Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I really don’t know how to be any clearer. I. Make. Money. For. My. Boss’s. G5. NOT. MINE. I FLY ECONOMY.

No. You fly JetBlue. That is sub-economy.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No. You fly JetBlue. That is sub-economy.

I think I may upgrade from JetBlue to Greyhound. Actually Bangkok air today.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I really don’t know how to be any clearer. I. Make. Money. For. My. Boss’s. G5. NOT. MINE. I FLY ECONOMY.

I, ummm, never thought that? I was talking about your boss. Hence, “old guy.”

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I, ummm, never thought that? I was talking about your boss. Hence, “old guy.”

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which I share, like my last comment, mostly to highlight my own ignorance.

Here's the thing: You don't have to continually do this. I understand you're trying to convey a bit of deference on issues you haven't spent your life dealing with, but you overdue it a bit. Just be open to listening and avoid constantly pushing back based on your experiences (see: every conversation I've ever had about the concept of colorblindness).

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I think I may upgrade from JetBlue to Greyhound. Actually Bangkok air today.

Bangkok Airways is better than every regional carrier in this country.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

This is why subrogation is great. No emotions. Known damages (mostly property and BI). No hourly billing. But like PI, you have to get the right cases.


It's not actually great. But it isn't terrible. I don't hate it?

Lucrative, as well, if you get the right sort of insurance-covered disaster near your offices. There's a firm in Philly that transformed from a small insurance defense shop into a national full service provider on the back of huge subrogation recoveries following a massive disaster in the city in the 80s.

But contracts are easier. The he said she said elements and investigation of events gets really complicated. I've always found it funny that lawyers get paid a premium to handle contract issues. Reading and enforcing (or advising on risk of violating) agreements is easy. You got the paper, you got the law that might govern it. The variables are limited. In cases regarding physical events, the variables are endless, and nobody can ever say, "Your version of facts is immaterial. The agreement is integrated." Every bullshitter gets to offer his theory and all must be assessed on credibility.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

She's jaded, and she's way off to compare hack sites to actual news, but some of the comments in this (most notably those about degraded standards and journalists-as-activists) are highly satisfying: https://www.mediaite.com/online/cbss...ional-suicide/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She's jaded, and she's way off to compare hack sites to actual news, but some of the comments in this (most notably those about degraded standards and journalists-as-activists) are highly satisfying: https://www.mediaite.com/online/cbss...ional-suicide/

I love the "career suicide" in the headline, as if truly stupid people haven't gotten rich spouting conservative bs on tv.

And the media isn't "liberal." It's insider. Just watch how they react to medicare for all and the green new deal with concerns about deficits and how we will pay for it.

I also do not get how people on the right have accepted that absolute trash and racism like Breitbart is "conservative." Especially after spending decades saying that sort of things wasn't.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I love the "career suicide" in the headline, as if truly stupid people haven't gotten rich spouting conservative bs on tv.

And the media isn't "liberal." It's insider. Just watch how they react to medicare for all and the green new deal with concerns about deficits and how we will pay for it.

I also do not get how people on the right have accepted that absolute trash and racism like Breitbart is "conservative." Especially after spending decades saying that sort of things wasn't.

She's 47, been a journalist for 30 years, and has a pretty solid resume (save some scandal where she was alleged, dishonestly, with trying to shade a Benghazi story).

I totally think it's nuts to even suggest right wing hack sites are news organizations of any kind. There, she's way off the reservation.

But when she says, "Look, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats... That's just a fact," she makes a solid point. There's a bent in the profession. And that bent is responsible for a lot of the right wing behavior we see today. It's an action/reaction/action/reaction cycle that needs to be broken. And when she says, "Things are largely grey, and not black and white, and the public should be told that," (paraphrasing) she prescribes the cure.

A world in which for eight years, Fox never once said anything positive about Obama, and now for two years, almost all of cable and national news says nothing but negative things about Trump is - objectively - not a media which is reflecting reality.* It's a competition of advocates.

_______
* I'm not suggesting equivalence. Trump is an embarrassing mess. But the angle of almost every story on the guy in the Times or WaPo is to shred him, to make sure you know the author hates him, and you should too, and then report on whatever he did. It's childish. As childish as he is. He deserves it. And media deserves him. We deserve a better media, and a better President.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There, she's way off the reservation.

Just so you know, the cool, PC kids are not using this phrase anymore. I think the objection is minimizing the genocide done to native people or something.

But when she says, "Look, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats... That's just a fact," she makes a solid point.

She does? First, is that true? Second, if it's true, does it matter, especially if they are centrist, corporatist democrats? Does it make any difference if they are employed by a giant corporation?

I will concede that the overwhelming bulk of journalist are "socially liberal." Do we really need more viewpoints on those questions? Isn't it enough that major news organizations go out of their way to give space (Douthat, et al) to opposing opinions? And if the editorial page is intentionally "balanced" then do we really get more "opinions" (her concern) by having "news" outlets that intentionally skew their facts to be "conservative" (by which we really mean racist)?

A world in which for eight years, Fox never once said anything positive about Obama, and now for two years, almost all of cable and national news says nothing but negative things about Trump is - objectively - not a media which is reflecting reality.* It's a competition of advocates.

_______
* I'm not suggesting equivalence. Trump is an embarrassing mess. But the angle of almost every story on the guy in the Times or WaPo is to shred him, to make sure you know the author hates him, and you should too, and then report on whatever he did. It's childish. As childish as he is. He deserves it. And media deserves him. We deserve a better media, and a better President.

Trump's coverage is negative because he is an embarrassing mess. You're suggesting that the media should cover that up?

Or is this where you go find a completely accurate statement and say it's some awful and unnecessary dig?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She's jaded, and she's way off to compare hack sites to actual news, but some of the comments in this (most notably those about degraded standards and journalists-as-activists) are highly satisfying: https://www.mediaite.com/online/cbss...ional-suicide/

Lara Logan is a fucking hack who should have been fired from 60 Minutes for her made-up reporting on Benghazi. And this article about how Trump is covered is horseshit. The fact that the press treats his constant ego-driven, idiotic actions like any other Administration (and the "left-leaning" press consistently reports on what he does like he's a normal human being) is ridiculous.

The fucking news is a joke, but in the opposite way. Both sides are given a voice, except one side fights with selective facts and the other side fights against all facts.

Fucking Lara Logan. FOH. https://www.newsweek.com/lara-logans-mystery-man-162631

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Just so you know, the cool, PC kids are not using this phrase anymore. I think the objection is minimizing the genocide done to native people or something.

Is there a time when a phrase becomes okay, despite nasty origins? Like I was reading a Facebook fight about a bakery that has a "crack cake." The wounds are still too new, and the destruction too great.

I am not troubled by the usage (crack whatever) but also was not impacted at all by the problem.

We had a similar local reaction when a Mailbox type company opened and called itself "Going Postal." I can walk to the Royal Oak Post Office, it is a very specific, very localized harm, but real.

Anyhoo, it's weird how we turn bad into pretty phrases (though the reservation one was likely grounded in prejudice at the start).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Is there a time when a phrase becomes okay, despite nasty origins? Like I was reading a Facebook fight about a bakery that has a "crack cake." The wounds are still too new, and the destruction too great.

I am not troubled by the usage (crack whatever) but also was not impacted at all by the problem.

We had a similar local reaction when a Mailbox type company opened and called itself "Going Postal." I can walk to the Royal Oak Post Office, it is a very specific, very localized harm, but real.

Anyhoo, it's weird how we turn bad into pretty phrases (though the reservation one was likely grounded in prejudice at the start).

It’s all subjective. The phrase I used here you can pretty much get away with using anywhere. No one even really knows what it means anymore.

I’ve heard “three dollar bill“ and “mental” are slurs. Seems a bit ludicrous.

I think almost every sane person knows what sayings one can use and what sayings they cannot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Is there a time when a phrase becomes okay, despite nasty origins?

I don't know. I just try not to say things that I've heard people say are offensive. Sebby's and the crack cake don't personally offend me, but I'll listen about them.

The post office one is in bad taste.