On the blip side of posting, Bowen YANG & his co-host backtrack on dissing Jasmine CROCKETT

[UTUSN]

9. Language that "suggests" - yip, retractions are not apologies, maybe adjacent.

They did, indeed, frame it as a rewording - YANG following ROGERS' lead again (I had the impression before this that YANG was the better known one), but ROGERS *did* now say his words "suggested otherwise" than "respect and admiration" for CROCKETT.

There were two comments in the article about Gay and Asian attacks, one from YANG (about SNL) and one from a Commenter. The other four regarding racism were allegations of "Anti-Blackness" on the part of YANG/ROGERS.

The thrust of their comments about CROCKETT - and NEWSOM, by the way - was just a blank-out to not support her, not a punditry analysis in "common sense" terms.

*** But on a Meta level, it's commonly frequent for your and my fellow members to vent about their posting peeves and preferences, so I'll indulge myself here about your post, which I'm sure I'll regret: When I see vague assertions that seem to be referring to somebody, I'm wondering, Who is/are the target - me/us? And I prefer to target MAGAts and other of our enemies than anybody on our side. So, in the following phrases, who are the targets - me/OP, the author of the article, DU at large, Dems out there at large?

* "eating of one's own"

* "in the name of dumb"

* "who claim a progressive mantle"

* "the usual usual"

* "the bored Internet social media mob"

******************AND I already regret this/my post, having violated my own throwaway PSA, and will let the victorious Last Word be as it might without me.