Stream of unconsciousness? 
One lib rails against the divisiveness of hypermodern play, pleads for a return to the moderate centre ground. Another suggests turning the board sideways so everyone gets to attack the left.
You have to remember the puritanical roots of the country.
The upper/middle/lower class distinctions are not economic:
- upper = rich;
- middle = comfortable;
- lower = poor.
They're instead based on morality:
- upper = blessed;
- middle = virtuous strivers;
- lower = good-for-nothing work-shy losers.
The upper class have been divinely marked for better things. They are never helped. Everything they receive is ordained. The lower class are scum who it would be wrong to ever help, since it would only encourage their inherent unwillingness to work. The middle class, then, are the self-made people who work hard for what they get and obviously deserve a little more, which in self-image terms is basically everyone.
Politicians promising to help the middle class are, therefore, declaring that they will reward the worthy (and punish the unworthy), which is a popular sentiment.
If people are talking about mountains, and someone points out that "this grain of sand is also a rock", how often is that going to be anything other than a distraction from the conversation?
Seriously, describing this as 'pushing back against talking differently' is almost as reductive as the Right's "you want to silence us because we disagree". Scale is important.
Go get yourself blocked. All I had to do was ask. And now I can say anything without them whining about it.
Of course. I'm probably not the only one who thinks you like adding people to lists. Blaming your woes on the Others and treating them differently based on a mark they carry were just two of the clues.
I don't think this is actually a particularly good suggestion. It's too easy to dodge with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It doesn't matter if they lack evidence of presence, because they're not trying to be objective, they're trying to be superior.
It means they think the Political Compass is a Mercator projection.
They're not interested in our Russian disinformation.
Potential struggle-session topic: If you're going to complain about misrepresentations of Sweden, please use the å: Blåhaj (and not say "blah hadge"; "blaw high" would be much better). :cat-trans:
Shouldn't you be more wary of the unexpected, Redshirt?
aebletrae
0 post score0 comment score
joined 2 years ago
This appears to be from a paywalled FT article but the author is given on the Vietnam category page:—
I'm assuming there aren't too many Chris Mullins who are journalists writing about Vietnam and, therefore, he is the former MP with a Wikipedia page that gives this context:—
and
and
This doesn't read like ignorance to me. Like a lawyer prompting a witness, this seems like someone asking the questions that allow the interviewee to give the most effective replies.
I can't read the "reply was devastating" line as being personally devastating to an ignorant journalist, because someone in that position didn't need to write that and put it on show. Instead I read it as being devastating to the naive sentiment, perhaps held by the reader, that Vietnam's only legitimate response was to run to the UN.
The author has an extensive history with the topic and doesn't appear to be blindly anti-Vietnam, so I think you may have the wrong end of the stick here.