Sri Lankan writer and Indi Samarajiva’s essay is insightful

"The minority party threw chili powder at everyone in Parliament and took over by farce. Math, however, requires a majority and the courts kicked them out. They gave in. We’d been protesting for weeks and yay, we won. No. I didn’t know it at the time, but we had already lost. No one knew — but oh my God, what we lost. The legitimate government came back but it was divided and weak. We were divided and weak. We were vulnerable.

The coup was a farce at the time but how soon it turned to tragedy. They called it a constitutional crisis, but how soon it became a real one. Right now, the same thing is happening to you. I’m trying to warn you America. It seems stupid now, but the consequences are not."

Here’s an archive of his Medium post. http://stupidcoup.byethost10.com/?i=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31BsYXualxk

unelected minion

What if it’s just not for you? Not in a bad way, but in a blunt, not everything is for everybody way? To me thats ok.

Art comes to us 1. at a time 2. in a place 3. in a culture.
Those things together sometimes make magic for millions and it’s cool. But sometimes all of them are off just enough to make the art uncompelling - we just can’t get into it. Name a top artist of the last 50 years, and there a millions of people who would give anything to see them one more time, and millions (who have listened) and it just doesn’t do anything for them.

I’ve heard a couple of 60’s big acts say I’m not sure how you could enjoy our music without living the lifestyle we were into back then. That scratches at the thing I’m talking about, it’s sometimes a bit of ‘you had to be there.’ That phrase is abused, but when it’s used right it has meaning. You’re hanging out with friends and the funniest thing happens. The next day you try to tell the story and it falls so flat of the experience. It was a time, a place, a people that made the magic.

Agreeing with other folk who point to his mastery, his craft, his ingenuity, his artistry, integrity. And those are all arguably real, measurable and true. But that doesn’t mean it will speak to everyone. Or even be enjoyable by everyone.

for me to get Prince, I had to be a teenager first experiencing life and love and pain, and seeing Purple Rain as my first real musical movie, and having a brother who thought Prince as a genius, and a few close friends who would loan me the albums, and a tape deck to listen to on the way to school, and a radio that was playing the new hits - Abracadabra, Jack and Diane, and Hard to Say I’m Sorry, You Dropped the Bomb on Me, and Oh Mickey. In that soup, 1999 comes to me and I see it in Technicolor somehow, and it seeps in, and I read the liner notes, and lay on the floor listening, imagining. I had to have the mystery about a man who really only had one name, and what the word androgynous means. I think I had to have all of these things to get Prince. And for years I did. And I got older, and I got it less, and others more, and maybe back again a couple of times. The last thing is the new of it all. You cant recapture, re-experience the new - and once it’s here it changes all of us, and everything is maybe a bit different and maybe a bit better, but it’s near impossible to look back and feel what happened, you can only feel it going forward. I’d like to feel the Beatle’s coming to America, or Chuck Berry on TV, or Getting muddy at Woodstock, but that’s not really a thing. You can read, and watch, and learn get an appreciation, but we can’t recatch old waves.

decorum: a solemn request that questions use question marks.

why: differentiation - between “hey. look at what I made” posts and “anybody know how I can?” questions.

… and liars lie.

Lutra

The issue is not the tattoo. It’s that for many, his explanation of the tattoo is weak.

The question isn’t what we know. It’s that he says, in the 20 years he’s had the tattoo, he never learned who also used it, and no one else ever mentioned it to him. That is highly improbable. Its not that he has the tattoo, it’s that his justifications so far are implausible.

Now, assuming we all now know what as false dilemma is -

What is the third (or fourth) logical option? I can’t see one.

I agree. It doesn’t matter.

He claims: "For 20 years I didn’t know the thing I had permanently engraved on my body is a Nazi symbol. "

• A. He is a a moron ( technical term) – and Disqualified.
• B. He is a liar — and ALSO Disqualified.

That this story needs deep investigation is illogical. The man has had a Nazi tattoo for 20 years, and said he never knew. There are 2 reasonable possibilities:

Either he is extremely dull – a disqualification from office

or

He is a liar — also a disqualification from office.

To dive into the story, is an effort to support what? a person who’s behavior has disqualified him. Or else, he is undisqualifiable, and that’s a interesting point.

makes sense.

 Anyone else wonder why they would hold off exiting him? It's obvious he's more useful in office than out. But, it's inevitable that he will exit the office sooner than later, and they clearly have a plan to replace him. My nagging thought is. why wait?

people who announce what they’re gonna announce don’t have sh to say.

He also called for the death penalty for the wrongly accused central park 5. it’s been 20 years, and he remains the same