Young people have too many emotions and can’t be trusted with decision-making, the country’s minister of climate change, Ali Shareef, last year told a public forum.
Young people have too many emotions and can’t be trusted with decision-making, the country’s minister of climate change, Ali Shareef, last year told a public forum.
No, change for worse is never a good thing.
Arguing otherwise is arguing against a tautology.
If the US survives Trump, I believe the country will be changing for the better longer term.
Lack of voter engagement makes progressive populism policy hard to pass. If there’s a sense of “we’re the most free country in the world, things may not be perfect, but things are better than they would be elsewhere” then the engagement required for change won’t happen.
If things are worse than a year ago, then people might start realizing the government isn’t working and be forced to be more engaged which allows more populism progressive policy to rise to the top.
Climate change is similar, it’s been talked about for so long that until it gets to be nearly unhabitable many people won’t get on board with its existence. But when they do they’ll be fully on board.
Whether the rubber band will bounce back before its too late, idk, could snap. But if we survive.the worst change, the good change will come.
The U.S. already witnessed the damage and chaos of a Trumpster Fire presidency.
After 4 years of progress under Biden, it voted for more damage and chaos.
Americans are humans, and humans are all too often short-termist, irrational, and destructive.
Not really, you neglect time as a factor. Sometimes things are stuck and only short term solutions that are objectively worse are acceptable.
Also look up tautology, the word change does not have any inherent value, therefore you are using that wrong. ;)
Having studied formal logic, I’m well aware of what a tautology is. It is a statement logically equivalent to A = A.
Relevance here: a bad outcome is a bad outcome (regardless whether it happens now or later).
Well if you studied it that still doesn’t make it true. ;) a bad outcome is not the same as a net loss vs a short term loss.
Different example. Sometimes there is no good / better choice, but it’s imperative that someone chooses, randomly if necessary. No choice would lead to another kind of problem.
Hence decision paralysis for example.
You are not making sense.
They probably mean short term worse for long term better, not blanket worse
If that is what they meant, then that is what they should have said.
But it isn’t what they said, and therefore presumably isn’t what they meant.
There’s two kinds of people: