You can fool 1000 persons one time. You can fool 1 person 1000 times. But you can't fool 1000 persons 1000 times. Some people will know what I'm talking about :), the rest can just downvote this.
As Doge said, "much pretentious".
You can fool some of the people, all of the time
21–30 of 229 posts
Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#22If most people are hard-wired to be duped, why does it feel like only recently people are getting even more conspicuously duped by their political leaders (a la Trump and Johnson)? Presumably this effect should have had a more uniformly distributed effect throughout history. Is it solely due to the weaponization of technology for this means? Or are there other reasons for “why now”?
It been happening all along, it's just a bit more mask off right now. It always become more blatant as the contradictions of capitalism intensify and the status quo becomes untenable. You see the same in Western European propaganda from the 30s, particularly in the Weimar Republic.
Is it a pendulum then? When it’s less obvious is it still happening (and they just do a better job of hiding it from a more sensitive public) or is actual positive change happening?
There’s this saying that sunshine is the best disinfectant, but that somehow feels less true right now. It seems like you can be openly crooked in a democracy as long as you appeal to a sufficient majority for other reasons not related to your crookedness.
Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#23Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a similar theory, the right and the left each get to alternate so we stay sort of in the middle.
Which is the exact reason the system is setup like it is. The federal government is only supposed to take action when it can get two ideological parties to agree on something. The theory being that if the two sides can find common ground, it's actually a good idea.
Seems like a real world implementation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
I'm not sure that's a great thing, but you're never going to find a consensus that's both palatable to a majority and the right thing to do (of course, "right thing" being what I'm arbitrarily deciding is "right" based on my own values).
What's the compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery? Thank god argument to moderation wasn't the solution here.
Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#25You can fool 1000 persons one time. You can fool 1 person 1000 times. But you can't fool 1000 persons 1000 times. Some people will know what I'm talking about :), the rest can just downvote this.
Yes, that is a well known phrase and what the Economist is alluding to here.
from quote investigator
In conclusion, Jacques Abbadie should be credited with the interesting precursor statement in French. QI believes based on current evidence that Abraham Lincoln probably did not employ this well-known adage.
Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#26My pet theory is that democracy is more tolerable because it alternates between incompetent people fast enough to keep people's hopes alive.
Democracy is nothing more than a system that replaces swords/bullets with votes. That's it. The fight for power (aka. resources) it inescapable and the only thing that democracy did, was to change the field that this fight is fought on. Democracy is more tolerable because no people die (in the open) when the landscape of power changes.
The only two benefits of democracy to "the people" are: (1) the fact that they have now become the weapons .. and if they are smart, they can use that power to influence which actions of the warring factions are needed for their supremacy so that they are more inline with the interests of the people. (2) the entry requirements and risks to become one of the factions are much lower which can help with (1)
The only problem is that the warring factions know this and will do everything they can to conceal the reality of the situation so that the people do not exercise the power that they have. And they have been very successful at it. The amount of people who believe that democracy is somehow inherently good for the people is beyond my belief.
Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is the exact reason the system is setup like it is. The federal government is only supposed to take action when it can get two ideological parties to agree on something. The theory being that if the two sides can find common ground, it's actually a good idea.
Seems like a real world implementation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation I'm not sure that's a great thing, but you're never going to find a consensus that's both palatable to a majority and the right thing to do (of course, "right thing" being what I'm arbitrarily deciding is "right" based on my own values). What's the compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery? Thank god argument to moder…
There are two checks against the agreed upon "right thing",the national executive who has to agree with the consensus, and (thanks John Marshall), a system of (theoretically) impartial courts which can decide if the "right thing" is actually allowed according to the rules of the game (Constitution).
The slavery compromise was exactly that. First the 3/5th agreement, then the Missouri compromise, then finally, when one side got all of the power (which is what the system is supposed to mitigate the chances of) a shooting war.
Lincoln likely wouldn't have gone quite so agro on slavery if not for succession.
And there likely wouldn't have been a United States if there hadn't been any compromises on slavery. The two sides would have split at the outset, and either 1) neither would have been able to amass enough influence on the continent and they'd have been reabsorbed by a European power 2) after a hundred years of independent growth and simmering hatred, the two nation's would have had a war even more disastrous than the American civil war.
Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#28Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#29My pet theory is that democracy is more tolerable because it alternates between incompetent people fast enough to keep people's hopes alive.
Democracy is nothing more than a system that replaces swords/bullets with votes. That's it. The fight for power (aka. resources) it inescapable and the only thing that democracy did, was to change the field that this fight is fought on. Democracy is more tolerable because no people die (in the open) when the landscape of power changes. The only two benefits of democracy to "the people" are: (1) the fact that they hav…
> The amount of people who believe that democracy is somehow inherently good for the people is beyond my belief.
If the alternative is swords and bullets, I would think most people prefer democracy. It’s the worst system, except for all the others attempted so far.
Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is the exact reason the system is setup like it is. The federal government is only supposed to take action when it can get two ideological parties to agree on something. The theory being that if the two sides can find common ground, it's actually a good idea.
Seems like a real world implementation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation I'm not sure that's a great thing, but you're never going to find a consensus that's both palatable to a majority and the right thing to do (of course, "right thing" being what I'm arbitrarily deciding is "right" based on my own values). What's the compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery? Thank god argument to moder…
Moderate political solutions are (1) very frustrating and (2) much more effective in practice than they have any right to be. Often both sides of a political argument are wrong about the nature of reality and a solution where the major concerns of both sides are addressed is pretty good.
And the important thing is often that decisions don't happen in isolation. A moderate middle ground solution that fails often lends a lot of weight to the next round of negotiations when people decide what to try after compromise solution #1 fails.