That’s like forcing someone to choose how they want to eat shit. Definitely would rather it be nicely seasoned but the entire objective is to avoid eating any shit at all. Both choices are loss conditions.
It’s not like I’m excited about it either. I’d much rather they believed in socialism. But this is about fundamental questions. Like: Should a politician serve the wellfare of the people and build a better future for them?
If you could get the democratic or republican politicians to speak the truth, I’m convinced about 99% of them would say no. They don’t really have any ideological framework backing them any more except the neoliberalism as an absence of any moral responsibility. Because they have been selected and filtered by a process for this. Voters don’t even really expect them to either. So there is a fundamental quality missing.
Religion might force me to eat some shit but actually lived religion that is not performative or corrupted profit scheme like evangelism does force some politicians to have a minimum of humanity. Like rejecting nuclear weapons on the basis that they are morally wrong.
He does bring up a point that religious frameworks tend to influence behavior much more powerfully than material incentives do. Outside the context of theocracy being the alternative; living in a post-democracy neoliberal technocracy is miserable. Our politicians don’t believe in anything and the people come to expect this and then they don’t believe in anything. No one has any shared values or morals outside of “whatever I have to do to get ahead”.
As of yet we have not come up with a way to get socialism to have the same influence that religion does, if we can’t come up with an answer to " how do we get people to believe in things" then we’re well in truely screwed.
I was with you until the PS.
That’s like forcing someone to choose how they want to eat shit. Definitely would rather it be nicely seasoned but the entire objective is to avoid eating any shit at all. Both choices are loss conditions.
It’s not like I’m excited about it either. I’d much rather they believed in socialism. But this is about fundamental questions. Like: Should a politician serve the wellfare of the people and build a better future for them?
If you could get the democratic or republican politicians to speak the truth, I’m convinced about 99% of them would say no. They don’t really have any ideological framework backing them any more except the neoliberalism as an absence of any moral responsibility. Because they have been selected and filtered by a process for this. Voters don’t even really expect them to either. So there is a fundamental quality missing.
Religion might force me to eat some shit but actually lived religion that is not performative or corrupted profit scheme like evangelism does force some politicians to have a minimum of humanity. Like rejecting nuclear weapons on the basis that they are morally wrong.
Ehhh, nuance.
He does bring up a point that religious frameworks tend to influence behavior much more powerfully than material incentives do. Outside the context of theocracy being the alternative; living in a post-democracy neoliberal technocracy is miserable. Our politicians don’t believe in anything and the people come to expect this and then they don’t believe in anything. No one has any shared values or morals outside of “whatever I have to do to get ahead”.
As of yet we have not come up with a way to get socialism to have the same influence that religion does, if we can’t come up with an answer to " how do we get people to believe in things" then we’re well in truely screwed.