See the problem for them is, this isn’t a political issue, this wasn’t about some political rhetoric attacking some mysterious foe, this was a human struggling to relieve their pain because of a corrupt system designed to squeeze every last penny from its victims.
You can’t pit us against each other over this, you can’t create boogeymen over this, because you are the boogeyman this time, but we’re not afraid of you anymore, we know how to scare the boogeyman now.
Luigi was loaded, he probably could have easily paid off all his own medical bills without insurance. Luigi’s dad is the current head of Mangione Family Enterprises.
I think he did it because he thought he could get away with it, and maybe he will.
I think that the left/ right spectrum is outdated, or at least the definitions we give to each.
I mean, originally the left/ right divide was about whether to keep King Louis XVI around or to have him beheaded.
The spectrum we know as a communism vs capitalism scale really was useful in the cold war when those were the two sides of a bipolar world. When we still use this as the measuring stick, things become super confusing in the 21st century. Our world is no longer a communist vs capitalist struggle. Russia and China aren’t communist like the Soviet Union. The United States isn’t the same democratic state that it was in 1960.
I don’t know what our new spectrum is, that’s going to be the research of the next great political scientist, but I do think the old tools we’ve used are no longer helpful. Some are saying “woke vs unwoke”, some are saying “populism vs. globalism”, and some are saying simply “chaos vs order”. Perhaps it’s a little bit of all, or perhaps we should throw spectrums out altogether. Either way, if we use old tools for modern problems, we will end up confused. It’s like how jazz is seen as a super complex genre- it may simply be because we still use the music theory of 18th century European composers to try and understand Miles Davis. Of course it’s going to be a wild ride.
On the other hand, if we continuously move goalposts, we risk changing definitions so much that being anti-slavery would be “explicitly left”, and as most people tend to stick close to “center”, whatever it could be, this can really change the political landscape.
I’m not sure if updating our tools is moving goal posts- what goal are we aiming for? I understand the frustration with seeing the measuring stick change to make the reasonable seem unreasonable, but I would say that the same measuring stick is now misrepresenting where people fall.
If we are talking political spectrums, there already are plenty of tools used: the linear left right, the horseshoe, the fishhook, the quadrant visualisation, etc. I’d say the data is now leaving the paper. We need new tools to make sense of it.
Much to your point though, I think it’s valuable to ask “what are we measuring, who’s doing the measuring, and who benefits from the answer?”
We will never have the satisfying answers to our questions, but hopefully we can find better questions to ask.
To my mind, there is nothing wrong with majority of people falling to some range. We can still make sense of it, looking at the levels of distinction that will ever be present.
Otherwise, we risk losing any common anchor, which is very important when we talk any point of statistics or want to trace dynamics and trends of political thought.
Taking some of the extreme examples, in USSR you would be “right-wing” for wishing to open your small business, and in modern US, you would be “left-wing” for wishing to make healthcare more affordable to the poor or have minorities heard. In fact, USSR was just full of people on the left, and US is full of people on the right, driven by propaganda, political technology, media, communications, genuine core beliefs etc.
Updating tools could be about bringing more clarity to some new formations and events, but it shouldn’t be about constantly redefining the base values.
See the problem for them is, this isn’t a political issue, this wasn’t about some political rhetoric attacking some mysterious foe, this was a human struggling to relieve their pain because of a corrupt system designed to squeeze every last penny from its victims.
You can’t pit us against each other over this, you can’t create boogeymen over this, because you are the boogeyman this time, but we’re not afraid of you anymore, we know how to scare the boogeyman now.
Luigi was loaded, he probably could have easily paid off all his own medical bills without insurance. Luigi’s dad is the current head of Mangione Family Enterprises.
I think he did it because he thought he could get away with it, and maybe he will.
Luigi isn’t Muad’dib
His motivation was to merk someone just to get away with it?
No, not to get away with it, because he could get away with it.
His motivations weren’t “they ruined my life.” Thats such an obvious lie. Idk why everyone has to have their own Luigi Fanfiction.
Oh okay, thanks for clarification
I think that the left/ right spectrum is outdated, or at least the definitions we give to each.
I mean, originally the left/ right divide was about whether to keep King Louis XVI around or to have him beheaded.
The spectrum we know as a communism vs capitalism scale really was useful in the cold war when those were the two sides of a bipolar world. When we still use this as the measuring stick, things become super confusing in the 21st century. Our world is no longer a communist vs capitalist struggle. Russia and China aren’t communist like the Soviet Union. The United States isn’t the same democratic state that it was in 1960.
I don’t know what our new spectrum is, that’s going to be the research of the next great political scientist, but I do think the old tools we’ve used are no longer helpful. Some are saying “woke vs unwoke”, some are saying “populism vs. globalism”, and some are saying simply “chaos vs order”. Perhaps it’s a little bit of all, or perhaps we should throw spectrums out altogether. Either way, if we use old tools for modern problems, we will end up confused. It’s like how jazz is seen as a super complex genre- it may simply be because we still use the music theory of 18th century European composers to try and understand Miles Davis. Of course it’s going to be a wild ride.
On the other hand, if we continuously move goalposts, we risk changing definitions so much that being anti-slavery would be “explicitly left”, and as most people tend to stick close to “center”, whatever it could be, this can really change the political landscape.
I’m not sure if updating our tools is moving goal posts- what goal are we aiming for? I understand the frustration with seeing the measuring stick change to make the reasonable seem unreasonable, but I would say that the same measuring stick is now misrepresenting where people fall.
If we are talking political spectrums, there already are plenty of tools used: the linear left right, the horseshoe, the fishhook, the quadrant visualisation, etc. I’d say the data is now leaving the paper. We need new tools to make sense of it.
Much to your point though, I think it’s valuable to ask “what are we measuring, who’s doing the measuring, and who benefits from the answer?”
We will never have the satisfying answers to our questions, but hopefully we can find better questions to ask.
To my mind, there is nothing wrong with majority of people falling to some range. We can still make sense of it, looking at the levels of distinction that will ever be present.
Otherwise, we risk losing any common anchor, which is very important when we talk any point of statistics or want to trace dynamics and trends of political thought.
Taking some of the extreme examples, in USSR you would be “right-wing” for wishing to open your small business, and in modern US, you would be “left-wing” for wishing to make healthcare more affordable to the poor or have minorities heard. In fact, USSR was just full of people on the left, and US is full of people on the right, driven by propaganda, political technology, media, communications, genuine core beliefs etc.
Updating tools could be about bringing more clarity to some new formations and events, but it shouldn’t be about constantly redefining the base values.