On the ground, though, even some of Mr. Bowman’s allies conceded that his campaign was in trouble long before the group got involved, hamstrung by unforced errors, staff churn and strategic missteps.
The biggest took place last fall when Mr. Bowman, in a hurry to get to the Capitol, pulled the fire alarm. He later apologized, but he was charged with a misdemeanor, and the timing, just a week before Oct. 7, could hardly have been worse.
Opposition researchers turned up old blog posts dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories and publicized video of Mr. Bowman calling reports that Hamas sexually abused Israeli women during its attack “propaganda.” (He later apologized.)
Relatively few Democrats in the area stepped up to defend him. Some explained that in four years in office, the congressman had rarely shown interest in getting to know their communities.
Also didn't help being so adamant dismissing claims of all sexual violence on oct 7. He didn't understand his constituents which changed slightly in redistricting, and for some reason the Bernie and AOC rallies occurred like 10 miles outside of his district which was most at risk for primary. Probably doesn't help referring to all people with any sympathy towards Israel as being part of a Zionist regime. Probably should have focused more on domestic issues that got him elected instead of focusing heavily on foreign policy that was divisive in his district.
Ironically doesn't this star wars analogy work the other way. Israel citizens are attacked. A small relatively small amount of civilians die. Then Israel goes commits genocide.
I bought my Seiko snk803 on Amazon for like 66 bucks 10 years ago. Why is this watch now showing up as a 200 dollar watch? Why did the prices go up so much?
Then how do you charge the kid as an adult? If you treat the kid as a child it makes sense to me to look at the parents for negligence. But if you think the kid is legally responsible to be tried as an adult, how do the prosecutors also go after the parents?
I don't understand. Are you saying that this outcome is the outcome a fair legal system would produce? Or is the fair legal system the treatment the rich get?
Don't try to overthink the market. If you are wanting to invest with no plans to spend that money within say 3 to 5 years, just by low expense ratio S&P500 tracking ETFs. My goal isn't to beat the market, just ride with the market benchmarks as best as possible.
I don't disagree that language needs to evolve and change. But I don't know that swapping the words does anything to change the unconscious bias. I think a racist is still racist regardless of the language they use being explicitly about race, using coded words like "urban" or some other euphemism, etc. On the other hand I think someone's white grandmother that donates to orgs like the ACLU or NAACP says something like "we need to do more to assist colored kids get into college, have more opportunity...." is using antiquated language, but working in the right direction of positive social change.
Well a draft is for times of war. But mandatory military service in a democracy... Does that lead to anti war policies. If every family had skin in the game knowing their kid could go to war, does that help elect anti war politicians?
So if a criminal justice department adopts the style guide and language but keeps the exact same practices, that makes a difference for reform somehow?
Equity-language guides are proliferating among some of the country’s leading institutions, particularly nonprofits. The American Cancer Society has one. So do the American Heart Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Recreation and Park Association, the Columbia University School of Professional Studies, and the University of Washington. The words these guides recommend or reject are sometimes exactly the same, justified in nearly identical language. This is because most of the guides draw on the same sources from activist organizations: A Progressive’s Style Guide, the Racial Equity Tools glossary, and a couple of others. The guides also cite one another.
It's calling out that a handful of sources that are cited in profession specific style guides that have referential loops, and are managed by a small portion of people. Based on the names, of these sources, is the activist nature appropriate for general style guides, or is it a dangerous tool of politicization of language? I identify as a leftist and progressive, but I don't think partisan orgs with this much influence and questionable methodology should set standards. The Progressive's Style Guide links websites like this as sources ( which is basically one journalist's opinion blog post): https://grist.org/climate-energy/how-to-write-about-climate-pull-up-a-barstool/
Or this table from the source. How is "genderfuck" a professionally acceptable term, but "sexual preference" a taboo. Or slut or slut shaming is allowed, but only in certain context? Or we can't talk about metaphors of spirit animal since that is appropriation, but for gender two spirit is okay to appropriate? How does a lay person navigate this minefield of discourse without a masters degree and staying up on style guide updates?
Or this page on discussing Israel. Personal politics aside, this style guide has an obvious political agenda, right?
As for the euphemism treadmill aspects, we’ll never outrun that; language and meanings are always changing, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t. We’ll always need to be changing our language with time as language itself evolves if we want to have the same or similar meanings as before.
Yes, but as the author points out.
Although the guides refer to language “evolving,” these changes are a revolution from above. They haven’t emerged organically from the shifting linguistic habits of large numbers of people.
Something has changed recently where the language change has been too top down, and seemingly more about creating pleasant sounding euphemisms that either mean the same thing or obfuscate the meaning to make the term less useful.
Is this that crazy though for AI since Hamilton the musical? All founding fathers were portrayed as people of color in the casting. Google image search for Alexander Hamilton is pulling a decent number of pictures from the musical cast.
I had a very anti-war sociology professor that had been protesting since vietnam. Despite his qualms with military industrial complex, he would always say that the the military is the last vestige of upward mobility in the united states as it's one of the few places where you can enter a playing field that is somewhat leveled for new entries, have merit impact your growth, and get access things like subsidized education. Sure there's still racism, sexism, etc. but in terms of economic mobility it provides a decent ladder.
I understand. But I think from the get go of the announcement of closing the API's, Reddit had always discussed not wanting to be harvested by AI tech for free. The point is they saw the value of their user content, and wanted to establish a model to profit on that. This announcement is just that; they now have something in market to allow AI to be trained on it's user generated content.
This jezebel garbage is pretty rage baity. The NYT had a much better and informative take: What Jamaal Bowman’s Loss Means for the Left https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/nyregion/jamaal-bowman-squad-left.html
And
Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/nyregion/bowman-latimer-house-new-york.html