Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[The Cat]

 

[Kephalos]

"Latin American politicians yearn for Utopia: Their woolly idealism can be glimpsed in Chile’s new constitution and in the policies of Colombia’s president"

"Voters should reject Chile’s new draft constitution: It is a fiscally irresponsible left-wing wish list"

But overall the draft is a confusing mess, full of woolly language that more or less guarantees decades of squabbling about what it actually means. “Nature” would be given rights. The draft mentions “gender” 39 times. Court rulings, the police and a national health system will have to operate with a “gender perspective”, which it does not define.
https://archive.ph/GC39X
To be fair, it omits some of the worst ideas aired in the assembly, which was dominated by leftists. These included nationalising all natural resources (mining generates 12% of gdp) and scrapping the upper house. The central bank retains its independence, though its remit has been expanded to include “employment protection, care for the environment and the natural heritage”

The document is far less business- or growth-friendly than the current constitution. It gives trade unions the sole right to represent workers, guarantees them a say in corporate decision-making and allows them to strike for any reason, not just those relating to work. It says that everyone has the “right to work” and that “all forms of job insecurity are prohibited”. That could make it rather hard to fire anyone. Landowners, such as farmers, could potentially lose the property rights to water on their land. Compensation for expropriated land would not be at a market price but at whatever Congress deems a “just” one.

The draft creates a portfolio of socioeconomic rights that could blow up the budget. It requires the establishment of several new bodies, such as an integrated national health system, and cradle-to-grave care, without giving much thought to how they would be funded. The state would oversee the provision of housing, to which it says every person has a right. Property speculation would be banned. So would for-profit education.

Legal checks and balances on the government would be watered down. A new council would have power over all judicial nominations; previously the Supreme Court, the president, the court of appeals and the Senate all had a role. The draft upends the budget process by giving Congress new powers to propose spending bills, although the president can veto them.

The document is ridiculously broad. It says the state should “promote the culinary and gastronomic heritage” of Chile and recognise “spirituality as an essential element of the human being”. Everyone has a “right to sports”. Non-humans get a look in, too: the state will promote “education based on empathy and respect for animals”.

Good News : "Common sense triumphs as Chileans reject a new constitution: The landslide result is a blow to the recently elected leftist government."

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

NBC out here having a normal one mourning the loss of gay orgies.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[The Cat]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[yeghor]

So what did US achieve by staying in Afghanistan really?

 

[yeghor]

It occurred to me that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are using a similar manipulation tactic as Elizabeth Holmes. They use an altered speech pattern to convey an image of intelligence without content. By using speech patterns that are exaggerated from the norm, but framed with competence, they manipulate people so easily.

Elizabeth Holmes used an intentionally lowered pitch to resemble masculine thought processes which are more trusted in business. It was also novel and odd, so had the added benefit of making her words more memorable.

Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson speak faster than normal, but convey simplistic ideas and repeat themselves a bit like an auctioneer reciting facts from a 5th grade science book. It's a linguistic tactic correlated with intelligence and thinking fast. If you analyze the content of what they are saying, it is quite simplistic with tons of repetition, so the thought processes are not moving fast at all, but are quite stagnant.

Image over content.

They don't feel similar to me.

Elizabeth Holmes had a hypnotic stare and is like a Puma on the prowl, Peterson is like an Elephant, and Shapiro is like a Squirrel.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[yeghor]

View attachment 27253

And the ruling party still manages to get some 30% votes in the polls.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It occurred to me that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are using a similar manipulation tactic as Elizabeth Holmes. They use an altered speech pattern to convey an image of intelligence without content. By using speech patterns that are exaggerated from the norm, but framed with competence, they manipulate people so easily.

Elizabeth Holmes used an intentionally lowered pitch to resemble masculine thought processes which are more trusted in business. It was also novel and odd, so had the added benefit of making her words more memorable.

Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson speak faster than normal, but convey simplistic ideas and repeat themselves a bit like an auctioneer reciting facts from a 5th grade science book. It's a linguistic tactic correlated with intelligence and thinking fast. If you analyze the content of what they are saying, it is quite simplistic with tons of repetition, so the thought processes are not moving fast at all, but are quite stagnant.

Image over content.

I find conservative thought to be very shallow in general, and it's usually centered around a gendered view of the world. It's nothing more than the belief that everything should conform to this gendered view of the world because it is either natural (for the enlightened atheistic conservative),or God-ordained (for the religious).

This is why the discussion always keeps coming back to it and they always keep obsessing about it even in the light of things like Covid.

Also there is not a great deal of difference in the thought patterns of religious or atheistic conservatives.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

And the ruling party still manages to get some 30% votes in the polls.

I wasn't really making a point on that, just the obvious weirdness of our financial times.

Also AWFL's, also known as Affluent White Female Liberals, are the absolute worst.

 

[The Cat]

 

[yeghor]

I find conservative thought to be very shallow in general, and it's usually centered around a gendered view of the world. It's nothing more than the belief that everything should conform to this gendered view of the world because it is either natural (for the enlightened atheistic conservative),or God-ordained (for the religious).

This is why the discussion always keeps coming back to it and they always keep obsessing about it even in the light of things like Covid.

Also there is not a great deal of difference in the thought patterns of religious or atheistic conservatives.

They find your thought to be out of touch with reality, i.e. insane.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

They find your thought to be out of touch with reality, i.e. insane.

I am aware. They haven't done the work of coming by their convictions through introspection and analysis, and just do the laziest thing possible, so I don't really care what they think.

Intellectual courage counts for something in my book. Stepping outside of your own experiences requires it. Staying comfortably ensconsced within them does not.