But, as I have repeated many times, those smaller scale things won't do the job. Anyone who gets that is left to infer unpalatable things left unspoken. What you get is your classic avoidance/avoidance conflict, which psych 101 tells us causes such distress that people just throw up their hands. Ironic, that, for a strategy that's intending to gather political support.
Well, it actually won't matter how many times you repeat since a gentle way to put it is we disagree, a less gentle way to put it is you are simply wrong.
Small steps can easily build into larger steps, a sense of accomplishment, particularly as political mobilization builds around an issue.
If you go back to the Samuelson piece, which started this conversation, the general mood one gets from it is to simply give up. It's all too overwhelming. And, if we get lucky, some power greater than the normal run of us humans will solve it. Meaning give it to the engineers.
That's a counsel of despair.
Well, we won't agree. And can't even, as is our usual practice, agree about what we disagree about. Normal mode and all that.
Good thing the actual practice of politics doesn't depend on this board or SI for that matter. |
