Serbia wants to join ASEAN
Zelensky shows up to the Arab League
France wants to join BRICS
What is going on?
macron and xi.png
Zelensky shows up to the Arab League
France wants to join BRICS
What is going on?
macron and xi.png
@PonyPanda allow me to explain:
GamerGate... no, Trump. In 2015 and 2016 during Trump's primary and then Republican Presidential campaign, this very odd pattern arose and then played on repeat:
1. Trump would function like an irritant, provoking a reaction
2. the reaction would come from some highly esteemed and widely respected institution, and the reaction would directly use that respect in order to stamp down on Trump
3. the result, in every case, would be that the institution would lose esteem and respect.
This culminated in: The Pope attacked Trump. The Pope got less popular.
The odd thing about this pattern is #2 never needed to follow from #1, and #3 kept stacking up as historical reasons for people to avoid #2, but people just kept doing it. Everyone with some face in society decided to lose some of that face over Trump, for no reason. When all that anyone had to say is "heh, this Trump guy is very irritating! Nevertheless, I'll proceed as normal."
Why didn't they say that?
One theory: they saw attacking Trump as test of their institutional power, which they had enormous pride in. What's the point of power without using it? They wanted to flex the power, and seeing other people fail at flexing their power only made it more enticing to do that--the Pope failed, but that's just because the Pope sucks, and it'll be even more impressive when *their* power finally puts a sock in this clown's mouth.
That theory never occurred to me during that 2015-2016 period, but it seems appropriate for current events, where
- the free-trade capitalist economic leaders disgrace their principles and tank their economies in order to sanction Russia. And after the sanctions failed to achieve the intended goal, they have round+1 of sanctions.
- the ICC disgraces itself in order to put out a warrant on Putin
- the private-property rules-based order disgraces itself in order to steal from Russians
everyone's rushing to display their power. The ICC's only relevance is in warrants, so it'll make a warrant rather than be irrelevant. Democratic leaders can't create trade, they can't products, they can't create competition, but they can veto all the trade they want -- so they do that, slamming their only hammer down over and over again, rather than be irrelevant. Banks have a nuclear option in stealing from their customers, and they'd rather do that than just not respond to the call to action against the irritant.
GamerGate... no, Trump. In 2015 and 2016 during Trump's primary and then Republican Presidential campaign, this very odd pattern arose and then played on repeat:
1. Trump would function like an irritant, provoking a reaction
2. the reaction would come from some highly esteemed and widely respected institution, and the reaction would directly use that respect in order to stamp down on Trump
3. the result, in every case, would be that the institution would lose esteem and respect.
This culminated in: The Pope attacked Trump. The Pope got less popular.
The odd thing about this pattern is #2 never needed to follow from #1, and #3 kept stacking up as historical reasons for people to avoid #2, but people just kept doing it. Everyone with some face in society decided to lose some of that face over Trump, for no reason. When all that anyone had to say is "heh, this Trump guy is very irritating! Nevertheless, I'll proceed as normal."
Why didn't they say that?
One theory: they saw attacking Trump as test of their institutional power, which they had enormous pride in. What's the point of power without using it? They wanted to flex the power, and seeing other people fail at flexing their power only made it more enticing to do that--the Pope failed, but that's just because the Pope sucks, and it'll be even more impressive when *their* power finally puts a sock in this clown's mouth.
That theory never occurred to me during that 2015-2016 period, but it seems appropriate for current events, where
- the free-trade capitalist economic leaders disgrace their principles and tank their economies in order to sanction Russia. And after the sanctions failed to achieve the intended goal, they have round+1 of sanctions.
- the ICC disgraces itself in order to put out a warrant on Putin
- the private-property rules-based order disgraces itself in order to steal from Russians
everyone's rushing to display their power. The ICC's only relevance is in warrants, so it'll make a warrant rather than be irrelevant. Democratic leaders can't create trade, they can't products, they can't create competition, but they can veto all the trade they want -- so they do that, slamming their only hammer down over and over again, rather than be irrelevant. Banks have a nuclear option in stealing from their customers, and they'd rather do that than just not respond to the call to action against the irritant.
Follow
@apropos @PonyPanda
O never thought about it this way, but the ESG makes sense all of a sudden.
