it seems to me that: aoc has better political stances than the average leftist, and biden has better political stances than the average liberal, romney and mccain and bush had better political stances than the average republican who supported them, even trump has better political stances than the average trumpist (operation warpspeed was awesome)
this is a reason to prefer representative democracy over straight democracy i guess
24 notes
·
View notes
What perhaps most people can't see, is that it's not the 'cool' edgelords making the world go round. No, it's almost never ever the popular ones, the super loud ones, the sociable ones making a difference. It's always, always the nerds, outcasts, rebels, and misfits, the shy ones, the akward ones, the ones the others make fun of. It's in every single field like that. It has to be the insecure ones, because it is a fact that if you are, you are full of doubts, you are skeptical, and question everything. People who are so sure of themselves are never bright.
There's always a Tesla for every Edison, there's a lot engineers, scientists, and great minds for every Elon Musk (mind you, he is no engineer, he is only a businessman), a Woz or different wozes for every Steve Jobs. You might, in fact, have never heard about a lot of them, probably never will. And please, no, billionaire businessperson has ever made the world go round. The opposite: they have basically defecated on the planet. This cult of personality around billionaires comes from Ayn Rand. Besides, let's face it, our economic system has failed us for decades, hence their business ideas, like the ones before them, have not made any lives better by default.
I will never understand what makes people form basically cults around the barky ones and worship everything they say, do, even if they lie or harm someone. What is it that makes people so drawn to the loud ones? Is it their self-confidence? Or is it fear that they might get loud at you too? Perhaps it's some sort of primitive evolutionary trait/instinct in us to feel protected by following the allegedly 'strong ones'. Or is it the fact that people love to belong to groups and fear being rejected, of standing alone, whilst forgetting their critical thinking and even their own individuality? I love Teshigahara's Woman in the Dunes, because it does a good job at illustrating the foolishness and cruelty of people in groups.
All of those nerds, outcasts, and shy ones overcame the fear of standing alone, they overcame the norm, and their doubts led them to the quest of truth. That's what made them think differently in the first place. It's only authenticity, passion, and a genuine concern for making the world a better place that made people overcome everything, everyone, including themselves. Sheeple will never make a difference. Remember that.
19 notes
·
View notes
« This is the fourth debate that you would be voted in the first 20 minutes as the most obnoxious blowhard in America. So shut up for a little while. »
— Chris Christie telling Vivek Ramaswamy to STFU at the fourth Republican presidential debate Wednesday in Alabama. Quoted at The New York Times.
POLITICO's Kierra Frazier recently spoke with UCLA psychology Prof. Jaana Juvonen about Ramaswamy's obnoxious behavior.
KF: Would you say he’s acting like a teenager when he squares off this way with Nikki Haley and others?
JJ: He is definitely using these strategies, hostile strategies to gain power, and that’s what bullying really is all about: to gain power and status.
And obviously, he has a role model — Trump — who did it masterfully, masterfully, in the sense that by doing that, he did not lose popularity but seemed to be gaining popularity. When I talk about popularity, that is not about likeability. That’s a really important distinction. Popularity is status, and you can be a high status and popular, cool person without being liked. Ramaswamy is not trying to be a likable person. He is simply trying to appear powerful.
It is probably no coincidence that Ramaswamy attacked Haley the most. Trump first attacked women also. Women are generally perceived to have less power and hence they make “safe” victims. I believe Haley may be proving otherwise.
[ ... ]
KF: Should we be worried that our kids are watching these debates and are being encouraged to bully others?
JJ: Absolutely. Absolutely. We had actually made a lot of progress on bullying in schools in particular, before Trump’s successful candidacy. And when he continued his behavior as president, it really sort of transformed schools back to where we had started.
Republicans like Ramaswamy and Trump are not just obnoxious assholes, they are a bad influence on kids.
If you want the sour mood in the country to end, keep Republicans out of public office and don't allow them back until the bullying cult of Trump is broken up.
3 notes
·
View notes
Behind Maui Wildfires: US is Never a Positive Agent in Climate Change Fight
— Anthony Moretti | August 16, 2023
Illustration: Xia Qing/Global Times
Maui, one of the most awe-inspiring places on Earth, has been devastated. Horrible fires - exacerbated by increasing temperatures and drought associated with climate change - have turned this paradise into something resembling a war zone. The pictures do not lie.
