im thinking of how it took me about 10 years to convince my very skeptical aunts that HDTV was in fact "actually better" than standard def
they just wouldnt believe me.
"it looks a little nicer, but its not like that much different. i can't really see the difference."
i dont even bother with them and 4k. its not worth the fight. they both have HDTV now but its mostly because the cable company just stopped making boxes compatible with their old TVs.
my aunt had this one tv she inherited from my grandpa, i kid you not, the tv easily weighed 500lbs. it was like a 45-inch tv and it was about a solid foot thick. it was basically the last of the picture tube tvs they mad in the 90s. just a giant monster of a TV.
the whole time im like, "lets just buy a new tv." and the response was, "why? this tv from your grandfather works just fine, theres no reason to throw it out."
and im like: "because we're all going to die from lifting it."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
of course ill watch it and give it a shot. but the problem w superman is always that he should be doing extremely spectacular things and generally speaking TV rarely has the budget or scope for that unless its animated.
its like "change the course of mighty rivers" vs "punching some guys in an alley"
the most humane and efficient thing to get relief to people *now* is to throw money at them. these wonderful ideas of how we can "just" go into state databases and select the most needy and micro-target them are the thing of fantasy, like my little pony. doesnt exist.
ive got a person in my mentions who keeps discussing this like its a simple matter of opening the excel file for a ma and pa store. and it DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.
its 51 very dysfunctional state governments and a kludgy federal apparatus. it just doesn't operate like that!
its also telling that when its about getting relief to poor/middle class people suddenly theres a lot of "but, but but actually" but if the super-rich and megacorps are getting cash we just throw it at them no problem.
they all profited handsomely from their books where they withheld reporting about trump from the public. and some how this made them part of hashtag resist.
four years of "its not racism" and "trump voters still like trump" and the narrative from coppins is somehow that reporters linked arms with trump opponents. insanity.
heres the thing: bragman's take is dumb and wrong, as usual, but the other problem is while dems pass message bills *they don't talk about them*. not in any sustained, consistent way. they talk about them after they pass them, then they slip off into the night.
democrats have a serious aversion to marketing, especially marketing their own work when theyve done the right thing. there's a shared belief that the press will just pick it up and voters will somehow get the message. this doesn't work.
by contrast, republicans know voters dont buy their schtick, and they nonetheless relentlessly market it. it helps that they have propaganda networks like fox, but this does not excuse democrats systemic refusal to even try to market their stuff. which is often popular!
"we can't do a good thing because while it will mostly benefit the neediest people, a rich person may get a check" is the single dumbest and yet most consistently wrong objection democrats repeatedly offer.