Maybe it's because I'm just waking up, but having read the article from the linked tweet I'm not completely sure what point is being made. That McCain was trying to undo work done by his attack...
For this, he was rewarded with a shower of appreciation for doing the bare-ass minimum, such as when he shot down supporters at a town hall in 2008 who attacked then-Senator Barack Obama. (Even that incident is more complicated than you might remember.)
Maybe it's because I'm just waking up, but having read the article from the linked tweet I'm not completely sure what point is being made. That McCain was trying to undo work done by his attack ads? Is that a bad thing?
Overall I agree with the article, though. McCain consistently said one thing and did the other at key legislative moments. As someone strongly opposed to war I'm doubly unimpressed by his voting record. After his experience in Vietnam it's interesting that he would still view war so positively. Maybe this is too speculative, but I wonder if his continuing support of war was a mechanism to protect himself. A way to keep from realizing that the "gooks" weren't the only party to blame for his time as a POW.
It's interesting to me how much we want to define a person on a simple spectrum from good to bad. We all recognize the complexities in each person and the decisions they make. Yet always want to...
It's interesting to me how much we want to define a person on a simple spectrum from good to bad. We all recognize the complexities in each person and the decisions they make. Yet always want to attach a simple sort of good/bad rating to that person in our head. This article wants to look at what McCain's legacy should be versus what it will be. But why does that matter at all? His legacy should just be what he did, and yet what we're all talking and arguing about is what short blurb or synopsis he'll be remembered by. The only time it'll ever matter is when someone makes a comparison based on that synopsis and then someone else comes in to say "nuh, uh! He was actually the opposite!".
I wanted to share this because it's a countervaling view of the man. He's been eulogized by people I respect who point to his military service and time in the Senate as examples of a noble and...
I wanted to share this because it's a countervaling view of the man. He's been eulogized by people I respect who point to his military service and time in the Senate as examples of a noble and deeply held commitment to the country. What I see is a son of an admiral who got an easy pass to jet fighter school, fucking up in ways that would get anyone without those connections moved out of the service quickly. His time in the Senate is full of black marks from his involvement in the Keating Five scandal to rubber stamping every single awful Trump cabinet choice. From his time bombing Vietnamese civilians to his time in the Senate, it seems the great work of his life has been hurting and killing poor people on behalf of the rich. If we want to eulogize him fondly as an analgesic to the era of reality TV politics that he helped usher in, fine, but let's recognize it for what it is.
I am generally against hit pieces after a man's death, because he has no recourse to defend himself, but this article only takes already discussed information and lays it out to counter balance...
I am generally against hit pieces after a man's death, because he has no recourse to defend himself, but this article only takes already discussed information and lays it out to counter balance the prevailing media trend with that taken into context I think it is a fair piece, but it should not be the only piece that defines who McCain was.
I do appreciate you posting it and learning more about what he did with his life. I just don't think it matters how people eulogize him. Either way things end up overly simplified IMO.
I do appreciate you posting it and learning more about what he did with his life. I just don't think it matters how people eulogize him. Either way things end up overly simplified IMO.
Another thing about that "Barack Obama is an Arab" conversation that makes me unimpressed is that McCain told the woman "No ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen..." which, consciously or...
Another thing about that "Barack Obama is an Arab" conversation that makes me unimpressed is that McCain told the woman "No ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen..." which, consciously or subconsciously excludes Arabic people from being "decent, family people" or "citizens."
I truly get what he was trying to say, but that seems like bias to me, implicit or explicit.
I've seen that term a few times on social media, but that's the first time I've seen it used in an article. Can someone please explain to me what concern trolling is?
over a decade of concern trolling about the deficit
I've seen that term a few times on social media, but that's the first time I've seen it used in an article. Can someone please explain to me what concern trolling is?
It's pretending to be concerned about something with the goal of derailing a conversation and converting it to a sophism competition, usually via slippery slope fallacies and whataboutisms. At...
