BOB PARR: All right, listen closely. I'd like to help you, but I can't. I'd like to tell you to take a copy of your policy to Norma Wilcox on... Norma Wilcox. W-I-L-C-O-X. On the third floor. But I can't. I also do not advise you to fill out and file a WS2475 form with our legal department on the second floor. I wouldn't expect someone to get back to you quickly to resolve the matter. I'd like to help, but there's nothing I can do.
You always say “Be true to yourself”, but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!
… which stuck in my head because so many Disney (and other?) movies seem to be all about being “true to yourself,” and in my experience they conspicuously fail to address the fact (in my belief system) that all humans have both good and evil, selfish and selfless within (we’re born screaming, demanding others’ attention; but even in the womb we listen to and begin to love familiar people, and in many situations we sacrifice much for our loved ones and even strangers).
> The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials "for the sake of humanity," and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man.
In a future five years from now
I'm a hundred and twenty pounds
And I never get hung over
Because I will be the picture of discipline
Never minding what state I'm in
And I will be someone I admire
And it's funny how I imagined
That I would be that person now
But it does not seem to have happened
Maybe I've just forgotten how to see
That I am not exactly the person that I thought I'd be
[...]
And in my mind
When I'm old I am beautiful
Planting tulips and vegetables
Which I will mindfully watch over
Not like me now
I'm so busy with everything
That I don't look at anything
But I'm sure I'll look when I am older
And it's funny how I imagined
That I could be that person now
But that's not what I want
But that's what I wanted
And I'd be giving up somehow
How strange to see
That I don't wanna be the person that I want to be
---
Amanda Palmer, "In My Mind"
I wouldn't say "demanding". During the first weeks you actually have to wake up the newborn for feeding, otherwise you're running the risk of malnourishment.
They're so utterly helpless, confused and tired that they can fall asleep even when hungry.
I never grew out of that, lol
DISCLAIMER: this is not an invitation to start debating these subjects, these are just crudely picked examples.
I'm sure most are aware but your description about eugenics is a bit off. It seems like you are putting a positive slant on it or suggesting thats the goal, whether intentional or not. Eugenics is about denying a class of humans (however you classify that class) from the ability to reproduce. This is highly unethical and given our tendency to classify on race, usually associated with racist agendas (such as the Nazis). I had to look up Wrongthink but it seems to be a term the Alt-Right is introducing... possible a play on thoughtcrime and newspeak (both Orwell) to defend their controversial opinions [0].
0: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alt-right-has-a-word-for-...
The incredible (heh) thing about this is that My Hero Academia answers it. In the world of MHA, nearly everyone has a superpower, or Quirk, of some sort; but superheroes are still a distinct class of professionals who have honed their quirks through training and, in general, developed courage, self-sacrifice, and inner resolve way beyond even the average superhuman. The greatest heroes distinguish themselves by exemplifying these values the most (though having powerful awesome Quirks helps). It was the perfect thing to come along at a point of maximum capeshit saturation.
He's a total arse don't get me wrong, but baseline humanity using nothing but its wits and hard work to make 'heroes' who inherited their powers obsolete is a sentiment I don't imagine is too alien to the readers of HN.
He's a villain because he's trying to replace the hereditary caste by violence, and by consuming them. The tension is there outside of him -- and Mr. Incredible is a bit of an arse to Billy at first -- but it's his means, not his ends, that are the problem.
We see this at the start of the film where Mr Incredible and his friend get tangled up in a rescue operation in a burning building despite having been pretty firmly rejected by baseline humans they're attempting to help, if I remember right one of them literally gets frozen alive by Mr Incredible's friend as they escape which is rather violent. We also see it when he throws his insufferable boss through several walls in a fit of anger, which is a display of his ingrained violent nature and lack of control over his superhuman powers which presents a threat to innocent bystanders. It's might-makes-right with a veneer of heroic respectability over the top, their true nature is very different from the nature they present to the public.
Either that or I'm reading way too much into a film that's mostly aimed at kids!
The anime Mob Psycho 100 goes into this idea heavily and its really great.
Your vote is good if you vote for good people and good policies. Yes. But if a person votes for bad people and bad policies, then I don't see what's so good about it.
Voting in general however I believe is good because it makes people be part of the system, and feel they are part of it.
And so, if voting is good, maybe we should have more voting.
Democracy is a means of securing regular, peaceful power transitions. Whether the outcome is particularly good or bad is not relevant, because all power is transient.
The alternative is a civil war/revolution every now and then.
I wonder if they should apply to all positions, or would it lead to a somewhat poorly run country because all people in charge are all noobies?
I think the woke culture is a bit flawed, because if there is something that is objectively bad, and something that is objectively good, why even have democracy at all? Let's just put there the sun king and move on?
The entire point of voting is that you are allowed to vote for whoever is running. Of course, the notion of a "bad policy" is as old as voting itself, but the noblest democracies are those which don't judge people for voting as they see fit, or else what's the point of voting at all? Just appoint a righteous elite to do all the political appointments for you.
However, just as there's been no consistently wise electorate, neither has there been a consistently wise elite class. In the end, in both cases, the best you can do politically is build a bulwark against corruption because you can't avoid it, which is why the stablest governments are the ones that make the job of the highest political seats as difficult as possible to actually do anything and put the bulk of the power in the hands of committees that have to argue about things to come to a decision.
> And so, if voting is good, maybe we should have more voting.
Voting on its own is not inherently good. Plenty of dictatorships operate under the guise of voting, where either candidates opposing the ruling party are entirely absent or voting for them is punishable in various ways (which is why the political polarization in the west is particularly chilling). There are plenty of "People's republics" out there that are neither republics nor representative of the people (unless, perhaps, you narrowly define "people", as the US originally did).
What is arguably good (at least in the liberal western mind) is maintaining a system of political friction (checks and balances) that ensure different parts of the government are effective limiters on each other's authority to make it as difficult as possible for a tyrant to seize control. IMO Trump was a pretty solid litmus test of the resilience of the American government against tyrannical takeover.
The downside of this, as we're seeing the recent competition between east and west, is that tyranny can be much more effective at getting stuff done than democracy can hope to be, at least in the short term. However, strong tyrants still die and eventually a weak tyrant takes their place and the country falls apart.
The (theoretical) strength of representative government is that it outlives any one or handful of strong rulers. I say theoretical because technically ancient Egypt's history spans more years than the entirety of human history after Christ (so far), but as can be seen in their history, they had plenty of royal family squabbles and foreign invasions in that time. How they retained national cohesion through it all would be an interesting study.
There’s the rub. In the United States we’re permitted to choose from either one or two candidates, both of whom have been sponsored by one of two national private clubs or one of their local chapters. You will not see any mention of nominations or political parties anywhere in the US Constitution, and yet that’s the system that determines who is eligible to run. In California a single club controls who is permitted to run for most local and all national offices.
It’s so obviously kayfabe that I’m baffled that there are rubes out there who think this is a real choice anymore than picking “any” card from a magician’s deck is.
It also ought to make one wonder who exactly the first person plural is in that overworked phrase “our democracy.”
Generally attributed to Egypt's relatively high population density at the time. They grew a lot of grain. They had a lot of people.
"I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin