Yes. If it is asserted that the future outcome will be in the set A, and you refute that assertion, you are yourself making an assertion that the future outcome, call it f, will be in the set U - A where U is the possible universe of outcomes.
"You're wrong" is not equivalent to "I'm right", but they are both statements that are dependent on fact.
Saying the sun will burn out tomorrow is the equivalent to saying the sun will not burn out tomorrow. In your world, they're both predictions. smh
I'd hate to go through life with your levels of pedantry.
What's their problem with language anyway? Don't they know that someones use/misuse of language doesn't define what's on the inside? Are they bigoted against Trumpian? This is about as high a crime as claiming ebonics is a sign of low intelligence! What a racist bastard!
most of these liberals in the media are elitist ****s who do think Ebonics is a sign of low intelligence, but can't say it because it'll be racist!
Trump talking like an average person is a high crime and a sign of stupidity in their eyes.
Recently I took a friend with only a high school degree to lunch. Insensitively, I led her into a gourmet sandwich shop. Suddenly I saw her face freeze up as she was confronted with sandwiches named “Padrino” and “Pomodoro” and ingredients like soppressata, capicollo and a striata baguette. I quickly asked her if she wanted to go somewhere else and she anxiously nodded yes and we ate Mexican.
Sometimes when I've never heard of one of the 5 or so most famous columnists in America I like to take a little trip to Wikipedia:
David Brooks (born August 11, 1961) is a conservative American author as well as political and cultural commentator who writes for The New York Times. He has worked as a film critic for The Washington Times, a reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal; a senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception; a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly; and a commentator on NPR. He is currently a columnist for The New York Times and commentator on PBS NewsHour.
I wonder how many other people the left hates we can trick these people into also hating by calling them liberal elitists, and then by extension get them to reject their ideas. Judo flip the whole lot of them into Warren voters in 2020 just by saying Bill Kristol opposes her and ****.
ah yeah the love fest to our favorite French "philosopher"
The Bordieu piece is legit but this book was not written by the David Brooks of the NYT, but by an Australian with the same name. See here.
I just skimmed the Bordieu piece real quick but it's not clear to me how it contains anything that would disqualify a person from identifying as conservative. I mean, it's kind of a fluff piece, but the core argument ("Donald Trump... [is] a genius at the symbolic warfare Bourdieu described. He’s a genius at upending the social rules and hierarchies that the establishment classes (of both right and left) have used to maintain dominance.") doesn't seem like one that's particularly liberal. And I think Bordieu's concept of habitus is fairly useful, sociologically. I also don't see any reason to think of it as a particularly partisan concept. It's just a way of thinking about social capital and its relation to political and economic power.