Split Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?

[Metaphor]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped

Ah, no. You failed to comprehend the analogy. I did not compare the action of the unrequested thread split to being blamed for being raped. I compared your blaming me ("silent assent", etc) for the thread split title to typical rape apologia about silence equalling consent.

 

[Jarhyn]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped

Ah, no. You failed to comprehend the analogy. I did not compare the action of the unrequested thread split to being blamed for being raped. I compared your blaming me ("silent assent", etc) for the thread split title to typical rape apologia about silence equalling consent.

You clearly didn't read the spoiler.


... Or cannot understand metaphors.

 

[Metaphor]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped

Ah, no. You failed to comprehend the analogy. I did not compare the action of the unrequested thread split to being blamed for being raped. I compared your blaming me ("silent assent", etc) for the thread split title to typical rape apologia about silence equalling consent.

You clearly didn't read the spoiler.


... Or cannot understand metaphors.

I did read the spoiler, and it is you who misunderstood the metaphor, as I've already explained.

NOTE: Silence is not consent.

 

[Jarhyn]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped

Ah, no. You failed to comprehend the analogy. I did not compare the action of the unrequested thread split to being blamed for being raped. I compared your blaming me ("silent assent", etc) for the thread split title to typical rape apologia about silence equalling consent.

You clearly didn't read the spoiler.


... Or cannot understand metaphors.

I did read the spoiler, and it is you who misunderstood the metaphor, as I've already explained.

NOTE: Silence is not consent.

*Sigh*

"Silence is not consent (to be raped)"
"Crime is not consent (to be punished)"
"Derailing unto a split is not consent (to have the thread split, and a title foisted on the split)"

One of these things is not like the others. One of these does not apply, despite being the one you had drawn up.

This is the exercise for the reader to figure out.

When your actions  earn consequences, your actions also earn you some responsibilities, should you not like how things shake out.

If a criminal does not like the charges against them, it is up to them to testify and contest charges and put the truth into the world best as they are able, and those who do not put up to their own defense go to jail.

Likewise, and I can't believe this needs to be said at all, when someone on a forum derails a thread (IOW, "engineers a split", especially now such that posts lack individual titling), it's entirely on them to make sure the title is correct afterwards, and as folks have said, use the "report" button to solve problems.

Quit pretending to be the victim of the posted consequences of your own failures.

 

[Metaphor]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped

Ah, no. You failed to comprehend the analogy. I did not compare the action of the unrequested thread split to being blamed for being raped. I compared your blaming me ("silent assent", etc) for the thread split title to typical rape apologia about silence equalling consent.

You clearly didn't read the spoiler.


... Or cannot understand metaphors.

I did read the spoiler, and it is you who misunderstood the metaphor, as I've already explained.

NOTE: Silence is not consent.

*Sigh*

"Silence is not consent (to be raped)"
"Crime is not consent (to be punished)"
"Derailing unto a split is not consent (to have the thread split, and a title foisted on the split)"

One of these things is not like the others. One of these does not apply, despite being the one you had drawn up.

This is the exercise for the reader to figure out.

When your actions  earn consequences, your actions also earn you some responsibilities, should you not like how things shake out.

If a criminal does not like the charges against them, it is up to them to testify and contest charges and put the truth into the world best as they are able, and those who do not put up to their own defense go to jail.

Likewise, and I can't believe this needs to be said at all, when someone on a forum derails a thread (IOW, "engineers a split", especially now such that posts lack individual titling), it's entirely on them to make sure the title is correct afterwards, and as folks have said, use the "report" button to solve problems.

Quit pretending to be the victim of the posted consequences of your own failures.

I didn't derail the thread, and I am not responsible for Swammerdami's choices.

Move on.

 

[Jarhyn]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped

Ah, no. You failed to comprehend the analogy. I did not compare the action of the unrequested thread split to being blamed for being raped. I compared your blaming me ("silent assent", etc) for the thread split title to typical rape apologia about silence equalling consent.

You clearly didn't read the spoiler.


... Or cannot understand metaphors.

I did read the spoiler, and it is you who misunderstood the metaphor, as I've already explained.

NOTE: Silence is not consent.

*Sigh*

"Silence is not consent (to be raped)"
"Crime is not consent (to be punished)"
"Derailing unto a split is not consent (to have the thread split, and a title foisted on the split)"

One of these things is not like the others. One of these does not apply, despite being the one you had drawn up.

This is the exercise for the reader to figure out.

When your actions  earn consequences, your actions also earn you some responsibilities, should you not like how things shake out.

If a criminal does not like the charges against them, it is up to them to testify and contest charges and put the truth into the world best as they are able, and those who do not put up to their own defense go to jail.

