As soon as I had responded on the Poll, I began to reconsider. It's the enthusiasm that made me think "bad people", but then I got to thinking that enthusiasm for Donald Trump either means an extremely bad person, or an extremely confused person. Charity, and the low occurrence rate of conscious evil, make me think that I made a bad selection and was unfair to these persons. Whereas the lukewarm but stalwart supporters of Donald Trump... these are people who see themselves as getting what they want out of Trump, politically or economically, and are aware of the price that is charged in the increase of human misery, death, and damage to democracy. And they consider that price to be acceptable, so long as they believe it is not their own personal condition that will be made worse. So those are really the worse people.
The question is phrased enthusiastic support = bad person. I agree with "Charity, and the low occurrence rate of conscious evil," so not all are bad. I know my parents aren't.
I voted "not necessarily" because I think the ones I don't know are probably just stupid, and certainly most of the ones I do know (who are pretty intelligent) must just be deluded. And some, as you say, are convinced his policies are in line with their own or will benefit them. Presumably you couldn't persuade them to read the latest issue of The Atlantic, in which a dozen or so writers present all the horrifying possible consequences of a Trump reelection.
Agree about the word panties. Obviously made up by a man in the lingerie business. Either jettison it in favor of underpants or lets call everyone's panties.
There is a scene in Anatomy of a Murder where the judge calls the attorneys up for a sidebar, to agree on the word to use for "panties". Um, sorry, I forget what the decision was. But I do recall one suggestion was "step-ins".
I had forgotten about this scene. Love Jimmy Stewart's comment, "I'm a bachelor." And George C. Scott's expression throughout. And we never find out what the French word is.
Allow me to go all metaphysical here and rephrase the poll question. "Would people who enthusiastically support Trump be bad if he weren't around to be supported." I'm afraid if you define "bad" as anti-democratic (in all its many manifestations) then the answer would be "yes," for not all, but far too many. Trump is merely giving these miscreants permission to overtly give voice to, and act on, what are unfortunately abiding and deep-seated feelings about the "other(s)." This underlying groundswell of bias, resentment and grievance is always there --- rising and falling with the years --- waiting only to be tapped by the next would-be authoritarian. "The fault is not in our stars..."
I agree that the casting suggested in the example for Barbie is extremely bad. Whereas I would be fascinated by the idea of making Barbie with Tilda Swinton in practically every major role -- all the Barbies, all the Kens, the CEO of Mattel, America Ferrera's husband, Weird Barbie, and J. Robert Oppenheimer. Tilda can do it all.
I note without comment a sentence from Dear Leader's profile offered up by the new AI-powered search engine, Perplexity --- and I quote: "He is recognized for his serious and humorous writing and has been associated with excreta-related humor." A nifty engine but, if you want to know what Gene and Pat are having for dinner tomorrow before they do, you have to fork over at least $20/mo. for an upgraded version.
As soon as I had responded on the Poll, I began to reconsider. It's the enthusiasm that made me think "bad people", but then I got to thinking that enthusiasm for Donald Trump either means an extremely bad person, or an extremely confused person. Charity, and the low occurrence rate of conscious evil, make me think that I made a bad selection and was unfair to these persons. Whereas the lukewarm but stalwart supporters of Donald Trump... these are people who see themselves as getting what they want out of Trump, politically or economically, and are aware of the price that is charged in the increase of human misery, death, and damage to democracy. And they consider that price to be acceptable, so long as they believe it is not their own personal condition that will be made worse. So those are really the worse people.
The question is phrased enthusiastic support = bad person. I agree with "Charity, and the low occurrence rate of conscious evil," so not all are bad. I know my parents aren't.
I voted "not necessarily" because I think the ones I don't know are probably just stupid, and certainly most of the ones I do know (who are pretty intelligent) must just be deluded. And some, as you say, are convinced his policies are in line with their own or will benefit them. Presumably you couldn't persuade them to read the latest issue of The Atlantic, in which a dozen or so writers present all the horrifying possible consequences of a Trump reelection.
Agree about the word panties. Obviously made up by a man in the lingerie business. Either jettison it in favor of underpants or lets call everyone's panties.
There is a scene in Anatomy of a Murder where the judge calls the attorneys up for a sidebar, to agree on the word to use for "panties". Um, sorry, I forget what the decision was. But I do recall one suggestion was "step-ins".
Okay, I just watched the scene. My memory of "step-ins" was not borne out! But I forgot the line about most French words being suggestive :-)
overlong: https://youtu.be/S2osCWox4_k?si=AFG8MsyBkWLN8-fS
shorter but grainy: https://youtu.be/3Qc25RwjxWc?si=sCKewLBtoXDp8aHI
I had forgotten about this scene. Love Jimmy Stewart's comment, "I'm a bachelor." And George C. Scott's expression throughout. And we never find out what the French word is.
I prefer the informal (and often aspirational...) British, "smalls," which is gender neutral.
Allow me to go all metaphysical here and rephrase the poll question. "Would people who enthusiastically support Trump be bad if he weren't around to be supported." I'm afraid if you define "bad" as anti-democratic (in all its many manifestations) then the answer would be "yes," for not all, but far too many. Trump is merely giving these miscreants permission to overtly give voice to, and act on, what are unfortunately abiding and deep-seated feelings about the "other(s)." This underlying groundswell of bias, resentment and grievance is always there --- rising and falling with the years --- waiting only to be tapped by the next would-be authoritarian. "The fault is not in our stars..."
I agree that the casting suggested in the example for Barbie is extremely bad. Whereas I would be fascinated by the idea of making Barbie with Tilda Swinton in practically every major role -- all the Barbies, all the Kens, the CEO of Mattel, America Ferrera's husband, Weird Barbie, and J. Robert Oppenheimer. Tilda can do it all.
WOODSTUCK just speaks to me. hahahahahaha!
I note without comment a sentence from Dear Leader's profile offered up by the new AI-powered search engine, Perplexity --- and I quote: "He is recognized for his serious and humorous writing and has been associated with excreta-related humor." A nifty engine but, if you want to know what Gene and Pat are having for dinner tomorrow before they do, you have to fork over at least $20/mo. for an upgraded version.
Gene still having tech issues? Much fewer responses than usual.
ETA: he just told us why.
The iPhone thing can't happen in my meetings. Can't have a personal electronic device anywhere at work.
I'd like to add "Someone says, 'It is what it is.'"
"Sorry, I was on mute" (for teleconferences)
"Hot mic!" (also teleconferences)
Inflection point
We'll have to take that discussion offline.
Backpedaling