It's the the loaded language in this story I find most interesting.
Regardless of whether you sympathise more with Amazon or Warren, and regardless of whether you think Amazon tweeting at Warren was tactically shrewd, tactically foolish, or a sign of overbearing hubris, the actual message content was fundamentally unarguable: Congress writes the laws, companies follow them.
Now you can make an argument that big business lobbyists have so much influence that this is an overly simplistic view, but even saying that is not actually to deny the point, it's to add nuance and context that qualifies it, but not actually to say it isn't true. You can't say it isn't true; it obviously is.
But in this article saying what is unquestionably true is called "taunting" politicians? What does that, rather loaded, word mean? Is it intended to back Warren's proto-fascist suggestion that Americans should not be "powerful enough" to argue with Senators? Is it arguing that it is wrong for a company to defend itself in public from political attack? Is it warning Amazon, "don't you dare piss off powerful politicians, they'll make you pay for annoying them"? And if so, is this done out of sympathy and support for Amazon, or basically as a threat, goading the politicians into retaliating against anyone who dare question them?
Do we really want politicians to be immune not only to criticism, but even to someone arguing the opposite case to the one they're pushing? Is that totalitarian mindset really the state of American politics today?
"Taunting"? (Score:3)
It's the the loaded language in this story I find most interesting.
Regardless of whether you sympathise more with Amazon or Warren, and regardless of whether you think Amazon tweeting at Warren was tactically shrewd, tactically foolish, or a sign of overbearing hubris, the actual message content was fundamentally unarguable: Congress writes the laws, companies follow them.
Now you can make an argument that big business lobbyists have so much influence that this is an overly simplistic view, but even saying that is not actually to deny the point, it's to add nuance and context that qualifies it, but not actually to say it isn't true. You can't say it isn't true; it obviously is.
But in this article saying what is unquestionably true is called "taunting" politicians? What does that, rather loaded, word mean? Is it intended to back Warren's proto-fascist suggestion that Americans should not be "powerful enough" to argue with Senators? Is it arguing that it is wrong for a company to defend itself in public from political attack? Is it warning Amazon, "don't you dare piss off powerful politicians, they'll make you pay for annoying them"? And if so, is this done out of sympathy and support for Amazon, or basically as a threat, goading the politicians into retaliating against anyone who dare question them?
Do we really want politicians to be immune not only to criticism, but even to someone arguing the opposite case to the one they're pushing? Is that totalitarian mindset really the state of American politics today?