Likewise, and I can't believe this needs to be said at all, when someone on a forum derails a thread (IOW, "engineers a split", especially now such that posts lack individual titling), it's entirely on them to make sure the title is correct afterwards, and as folks have said, use the "report" button to solve problems.

Quit pretending to be the victim of the posted consequences of your own failures.

I didn't derail the thread, and I am not responsible for Swammerdami's choices.

Move on.

*Looks at the op's name*

*Looks at (SPLIT) tag*

Sure you didn't...

 

[Metaphor]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped

Ah, no. You failed to comprehend the analogy. I did not compare the action of the unrequested thread split to being blamed for being raped. I compared your blaming me ("silent assent", etc) for the thread split title to typical rape apologia about silence equalling consent.

You clearly didn't read the spoiler.


... Or cannot understand metaphors.

I did read the spoiler, and it is you who misunderstood the metaphor, as I've already explained.

NOTE: Silence is not consent.

*Sigh*

"Silence is not consent (to be raped)"
"Crime is not consent (to be punished)"
"Derailing unto a split is not consent (to have the thread split, and a title foisted on the split)"

One of these things is not like the others. One of these does not apply, despite being the one you had drawn up.

This is the exercise for the reader to figure out.

When your actions  earn consequences, your actions also earn you some responsibilities, should you not like how things shake out.

If a criminal does not like the charges against them, it is up to them to testify and contest charges and put the truth into the world best as they are able, and those who do not put up to their own defense go to jail.

Likewise, and I can't believe this needs to be said at all, when someone on a forum derails a thread (IOW, "engineers a split", especially now such that posts lack individual titling), it's entirely on them to make sure the title is correct afterwards, and as folks have said, use the "report" button to solve problems.

Quit pretending to be the victim of the posted consequences of your own failures.

I didn't derail the thread, and I am not responsible for Swammerdami's choices.

Move on.

*Looks at the op's name*

*Looks at (SPLIT) tag*

Sure you didn't...

That's correct.

I did not derail the original thread, I did not engineer the split, I did not choose the title of the split, and when I offered a title for the split that I would have chosen, it was ignored.

I know you don't understand consent but some of the rest of the board members probably do.

 

[Patooka]

That's correct.

I did not derail the original thread, I did not engineer the split, I did not choose the title of the split, and when I offered a title for the split that I would have chosen, it was ignored.

I know you don't understand consent but some of the rest of the board members probably do

Just another hill to die on, I suppose.

 

[Swammerdami]

Recent discussion is about neither Fetterman nor aphasia. Do we need another thread split?

 

[senor boogie woogie]

It is amazing that a man who cannot speak two sentences correctly, who is brain damaged from a stroke, someone who looks like Anton LeVey’s son, or looks like a sketchy meth dealer with his dirty hoodie and tattoos, this moron was elected a United States senator??

A perfect Democrat for the social welfare state. Was elected in the cities, including the crime filled, open narcotics dealing and infested Philadelphia. Democrats breed dependent people to vote for them. More welfare, no accountability.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It is amazing that a man who cannot speak two sentences correctly, who is brain damaged from a stroke, someone who looks like Anton LeVey’s son, or looks like a sketchy meth dealer with his dirty hoodie and tattoos, this moron was elected a United States senator??

A perfect Democrat for the social welfare state. Was elected in the cities, including the crime filled, open narcotics dealing and infested Philadelphia. Democrats breed dependent people to vote for them. More welfare, no accountability.

So funny! Some advice, maybe next time don't back a Trumpster! I used to worry that the religious right wing would destroy the country. Naw. But they are wreaking havoc in the republican party!

 

[Swammerdami]

I was reminded of this thread by Fetterman's appearance on the latest episode of Stephen Colbert's The Late Show.

 

[robnisch]

I don't think they should have to wear a suit, but a hoody and shorts is just going too far.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm really glad to see that his speech has almost completely recovered now. I wonder how much he really needs the laptop to help him understand spoken language. It's interesting to me that he has better access to vocabulary recognition through vision than auditorily, because all languages except ASL and other deaf sign languages are first learned through the auditory-articulatory medium. However, much of our educated and technical vocabulary is acquired at a later stage, when reading becomes the medium through which new vocabulary, especially technical vocabulary, is introduced. My guess is that most of the brain damage occurred in Broca's area, but his brain seems to have repaired itself nicely. Not so many slurs and hesitations now. That would have been a lot more difficult if he were ten years or more older.

As for dress codes, I have never much cared for them, myself. I don't think he should have to dress in a suit, but I also think people tend to take you more seriously when you are dressed formally. So it may be a good thing for his career and his constituents if he is required to suit up for the Senate floor. He might not feel as relaxed in a suit, but, if his brain can recover from a stroke, I think he'll survive being dressed in a suit.