Fair or not, because climate change showed up in such a brutal way on Maui, a place the rich (and perhaps not so rich) consider one of their playgrounds, the challenge to re-create paradise will be carefully watched. Much like the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, damaged by fire more than four years ago, it has to be repaired perfectly - because global audiences are demanding it - Maui will have to be made perfect, or as close to it, because global eyes are watching.
This is the short-term problem: Make Maui great again. And compared to the long-term problem, it will be the easier one to handle. The more vexing, time-consuming and difficult challenge is combating climate change, and there is legitimate worry across the globe that the US is not committed to addressing it.
Unfortunately, President Joe Biden and his administration are not doing enough to be a force for good as burning wildfires and intense heat continue to define the summer of 2023. Yes, his administration has committed $370 billion to clean energy and other climate-supporting projects, which have also spurred job growth. On top of that, one of the more symbolic, but important, steps the White House recently took was sending climate envoy John Kerry to China. There, he examined with Chinese officials a variety of ways the two countries can ensure a safer climate for decades to come.
Yet, Biden has not used his so-called Bully Pulpit, the power that comes with being president and therefore framing the narrative on specific issues, to spur oil companies to do the right thing. A recent New York Times editorial called out big oil for "prioritizing dividends, share buybacks and continued fossil fuel production over increasing their clean energy investments" as this fact "suggests they are unable or unwilling to power the transition forward." Audiences must ask if those words "unable or unwilling" also apply to the president: Why is he not saying forcefully and often that oil companies must champion newer and cleaner energies? If he will not demand more, then who will? And if he will not do it now, then what will the ramifications be in the years to come?
And remember that there are darker clouds on the horizon. On the one hand, results from a recent Pew Research Center poll indicate Americans are aware of the problems associated with climate change and the opportunities the US could take to address it. However, almost one-in-three respondents still wanted the US to continue investing in what can be described in 20th century energy sources such as oil and coal.
Let's take these somewhat sanitary data and summarize them this way: Should Republicans are given the majority in the House of Representatives and Senate in 2024, the US will not be at the epicenter in the fight for a healthier, greener and sustainable planet.
With Republicans running Washington, the aforementioned climate envoy John Kerry will be sent into retirement. The global community, including organizations such as the United Nations, will be laughed at when it calls on the US to engage in meaningful conversations about the climate.
Not possible? It is definitely possible. Forget for a moment whether Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee in 2024. Keep in mind that he maintains a vise-like hold on the party; even if someone else is chosen to challenge President Biden in the general election, no Republican who hopes to maintain his or her political power can stray from Trump's beliefs. And one of those beliefs is that climate change is nonsense.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and is causing havoc across the globe and despite America clinging to an outdated idea that it is a place of "exceptionalism," there is no promise that political elites will lead on the issue. Closely related to this, there is no certainty that the public will rally to the cause. If the world's current No.1 economy draws a conclusion that it can remain in that spot by ignoring climate change, then the world can forget about the US being a positive agent in the fight against climate change.
— The author is an Associate Professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University.
2 notes
·
View notes
"both represent the emergence of a particularly American personality in the early years of the twenty-first century: the wildly disruptive narcissist. Both wield sledge hammers to protect their fragile egos. Both are utterly lacking in empathy. Both lie, and push baseless conspiracy theories
Both are billionaires but they are not motivated primarily by money. Nor are they fueled by any larger purpose, principle, or ideology. Their singular goal is to imprint their giant egos on everyone else — to exercise raw power over people. To make others grovel.
Their politics is neither conservative nor liberal. Call it megalomaniacal authoritarian.
But why now — why do both achieve such prominence at this particular point in history? And why are so many enthralled with them?
The answer, I think, is that a large segment of the American public projects its needs and fantasies on them.
Their arrogance and certitude attract millions of followers, fans, and cultish devotees, along with a fair number of goons and thugs, who want to vicariously feel superior.
But they are not leaders. They are bullies who demean America"
6 notes
·
View notes