Compromise is an agreement between two or more entities who are working on the same goal but disagree on how to achieve it.
Concessions are a sometimes-necessary part of a strategy involving contention against one or more entities who are working for a totally different goal.
Compromise isn't how you achieve unity. It is the fruit of unity.
Trying to achieve unity through compromise isn't just a bad idea. It's impossible.
Making unity your end goal will only result in full concession of any other goal—which those w/different goals will appreciate.
Concessions can be necessary, and so it can be good at times to make concessions. But those concessions should always be a part of a strategy to achieve a goal, which those who are forcing you to make concessions would seek to prevent.
Be aware: they are not compromises.
So, we should know what our goals are, so when concessions are propose we see how—and this is crucial—we will use that concession to achieve that goal.
Any concession that can't be used toward achieving our goal is one that will achieve a different goal.
And should be rejected.
And this, by the way, is why it is *more* important to know what we want to do than how we are going to do it.
And why most objections starting with "but what is your PLAN?" are actually sly arguments against the goal itself.
There are many paths, but one goal. Know the goal.
Proposed goals:
*A completely equal and equitable democracy.
*A society that addresses basic human needs and honors the basic humanity of all its members, without prejudice.
*An open society so peaceful and just it has no need of punishment.
Our opponents have other goals.
Joe Biden isn't going to compromise with Republicans; not because Biden isn't someone who values compromise, but because—to the extent that they and Biden have different goals—it's impossible.
Republicans know the difference between compromise & concession.
So should we.
And those of us who share the goals above ought not to compromise with Democratic establishment, except to the extent that their goals align with ours. For many of us, voting for the Dem is a concession toward a goal, not compromise.
Know the difference. And know the goal.
If Democrats do what they often do, they'll either:
1) compromise with Republicans on a shared goal aligned not with our goals but with those of corporatism; or
2) make concession w/no strategic purpose, and call it "compromise."
We must reject both and pressure for better.
To Summarize:
Unity exists only through shared goals
Unity is only as good as those goals
Compromise isn't how unity is achieved; it is a result of unity
Trying to unify through compromise only leaves you compromised
Concession must be strategic, or it is worse than worthless
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'll admit this one benefits from pretty low expectations on my part. It's not clever, but it does the pose it does as well as such a thing can be done.
Ryan Reynolds was born to the part, which I mean as both a compliment and an insult.
Anyway I enjoyed it mostly and I laughed a few times and I really liked seeing a crazy pairing like Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead and I might someday watch the sequel and I never will feel compelled to see it again. So there you go.
Yesterday was the deadliest in U.S. history, a situation created by Republican leadership, who continue to actively fight against any remedy, while our media covers the president's unlawful attempts to overturn an election as a "gambit"
I see the cause of our "political divide."
The idea astonishes, that there still exist opinion pieces suggesting those directly responsible for a rolling series of the deadliest days in U.S. history should face no consequence. The belief that a few people matter and the rest do not has never been more nakedly exposed.
Killing people because you want them dead is divisive.
Abandoning them to a virus when you could save them is divisive.
Making them die of cancer when you could give treatment is divisive.
Making them starve when you have food is divisive.
The lesson of Trump is what the lesson of Reagan and both Bushes should have been: You can do anything you can get away with.
Anything Trump doesn't face criminal charges for is something presidents can do—which is why prosecution is crucial. washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-tr…
It's meaningless to say presidents "can't" if when they do the thing they "can't" do there exist no consequences.
As of right now, Trump has not found anything that presidents "can't" do.
It is vital that we start establishing a list of such things—a long list, preferably.
In my opinion, we should prosecute presidents retroactively, going back to Nixon at least.
Let's charge them with crimes and put their convictions on the books.
Let's start investigations into Cheney/Rumsfeld.
The list of things you can't do is an empty sheet. Let's fill it.
The good includes Bale's performance; actor-stunt weight gain mimicry aside, it's an impressive look at a truly banal evil.
The bad includes the McCay bag of meta-tricks, most of which worked well in The Big Short but which almost all seem ill-considered here, especially ...
... the far too expository, never-needed voiceover, which never justifies itself, even once the nature of its source is finally revealed.
But good to have a reminder of what soulless monsters every Bush-era crony has always been, and how destructive 2000-08 was.