It's pretending to be concerned about something with the goal of derailing a conversation and converting it to a sophism competition, usually via slippery slope fallacies and whataboutisms. At least that is how I understand it!
Edit : Also pretending to support a position but "be concerned about it" when you are really supporting the opposite position.
I think the best definition of pretending to care about an issue to disrupt conversations about the issue. For the GOP during Bush, cutting taxes and starting two wars without an exit plan was...
I think the best definition of pretending to care about an issue to disrupt conversations about the issue. For the GOP during Bush, cutting taxes and starting two wars without an exit plan was great policy, then they suddenly cared about the deficit when Obama was elected, then proved themselves to be liars by being a $1,500,000,000,000 hole in the deficit with the first budget passed under Trump.
Maybe it's because I'm just waking up, but having read the article from the linked tweet I'm not completely sure what point is being made. That McCain was trying to undo work done by his attack ads? Is that a bad thing?
Overall I agree with the article, though. McCain consistently said one thing and did the other at key legislative moments. As someone strongly opposed to war I'm doubly unimpressed by his voting record. After his experience in Vietnam it's interesting that he would still view war so positively. Maybe this is too speculative, but I wonder if his continuing support of war was a mechanism to protect himself. A way to keep from realizing that the "gooks" weren't the only party to blame for his time as a POW.
It's interesting to me how much we want to define a person on a simple spectrum from good to bad. We all recognize the complexities in each person and the decisions they make. Yet always want to attach a simple sort of good/bad rating to that person in our head. This article wants to look at what McCain's legacy should be versus what it will be. But why does that matter at all? His legacy should just be what he did, and yet what we're all talking and arguing about is what short blurb or synopsis he'll be remembered by. The only time it'll ever matter is when someone makes a comparison based on that synopsis and then someone else comes in to say "nuh, uh! He was actually the opposite!".
I wanted to share this because it's a countervaling view of the man. He's been eulogized by people I respect who point to his military service and time in the Senate as examples of a noble and deeply held commitment to the country. What I see is a son of an admiral who got an easy pass to jet fighter school, fucking up in ways that would get anyone without those connections moved out of the service quickly. His time in the Senate is full of black marks from his involvement in the Keating Five scandal to rubber stamping every single awful Trump cabinet choice. From his time bombing Vietnamese civilians to his time in the Senate, it seems the great work of his life has been hurting and killing poor people on behalf of the rich. If we want to eulogize him fondly as an analgesic to the era of reality TV politics that he helped usher in, fine, but let's recognize it for what it is.
I am generally against hit pieces after a man's death, because he has no recourse to defend himself, but this article only takes already discussed information and lays it out to counter balance the prevailing media trend with that taken into context I think it is a fair piece, but it should not be the only piece that defines who McCain was.
I do appreciate you posting it and learning more about what he did with his life. I just don't think it matters how people eulogize him. Either way things end up overly simplified IMO.
Another thing about that "Barack Obama is an Arab" conversation that makes me unimpressed is that McCain told the woman "No ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen..." which, consciously or subconsciously excludes Arabic people from being "decent, family people" or "citizens."
I truly get what he was trying to say, but that seems like bias to me, implicit or explicit.
I've seen that term a few times on social media, but that's the first time I've seen it used in an article. Can someone please explain to me what concern trolling is?
It's pretending to be concerned about something with the goal of derailing a conversation and converting it to a sophism competition, usually via slippery slope fallacies and whataboutisms. At least that is how I understand it!
Edit : Also pretending to support a position but "be concerned about it" when you are really supporting the opposite position.
I think the best definition of pretending to care about an issue to disrupt conversations about the issue. For the GOP during Bush, cutting taxes and starting two wars without an exit plan was great policy, then they suddenly cared about the deficit when Obama was elected, then proved themselves to be liars by being a $1,500,000,000,000 hole in the deficit with the first budget passed under Trump.