3 ms·
Some are complaining this letter is weak and generic. Of course it is. You have 3M, Target, General Mills, Cargill, and US Bancorp on here, among others. If y
by mediaman 9mo ago
Some are complaining this letter is weak and generic.
Of course it is. You have 3M, Target, General Mills, Cargill, and US Bancorp on here, among others.
If you are looking for some revolutionary call to action, you're looking in the wrong place. And you're misunderstanding what's happening.
It is a really big deal for these very conservative, large, rich companies to be telling the federal government to cut it out, even if it is written in generic legalese.
The letter is not for you. It is for the administration. And it is extremely clear.
- ameliaquining 9mo agoI do think they would likely have used more forceful rhetoric if they were dealing with a more normal administration. The current one is atypically spite-driven and prone to retaliate against critics, so they probably figured that saying anything insufficiently conciliatory-sounding would likely be counterproductive.
- foogazi 9mo ago> The current one is atypically spite-driven and prone to retaliate against critics That’s why they do that
- shalmanese 9mo agoEven if that is the instinct, this is a mistaken way to deal with narcissistic bullying. It’s writing the piece in the first place rather than what you put in it that raises the ire. There’s no way to compromise or mollify the wording in a way that makes them give you like, half the punishment. What’s more, the attempt to mollify signals weakness that just invites them to feel even more vindictive. Being more forthright and decisive is what earns their grudging respect. China understood this, Zohran Mandani understood this. Meanwhile, Europe and Democratic leadership, universities and large law firms refuse to understand this.