Donald Trump
Comments
-
Gulags were really awful.focuszing723 said:Can we have a quick synopsis on the gulags? I want to give the book a miss.
0 -
Cheers.rick_chasey said:
Gulags were really awful.focuszing723 said:Can we have a quick synopsis on the gulags? I want to give the book a miss.
0 -
You are prone to hero worship, RC.rick_chasey said:Lol like you could write anything like her. You should be so lucky.
0 -
First.Aspect said:
You are prone to hero worship, RC.rick_chasey said:Lol like you could write anything like her. You should be so lucky.
It's a very long way from being bilge, and though I can see what she's getting at, she does chop up her phrases so it makes it quite hard work at times. Like Thomas Hardy, I think she quite enjoys writing in a circuitous fashion, and showing off her wordsmithery.
"They will remain, nursing their grievances, feverishly posting on social media, angrily listening to Tucker Carlson—the Fox News host has just told them that the federal troops in Washington, D.C., are “not there for your safety” but because Democrats want to send a “message about power”—and energetically running for office.
...you have to hold over the "They will remain," over the next 44 words before you get the "and energetically running for office" in order to close that phrase. And it's not really clear what sort of 'remain' that is either.
I do wish they wouldn't capitalise after colons.0 -
Bloody remainers- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Synopsisfocuszing723 said:Can we have a quick synopsis on the gulags? I want to give the book a miss.
This landmark book uncovers for the first time in detail one of the greatest horrors of the twentieth century: the vast system of Soviet camps that were responsible for the deaths of countless millions. "Gulag" is the only major history in any language to draw together the mass of memoirs and writings on the Soviet camps that have been published in Russia and the West. Using these, as well as her own original research in NKVD archives and interviews with survivors, Anne Applebaum has written a fully documented history of the camp system: from its origins under the tsars, to its colossal expansion under Stalin's reign of terror, its zenith in the late 1940s and eventual collapse in the era of glasnost. It is a gigantic feat of investigation, synthesis and moral reckoning.
0 -
It isn't wordsmithery to disgourge the contents of your brain without editing it with some attempt at clarity.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
You are prone to hero worship, RC.rick_chasey said:Lol like you could write anything like her. You should be so lucky.
It's a very long way from being bilge, and though I can see what she's getting at, she does chop up her phrases so it makes it quite hard work at times. Like Thomas Hardy, I think she quite enjoys writing in a circuitous fashion, and showing off her wordsmithery.
"They will remain, nursing their grievances, feverishly posting on social media, angrily listening to Tucker Carlson—the Fox News host has just told them that the federal troops in Washington, D.C., are “not there for your safety” but because Democrats want to send a “message about power”—and energetically running for office.
...you have to hold over the "They will remain," over the next 44 words before you get the "and energetically running for office" in order to close that phrase. And it's not really clear what sort of 'remain' that is either.
I do wish they wouldn't capitalise after colons.0 -
-
TheBigBean said:
Synopsisfocuszing723 said:Can we have a quick synopsis on the gulags? I want to give the book a miss.
This landmark book uncovers for the first time in detail one of the greatest horrors of the twentieth century: the vast system of Soviet camps that were responsible for the deaths of countless millions. "Gulag" is the only major history in any language to draw together the mass of memoirs and writings on the Soviet camps that have been published in Russia and the West. Using these, as well as her own original research in NKVD archives and interviews with survivors, Anne Applebaum has written a fully documented history of the camp system: from its origins under the tsars, to its colossal expansion under Stalin's reign of terror, its zenith in the late 1940s and eventual collapse in the era of glasnost. It is a gigantic feat of investigation, synthesis and moral reckoning.
Well that sounds a bundle of laughs.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Do you get through many novels and other books?
There's a difference between telling a story using imaginative language and making an argument with as much clarity as possible. Or at least, there should be. The minds I enjoy most are those who can explain complex or nuanced ideas using plain simple language with the most clarity and effect.
As I say, I don't think, on the whole, that it's bad at all, but I don't think she's putting clarity at the forefront at all times.0 -
Sure but I have a theory that if you read a lot of different writers and different genres you're better able to get through different styles without difficulty.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Do you get through many novels and other books?
There's a difference between telling a story using imaginative language and making an argument with as much clarity as possible. Or at least, there should be. The minds I enjoy most are those who can explain complex or nuanced ideas using plain simple language with the most clarity and effect.
As I say, I don't think, on the whole, that it's bad at all, but I don't think she's putting clarity at the forefront at all times.
