I want politicians to talk less about what they want to do about problems and more about what they think causes them. Seems like something to clear up first.
suppose they do and some significant amount of politicians says something that is essentially "the outgroup causes all of our problems" and their constituents all agree and send them money and vote for them. then what?
-
-
Then at least we know what they're saying and can evaluate it. It's much harder when it's all implied.
-
and what if they say something like "the problem is not enough people are able to afford to ramp up their consumer spending and the entire global order depends on that"? not that anyway is going to answer that honestly, just wondering what we would even do if they did.
-
In am ideal world I guess they'd be challenged to explain why, which eventually would reveal a whole underlying worldview, and then people would vote based on whether they bought that? Idk
-
I feel like despite all the dissimulation and misdirection the political signaling model more-or-less works and the underlying worldview of most politicians is not especially opaque if you're paying attention. maybe that's just me though? dunno if it translates to general pop.
-
No you're right its not, but by not discussing it directly we miss the quality-improving effect that debate can have. It's just hard to disagree productively and informatively when your talking about things too far downstream from the real disagreement.
-
*You're. Shit, I've become one of *those* people.
-
It's really easy not to be one
-
I'm not talking about self-correction, I'm talking about not being able to tell you're and your apart.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.