I disagree. The song’s a reminder that true revolution will be nothing like the Pepsi version. Unless you believe that Heron was essentially giving in to the cynicism that regards “revolution” as a hopelessly corrupted mechanism that can never bring about genuine transformation. Everything I know about Heron suggests…

Is this really what “resistance” has come to? Idiotic pop culture stunts directed at progressive mayors that seem designed more to elevate the “resister’s” personal social media brand than to clarify, enlighten or lead to real social change?

Who does the actual work for all these “face of the brand” people?

Is the process of Bed-Stuy residents getting 7-figure sums for their homes really in the same category as the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans?

I wouldn’t mind being arrested by ducklipzanddimplzz.

#BlueOpinionsMatterUnlessThey’reBlack

A) Punching down?

You sound like the Trumpanzees

If you believe Gawker Media doesn’t consider itself — and isn’t considered by others — “serious journalism” whose occasional failings can’t be excused by its “snark” and “sophomoric humor” you haven’t been paying attention.

derailing

The truth of your hair? Your complexion? Your wife or son? You better believe they can uppercut them. 

They may not have said the same words as O’Reilly, but the very clear subtext of the hair-mocking critics has been essentially the same: “How can we take seriously anything said by an orange troll with squirrel hair?” It was this mentality that made HuffPo relegate Trump to the Entertainment section during the…

If you can knock someone out on substance you don’t need a “finishing uppercut” on appearance. It may be deserved, but it puts you in a difficult moral position when someone uses that same uppercut on you.

O’Reilly doesn’t deserve any passes and he gets none from me. But I’m in a position to deny him a pass on this because I haven’t joked about Trump’s hair. The Root isn’t because they have. That’s the rub of stooping to ad hominem attacks.

In this case, one journalistic organization (the Root) is criticizing another journalistic organization (Fox News) for making fun of a politician’s hair when the former has done the exact same thing to another politician. That smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Do you consider the New York Times and SNL to be media organizations with “millions of viewers” which are “reporting on Trump with any sort of sincerity?” Because the former has a reporter who called Melania a “hooker” and the latter has a writer who called Baron “the country’s first homeschool shooter.”

I mean, look, the fact is we’re sort of at an “all’s fair”, type of moment in politics.

The difference between $50M in 2005 and $60M in 2017 is 12 years of mature reflection.

Am I the only one who thinks it’s a little hypocritical to be denouncing someone for making fun of a politician’s hair after the relentless jokes about Trump’s hair (and his neckties, and his complexion, and his name, and his wife, and his minor son)?

Your response is kind of making my point for me. Nobody said anything about a “middle” or compromise. But you’d rather vent on an issue that’s important to you than speak to the point: this article hyperventilates over the very same tactic of hair-shaming that many on our side have been using against Trump for a long…