President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

It's bold for a kid to make.

If a 29-year-old policy analyst for the Riverbook Institute or whatever had wrote it, I'd give it a meh because I know the kind of thinking and worldview that goes into such places.

But this is a 17-year-old kid who has successfully pivoted from grief and PTSD - that makes her hair still stand on end, mind you - to cogent, definitive policy prescriptives in short order. I figure I have two choices: To be skeptical or to be critical, since I found the certitude and policy prescriptives in the piece questionable at best. Because the piece isn't about gun control, but the fruitlessness of kindness and compassion in the face of mental illness.

She's basically saying: Being kind to an aggressive, dangerous person with mental illness could never change the fact that they're a killer. Killers kill, and the only thing that can stop their nature is a system that identifies that nature and gives them "extremely specialized" care.

I can either take that argument at face value - and critique it - or be skeptical of how rhetorical muscle is that of an adult.

The particular genius of the Stoneman kids is you can't do either without drawing a lot of fire. You can't critique their positions and speeches - because, how dare you - nor can you question their free agency in those positions and speeches - because, how dare you.

And the particular madness of being me is that, despite them being for something I'm for, I nevertheless don't love how they're for it.

 

I prefer to stay lit.

 

You can dance around the ideas all you like, but you are still accusing someone of lying and passing off somebody else's words as their own without even a shred of evidence to support your claim.

I also think your characterization of her overall point is a bit unfair, but I think I need to re-read the piece before commenting further.

Edit: As I start to read, I find my overall impression confirmed. She commented on the dangers of victim blaming. She also wrote about the importance of reaching out to those who are in need of such kindness. She is balking at taking on blame for the failures of adults who should have taken action sooner. All of that is fair to say and it has more depth than your summary of what she was "basically saying."

Edit: More importantly, see Azrael's post. He read the line you focused on more clearly than either of us and nailed exactly why your take was incorrect.

 

The relevant quote:

"No amount of kindness or compassion alone would have changed the person that Nikolas Cruz is and was, or the horrendous actions he perpetrated. That is a weak excuse for the failures of our school system, our government and our gun laws."

You're welcome to criticize her position, but we shouldn't mischaracterize it.

Kindness and compassion in concert with other things might make a real difference.

 

He’s got the self-assured dishonesty to become a major player in Washington.

His characterization of Rubio is lazy and disgusting and his talking points are bullshit, but you’re right about the poise. Speaking in front of people like that takes guts. But Trump is great at giving speeches so take that for what it’s worth.

“These are just stupid kids” is a weak argument. But they are now spokespeople for a cause. They’ve shown a willingness to chase the spotlight, so if they’re mature enough to handle it, they’re mature enough to handle the legitimate criticism that comes with such power.

If you think they’re free from criticism, then you’re not supporting them, you, too, are just patronizing them.

 

Wait, what?

 

That’s where Hogg needs work.

 

He killed the SOTU! He is relatively great at speechifying.

 

This just struck me as an odd critique. My AP English teacher in high school made sure we never used contractions in formal writing. To this day, I probably come off sounding too formal in professional writing because I don't often use contractions in my work. A high school student sounding cold, clinical and academic in a formal piece of writing sounds exactly like what one would expect.

 

He fucking sucks at it.

I don't think they are free from criticism. I just think these kids are smart and talented. Super impressive.

 

I didn’t mischaraterize it. The “alone” is unnecessary, hedging word. It’s a way of saying “I’m all for this, even if it has no effect without policy prescriptives.”

The bent of the op-ed - that she was put in unnecessary, horrifying danger by adults who asked her to help Cruz - underlines the idea that systemic approach are all that can help. Maybe she’s for institutionalization.

 

Relative to what?