I was watching that DOGE kid and how he decided which grants to drop based solely on what appear to be triggers for thought terminating cliches.
In fairness, that is a flaw in human cognition that most humans are well aware of.
I would normally say that if Rand Paul is a “No” on something I would likelier to be a “yes” on the same thing than not. But that is danger of reductive thinking reducing everything to one factor or metric. In this case or say wrt the marijuana industry I would agree with even Paul. But he is a still a piece of shit.
Quanta Magazine has some interesting pieces I do not understand, but my osmosis one vaguely absorbs something that makes sense:
I do not think the extremely online ( a group my horrible former adminstrator has forced me to join) know any feminists honestly. They know various online personas and that warps their perception of reality, which is sucky enough, but in a differently shaped way and with different dynamics.
Which will further now be afflicted with a flood of similar aw shucksy takes on reality on top of all the other scourges and nuisances imposed by the dominant narratives which espouse “sensibly” extractive, deregulation friendly, mindless hedonism - a “sensibly” suicidal death spiral of extravagant, even ostentatious stupidity. Work in this view of the world exists to be strenuous and pointless and bent towards the least meaningful and positive outcome of all possible ones at least in the net-however unrealistically utopian or rather dystopian it might be to shoot for things with no redeeming value whatsoever.
= new reply since forum marked as read