Carl Benjamin made I think an ill judged video about how ‘the greens won on vibes and big promises, so can we.’ But it’s only a plan if the civil service shares the vibe. One hopes the civil service sees the ruin, that its vibe fails it, and it then acquiesces to and does not block change. There will be bureaucrats, they better be told exactly what to do.
There are multiple interpretive events, or like ways to create meaning.
One of those is ritualistic bad faith, or just bad faith, or Power rituals or however you want to say it - if you’ve met a narcissist you’ve seen it.
So being able to identify and label this at that level is going to be much more important than treating bad faith in good faith and going about engaging with it - it will also affect you, you will be psychically polluted by the nonsense, especially if you grant it the legitimacy of rebuttal.
You need to, firstly, as the primary lens, assert whether the actor is in good faith or bad. If bad faith - even if you nominally agree with what they say - you must NEVER agree, on ANY level.
Play the fool, the trickster, the subversive, or whatever else - IF they are fundamentally a bad faith actor.
If you DISAGREE, but they are a good faith actor - you should engage. Even if you violently disagree - if they genuinely believe what they’re saying - it is worth engaging.
But you will be triggered to respond to the bad actor and you have to avoid that impulse.
Carl Benjamin made I think an ill judged video about how ‘the greens won on vibes and big promises, so can we.’ But it’s only a plan if the civil service shares the vibe. One hopes the civil service sees the ruin, that its vibe fails it, and it then acquiesces to and does not block change. There will be bureaucrats, they better be told exactly what to do.
Restore Britain's one man band is storing up serious problems for its future if it now even has one?
This is the incorrect way to handle this.
There are multiple interpretive events, or like ways to create meaning.
One of those is ritualistic bad faith, or just bad faith, or Power rituals or however you want to say it - if you’ve met a narcissist you’ve seen it.
So being able to identify and label this at that level is going to be much more important than treating bad faith in good faith and going about engaging with it - it will also affect you, you will be psychically polluted by the nonsense, especially if you grant it the legitimacy of rebuttal.
You need to, firstly, as the primary lens, assert whether the actor is in good faith or bad. If bad faith - even if you nominally agree with what they say - you must NEVER agree, on ANY level.
Play the fool, the trickster, the subversive, or whatever else - IF they are fundamentally a bad faith actor.
If you DISAGREE, but they are a good faith actor - you should engage. Even if you violently disagree - if they genuinely believe what they’re saying - it is worth engaging.
But you will be triggered to respond to the bad actor and you have to avoid that impulse.
"Capital Hill is Israeli occupied territory".
~ Patrick Buchanan
Looking forward to the NeoCon Zi0 warmongers on the Right each taking in a refugee from Iran, if this ends like Afghanistan, Syria Libya or Iraq.