The "wokewashing" of Biden's cabinet 

And in a country where democratic centrists apologise for offending Republicans and attack their progressive base!

 

Keep punching from the right Lausten. See how far that you

Keep punching from the right Lausten.
What does that even mean?
@lausten “No Socialism, leave my Medicare"
You know, I think that went right over his head.

All these fancy terms, a country hick just can’t keep up.

Woke-washing: how brands are cashing in on the culture wars

Owen Jones
Thu 23 May 2019

From M&S’s LGBT sandwich to Kendall Jenner stopping a riot with a Pepsi can, corporate business is adept at adopting our concerns.

But is it all a cynical marketing ploy?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/23/woke-washing-brands-cashing-in-on-culture-wars-owen-jones

… You don’t have to have digested Karl Marx’s Das Kapital to recognise that companies are driven by the profit motive, not changing the world. But can advertising ever have an ethical dimension? According to estimates by the New Economics Foundation thinktank a decade ago, the negative consequences of advertising – from promoting indebtedness to “social and environmental damage” – meant that for every pound of value generated by an advertising executive, £11 worth was destroyed. I doubt their figures have significantly changed since. When brands flash their support for just causes, aren’t they cynically preying on your conscience so you will cough up – a phenomenon known as “woke-washing”? …

Just to show that I know how to use google, let’s review the early cabinet of the lame duck President.

EPA - Scott Pruitt, who sued the EPA when he was Attorney General of OK. He said human caused climate change is debatable.

Interior – Kevin “Jack” Haugrud, who is he?

HHS - Norris Cochrabn

Energy - Grace Bochenek, Rick Perry (the “oops” guy from the 2016 debates. He said he would eliminate the department of energy)

Team to focus on climate change and liaison to the community - (this space left blank)

If they are so well know then why haven’t I heard about them?
A participation rate of 1% in an organization usually results in that organization having a significant impact on the future. That leaves a lot of people who know little or nothing about that organization. An entertainer, journalist, writer, influence peddler, whatever, can have a million followers and still be pretty much unknown by the mainstream. It's a symptom of the multiple media channels and the ability to self publish.

Generation gaps are much more blurred than they have been historically.

I’d say, because Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, anyone else at MSNBC, and all those on Free Speech TV haven’t said word about them.

Lausten, have we finished with the conversation about alternatives to Cedric Richmond? Have we moved on?

This thread was propitious for moving on after that nonsensical “wokewashing” video, IMHO.

Have we moved on?
I haven't engaged anton on much of anything for a week or so. I only respond to him to give evidence of how he is trolling and strongly suggest that he quit. The "alternatives" was just a comment, trying to say how pointing out a lack of a counter argument being stated says nothing about the existence of counter arguments or the quality they might have.

Anton should note how little people respond to his comments in a positive way. Even if someone is disagreeing, it could be with clarifying questions or by saying ‘good point, but’. That’s dialog. Anton is just skipping around from one data point to another and mixing in insults and jabs at groups that none of us belong to.

Lausten, was my response to your point about alternatives satisfactory?

Lausten, was my response to your point about alternatives satisfactory?
You mean this one?
“It’s quite telling that you don’t have an alternative candidate for this position." -- Me

Tone deaf? – anton


No. I didn’t know what you meant or if you know what “tone deaf” means. So, like much of what you say, I didn’t respond.

 

No mate. Underneath.

“The sunrise movement and the justice democrats asked biden that the new administration not hire anyone with ties to the oil and gas industries”

That one. Ok?

 

That one. Ok? -- anton
That's not an alternative candidate. It's the name of the group that doesn't like the choice Biden made, so, no, definitely not satisfactory. But my comment was more rhetorical than anything. I don't think you understood the point I was making, or much of anything I'm saying in this thread.

You are just repeating yourself, which is what trolls do. You say things and then act as if you have made a point. Then you get frustrated when the responses don’t go along with you. But you haven’t said anything. You copied someone else’s words, in this case, those words were just them reading other people’s words, which were just reports of something somebody else said.

You aren’t really evaluating the data, the reasons they gave. He took money from oil and gas, when he is a representative in the heart of a refinery district, not really shocking. He is a politician who has played the game, not a guy who chained himself to a tree as a protest, this is not a surprise. He might very well do a horrible job and Biden might not make any real progress on climate change initiatives, I’ve never argued that he would. I hope he will, but I have serious doubts.

Now, if you have something to say, please say it. Use some form of logic and make a point.

“The pick a fact, like the amount of pollution in a guy’s district, and claim that is a reason to disqualify him as someone who can speak on climate change and makes him not a science based candidate for the position.”

Thats a dishonest representation of what they said. Why do you keep doing this?

That’s not an analysis Anton. You simply called me wrong. What did they say? What is a reason to disqualify him?

Anton, how about Citizen’s United - does that ring any bells?

 

“The pick a fact, like the amount of pollution in a guy’s district, and claim that is a reason to disqualify him as someone who can speak on climate change and makes him not a science based candidate for the position.”
How about something coherent - like what in tarnation is that sentence about?

Again with the dishonesty and the inevitable pivoting. Thats your summation of what they said.

 

" He might very well do a horrible job and Biden might not make any real progress on climate change initiatives, I’ve never argued that he would. I hope he will, but I have serious doubts."

 

Hope? As in hope he doesnt let all the fossil fuel donations he recieved influence his decision making because its not like they will want anything in return and it not like it has before in representing the most polluted district in the USA?

During the climate crisis that has battered his home state of Louisiana, Richmond has joined with Republicans to vote to increase fossil fuel exports and promote pipeline development. He also voted against Democratic legislation to place pollution limits on fracking — and he voted for GOP legislation to limit the Obama administration’s authority to more stringently regulate the practice.

 

Gees i wonder how we could bypass this problem??? Maybe just maybe someone who does not represent big oil interests?

And youre calling others to grow up?

@anton we know you support the dotard, but let’s face it, the dotard didn’t even try to do his job nor did he care. President Biden will do far better than the dotard. Anyone who tries will do better, because all the dotard did was play golf, Twit, watch TV, and threw Chicken Pox parties (AKA superspreaders for COVID). He didn’t give a damn about anyone except himself and now he’s breaking stuff as Putin’s lap dog (AKA that Sky thing that helped to warn countries of a Russian attack). Guess what? What he did to the planes that did that job was Russia’s attack through that orange creature.

@anton;

In your recent post, you said Richmond is influenced by oil and gas money, he has voted with Republicans, his district is polluted due to fossil fuels, he has voted anti-regulation of fracking. This is pretty much what was said in the OP. So for two days you’ve added nothing to this conversation. Has it occurred to you that you are critiquing a minor position pretty far down the chain of command? It’s kind of ironic, don’t you think?

You might be sincere in whatever it is you think you are saying, but you aren’t bringing anything to this conversation. What if I just quit responding? Would have something new to say? Would you go bother someone else?