Reading is a bit like a fitness - the more you do it and the more you vary it the easier it gets.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Sure but I have a theory that if you read a lot of different writers and different genres you're better able to get through different styles without difficulty.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Do you get through many novels and other books?
There's a difference between telling a story using imaginative language and making an argument with as much clarity as possible. Or at least, there should be. The minds I enjoy most are those who can explain complex or nuanced ideas using plain simple language with the most clarity and effect.
As I say, I don't think, on the whole, that it's bad at all, but I don't think she's putting clarity at the forefront at all times.
Reading is a bit like a fitness - the more you do it and the more you vary it the easier it gets.
Thanks for informing me that I'm not as good a reader as you.0 -
Not as much as I used to. But then I read and write patents all day, so...rick_chasey said:Do you get through many novels and other books?
Would you like me to edit that article down for you to remove all of the self-indulgent digressions? Quality =/= quantity.2 -
Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.0 -
I have a file 8 inches high on my desk. Reading isn't my problem. Wasting time trying to fish out a needle of interesting information within a bale or word-hay is the issue.rick_chasey said:Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.
I've finished editing.
"Trump is bad, M'Kay."
There you go.0 -
Wouldn't recommend going into editing if that's the summary.First.Aspect said:
I have a file 8 inches high on my desk. Reading isn't my problem. Wasting time trying to fish out a needle of interesting information within a bale or word-hay is the issue.rick_chasey said:Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.
I've finished editing.
"Trump is bad, M'Kay."
There you go.
Maybe my theory is rubbish, but it's certainly own experience. Keep the reading varied, novels, non-fiction, articles etc and it all gets easier.
Aaanyway. I think her point is excellent on how deal with the material minority who believe Biden nicked the vote.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.
So can I, but I dislike self-indulgent flourishes, whether it's in a story or in a piece that's trying to tell me something. And if it's persuasive writing, making it harder than it needs to be detracts from the argument: it draws attention to the construction and away from the argument.0 -
Yes, that's a fair point. Taking the neuron out for their daily walk around the brain.rick_chasey said:Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.0 -
Yikes.
You lot should get hold of translations of German history (as in, history written by Germans) if you're into writing with 'no flourishes'.
As dry as Saudi...0 -
If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't read the article. I fished around a bit to find a conclusion. If I had I been interested in said conclusion I would have reviewed the working in further detail. However, I could not find the conclusion, because it seems to be nebulously distributed over the whole article. Accordingly, I vented my irritation instead.rick_chasey said:
Wouldn't recommend going into editing if that's the summary.First.Aspect said:
I have a file 8 inches high on my desk. Reading isn't my problem. Wasting time trying to fish out a needle of interesting information within a bale or word-hay is the issue.rick_chasey said:Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.
I've finished editing.
"Trump is bad, M'Kay."
There you go.
Maybe my theory is rubbish, but it's certainly own experience. Keep the reading varied, novels, non-fiction, articles etc and it all gets easier.
Aaanyway. I think her point is excellent on how deal with the material minority who believe Biden nicked the vote.
She should start with the following general structure - 1. Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell them what you've told them.
That structure works quite well, if increasing readership is your actual job.
Alternatively, if the goal is to persuade a small number of people how jolly well informed and clever you are, she can just carry on.0 -
I watched some of the inauguration as it happened. I was pleased that nothing went wrong and there were no problems (unless you count Lady Gaga).
Whoever was handling the cameras/direction was a bit jumpy. We only had to have a National Guard chappy crossing the road, and they'd be on it. It gave you the impression that something was cracking off, or they'd seen something suspicious.
Whatever your politics, it felt good to listen to a statesman up there for a change.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
First.Aspect said:
If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't read the article. I fished around a bit to find a conclusion. If I had I been interested in said conclusion I would have reviewed the working in further detail. However, I could not find the conclusion, because it seems to be nebulously distributed over the whole article. Accordingly, I vented my irritation instead.rick_chasey said:
Wouldn't recommend going into editing if that's the summary.First.Aspect said:
I have a file 8 inches high on my desk. Reading isn't my problem. Wasting time trying to fish out a needle of interesting information within a bale or word-hay is the issue.rick_chasey said:Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.
I've finished editing.
"Trump is bad, M'Kay."
There you go.
Maybe my theory is rubbish, but it's certainly own experience. Keep the reading varied, novels, non-fiction, articles etc and it all gets easier.
