The view from the back row + The Real Obama

[rainbows_]

Journalist and photographer Chris Arnade discusses a country divided by meaning, morality, education, and economics.

In 2016, pundits speculated endlessly on that mysterious place called Trump Country. To many in the Beltway, much of America was a foreign country, to be analyzed statistically rather than in person. Chris Arnade, on the other hand

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

Christopher Hitchens once pointed out that while everyone considered Obama a powerful and memorable speaker, nobody could ever seem to remember a single specific line from any of his orations, a good sign he’d in fact said nothing at all.

No....omg. OMG. Why are supposed ~progressives quoting trash like Hitchens? There are better atheists out there, jfc. Do you guys understand why no one actually following what you're saying trusts that you're aren't shucking bullshit? Because you always seem to come back to quoting bullshit people who are ideologically opposed to your ~progressive philosophy AND YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO REALIZE IT. For fuck's sake.

Anyway this is logically incorrect. Aside from the fact that people CAN remember that Obama has said, because a lot of "remembering" is about public curation, what this says is that Obama isn't really doing any sententiae/soundbites (as their now called). People remember pith, not substance, which is why you have a bunch of people quoting incorrectly from movies so much the incorrect things are now embedded in cultural conscience. I can't be bothered to try to find any logic in an article who seems to think that an engaged public has to get politicians to tell them what to do, and that expecting people to think and act for themselves is cruel, lmao.

I also can't quite imagine being this passive-aggressive, getting called on it, and then deciding that you should simply lower the passive-aggression into fake cheerful bitterness, but I guess I understand the impulse if you can't actually defend on a high level the things you might decide to post when challenged.

[rainbows_]

I also can't quite imagine being this passive-aggressive, getting called on it, and then deciding that you should simply lower the passive-aggression into fake cheerful bitterness, but I guess I understand the impulse if you can't actually defend on a high level the things you might decide to post when challenged.

is this about me lol. I like these articles, however I'm fine with people disagreeing with them, as you have done, as this community has lots of different political opinions. Obviously some people on ONTD didn't like the things I posted, however no one challenged them on a substantive way (which you have done, not only on this post, but on a lot of my other posts, which I really appreciate!), they would rather personally attack me. If someone is calling me a bitch for the things I post, it's probably not wise in engage with them in good faith, or to really engage at all + escalate the situation.

[meadowphoenix]

Here's the thing: people can write whatever they want in their OP notes. But how useful is "I hope you read the articles" bb? You posted them. We assume that wasn't frivolously. We already know you want us to read the articles. No one who isn't reading them is simply mistaking your primary motivation, even if they want to comment on a presumed other motivation. So, I have to assume this is passive-aggressive. Let the mods do their jobs, don't engage with people who aren't being substantive with you at all, even obliquely.

[rainbows_]

It genuinely wasn't meant to be passive aggressive! I wasn't feeling any type of way when posting these articles, my only motivation was that these articles are kinda long, so I wanted to give extra motivation if people wanted to read them (however if people aren't interested in the content, this is completely up to them!).

Let the mods do their jobs, don't engage with people who aren't being substantive with you at all, even obliquely.

i would completely agree with this!

[meadowphoenix]

Alright bb! Keep trucking!