Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory).
The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For example, running talking points on the MSM works well. They run the talking points and in the next days, everyone is parroting what they heard on the news, as if it's their own views.
But in the long-run, people will become more familiar with these tactics, such that they will become less effective (e.g. waning trust in the media). They are burning through the cultural & social capital which sustain these institutions (like the MSM or academia), and don't realize that once it runs out, they will no longer have these levers and buttons at their disposal.
At that point, the only way to increase compliance is with force. And once you go down that road, it becomes extremely clear to those wielding that force, just how precarious their situation is (e.g. Maduro assassination attempts). That is how totalitarianism takes root, fear of the people.
Macroscopic politics is a phenomenon in its own right. Something that should be studied like one would study chemistry or physics. No one person or party controls the course of events.
I don't believe there is a grand conspiracy with shadowy bond-villainesque bad guys. It's simply that there is positive pressure in one direction (to have an easier-to-manage populace) and negative pressure in the other (to have a virtuous populace (harder to manage)).
A population of ignorant and illiterate peasants is great for maximizing political capital. They are receptive to propaganda. They are an energetic bloc of voters. They know something is wrong, but are too ineffective to correctly identify the problem, which means politicians will continually entice them with "solutions" that solve nothing but increase the political or financial capital of interested parties.
We're headed toward a medieval "Three Estates" type system reupholstered with a post-modern aesthetic: the ruling class (brokers of power), the intelligentsia (white collars), and the peasants (everyone else).
All that brilliance and knowledge, used to get vulnerable, suggestible teenagers addicted to mind-numbing, anxiety-inducing media. The shame of software engineers is that we have been used to create 1000s of these inhuman products.
> If there is not enough of a flow of cooling water, the rods can overheat, and the entire facility is at risk for a nuclear meltdown.
This is not true. Water is the moderator in a light-water reactor. Without water the reaction will stop. Water is both the coolant and the moderator, unlike the Chernobyl reactors, which used graphite as the moderator.
What you're saying is effectively: "But we're right and they're wrong, so I don't care."
Everyone thinks they're right about what they believe in, especially moral beliefs. The purpose of political systems is to provide a non-violent, transparent medium by which disagreements can be resolved.
In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."
Global trade cannot flourish if every business attempts to install the moral values of its stakeholders in whatever country they're doing business in. There has to exist a level of professionalism where business people understand that they are not there to judge or influence other peoples and their governments.
> Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law
Don't you think it's absurd that an investment bank has influence over a country's social policy? For all the cheerleading we do about democracy, we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries, thus diluting the value of a citizen's vote. No one is concerned that there is no wall of separation between business and politics.
Safetyism in regards to nuclear power is nothing more than the environmental lobby attempting to derail the only viable solution to climate change. They will lose an excellent source of political capital if climate change is solved, so they will always fearmonger nuclear power.
Fewer than 50 people have died from nuclear power in its entire history, meanwhile an estimated 8.7 million people die each year from fossil fuels [0].
One bit of feedback I want to give is: when I'm answering questions on the iPhone app, there's a dialog that shoots up from the bottom... this is too much motion and I don't like it. Especially since there are multiple questions back-to-back, it feels a bit nauseating to see that dialog shoot up over and over.
I think a quick fade in (or no transition at all) may be better suited for that part of the app.
This is the kind of subject where your typical engineer, who took 10s of high level math and science courses, who proudly carries the torch of empiricism and scientific skepticism, who literally uses logic in his day-to-day (&& & ||), will suddenly become viscerally offended at merely questioning the orthodoxy of gender ideology present in academia & the white collar world.
You can visually see when the ideology 'hits' by their body language and facial expression. It's a hell of a drug
They burnt through all the cultural capital they had by spending it on short-term political victories. Now people see the media not as a source of information, but as an instrument of the establishment to influence and control.
The same will happen with the other institutions. We already have large amount of people skeptical of the CDC, WHO, and other health oriented orgs. We have growing skepticism of large financial institutions (fed & inflation, IMF & "you will own nothing", etc.). There is widespread skepticism of academic institutions, which will cause the value of academic titles to depreciate.
All this because the people who control these institutions insist on using them as political instruments (at certain times).
I wonder what the situation will be 50 years from now...
> Environmental review has become a tool of environmental extremist militants to derail and progress in energy.
Hmm... I wonder why they are so bent on blocking the only viable solution to climate change?
Almost as if they are being used a pawns to shift over the control of energy to the government... after all, if I wanted to nationalize every industry, I would start with the industry upon which all other industries depend on: energy.
Illumine, what is low raise and support;
That to the highth of this great Argument
I may assert th’ Eternal Providence,
And justifie the wayes of God to men.