Article in the New York Times about the daily life in the White House and some of the power interactions there (might have been posted already, didn't spot it on first glance).
Trump and staff rethink tactics after stumbles
As 'entertaining' as this might seem though, let's not let it distract us from the bigger issues, such as the Besty Devos confirmation. Another decision with the potential to do some real damage, in this case to children.
It was posted (hi!) but it garnered no discussion so no issues.
The problem with "Check your Privilege" is that it is a Animal Farm scenario.
Can there be a Orwellian corollary to Godwin's law?
There is a set meaning that everyone understands.
[citation needed]But it is used in a way that warps its meaning. If it isn't used universally, like its meaning, then people won't take it universally.
If you wouldn't say it to a homeless man, a disabled person, a LBGT person, or a woman... Then how much does the definition matter if that isn't how it is being used?
I don't see how this second statement follows the first. The first is a logical statement consistent with certain philosophies of language. However, the second statement is disconnected. You need to elaborate more, and can't just assume that everyone read through the entire thread to find your train of thought (especially since you lot won't listen to reason and bring it somewhere else).
Everyone is equal, but perhaps we are the most equal of all.
No, you see that's a misquote. Everyone reads it as "Some are more equal than others". What was really meant was "misko27 is more equal than others". This was really key to the entire idea you understand, and without it the entire thesis of the book fell apart. There were issues with the publisher where they edited it to the more well-known version due to believing that the average person would not get it, but after conversing with Orwell agreed that it was a far inferior version. However, due to an error, it was already sent into publication by that time, and to edit it would have cost more money than the publisher was willing to pay. It is said that the mistake led to his declining health, and contributed to his death in 1950. With Orwell dead, the publisher had no reason to fix the mistake and chose not to, but in later years often stated his great regret. For what it's worth, misko27 appears in the director's edition. So now here we are.
It is social stuff, and gender/sexuality tends to cover social stuff.
So then why not there...?
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4233415 times)