Aaanyway. I think her point is excellent on how deal with the material minority who believe Biden nicked the vote.
She should start with the following general structure - 1. Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell them what you've told them.
That structure works quite well, if increasing readership is your actual job.
Alternatively, if the goal is to persuade a small number of people how jolly well informed and clever you are, she can just carry on.
Sure, that structure works fine when you're on known ground to both the reader and the author.
Sometimes the author need to define the world before you get stuck into that structure.
So that's what happens here. Luckily for the short-of-attention, the sub-heading gives you a nice window into what the article is about.
Millions of Americans sympathize with the Capitol insurrection. Everyone else must figure out how to live alongside them.
(hint, she offers some potential answers about how to do that)
0 -
Yeah, I think that Gaga is on par with Trump for ego. It is all a bit bloody hollywood though.capt_slog said:I watched some of the inauguration as it happened. I was pleased that nothing went wrong and there were no problems (unless you count Lady Gaga).
Whoever was handling the cameras/direction was a bit jumpy. We only had to have a National Guard chappy crossing the road, and they'd be on it. It gave you the impression that something was cracking off, or they'd seen something suspicious.
Whatever your politics, it felt good to listen to a statesman up there for a change.0 -
Whilst he is black, what is the relevance in drawing attention to it?tailwindhome said:Not sure if we covered it on the thread. During #stupidcoup a lone black police officer used himself as bait to distract one group away from the senate floor and towards his fellow officers
He was honoured today
0 -
Possibly because there's just the tiniest chance that some of the nutters were racist white supremacist nutters, making his bravery more notable?david37 said:
Whilst he is black, what is the relevance in drawing attention to it?tailwindhome said:Not sure if we covered it on the thread. During #stupidcoup a lone black police officer used himself as bait to distract one group away from the senate floor and towards his fellow officers
He was honoured today
Personally I am, against current fads, all for colour-blindness, but I would say that in anything to do with Trump and his deranged supporters, colour and race cannot be excluded from the story.
1 -
Doesn't work well in practice, and usually enforces the status quo of discrimination.bompington said:
Personally I am, against current fads, all for colour-blindness, but I would say that in anything to do with Trump and his deranged supporters, colour and race cannot be excluded from the story.
0 -
I read the article and my opinion is that she is over thinking it as 10-15% of the people will think/want anything.rick_chasey said:
Wouldn't recommend going into editing if that's the summary.First.Aspect said:
I have a file 8 inches high on my desk. Reading isn't my problem. Wasting time trying to fish out a needle of interesting information within a bale or word-hay is the issue.rick_chasey said:Not what I'm saying, but OK.
If I've not read a book in a while, I find reading just harder going.
If I'm on a roll I can take on more or less anything.
I've finished editing.
"Trump is bad, M'Kay."
There you go.
Maybe my theory is rubbish, but it's certainly own experience. Keep the reading varied, novels, non-fiction, articles etc and it all gets easier.
Aaanyway. I think her point is excellent on how deal with the material minority who believe Biden nicked the vote.
The solution is to split the hard core off from the herd by using heavy jail sentences and ridicule, most will then skulk back to the US version of ‘Spoons and continue moaning into their watery beer.0 -
Here's a summary:
1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.
Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.
*I made that part up.0 -
What it's important to remember is just because Trump was bad, and extreme, the right thing is not always to do the polar opposite of what he would have done.First.Aspect said:Here's a summary:
1. Trump supporters are mostly normal people.
2. There are a lot of them.
3. Labels aren't useful, but lets call them "seditionists" for the sake of argument.
4. Don't confuse them with Republicans, per se.
5. America has to fix its divisions.
6. Having a go at each other won't work.
7. Some ideas that might work are:
8. Change the subject
9. Be bipartisan.
10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit
11. Get someone other than a politician to talk to them. This could be Tom Hanks*.
12. Everyone should all just get along.
13. It won't be easy.
Let me know which part of that shows any great insight.
*I made that part up.
Key is surely "10. Build some stuff so that both sides see their government working for their benefit"
But they shouldn't worry about "9. Be bipartisan." if it gets in the way of 10. Ted Cruz already coming out and saying that rejoining the Paris agreement shows that Biden is "more interested in the views of the citizens of Paris than in the jobs of the citizens of Pittsburgh" shows how difficult bipartisanship will be when there's so much bad faith and very deliberate faux-stupidity about.0 -
Did you read it? It's not about the senate or politicians.
Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.
Must. Stop. Expecting. People. To. Read.0
