Yep. That’s been happening in children’s books too.
When I was a kid, I insisted that my mother read me Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree over and over. Published in 1964, it’s a story about a boy who takes and takes from a tree over the course of his life until the boy is an old man and the tree is left a stump. “And the tree was happy,” the story ends. It’s a strange book, with an ending that is heartbreaking but also streaked with strange joy. I was surprised to discover recently that The Giving Tree is considered “one of the most divisive in the canon” of children’s literature in large part because its moral is unclear. Why is the tree happy when it has been sucked dry? Are we supposed to understand the relationship as one defined by generosity or abuse of power? There was even a 2014 article in The New York Times about whether The Giving Tree is a “tender story of unconditional love or a disturbing tale of selfishness.” Why not both, or, really, neither? It seems many of us can no longer imagine that children can handle, and may in fact prefer, stories defined by ambiguity — stories that have little to do with contemporary politics but rather to do with life as it is lived. The Giving Tree might be complicated, but it isn’t boring or pat. It isn’t pandering to anyone. At the very least, this was a story written with children in mind.
“Support our vets” means you say positive things about how heroic military service is regardless of how stupid the war might have been, not that you provide support to veterans.
I’d like to draw attention (not sure if it was included in your link, since it’s Fox News) to the fact that the real estate tax they’re up in arms about is for a 1,600 square foot suburban home. Not exactly penthouse living.
I’ve always heard/read it as “support our wars” where “vets” is sort of fascist jargon for “men who die in war” rather than “people who survive war.” Therefore the best way to support vets is to make sure we are creating wars.
I can see some fkd up scenario where either executive privileges or political “free speech” or other cockamamie argument is made to ram through a reinstatement of the Former Guy’s account.
Carve-outs and exceptionalism is the GQP’s stock-in-trade. Legality and/or legs may not even make a difference.
I’m more worried that Twitter will just cave to the pressure (of which this lawsuit is just a part) and reinstate him of their own volition.
If Twitter fights tooth and nail, it won’t be resolved for years; you’ll have emergency injunctions to stop emergency injunctions until other emergency injunctions play out.
Best case scenario: mutually assured destruction of both Twitter and Trump (and hopefully he’ll sue Facebook too).
is asking for his Twitter account back.
