I sometimes worry that political comedy (while healthy at an individual level) prevents action as it alieviates some of the pent up anger and frustration at the problems and injustices of the world today. The same frustration that might otherwise be directed toward action.
I asked AI the following question. I thought the response was worth sharing:
"What evidence is there for the merits of horseshoe theory?"
Let me analyze this carefully. The horseshoe theory suggests that the far-left and far-right of the political spectrum are more similar to each other than to the political center.
The main arguments made in favor of horseshoe theory include:
-
Both far-left and far-right movements have historically shown tendencies toward authoritarianism, with examples like Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany using similar tactics of state control, propaganda, and suppression of dissent.
-
Some similar rhetorical and organizational patterns appear in both far-left and far-right movements, such as: populist appeals, scapegoating of particular groups, calls for radical system change, and rejection of liberal democratic norms.
-
There are historical cases of individuals and groups moving between far-left and far-right positions, suggesting some underlying commonalities.
However, there are significant critiques of horseshoe theory:
-
It oversimplifies complex political ideologies and movements, forcing them into a rigid geometric metaphor that may not reflect reality.
-
Surface-level similarities in tactics or rhetoric don't necessarily indicate deeper ideological similarities. The fundamental goals and values often remain drastically different.
-
The theory can be used to dismiss radical critiques of existing systems by equating all forms of political extremism, regardless of their specific content.
-
Political scientists generally view it as an oversimplified model that doesn't adequately capture the multidimensional nature of political ideology.
Rather than a strict horseshoe pattern, many political scientists prefer more nuanced models that consider multiple axes of political belief and recognize that authoritarian tendencies can emerge across the political spectrum without necessarily indicating ideological similarity.
What are your thoughts on how political ideologies should be mapped or compared?
It might be good to reiterate (in part) why we're all in here.
"Passion isn't found, it's something that is developed over time".
You can find easy things that will entertain you in the short run (and they can often be worth doing), but I recommend going for something deeper and more rewarding.
Personally I've been finding AI like Claude.ai great for brainstorming and problem solving at all stages of whatever I'm working towards.
I should point out that a portion of the stat comes from immigrants who are fully literate in their native language.
National literacy as a topic forms an interesting picture that I don't fully understand.
21% of American adults are illiterate (54% read below a 6th grade level)
17% of Canadian adults are illiterate.
I keep coming back to these points as it's important context when understanding the news.
I used to be a picky eater, but years ago I decided that I wanted to like more food - - that life would be better if I actually enjoyed foods that I would otherwise have to suffer/avoid.
I started by putting small amounts of different ingredients in my dishes (when it made sense) and I quickly developed a taste for all of them.
(Only found out later that this was a great way to do it as your microbiom directly impacts your cravings).
Onions, mushrooms, tomatoes, olives, pickles, brussel sprouts, oysters, mustard are all things I now genuinely enjoy.
2% of Wealth (not income) annually. I'm no expert but if that includes unrealized gains then that is SIGNIFICANT.
Any precedent here regardless of outcome will have significant (and dangerous) impact, as the status quo is already causing significant harm.
For example Meta/Facebook used to prioritize content that generates an angry face emoji (over that of a "like") - - as it results in more engagement and revenue.
However the problem still exists. If you combat problematic content with a reply of your own (because you want to push back against hatred, misinformation, or disinformation) then they have even more incentiive to show similar content. And they justify it by saying "if you engaged with content, then you've clearly indicated that you WANT to engage with content like that".
The financial incentives as they currently exist run counter to the public good
Especially when it was going supernova.
Isn't the bends the consequence of the oxygen tank and nitrogen in your blood; and if the air in your body starts at atmospheric pressure it should be fine (though no idea about the effects on the human body from such a sudden change)
Wouldn't the same logic apply to the planet moving?
view more:
next ›