there are a lot of people working in the government right now who want to intentionally trigger an apocalypse to create the conditions for the return of jesus christ and I know how crazy that sounds but its absolutely true

Definitely the first State of the Union where the president talked about the military killing unarmed fishermen as a laugh line

part of why we are driving ICE absolutely mad is that we are using tactics that do not really permit them to legally arrest us. they cannot operate the way they want to operate when we have eyes on them.

they want to be a secret police and we simply will not let them be secret

absolutely nothing discredits “longtermism” more than how much of these freaks are only belatedly realizing how much of a mistake it was to bandwagon with Trump

Well, I guess my personal opinion is that, even in shitposts, we should hold ourselves to *higher* standards than whatever the fuck it is the Atlantic does actually. You clearly know that if you were being published in the Atlantic you could say whatever you want as long as it’s vaguely on brand.

And speaking of bad writing: I should not have written “she clearly thinks” the family should have the choice. Only that she clearly states that they were denied it.

I’m familiar with “to be sure” lines, and definitely see them everywhere already. I don’t necessarily agree that’s what this is. But as I’ve said in other replies, I think it’s fair to doubt her sincerity when she says it. I basically think it’s a bad piece, *and* I think it’s being misrepresented.

I think it’s completely reasonable to doubt her sincerity. But I think it’s important to criticize the piece she actually wrote and not a caricature of the piece that was reconstructed by extrapolating from its most offensive few sentences. Which is what I see happening.

Yeah, I just disagree about that last part. I think if you’re interested in discrediting Liz Bruenig, then assuming the worst and denouncing her for what you assume her position to be is counterproductive. It will be a satisfying sermon for the choir, but discredit you in the eyes of the unconverted

To clarify: I don’t share your opinion as to the absolute degree of ghoulishness, but it was certainly phrased callously and I do think it’s entirely fair to question the sincerity of the family consent piece given her overall bad track record on the issue.

I think that’s reasonable. I also think, having looked at a lot of the other replies and quote tweets, that the selective cropping has led a lot of people down a path of boxing with a straw-man version of the article. Which then makes the criticism seem hollow to people who read the whole thing. IMO

Powerful counterpoint, thanks for your input.

FWIW, I think it’s a badly written article that doesn’t do a very good making the points it seems to be trying to make. I also think Bruenig is completely and utterly wrong about abortion. But OP’s screenshot misrepresents her position. I think that’s bad and makes the criticism look disingenuous.

I mean, my assumption going in was that would be the ground on which Bruenig would like to fight. And OP’s screenshot reinforces the idea. But if that were the case, why would she follow up by saying the family was denied a choice *and* that they are in the best position to speak on Smith’s behalf?

Yeah, it’s not a very well written article. Still, I think it’s bad to misrepresent people’s positions and lie about what they believe even if they’re people we disagree with. (As I do with Bruenig: she is completely and utterly wrong about abortion.)

Screenshot of paragraph ending with “Emory did deny Smith’s family the opportunity to decide whether she ought to be kept on life support, despite the fact that they were most equipped to advocate for Smith’s own wishes in her stead. In that respect, there really was a meaningful abrogation of choice.”

Yes, I agree. And based on the rest of the paragraph, which was cropped out, so does Bruenig…

Screenshot of paragraph ending with “Emory did deny Smith’s family the opportunity to decide whether she ought to be kept on life support, despite the fact that they were most equipped to advocate for Smith’s own wishes in her stead. In that respect, there really was a meaningful abrogation of choice.”

Sure, but I also think Valenti’s cropping choice gives a pretty warped view of what Bruenig was actually saying. Based on the rest of the paragraph, she clearly thinks Smith’s family should have been given the opportunity to choose. In the absence of an advance directive, that seems correct, no?

Notice how Super Mario and all his supposed “enemies” are happy to get together and go go-kart racing? Wake up. It’s all kayfabe

(through clenched teeth)

issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding conservative columnists david brooks and bret stephens. you do, under some circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"

can't normalize without normies. make your peace with this now

Elon Musk has been a walking SEC violation for a decade and no one cared. The entire Trump era could have been avoided if the US took white collar crime anywhere near as seriously as it does low level drug crime.

wow, r/neoliberal is really going off on Schumer

Only takes 23 Senate Democrats to remove Chuck Schumer from leadership and replace him with someone willing to fight

having been in many rooms where protests are initially orchestrated, i can say sights like this are a highly desired outcome. protests are inherently theatrical & part of that is triggering state actors to unwittingly adopt the role they were born to play.

THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG: Plaintiffs in one lawsuit against DOGE have alerted the court to President Trump's remarks tonight calling Elon Musk the "head" of the office.

Trump: I’m going to kill your loved ones.
Democrats: [wave placard]
Trump: Especially the black ones. And the gay ones
Democrats: [strenuously wave placards]