Egan’s article was direct and clear. She reported on how many Ds think the party needs to invest more time and money into Southern states. There is no reason you or anyone else should have difficulty understating the point of this article. Also, your suggestion that Egan was “assuming to be infallible” is pure nonsense.
Egan’s article was direct and clear. She reported on how many Ds think the party needs to invest more time and money into Southern states. There is no reason you or anyone else should have difficulty understating the point of this article. Also, your suggestion that Egan was “assuming to be infallible” is pure nonsense.
You seem to not count on me being an idiot or incapable of understanding Egan. I am glad that you seem to understand what she is writing. What may be direct and clear to you may not be necessarily so to others. I respect your disagreement with me, but why must you defend her opinion? Do you fear that my opinion may be right on point? Is it not typical of freedom exercising the right to disagree? I am not asking you to do it, but if you look back at what I wrote, you will see many more questions than affirmations. My honest mistake was thinking that I needed to write anything or that she or one of her assistants would read my comment. Thanks for making me think further about the social role of websites like The Bulwark.
Your writing and hypothesizing make me confident that you are not an idiot.
Likewise, I believe 99% of Bulwark subscribers can understand this article.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with Egan. What I have a problem with are your points.
I didn't agree or disagree with any of Egan's opinions. I believe she reported on the recent Brennan Center analysis and how Democratic politicians are reacting to it.
Also, I saw no evidence of her "assuming infallibility".
Let me apologize, beforehand, for having wrote such a lengthy reply, but I failed to shorten it. I agree that 99% of Bulwark subscribers may understand Ms. Egan’s article as you do. I also know, however, that Bulwark journalists and contributors should not limit the scope of what they publish to high-culture readers. Looking at what the so-called «low culture» did, as claimed in a recent article in The Bulwark, «low culture» voters might successfully sink the US democracy. (Cf. Jim Swift's recent article, dated 22 March in The Bulwark, titled: «The Low Culture that Brought Us Trump.» Even though I'm not a political expert, I'm still willing to share my thoughts. In my view, there is nothing against Trumpian totalitarianism that should not be considered worth divulging and enouncing in a style as direct and clear as simplicity and directness demand for the sake of effective communication. If I did not express my thoughts adequately, I apologize. Defending or supporting someone’s affirmation (or correct to affirm), in my view, implies at least partial agreement. Otherwise, spreading confusion is never justified because reducing or misusing others' rightful access to the best expression of the truth in most circumstances constitutes a crime against the First Amendment (Despite Scalia's and others' interpretations, such as Trump's). Otherwise, the «so help me God» prayer may be hypocritical. Faking news, overtly lying, defaming, or using ill-intended speech to profit or influence others must be criminally punishable, although it is often not. In conclusion, I believe that expressing opinions in public or publishing must never take for granted the differences in perspectives or circumstances. Thus, divulging the truth as it is perceived demands clarity and intentionality, citing sources used as referents, making a good-faith effort not to mislead, and ensuring that everything said is verifiable. There are differences in publications, I agree, but I think that 99% of the readership or audience interprets in a particular way, which one considers the right way, while the 1% supposed to disagree is discriminated against. Such a position might be explainable, but in my view, not justifiable enough, by the arguable morality law of the Principle of double-effect (Cf., for instance, T. A. Cavanaugh, Double-Effect Reasoning, Doing Good And Avoiding Evil, New York, Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Theological Ethics, 2006; Cornelius J. Van Der Poel, «The Principle of Double Effect» in Absolutes in moral theology? Curran, Charles E. 1968, 186-210. Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive, accessed 31 March 2025.
Egan’s article was direct and clear. She reported on how many Ds think the party needs to invest more time and money into Southern states. There is no reason you or anyone else should have difficulty understating the point of this article. Also, your suggestion that Egan was “assuming to be infallible” is pure nonsense.
You seem to not count on me being an idiot or incapable of understanding Egan. I am glad that you seem to understand what she is writing. What may be direct and clear to you may not be necessarily so to others. I respect your disagreement with me, but why must you defend her opinion? Do you fear that my opinion may be right on point? Is it not typical of freedom exercising the right to disagree? I am not asking you to do it, but if you look back at what I wrote, you will see many more questions than affirmations. My honest mistake was thinking that I needed to write anything or that she or one of her assistants would read my comment. Thanks for making me think further about the social role of websites like The Bulwark.
Your writing and hypothesizing make me confident that you are not an idiot.
Likewise, I believe 99% of Bulwark subscribers can understand this article.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with Egan. What I have a problem with are your points.
I didn't agree or disagree with any of Egan's opinions. I believe she reported on the recent Brennan Center analysis and how Democratic politicians are reacting to it.
Also, I saw no evidence of her "assuming infallibility".
Let me apologize, beforehand, for having wrote such a lengthy reply, but I failed to shorten it. I agree that 99% of Bulwark subscribers may understand Ms. Egan’s article as you do. I also know, however, that Bulwark journalists and contributors should not limit the scope of what they publish to high-culture readers. Looking at what the so-called «low culture» did, as claimed in a recent article in The Bulwark, «low culture» voters might successfully sink the US democracy. (Cf. Jim Swift's recent article, dated 22 March in The Bulwark, titled: «The Low Culture that Brought Us Trump.» Even though I'm not a political expert, I'm still willing to share my thoughts. In my view, there is nothing against Trumpian totalitarianism that should not be considered worth divulging and enouncing in a style as direct and clear as simplicity and directness demand for the sake of effective communication. If I did not express my thoughts adequately, I apologize. Defending or supporting someone’s affirmation (or correct to affirm), in my view, implies at least partial agreement. Otherwise, spreading confusion is never justified because reducing or misusing others' rightful access to the best expression of the truth in most circumstances constitutes a crime against the First Amendment (Despite Scalia's and others' interpretations, such as Trump's). Otherwise, the «so help me God» prayer may be hypocritical. Faking news, overtly lying, defaming, or using ill-intended speech to profit or influence others must be criminally punishable, although it is often not. In conclusion, I believe that expressing opinions in public or publishing must never take for granted the differences in perspectives or circumstances. Thus, divulging the truth as it is perceived demands clarity and intentionality, citing sources used as referents, making a good-faith effort not to mislead, and ensuring that everything said is verifiable. There are differences in publications, I agree, but I think that 99% of the readership or audience interprets in a particular way, which one considers the right way, while the 1% supposed to disagree is discriminated against. Such a position might be explainable, but in my view, not justifiable enough, by the arguable morality law of the Principle of double-effect (Cf., for instance, T. A. Cavanaugh, Double-Effect Reasoning, Doing Good And Avoiding Evil, New York, Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Theological Ethics, 2006; Cornelius J. Van Der Poel, «The Principle of Double Effect» in Absolutes in moral theology? Curran, Charles E. 1968, 186-210. Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive, accessed 31 March 2025.