Donald Trump has fired all six members of an independent federal agency responsible for reviewing his controversial White House ballroom and planned āArc de Trumpā in Washington DC.
The Commission of Fine Arts was established in 1910, and is tasked with āgiving expert advice to the President, the Congress and the federal and District of Columbia governments on matters of design and aestheticsā, according to its website.
Its purview includes reviewing designs proposed for memorials and new or renovated government buildings, and the commission is intended to be staffed by experts in art, architecture and urban design. There is no indication about whom Trump plans to appoint to the commission.
Later, you say:
Just say what you think. Asking a question like this when you really have an agenda is an attempt to set up a situation where everyone else has to work to answer you and you invest nothing, and then you get to sit atop the mountain as judge of their answer when you have no skin in the game and havenāt done anything to justify your opinion. It comes across as arrogant and haughty.
Look at how this thread turned out: diablexical played your game and you still contributed nothing while remaining disdainful of every reply.
This is why people label this bad faith. Itās also a technique widely applied by the far right, so people on a political forum are right to assume things about people ājust asking questionsā in order to protect their time.
I did: the question. Answer it or donāt. No one owes you more.
Donāt need to: wasnāt stated with a mere question. See how that works? They started drama with their adverse assumptions to try to draw out an irrelevant opinion & youāre blaming the other party: hypocrisy.
Again, having to defensively explain ourselves, because everyone is so insecure & bitter is exhausting, and no one should have to tolerate it, so Iām not. Neither should you.
Unwarranted, hostile presuppositions earn contempt.
Their answer (if it has any merit) is the contribution. There is no answer without a question. Youāre welcome.
Another contribution is judging the caustic ways we shouldnāt approach questions. Youāre welcome for that, too.
Thatās presupposition. If a question isnāt worth your time, then donāt answer: easy. Speculatively maligning others with mindreading irrationality is toxic to discussion: no one compels such caustic behavior & itās logically unsound. Imagining that irrationality ought to be the rules to govern discussion is peak reddit, which might be a better fit for such thinkers.
Questions in an online discussion donāt need justification. Socratic dialectic doesnāt need ājustifiedā questions: it questions assumptions until we realize our ignorance. Asking uncomfortable questions is the point. I suspect you would claim Socrates & other philosophers who challenged conventionality by relentlessly questioning āobvious thingsā are ājust asking questionsā in ābad faithā & therefore they argue from āthe far rightā.
Itās bullshit: anyone can & does use the technique of āuncomfortable questionsā. You just donāt like them being asked.