But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There\u2019s a magic trick that\u2019s going to get played on us every day during the 2020 election cycle. It\u2019s a fairly simple trick, once you see it.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) February 17, 2019
I\u2019d like to talk about leadership and governance.
And the compass, the navigation, the travel, and the corrections.
(thread)
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
It's not the right time.
It's unaffordable.
It can't be done.
It's confusing—look at how confused these unpersuaded people are.
Let's persuade them.
Let's propose something else.
These are compass statements for inaction.
"I have a dream" is still misconstrued by people who oppose solutions to the problems of systemic racism. It's even used in defense of systemic racism, as an excuse to not address it.
(also MLK was not a magical being)
If you're one of those people, listen: I am. That's what this is. I disagree with YOU. I'm trying to persuade YOU you're playing a rigged game.
Instead, persuade yourselves. We WILL change this. Compass statement.
Stop playing a rigged game.
More from A.R. Moxon
If you ever want to consider how committed our society is to the foundational lie that life must be earned, and those who fail to earn it must die, consider that the proposition “giving everyone money to spend would be bad for the economy” is widely accepted as truth.
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.
Pundits: The fact that Ossoff and Warnock are unlikely to both win their elections means Joe Biden needs to court Republican votes rather than push a much-needed progressive agenda
*Ossoff and Warnock win handily*
Pundits: Ah. Nevertheless,
The only way political reporting in this country makes sense is if you understand that the almost universal, almost subconscious default assumption: that conservative white people are the protagonists of any story that's being told, no matter the facts of the story.
Just do the obvious and necessary good things and let the horrid evil people who hate good things squeal and cry about it forever.
I really need Democrats who will state the clear and obvious truth, which is that Republicans are our enemies, because they insist on attacking the very idea of a shared society and are more than happy to use violence to do it, which is the very definition of an enemy.
You can't make people who want to kill you not be your enemies even if you wish they'd be your friend.
They can stop trying to kill you, but until that happens they are your enemy, and acknowledging that fact isn't what makes that fact true.
*Ossoff and Warnock win handily*
Pundits: Ah. Nevertheless,
Congressional Republicans balk at Joe Biden\u2019s $1.9 trillion relief plan, complicating push for quick passage https://t.co/npXogXvBHM
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 15, 2021
The only way political reporting in this country makes sense is if you understand that the almost universal, almost subconscious default assumption: that conservative white people are the protagonists of any story that's being told, no matter the facts of the story.
Just do the obvious and necessary good things and let the horrid evil people who hate good things squeal and cry about it forever.
I really need Democrats who will state the clear and obvious truth, which is that Republicans are our enemies, because they insist on attacking the very idea of a shared society and are more than happy to use violence to do it, which is the very definition of an enemy.
You can't make people who want to kill you not be your enemies even if you wish they'd be your friend.
They can stop trying to kill you, but until that happens they are your enemy, and acknowledging that fact isn't what makes that fact true.
More from Book
Aboriginal self-government - legal and constitutional issues 1995 Ottawa, Canada- Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples #Metis
Aboriginal self-government - legal and constitutional issues 1995 Ottawa, Canada- Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples- pg141. - papers argues that it is logical and sensible to consider persons of mixed ancestry of all kinds to be within sec. 91(24) jurisdiction and that the
Metis are included within the fiduciary relationship owed by the crown to the Aboriginal peoples. (pg142) The recognition of Metis as one of the "aboriginal peoples of Canada" in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, reinforces this federal practice. "It is concluded that
sec 91(24) includes persons of mixed ancestry." pg143- "the Guerin case suggests that the federal gov. may be breaching its fiduciary obligations if it refuses to initiate legislation needed to acknowledge the existence of certain Aboriginal peoples or to meet basic economic
or social needs." https://t.co/90gG3LeCFC -
RELATED CASES AND POSTS
Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335
Aboriginal self-government - legal and constitutional issues 1995 Ottawa, Canada- Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples- pg141. - papers argues that it is logical and sensible to consider persons of mixed ancestry of all kinds to be within sec. 91(24) jurisdiction and that the
Metis are included within the fiduciary relationship owed by the crown to the Aboriginal peoples. (pg142) The recognition of Metis as one of the "aboriginal peoples of Canada" in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, reinforces this federal practice. "It is concluded that
sec 91(24) includes persons of mixed ancestry." pg143- "the Guerin case suggests that the federal gov. may be breaching its fiduciary obligations if it refuses to initiate legislation needed to acknowledge the existence of certain Aboriginal peoples or to meet basic economic
or social needs." https://t.co/90gG3LeCFC -
RELATED CASES AND POSTS
Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335
One can make an analysis of how many right wing groups published books before Modi in power and after Modi in power.
Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?
The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all
Right wingers.
This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.
There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +
Mangalore are the prime of them.
There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.
We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won
more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.
Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not
a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not
Would Akhilesh Mishra, Abhinav Prakash and many others have got a chance to write in an English daily before?
The VC of JNU, IIAS, Nehru center, RRML are all
Every time I read @NAN_DINI_ ji's writings, I'm reminded that while juvenile writers like Twinkle Khanna and Saggy Ghose are published by MSM, talent like this is restricted to personal blogs. Will this ever be remedied? https://t.co/1oAO7I4i6G
— \u0926\u093f\u0935\u094d\u092f\u093e (@divya_16_) December 9, 2020
Right wingers.
This, while some in our own fold were criticizing and backstabbing an excellent book (disagreeable in places) by Harsh Madhusudhan and Rajeev Mantri.
There have been at least 4 lit fests and think tanks developed by right wing in six years. Pondy and +
Mangalore are the prime of them.
There are more media channels and more anchors in neutral channels backing the government then those against in six years.
We have at least three big lawyers: Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mukul Rahotgi fighting cases. We have won
more legal battles than not and are able to get many things done that would look impossible just two years ago.
Yes, textbooks, deregulation, harrasment and cabalism of the left including tech suppression and killing spree of fascistic governments remain and everything is not
a bed of roses. But what was a bed of roses for the opposition is not a bed of roses for them too.
Udhav would have loved to see Republic closed. It hasn't.. Mamata would love to have killed the whose who in BJP - Not possible.. She would not like big wigs of TMC join BJP - Not
I've gotten a few questions about this, so let me clarify and provide as much helpful information as this medium will allow.
To begin, both of my parents are MBA's and are assertive. They taught us four kids to be assertive. 1/x
Honestly, what's the worst a publisher can do, say no? If the worst that can happen is a rejection email (and believe me I've gotten ALOT), then it's pretty "safe" to at least ask.
But there were tricks that I learned about getting books from publishers. 2/x
The 1st was to request exam copies. I was a very part-time adjunct faculty for an online-only seminary in the UK. I designed two classes for them and requested books to consider as assigned reading for the classes. I still do this, since I'm full-time teaching/administrating. 3/x
The second was to become an approved/recognized reviewer for journals--it doesn't matter which ones. Thanks to a previous professor I'm a reviewer at the website for a research center. And through nothing but email, I'm a frequent reviewer for 3 journals (JESOT, JHS, RRT). 4/x
This is a helpful approach. When you know exactly where the review is going to be submitted and you know that the journal's review editor wants the review, then (in most cases) the review editor's job is to contact the publisher and make sure you get the book. That's it. 5/x
To begin, both of my parents are MBA's and are assertive. They taught us four kids to be assertive. 1/x
Many underestimate the generosity of (most) publishers. I probably got $10,000 worth of free books during my 4 years in Durham by request exam or review copies. Sometimes, I just emailed a publisher and said, "I need this book, but I can't afford it. Can you help me out?"
— Stephen D. Campbell, Dr. theol. (@the_OT_Campbell) December 13, 2020
Honestly, what's the worst a publisher can do, say no? If the worst that can happen is a rejection email (and believe me I've gotten ALOT), then it's pretty "safe" to at least ask.
But there were tricks that I learned about getting books from publishers. 2/x
The 1st was to request exam copies. I was a very part-time adjunct faculty for an online-only seminary in the UK. I designed two classes for them and requested books to consider as assigned reading for the classes. I still do this, since I'm full-time teaching/administrating. 3/x
The second was to become an approved/recognized reviewer for journals--it doesn't matter which ones. Thanks to a previous professor I'm a reviewer at the website for a research center. And through nothing but email, I'm a frequent reviewer for 3 journals (JESOT, JHS, RRT). 4/x
This is a helpful approach. When you know exactly where the review is going to be submitted and you know that the journal's review editor wants the review, then (in most cases) the review editor's job is to contact the publisher and make sure you get the book. That's it. 5/x
You May Also Like
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.