i was just complaining about this to a friend a few days ago. the punditry is obsessed with this retreat to discourse, where there is an inability to examine the actual phenomenon itself. instead, they engage in language games or treat politics as a question of definitions
Reposted from
m
seeing a lot of too-cool-for-it takes pointing out that the US has backed awful dictators before. it's certainly true that this country has blood on its hands, but this is another example of pundits treating trump like a literary foil instead of an actual president who is doing bad things.
Comments
this is how punditry sustains itself
These people need to wake up.
Talking this way shows a type of privilege I can't stand.
https://pressthink.org/2020/09/you-might-not-like-it-but-its-smart-politics/
There are no more stakes to anything other than which side is winning. No more morales, suffering or implications.
It’s as if newspapers have been taken over by the sports pages of the 1990’s New York tabloids
Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons targeted on the United States - they gave up nuclear weapons as an intentional act to join the west - and in exchange for security guarantees from the United States
It’s a lvl of separation we are regularly dealing with as a country.
…TREMENDOUSLY
"Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change" is a whole ass thing, and none of that played with words. We did some shit, and not all of it good. And we need to have a reckoning about all of it.
Trumps a bad dude,doing evil things. Just call it that.
The Shah was preferable to Khomeini. Chiang Kai-shek was preferable to Mao. These are pretty indisputable.
There is no way Putin is preferable to the alternative.