rwhitisissle

Democrats are so ego driven that they think death itself cannot claim them at a moment's notice. I think this is part of the facade of the Democrats people are, unfortunately, going to respond to this election: Democrats, as a party, like to present themselves as being all about compromise and caring. Getting things done for the #AmericanPeople. But when it's time to step down and let others shine in the limelight because you've had your time and the physical realities of age are something you have to acknowledge, or when there might be a better candidate for an election and you have to make the difficult choice of not getting what you want for the good of the country, that fucking sentiment disappears like a fart in the wind.

How do you figure? If they're in power and let the government, they get blamed for it. Call the bluff. Let the government fail. If it's in a position where one political entity gets to hold it hostage in perpetuity, it's functionally unsalvageable and broken by design.

I'm gonna go ahead and ask the obvious question: if it's so effective when the Republicans do it, then....you can fill in the rest.

Third Way was originally a think tank architected by Wall Street for the sole purpose of committing ideological false flag operations and grossly misrepresenting academic findings for the benefit of their corporate overlords. They once released a study under a headline that basically stated that because of Democrat economic policies, the gender wage was falling. And they were technically right. It was falling. It was falling because men were getting paid less and women were making the same amount.

Now, remember kids: if an unpopular Democratic presidential candidate doesn't win an election, who do we blame? That's right: literally everyone to the left of us. That's how you make progress in a country, after all: Demonizing the left in the same way conservatives do. And why do we do that? That's right, it's because we're secretly conservative, too. We just tolerate gay people more, but don't want actual social or economic progress. Repeat after me: "unfavorable political outcomes are everyone else's fault but mine!"

Well, I guess that's why I said "in this day and age" and not "always."

Luckily, in this day and age, clean water is both cheap and plentiful. Unless you're in one of the places where it isn't. But in that case I doubt you have access to room temperature beer, either.

To some extent, the Democrats are playing chicken with Trump's eventual re-election. They don't want to actually "seize" power in the same way that Republicans do. They want the pendulum to swing back and forth so they can keep getting re-elected and keep playing that old game of kickball with Republicans. Dems win some. Republicans win some. Everybody gets to complain about the opposition and do nothing. That Republicans seem to be updating their modus operandi from playing kickball to playing what seems to be "king of the hill, but with knives" has not quite dawned on the Democratic party collectively yet.

Not the best, but better than nothing.

We have very different opinions about the fundamental nature of "old, room temperature, completely flat" beer, if nothing else.

This is a textbook strawman argument. The foundational premise of this argument is that the only reason someone could have for opposing a tool like this is because of a desire to exclude others from accessing specific works that they believe hold a specific degree of cultural capital, and, as such, anyone who makes an argument against this technology must, therefore, automatically hold this position.

Which is not the case. One argument against this technology is that it at best mangles and at worst destroys the underlying meaning and significance of a work of literature. Your argument seems to consider the form of language of a work of literature as window dressing to it - something with far less meaning or significance than its summarizable content. But for many works of literature, it's not. Some things are written to be difficult. Some things are written to be accessible purely to adults with a complex grasp of the language. Some thing are meant to challenge a reader. That's why every year in school you're assigned slightly harder books - because learning is a process of continually being challenged. And this is a tool that actively seeks to negate that. If you're learning English and you want to read a famously difficult English novel, why reduce its complexity to the point where you're not even reading the actual novel instead of just reading a version translated into your native language? Or get two copies, one in English and one in your native language, side by side and compare the language in each? A good translation by a skilled translator can preserve most, if not all, of the artistic value of the original, as opposed to this, where a huge chunk of the underlying artistic value of the work itself has been drained from it like blood from a slaughtered animal.

As such, the issue is not "wanting to keep the work out of the hands of ESL learners or children." It's about not wanting the underlying work diminished.

I would also argue that this is a tool ripe for exploitation in the worst ways possible, as "simplification" is a stone's throw from censorship. Some group doesn't like the inclusion of LGBT characters in a famous book? Use this AI tool to programmatically erase any mention of them. Some group doesn't like that a book is critical of capitalism? Suddenly, large parts read like a parable straight from the mouth of Supply-Side Jesus. I know, let's cut out all mention of race in Huckleberry Finn. Now it's just a fun story about a kid and his..."friend"...traveling down the Mississippi! And if you were reading a novel in this way for the first time, you probably wouldn't have any idea that this wasn't what the author themselves had written and that you were reading a warped, ideologically twisted homunculus of the original.

"The highs were high and the lows were low. Specifically for the two cities and the people in them that this novel is about."

This is the thing. People like to blame Berniebros and whatnot for Clinton's loss in '16, but the reality is that the centrist Democrats that vote for the party's corporate-backed candidate wouldn't vote for a progressive one, so even if Bernie had won the nomination, he probably still would have lost because he would have lost the support of these DNC hardliners. I heard people literally say in '16 that if Bernie had somehow won the nomination over Hillary that they would have just stayed home. It's wild to think how ideologically balkanized the Democratic party is, with so many people fervently belonging to the leftist minority that holds their nose every election to vote for another mediocre person whose best attributes are being "not an outright fascist" versus the people who will never vote for a truly left wing candidate because they're fiscally conservative but socially liberal and just allergic to compromising in the same way that they've forced the leftists in their party to do since forever.