More great points, I agree.

Also…it might just be me, but I find that I subconsciously have more respect for a person, both as a person and as a reliable source of information, if they present things with qualification, as you suggest. To me, it’s a sign of humility and an indication of an appreciation for the complexity of any given subject if someone is knowledgeable enough to both field questions and demonstrate proficiency while also being careful to qualify and delineate between what’s fact, what’s generally accepted, what’s their understanding, and what’s their opinion or guess.

I listened to a podcast last year about TOP GUN instructors and the grueling process they go through to become subject matter experts in their specific subject, and one of the things that stuck out to me was that they’re less worried about being right all the time and more worried about three qualities: being knowledgeable, approachable, and humble…with the understanding that with those three qualities, you’re going to eventually get to the point where you’re almost always right, with the added benefit that you’ve trained yourself to remove ego from the equation, so you’re less likely to fall prey to the trap of clinging to bad information/belief/assumption just because you want to look correct.

I’m glad you addressed the aversion to being wrong because I think that’s part of the core of what’s causing so many problems in America today (and maybe other places, but I can only speak to my own familiarity).

I feel like as a society we have created an environment where we demonstrate and reinforce to children from like kindergarten onward that the worst thing you can possibly do is be wrong. Someone who is always right is seen as smart, capable…in short, a winner.

Conversely, if you’re ever wrong, that completely and permanently undoes your entire argument/position and not only that, but you’re branded as unreliable/untrustworthy, uninformed, stupid, dishonest, or naive.

We expect perfection in correctness, and while being right is the expectation, being wrong is a permanent black mark that is treated as a more serious negative than being right is considered as a positive. Nobody just assumes that if you’re right about one thing that you’ll be right about all things, but if you get something wrong, there’s a very real shift toward double-checking or verifying anything else that comes after.

We even tease friends, family, and children for mispronouncing words or singing incorrect lyrics. Basically, being incorrect is so stigmatized that we reinforce to everyone, children and adults alike, that it’s better to not even try…not even make an attempt or join into a conversation…than to risk being wrong. When someone is wrong we use words like “admit” like it’s a crime, or admit defeat…and that just creates an environment where nobody is ever encouraged to speak up about anything for fear of (gasp!) being wrong.

And now we’re coming full circle on this at the highest levels, with our leaders being blatantly and objectively wrong…and absolutely dead set on avoiding having to admit that at all costs, setting a precedent that has oozed into even casual discourse among regular people. It seems like it used to be that being wrong was bad enough, but to dig in and refuse to admit it was even worse…lately it seems that admitting you were wrong is now even worse than doubling down on it…so now we have a situation where we can’t even agree on basic facts because one or more sides will be wrong but would rather insist on their position than just acknowledge​ they were incorrect.

Right.

Honestly for as much “woe is me” that they crammed into this piece, my takeaway was mostly just, “Hmmm…good.”

Like…I love rural PA, I’m just not wild about a lot of the people who live there. They vote against my own interests (and theirs), disproportionately influence state government, and welcome corporations that proudly destroy the environment while taking a hostile stance toward anyone not like them.

This isn’t down to every last person, of course, but broadly speaking, the ones who aren’t fitting that template are also not the ones doing most of the dying.

So the piece is reading, to me, more as, “the people most responsible for keeping the shitty aspects of Pennsylvania shitty are dying faster than they’re breeding”…which is good news for the more reasonable residents of the state.

Are you from rural PA?

So you just don’t work at all?

Knocked it out of the park with this comment.

Sincerely,

Someone originally from the same town as you, basically.

The Great Basilisk is displeased by your repeated misspelling of the word “falter”.

Prepare your simulated ass.

Sitting here at 5 months out from election day…when will we finally get some good quality pandering?

I was so, so hyped for Squadrons, even had a HOTAS setup on my list…then the game came out.

Everything I heard, even from people who loved it, totally turned my view of it sour, and I was so glad I didn’t sink any money into it.

Maybe someday we’ll get a SW fighter sim that delivers.

It’s not like he’s got credibility consequences for lack of follow through at this point.

Implying there was ever a point where this wasn’t true.

Thank you for sharing all this.

While I’m under no illusions that Biden is my friend, in the current political climate, I can’t shake the feeling that he’s my friendliest enemy.

Can you shed any more light on that 1990 business?

While I have no familiarity with it, the circumstances suggest that it’s possible that the added clause was added as a bit of trade-off to other members of Congress to get the crime bill over the finish line. Not that that makes it any less bitter a pill for borrowers, but if that’s how it happened, that’s much less “Biden hates borrowers” and much more the political game in DC.

Way to totally miss the point! Great job!

Just like so many short sighted people.

“I’m okay with totalitarian dictatorship if they’re doing things I like.”

I mean…she worked on campaigns for figures that we all recognize. For races where there’s only one person in the whole country who will win…every four years.

Not everyone can win. Dan Marino never won a super bowl.

Most of us can’t say we’ve had more recognizable work than her.

And I told you why…and where in case you were interested.

Why does the executive branch have any say over the judicial branch?

That would be the Constitution.

I believe Article II, Section 2.

I’m not even sure these GOP reps are getting a dime from Russia.

More likely: they’re not getting anything from Russia, but their god-emperor Donny sure is, and he’s also got a vendetta against Ukraine after the whole Biden investigation debacle, so he’s using his inexplicable political clout within the party to pressure them into doing his bidding, with the penalty for falling to do so being that he says bad things about them, costing them an election.

You know, any time I hear an argument like this as a reason against making corporations pay their fair share, my response is always, “So what? Fuck em.”

Like…let them go. Something else will take their place. Regardless, you’re getting nothing out of them in the way of a responsible presence in the economic community, so even if they just leave and that’s it, it’s one less evening leech taking advantage of the situation.

How is doing…that…to a potato less work than cutting a few into large chunks, boiling in salt water, then mashing with some butter, milk, salt, pepper, garlic, and sour cream?

I feel like in terms of strict effort, doing the slicing on one potato, not even counting the cooking, is more of a bother than the entire process of making a big batch of mashed potatoes.

Yeah that was gonna be my question: does Italy not have any legal mechanism in place that would be the functional equivalent of the US’s supremacy clause?

Like…not saying shit like this isn’t attempted all the time in deeply conservative areas of the US, but in most cases where the far right leadership has even a shred of strategic thinking, they often don’t even attempt to pass or enforce laws like this because it’ll trigger immediate challenge in the courts, the challenge will be 100% taken up and the decision will come down against them (since even in a conservative court, the only thing they hate more than ruling in favor of “liberal” causes is any ruling that would limit the court’s power in the future), and at that point there’s a permanent legal precedent in the books, against the repression they’d like to carry out.