Didn’t help that he showed up at his first couple Senate meetings gloating about winning the election. And tried to set working hours for his former colleagues. Among other things.
Obstructionism as a core tenet of the (former) Republican platform is reprehensible, and retrospectively probably led to quite a bit of discontent with the government’s inability to address problems that Americans face. That same discontent fomented the current reactionary swing, so in the end maybe they really got what they wanted. Shameful.
Right on. That's probably the worst part of the debilitating self-own we're currently going through. Even if conservatives (aka Democrats) gain back Congress, then gain back the Presidency, then overcome their controlled opposition dynamic where enough inevitably defect and undermine anything meaningful from getting done, so much has been broken that we will be lucky if they even manage to stop the hemorrhaging. Even if the Republicans that got "dragged into" the fascist fever start to have a bit of self-reflection to realize the damage they've done. We've got what, maybe 8 years until the malcontents' dog whistle refrains start to have credence again and then we're right back to staring down the destructionists - with a trail having already been blazed.
"Other things" most obviously being the racism caused in part by significant cognitive dissonance that uniquely affects white supremacists when having a black president.
Are you? Things seem to be going from bad to worse in the US right now. From the outside it seems like decades of terrible policy in all areas is catching up to the country.
Unlike Scott Adams, no struggle sessioner cares what black people actually think. They’ve been promised lordship over other men and today line up at his wake to collect.
Confused between morality and ethics, their true use is in driving passive alienation, which serves those in power. I think white leaders learned from the Civil Rights movement to keep their distance from blacks and won’t make the same mistake twice.
I disagree. Demand is the big problem, not supply.
The general public possesses domain-independent expertise on social pressures, institutional and financial incentives, and other non-epistemological factors that in some cases can support a rational rejection of scientific consensus.
Inadequate gatekeeping—premature or belated consensus or revision—is a failure of a given field of inquiry, not a failure of the general public.
That's absolutely cool, but if it's not going to answer to the court anyway, then why does the administration "wants the International Criminal Court to amend its founding document to ensure it does not investigate the Republican president and his top officials"? Isn't this demand actually giving unexpected legitimacy to the ICC?
I’d read Madison’s reply. Everyone knows Jefferson talked a lot of shit. The other founders were used to him. This is him getting emotional in Paris during the French Revolution. He thought the proto-Cult of Reason people were a bunch of crackpots and was worried the same thing was going to happen here.
Phasing out oil and coal production would be great, but that's a task for politics. It is still a collective action problem though since any such agenda needs to gain popular support in a democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
As individuals we can both take some actions to reduce climate impact in our daily lives and also support movements and campaigns for actions on the political level. No contradiction there.
I dunno, haven’t most populations sometimes gone through boom-bust cycles on the order of a few years/decades? It feels a little absurd to consider only a single ecological factor.
I think that most people would like to avoid the population of humans going through a bust. Personally I have no worries about human-induced rapid climate change eliminating life on Earth. I am, however, concerned about it affecting humankind.
reply