If the majority was logical then we’d have been revolting for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passing of the Interstate Branching and Banking Efficiency Act.
I think it’s far more important to encourage wisdom than pretend to play whack-a-mole with bank-owned politicians.
How do you propose we go about changing this? How do we effectively encourage it?
I think that purely logical thought is impossible, and believing we are a logical person can lead us to assume all our opinions are logical, inherently. Which leads to using after the fact logic to justify initial gut reactions. Is that what you mean by wisdom? The ability to understand your own emotional reaction and decide if it’s based on anything useful? Or is it something else?
I think, at this point in time, celebrity culture is important to be aware of. Trump was a reality tv star, after all. I think a better world could be made if society didn’t care about celebrities, but that is not where we live, and observing reality seems an important step to understanding it. And understanding it can help us determine if there is a way to alter this. If that’s the goal. Is that the purpose to your questions?
Now that the main glut of whatever has passed, I want to express that your post above, particularly your question, made my day. It’s perhaps the best question I’ve been asked engaging with .world. Thank you.
How do you propose we go about changing this? How do we effectively encourage it?
You’re witnessing one very small act of praxis right now. But, my best results are always IRL, personal, in a recurring one-on-one or small group discussion. And, I’m not to lead that discussion, instead following where the others lead, the only boundary logical fallacy.
A poor summary would be “Agency at all costs.” But, a good answer to your question would require a very lengthy response. My greatest influence in means is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire (1968). But, there’s so many good tools, from the New Testament to the emotional delivery of Malcolm X. Being able to adapt is critical. Perhaps most important is to risk making it personal.
I’m going to take a stab at interpreting Crashhumbc’s post.
Politics is a popularity contest. You’re imploring Swift to write a fully cited research paper with academic rigor to justify her vote. Most people just go into the ballot box and pick the name that appeals the most to them. You are unrealistic in your evaluation of people, and hold major influencers (aka Celebrities) to standards that nobody else will.
Taylor Swift is a pretty blonde girl with a hot body, and a rocking singing voice and dancing skill to make the most of that hot body. Her original plan was to withhold her voting choice until after the election so she could focus on her current tour and not get right-wing agitators harming her or her fans. But then somebody made a DeepFake of her endorsing Trump, and she had no choice.
She explicitly does not want to tell her fans how to vote. She starts with that, reiterates it throughout her screed, and ends with it. But she makes it clear she’s NOT endorsing Trump, but instead, voting against him.
Will her fans change their votes based on what she’s said she’s going to do? Yes. Unfortunately. They’ll not read the three+ times she says “vote for who you think the best choice is, not who I think the best choice is”, and only see her “I am voting Harris/Walz.” You can’t expect her to be responsible for her fans’ poor choice in decision making, though. She’s not telling you how to vote, and she doesn’t want you to vote with her. That’s a huge part of why she said she’d not release her voting choice ‘until after her tour’ (which ends after the election). Had the Deepfakers not made a video of her endorsing Trump, we’d still probably be guessing at who she supports.
If people used logic, Trump would never have made into politics to begin with.
If the majority was logical then we’d have been revolting for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passing of the Interstate Branching and Banking Efficiency Act.
I think it’s far more important to encourage wisdom than pretend to play whack-a-mole with bank-owned politicians.
What do you think?
How do you propose we go about changing this? How do we effectively encourage it?
I think that purely logical thought is impossible, and believing we are a logical person can lead us to assume all our opinions are logical, inherently. Which leads to using after the fact logic to justify initial gut reactions. Is that what you mean by wisdom? The ability to understand your own emotional reaction and decide if it’s based on anything useful? Or is it something else?
I think, at this point in time, celebrity culture is important to be aware of. Trump was a reality tv star, after all. I think a better world could be made if society didn’t care about celebrities, but that is not where we live, and observing reality seems an important step to understanding it. And understanding it can help us determine if there is a way to alter this. If that’s the goal. Is that the purpose to your questions?
Now that the main glut of whatever has passed, I want to express that your post above, particularly your question, made my day. It’s perhaps the best question I’ve been asked engaging with .world. Thank you.
You’re witnessing one very small act of praxis right now. But, my best results are always IRL, personal, in a recurring one-on-one or small group discussion. And, I’m not to lead that discussion, instead following where the others lead, the only boundary logical fallacy.
A poor summary would be “Agency at all costs.” But, a good answer to your question would require a very lengthy response. My greatest influence in means is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire (1968). But, there’s so many good tools, from the New Testament to the emotional delivery of Malcolm X. Being able to adapt is critical. Perhaps most important is to risk making it personal.
I’m going to take a stab at interpreting Crashhumbc’s post.
Politics is a popularity contest. You’re imploring Swift to write a fully cited research paper with academic rigor to justify her vote. Most people just go into the ballot box and pick the name that appeals the most to them. You are unrealistic in your evaluation of people, and hold major influencers (aka Celebrities) to standards that nobody else will.
Taylor Swift is a pretty blonde girl with a hot body, and a rocking singing voice and dancing skill to make the most of that hot body. Her original plan was to withhold her voting choice until after the election so she could focus on her current tour and not get right-wing agitators harming her or her fans. But then somebody made a DeepFake of her endorsing Trump, and she had no choice.
She explicitly does not want to tell her fans how to vote. She starts with that, reiterates it throughout her screed, and ends with it. But she makes it clear she’s NOT endorsing Trump, but instead, voting against him.
Will her fans change their votes based on what she’s said she’s going to do? Yes. Unfortunately. They’ll not read the three+ times she says “vote for who you think the best choice is, not who I think the best choice is”, and only see her “I am voting Harris/Walz.” You can’t expect her to be responsible for her fans’ poor choice in decision making, though. She’s not telling you how to vote, and she doesn’t want you to vote with her. That’s a huge part of why she said she’d not release her voting choice ‘until after her tour’ (which ends after the election). Had the Deepfakers not made a video of her endorsing Trump, we’d still probably be guessing at who she supports.