All of this is a choice made by the same people who went from “m*sks don’t work” to “wear two masks” in less than a year, who by their own claim lied about herd immunity thresholds, who can’t hold to a position for more than a week.
Why on earth should we ever trust them?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Listening to this, and much of the talk has been about the dynamics of television, television bookings, and the tendency of people to double down in partisan ways in the face of the mob. This matters, but it takes the position that information flow is preeminent; I’m not so sure.
One alternative view is that the growth of radical and fringe views and the rapid expansion of the audience for them is downstream of burgeoning awareness that things have gone wrong in many aspects of society in concrete ways, ways which are absent from prior narratives.
It’s a question of whether you regard “misinformation” as a supply or a demand problem, a message or a reality problem. Is the problem with media that it has too much emotive nonsense, or too little attention to issues which matter, and people notice?
I agree with the thrust of this, but this one is not strictly speaking HR’s fault I suspect. Rather, because divorce can only be conducted through the courts and the courts must have jargon and categories and classifications by which to know the world, this sort of thing results.
Bureaucracy is like a gun: in order to function reliably in its task of disposing of things, it must be kept strictly clean and provided with operating material kept to within strict tolerances. Deviations from expected norms will only produce malfunctions, and are thus rejected.
“Your honor, every night I damn the name of God for destroying the only thing which ever mattered to me. I drink constantly. My children are fading away in front of me.”
“Mr. Everyman, I’m going to ask you to control yourself and stick to the subject matter of this proceeding.”