I have trouble taking seriously that guy asking why it's significant, the naming of a body of water or mountain. Maybe it's because i'm reading your article explaining the significance, but I feel that regime defender types are well trained at playing dumb in service to their ideology. Pretending to not understand something in order to take offense. Or in this case, to try and undermine something that is actually important, not via argument but through an attempt at mockery or humiliation. Basically saying look how dumb Trump is. All the while only making an argument by implication.
My thoughts on the matter of naming conventions, or more broadly anything minor enough to be greeted with the "why does this matter, it's not a big deal" defense by Leftists, when the Right attempts to reverse Leftist changes, or to implement new changes, is to simply agree with the person alleging it's not a big deal. Things either matter or they don't, and if someone wants to withdraw a controversy from consideration, then let them. They forfeit their right to be concerned about us making the change, because they just said it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter if we change it, so let's change it, because it doesn't matter. Obviously, it does matter, but if they want to tie themselves up in rhetorical apathy, I'll take the free win.
I figure its a crafty means to punish people who are playing a rather stupid game, dishonestly at that. If it really didn't matter they wouldn't care enough to ask why you're trying to change it.
Yep. But that's probably why the left tends to win. They flip the hell out over small minor things that go against their beliefs, while the right tends to go 'ah that's ok, just a couple of statues', etc.
All great points. My paternal side of the family has a tradition of family names, which I used to think was silly because there are so many Richard's, Alexander's, and Andrew's that it sometimes gets difficult to keep track of them all, but the older I get the more I understand the significance. It helps now that the men they're named after are gone but certainly never forgotten. I've gotten a lot of flack for being a long time critic of the "-leigh" and "-den" trend - mostly by people who have those names or children with those names - but I stand by my assertion it's never been a good one.
Also, I can only imagine the guts it would take a sailor to admit, "Oh, I served on the Ruth Bader Ginsburg". I doubt they'd ever name a ship after Clarence Thomas.
You might be surprised how organically self selective certain sailors are. The HARVEY MILK has exactly the type of sailor you would expect for its crew. I would imagine that if and when the Ginsburg is commissioned that all the girl bosses will find their way onto that ship.
Great article. I would dispute Nixon being a right wing president given the leftist agencies such as the EPA he approved. I do not consider taking the nation off the gold standard and unleashing inflation hell right wing.
I really like Nixon. In my opinion, the state through the EPA does have a legitimate interest in maintaining certain anti-pollution standards. Obviously the EPA has drastically failed in conserving the land and cleaning up after ecological disasters, but I think that is different from saying they shouldnt exist in the first place. As for the gold standard, I can understand having an issue with getting rid of it. However, Nixon knew who the enemy was and he was effective in fighting back, which was why he was not allowed to remain in office.
I have trouble taking seriously that guy asking why it's significant, the naming of a body of water or mountain. Maybe it's because i'm reading your article explaining the significance, but I feel that regime defender types are well trained at playing dumb in service to their ideology. Pretending to not understand something in order to take offense. Or in this case, to try and undermine something that is actually important, not via argument but through an attempt at mockery or humiliation. Basically saying look how dumb Trump is. All the while only making an argument by implication.
My thoughts on the matter of naming conventions, or more broadly anything minor enough to be greeted with the "why does this matter, it's not a big deal" defense by Leftists, when the Right attempts to reverse Leftist changes, or to implement new changes, is to simply agree with the person alleging it's not a big deal. Things either matter or they don't, and if someone wants to withdraw a controversy from consideration, then let them. They forfeit their right to be concerned about us making the change, because they just said it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter if we change it, so let's change it, because it doesn't matter. Obviously, it does matter, but if they want to tie themselves up in rhetorical apathy, I'll take the free win.
Well said, I hadn't thought of it like that.
I figure its a crafty means to punish people who are playing a rather stupid game, dishonestly at that. If it really didn't matter they wouldn't care enough to ask why you're trying to change it.
The left has spent the last couple of decades renaming damn near everything. Trump puts *two* names back, and the left loses their minds.
Yep. But that's probably why the left tends to win. They flip the hell out over small minor things that go against their beliefs, while the right tends to go 'ah that's ok, just a couple of statues', etc.
All great points. My paternal side of the family has a tradition of family names, which I used to think was silly because there are so many Richard's, Alexander's, and Andrew's that it sometimes gets difficult to keep track of them all, but the older I get the more I understand the significance. It helps now that the men they're named after are gone but certainly never forgotten. I've gotten a lot of flack for being a long time critic of the "-leigh" and "-den" trend - mostly by people who have those names or children with those names - but I stand by my assertion it's never been a good one.
Also, I can only imagine the guts it would take a sailor to admit, "Oh, I served on the Ruth Bader Ginsburg". I doubt they'd ever name a ship after Clarence Thomas.
You might be surprised how organically self selective certain sailors are. The HARVEY MILK has exactly the type of sailor you would expect for its crew. I would imagine that if and when the Ginsburg is commissioned that all the girl bosses will find their way onto that ship.
Great article. I would dispute Nixon being a right wing president given the leftist agencies such as the EPA he approved. I do not consider taking the nation off the gold standard and unleashing inflation hell right wing.
I really like Nixon. In my opinion, the state through the EPA does have a legitimate interest in maintaining certain anti-pollution standards. Obviously the EPA has drastically failed in conserving the land and cleaning up after ecological disasters, but I think that is different from saying they shouldnt exist in the first place. As for the gold standard, I can understand having an issue with getting rid of it. However, Nixon knew who the enemy was and he was effective in fighting back, which was why he was not allowed to remain in office.
Aidan is a modern English spelling of the medieval Aedan. I doubt today’s parents look into it further, which is a lost opportunity for all.