It just reeks to me of him being jealous of people who don’t have kids and/or him regretting being a parent?
Perhaps. I don’t think there’s much here to substantiate that reading though, even with the context. I’d want a bit more evidence if I were to incorporate that into my appraisal of him.
You can judge someone to be morally repugnant without interpreting everything they say/do as an extension of the things that make them repugnant. It doesn’t lessen the repugnance.
This has nothing to do with going easy on JD. It has to do with the things we chose to criticize on principle. It’s about who we choose to be. You gave two great examples of things we should judge him for. I’m happy to focus on those and the next oppressive thing he says. If you want to be someone who criticizes parents for getting exasperated by their kids, that’s your perogative, but that’s not me and I don’t think people should.
Might be an unpopular opinion While JD has said plenty of horrible things, this reads more like someone relating how they felt in the moment than reciting what was actually said. I’m sure most parents have felt this way at some point. We don’t need to make this mole hill into a mountain. There’s already a whole mountain range of his shit that’s actually egregious.
You’re literally advocating for stereotyping people according to those immutable characteristics. Disgusting.
Nice try, but no. That’s really not what I was saying. The conversation is about how environmental context (culture, history, positionality) influences experiences and how individuals with different experiences can contribute uniquely.
I thought diversity was strength. Guess it’s instead “diversity specifically of the types I define is strength, provided it’s my unique definition of strength (read: intellectual homogeneity)”.
Diversity has its strengths and weaknesses depending on context. For example ethno nationalism can lead to powerful states of a kind, but as an ideology it is inherently oppressive and dehumanizing, so I’d argue it’s ethically wrong. Being a particular race or gender is never ethically wrong, but ideologies certainly can be.
More thinly-veiled bigotry, essentially saying that race and gender determine ideology. Gross.
Again, deliberately misinterpreting the statement. Nobody is talking about race/sex being deterministic of ideology and your little trap conflating social groups and individual identity is transparent and silly.
You fail troll.
They don’t care about walking anything back. They don’t have consequences because their voter base always backs them. They will say whatever they think will work in the moment and then move on to the next double think. Literally taking 1984 for a manual.
Differences like race/sex being only “superficial” and therefore unimportant is a disingenuous strawman. These attributes are also associated with substantial differences in experience, epistemologies, and even ideologies (white feminists can differ in ideology from black and Asian feminists), all of which can productively contribute to more and better solutions than if those diversities were not present.
Ideological diversity while certainly beneficial, can also hamper collaboration. Especially when one ideology dehumanized or embodies an existential threat to other members of the team. Some shared ideology around shared humanity and collaboration is needed right. Relatedly, a single ideology amongst one group can also be a point of productive focus. For example anti-abortion movements or abolishing slavery.
The makeup of the best team for the best jobs depends on the project as well, whether it’s a political science textbook, a cross-cultural advertising campaign, or a piece of universal design. A team with some diversity along ideological, cultural, gendered lines while also sharing commonalities can be better equipped to tackle a range of problems by mitigating glaring gaps
I don’t know why you’re drawing this line between ideology, race, and gender. Shit is intersectional.
Here is your example. We have whole institutions dedicated to diversity of ideology. It’s called Academia. Diversity of ideology is the OG diversity. It’s the vanilla default status quo of diversity.
I don’t believe you.
In this thread: There are two types of people in this world: good people and bad people.
“Don’t we try to categorize everything though”
That sounds like a you problem :P
Enter constructivist relativism
You can have a surge of support while still behind… That’s how you catch up! They are just starting in Florida. Not sure if they can make up the large gap, but they damn well better try!
That’s a fair point on item selection. You get the major brands that are better about getting their supply chains. So the overall proportion is different, though still a significant problem.
My point was more about buying the same cheap jacket on Amazon as you’d find on Temu or AliExpress, which is what I see most of on Amazon.
Ah, I see. I haven’t paid much attention to Temu ads, my perception of it from the website was just AliExpress with fewer options but faster shipping.
I don’t get it, how is Temu a scam and AliExpress isn’t? They seem like the same thing, just an online marketplace for cheap shit with campy wild advertising. I actually prefer the shitty exaggerated product descriptions. It’s easier to gauge what I’ll be actually getting. It’s harder with better produced advertising coughRayconcough
Because the headline frames it as a purely Temu problem and with Temu-exclusive products, when all these other marketplaces should be included as they sell the same things. They should have compared them with other marketplaces as well to show whether or not it’s a broader “online marketplace” problem.
Sure, but Donald Trump is even less smart and even more off-putting. Any extra time of him speaking would be a positive for her campaign.
Yet that doesn’t seem to detract from the reality that Trump resonates with a significant proportion of voters. I am certainly seeing genuine enthusiasm for Harris as well. Neither of these points have too much to do with how they would perform in a debate against each other on grounds of argument. Certainly respective optics will matter, but I feel like Trump’s optics have already shed the folks he’s going to lose, with very few hesitant conservatives remaining and many fanatics who will vote for him no matter which lines he crosses
It’s not about whether or not the meme is dismissive of philosophy. It’s that the writer clearly doesn’t understand the basics of these fields and the kinds of questions they ask/answer, including science. Heck metaphysics isn’t even a separate field, it’s a sub-field of philosophy.
Sure, but that wasn’t the question.
There is no country, democratic or authoritarian, on this planet that currently doesn’t rely to some extent on exploited, indentured, or enslaved non-citizens, either domestic or abroad.
That highlights the point precisely. Ukraine is targeting Russian troops, i.e. legitimate military targets. Hamas targets civilians and uses civilians as human shields. The IDF doesnt care how many civilians they have to go through to get to Hamas.
Again, if we read it as he literally said that, then sure I’d agree the behaviour is not okay. Given the context of the quote, I’d want more evidence to take that quote literally.