this topic because I didn't really pay too much attention to the political aspects of this article. I was more interested in it because of the...
I didn't even think to put a "politics" tag on this topic because I didn't really pay too much attention to the political aspects of this article. I was more interested in it because of the sections about Asimov's writing, which was the majority of the article. I'm sorry I overlooked that. Thanks to @Bauke for adding that tag.
I'm always amazed at the way theories get shoehorned into current events, even by supposedly respected (!) news publications. Trump is no mutant, no mule, no Black Swan. Neither was Hitler. Both were propelled into their positions by a series of events. The only reason this story was published seems to be to take advantage of comparing a figure called 'the Mule' to Trump. Never mind that many of us don't care for the man. Next he'll be calling it 'fake news'.
The ascendance of Trump lays squarely on the populace that voted for him including his opponents who persuaded themselves that they were more in touch with reality than the Donald. To me it appears that both parties were blindsided by themselves. They had owned the game for so long that they couldn't conceive of being overthrown. I definitely would have preferred someone else, but maybe a weaker person wouldn't have stood up to the parties' considerable efforts to destroy an outsider.
The best we could do now would be to learn from this shameful situation, but the press isn't teaching any lessons about it, rather it's trying to re-enthrone the previous status quo. I'm thankful I didn't take the bait and subscribe to the Times when it was on sale last month.
Maybe we're mistaken in looking for a powerful candidate who will bring balance to the Force. We do have a chance to vote for a more representative government Tuesday. See you at the polls.
Moderators feel free to toss this in the Politics pile. I just don't like people misusing Asimov.
Same here.
However, unlike other articles I've seen which use Asimov's name just to draw attention to their non-Asimov point, this article actually spends most of its time focusing on Asimov's works - and that's the basis on which I decided to post it here. I couldn't care less about the politics in this article; I was more interested in the stuff about psychohistory and the Foundation stories.
EDIT: typo.
Haha, I'm not angry at you, Asimov. The Times has many well written articles. I just think Trump's style is being echoed in those who oppose him. I let it get to me in this case and shouldn't have.
This is a good example of what I was complaining about in my recent post on news and articles. This is political content thinly veiled by the connection to a topic of interest.
The political aspect is clear and it's obvious that the tags should reflect that.
Asimov, you expressed confusion at my suggestion that some titles were bad just days ago.
But is the title bad? The article is mostly about Isaac Asimov and his Foundation stories, and the fictional science of psychohistory he invented in those stories. The title fairly reflects that.
Yes, it's a bad title. It is disingenuous and misleading to explore a topic in order to set up a political connection while omitting any indication of that in the headline.
It's also bad to post politically motivated content on a sub about books while choosing not to inform people on that major characteristic of the article through tags.
As you chose the article, you are responsible for how that title represents the information to us.
I didn't even think to put a "politics" tag on this topic because I didn't really pay too much attention to the political aspects of this article. I was more interested in it because of the sections about Asimov's writing, which was the majority of the article. I'm sorry I overlooked that. Thanks to @Bauke for adding that tag.