 

[bilby]

As for dress codes, I have never much cared for them, myself. I don't think he should have to dress in a suit, but I also think people tend to take you more seriously when you are dressed formally. So it may be a good thing for his career and his constituents if he is required to suit up for the Senate floor. He might not feel as relaxed in a suit, but, if his brain can recover from a stroke, I think he'll survive being dressed in a suit.

The whole business of politicians wearing suits was originally an attempt to mimic the formality of military uniforms. It first became fairly popular in the Crimean and American Civil Wars in the mid-Nineteenth century, but didn't really become completely ubiquitous until the Great War.

Personally I would like to see politicians being taken seriously for their policies and positions, and their fashion choices given no regard whatsoever. But obviously I'm in a minority here.

Certainly elected political representatives in a democracy shouldn't be subject to any formal rules about what they should wear. If they want to debate, or to vote, in the body to which they are elected, there shouldn't be any trivial barriers to their doing so. If their constituents don't like the way they dress, then they can vote them out. If the speaker or chairperson doesn't like the way they dress, tough shit. The job of the speaker is to ensure that debates are respectful, orderly, and fair. Not to chuck people out for their fashion choices.

 

[Copernicus]

As for dress codes, I have never much cared for them, myself. I don't think he should have to dress in a suit, but I also think people tend to take you more seriously when you are dressed formally. So it may be a good thing for his career and his constituents if he is required to suit up for the Senate floor. He might not feel as relaxed in a suit, but, if his brain can recover from a stroke, I think he'll survive being dressed in a suit.

The whole business of politicians wearing suits was originally an attempt to mimic the formality of military uniforms. It first became fairly popular in the Crimean and American Civil Wars in the mid-Nineteenth century, but didn't really become completely ubiquitous until the Great War.

Personally I would like to see politicians being taken seriously for their policies and positions, and their fashion choices given no regard whatsoever. But obviously I'm in a minority here.

Certainly elected political representatives in a democracy shouldn't be subject to any formal rules about what they should wear. If they want to debate, or to vote, in the body to which they are elected, there shouldn't be any trivial barriers to their doing so. If their constituents don't like the way they dress, then they can vote them out. If the speaker or chairperson doesn't like the way they dress, tough shit. The job of the speaker is to ensure that debates are respectful, orderly, and fair. Not to chuck people out for their fashion choices.

I agree with your feeling about how people ought to behave. Formal dress should have no effect on how seriously people's views are taken. However, we can't control how people react viscerally to things like appearances, and political representatives have a responsibility to their constituents. Nobody is going to disregard Fetterman's views if he meets them wearing a suit in a formal context. If he meets them wearing shorts and a hoodie, then that inevitably has a distracting effect on people that can make him less effective for that context. It might be different on the campaign trail or in an informal gathering, where he wants to be seen as a "regular guy". In that context, a suit might make him look stuffy and aloof. Disregard for social conventions is all very well, but I personally would prefer my representative not to make that an issue while advocating for policies that I elected him to pursue. I love Fetterman's intelligence and wit. He is one of the smartest senators in Congress. But if he isn't willing to suffer fools gladly, then he shouldn't seek to be a member of Congress.

 

[Patooka]

As for dress codes, I have never much cared for them, myself. I don't think he should have to dress in a suit, but I also think people tend to take you more seriously when you are dressed formally. So it may be a good thing for his career and his constituents if he is required to suit up for the Senate floor. He might not feel as relaxed in a suit, but, if his brain can recover from a stroke, I think he'll survive being dressed in a suit.

I would point out it is a form of brand recognition, like Bernie's mitts or Frederica Wilson's hats. For a while there, Queensland politicians were sporting the hawaian shirt and shorts combo whilst talking to the media. Symbols are powerful in politics.

 

[bilby]

For a while there, Queensland politicians were sporting the hawaian shirt and shorts combo whilst talking to the media.

Nah, that's just a reflection of the fact that Queenslanders in general sport the Hawaiian shirt and shorts combo pretty much all the time.

 

[Patooka]

For a while there, Queensland politicians were sporting the hawaian shirt and shorts combo whilst talking to the media.

Nah, that's just a reflection of the fact that Queenslanders in general sport the Hawaiian shirt and shorts combo pretty much all the time.

My uncle who lives just outside the Gold Coast likes telling people the further north in Queensland you go the more prominent the sound of banjos becomes.

 

[bilby]

For a while there, Queensland politicians were sporting the hawaian shirt and shorts combo whilst talking to the media.

Nah, that's just a reflection of the fact that Queenslanders in general sport the Hawaiian shirt and shorts combo pretty much all the time.

My uncle who lives just outside the Gold Coast likes telling people the further north in Queensland you go the more prominent the sound of banjos becomes.

The Gold Coast is practically New South Wales.

Shit, one suburb of the City of the Gold Coast is literally NSW.