I want to be polite, and I don't want to be tossed, but I really disagree with the premise of "he's stupid, that's not true!" What Licht's doing is giving a set of conditions that, if they *were* true, justifies liberals joining forces with conservatives in a consensus course of action to preserve the American project. Think the 1980s and 1990s, when there was broad cultural consensus that the War on Drugs/Tough on Crime was a good thing, that gay people dying of AIDS was basically fine, and that globalization and union busting were the key to a prosperous future.
Chris Licht is not an idiot or delusional. He is a fascist. When someone says "transgender people are groomers", and that's basically what he's saying with more polite language around "concern", they're not saying it as a statement of fact, or even a belief. They're saying it to justify what they are about to do. As Sartre said in the 1930s: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity
After watching at least 7 years of people like this successfully getting their agenda enacted through government at every level, from Atlanta's Cop City to the debt ceiling, I'm tired of articles that encourage people to treat them as clowns. They are winning. And the fascists don't care if they're unpopular as long as they have the monopoly on brute force and stay winning.
I feel like he’s right that “‘Defund the police’ would’ve been covered differently if newsrooms were filled with people who had lived in public housing” but for completely the wrong reason. People who have lived in public housing probably know how often police just make situations worse.
"...divisive issue of which there is a Venn diagram that this country can agree on, if we get there with facts."
JFC, are we still doing this? One entire half of our political system has rapidly descended into full-on authoritarianism, but if we just show them "FACTS" we can all get along! Wow, I wonder why that hasn't been tried yet? Also, it's infuriating that this quote comes in a block about trans folks. Again, one side of that "debate" doesn't recognize their humanity or right to live. But please tell me more about how our language is too divisive to placate the bigots.
I've said this before but it bears repeating: The day that Amy Goodman is invited on a talking head chat show or a "on the one hand/on the other" piece on NPR is the day I will believe in the liberally-biased media.
Never ceases to make me laugh how dumb these people are. Unfathomable levels of wealth, privilege, and access to resources. And yet I wouldn’t count on this moron to lead me out of a paper bag.
I want to be polite, and I don't want to be tossed, but I really disagree with the premise of "he's stupid, that's not true!" What Licht's doing is giving a set of conditions that, if they *were* true, justifies liberals joining forces with conservatives in a consensus course of action to preserve the American project. Think the 1980s and 1990s, when there was broad cultural consensus that the War on Drugs/Tough on Crime was a good thing, that gay people dying of AIDS was basically fine, and that globalization and union busting were the key to a prosperous future.
Chris Licht is not an idiot or delusional. He is a fascist. When someone says "transgender people are groomers", and that's basically what he's saying with more polite language around "concern", they're not saying it as a statement of fact, or even a belief. They're saying it to justify what they are about to do. As Sartre said in the 1930s: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity
After watching at least 7 years of people like this successfully getting their agenda enacted through government at every level, from Atlanta's Cop City to the debt ceiling, I'm tired of articles that encourage people to treat them as clowns. They are winning. And the fascists don't care if they're unpopular as long as they have the monopoly on brute force and stay winning.
[screaming internally] Great piece, as usual!
I feel like he’s right that “‘Defund the police’ would’ve been covered differently if newsrooms were filled with people who had lived in public housing” but for completely the wrong reason. People who have lived in public housing probably know how often police just make situations worse.
"...divisive issue of which there is a Venn diagram that this country can agree on, if we get there with facts."
JFC, are we still doing this? One entire half of our political system has rapidly descended into full-on authoritarianism, but if we just show them "FACTS" we can all get along! Wow, I wonder why that hasn't been tried yet? Also, it's infuriating that this quote comes in a block about trans folks. Again, one side of that "debate" doesn't recognize their humanity or right to live. But please tell me more about how our language is too divisive to placate the bigots.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaand he’s gone
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1666427306867322880?s=46&t=T59se9Gplrm38WnSf5UCyA
I've said this before but it bears repeating: The day that Amy Goodman is invited on a talking head chat show or a "on the one hand/on the other" piece on NPR is the day I will believe in the liberally-biased media.
And not a moment before that.
Never ceases to make me laugh how dumb these people are. Unfathomable levels of wealth, privilege, and access to resources. And yet I wouldn’t count on this moron to lead me out of a paper bag.