Renee Good contributed to her own death far more than Ashli Babbitt did. The primary difference is that now, instead of telling right-wingers: "She shouldn't have been crawling into a window at the Capitol, and as much as that cop had a spotty record, she was in the process of committing a felony when she was shot ", I'm forced to explain to idiot leftists that "Running over federal agents with your SUV after you and your wife interfered with, taunted, and provoked them can have negative consequences, especially if the agent you hit was recently nearly murdered by another, similarity foolish, leftists idiot."
Every sane liberal i have asked will admit the obvious facts here; she may have gotten scared, but she was running the guy over, AFTER provoking federal agents who were doing their jobs, just like they do under Obama. The Democrats are starting a discourse that is going to make Vance the president in 2028.
The framing around holding multiple truths simultaneously is crucial and often missing from today's discourse. People aren't just avoiding complexity out of laziness, they're pressured by social media environments that punish nuance and reward certainty. I've noticed this shift even in academic settings where complexity used to be valued, now there's this weird pressure to have instant takes on complicated issues. Creating spaces where genuine dialogue happens without that pressure is honestly waht democracy needs most right now.
Bumped into this example from Rachel Maddow in 2008. I can no longer watch Maddow, but this is what she claimed to believe some 20 years ago:
“As human beings, we like to bifurcate our world. Black, white; good, evil […] In our 4th story, the perils of oversimplifying the world, and oversimplifying politics.”
Versus at prototypical 2025 diatribe that says the opposite, where even the language that reporters speak and write has dramatically shifted:
“What is the most important story? […] we sorta stop beating around the bush, there’s really no question […] the intentions of this president are not a mystery, there’s no suspense, there’s no ambiguity. We know exactly who is. […] This is an attempted, authoritarian overthrow of the United States Constitution and government.”
I'm heavy on the sarcasm now, not because I don't think seriously about this. I've noticed this trend in academia too.
Studying in critical ways has been an antidote to these knee-jerk reactions for me.
Sadly, academia mostly abandoned serious, continued study and curricula based on critical thinking in the 1990s. We're seeing the effects from that lack of skill trickling down into public discourse.
“Yet medical orthodoxy has largely sidelined these conversations…”
I want to push back on that and assert that such a statement is not fact based in my very recent experience. Every doctor at Kaiser that I’ve spoken with with has emphasized diet.
So I really don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Renee Good contributed to her own death far more than Ashli Babbitt did. The primary difference is that now, instead of telling right-wingers: "She shouldn't have been crawling into a window at the Capitol, and as much as that cop had a spotty record, she was in the process of committing a felony when she was shot ", I'm forced to explain to idiot leftists that "Running over federal agents with your SUV after you and your wife interfered with, taunted, and provoked them can have negative consequences, especially if the agent you hit was recently nearly murdered by another, similarity foolish, leftists idiot."
Every sane liberal i have asked will admit the obvious facts here; she may have gotten scared, but she was running the guy over, AFTER provoking federal agents who were doing their jobs, just like they do under Obama. The Democrats are starting a discourse that is going to make Vance the president in 2028.
The framing around holding multiple truths simultaneously is crucial and often missing from today's discourse. People aren't just avoiding complexity out of laziness, they're pressured by social media environments that punish nuance and reward certainty. I've noticed this shift even in academic settings where complexity used to be valued, now there's this weird pressure to have instant takes on complicated issues. Creating spaces where genuine dialogue happens without that pressure is honestly waht democracy needs most right now.
Bumped into this example from Rachel Maddow in 2008. I can no longer watch Maddow, but this is what she claimed to believe some 20 years ago:
“As human beings, we like to bifurcate our world. Black, white; good, evil […] In our 4th story, the perils of oversimplifying the world, and oversimplifying politics.”
Versus at prototypical 2025 diatribe that says the opposite, where even the language that reporters speak and write has dramatically shifted:
“What is the most important story? […] we sorta stop beating around the bush, there’s really no question […] the intentions of this president are not a mystery, there’s no suspense, there’s no ambiguity. We know exactly who is. […] This is an attempted, authoritarian overthrow of the United States Constitution and government.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQpNot3ARB0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6HRnpcpNUXA
But reductionist views make for great clickbait!
I'm heavy on the sarcasm now, not because I don't think seriously about this. I've noticed this trend in academia too.
Studying in critical ways has been an antidote to these knee-jerk reactions for me.
Sadly, academia mostly abandoned serious, continued study and curricula based on critical thinking in the 1990s. We're seeing the effects from that lack of skill trickling down into public discourse.
I don't think there are multiple truths. One truth. Maybe multiple interpretations.
What you feel is a true feeling, sure
You state with regard to the importance of diet
“Yet medical orthodoxy has largely sidelined these conversations…”
I want to push back on that and assert that such a statement is not fact based in my very recent experience. Every doctor at Kaiser that I’ve spoken with with has emphasized diet.
So I really don’t understand what you’re talking about.