> An army of wreckers, led by the demagogue John Farson (who styles himself "The Good Man") are slowly but surely conquering the land, laying waste to those few remaining outposts of civilization and conscripting the young men in the conquered lands to march on their neighbors.
What he's leaving out is that in the novels Farson explicitly was a rabble-rouser pushing for democracy, egalitarian rule, and the downfall of the aristocratic class--and he used that to cloak anti-social behavior and butchery.
Sound familiar?
(Not that Cory is a butcher--hah!--but that he's deliberately eliding the "type" of demagogue Farson is. Consider why that might be.)
>> I've written before how conservatives' yearning for "simpler times" is really just a wish to be a child again
Conservatives, whose core ideals are personal responsibility, individual freedom, and limited government, are the ones who want to "be a child with no cares" again, with their needs taken care of for them? Their entire world outlook and identity is the exact opposite of that. Going to stop reading right there.
There is no conservative party in America because Trump has taken control of the Republican Party. He has no values except what is expedient for himself, any principled conservatives who speak up commit political suicide. Such is the world we live in when trust of institutions and expertise as eroded to the point that any acknowledgment of tradeoffs or nuance is met with knee jerk suspicion from the populace.
I do not understand why you are being downvoted for what is, essentially, a statement of bald fact and realpolitick.
Trump took advantage of a party already weakened by the Tea Party, and successfully turned it into a cult of personality at a time when the opposition was ideologically unprepared to deal with very real policy issues that their constituents were observing.
> So it's not just me, an old man yelling at the cloud. The world is getting shittier.
This explains why Cory has been very irritated for a long time. If your outlook is world is objectively worse than 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago - then it makes sense why you're constantly upset at things.
"The arc of the technological universe is long, but it bends toward progress."
The "it's not just me" part is because he's citing a survey. He has been irritated for a long time because everybody (or at least a statistically significant sample) is irritated.
Yeah. A survey of other people who like Cory (I haven't checked this, but it's almost certainly true) are _also_getting_older_.
If the pollsters somehow stumbled on a pocket of people who don't age, this would be the most stupendous example of burring the lede I've ever encountered.
>"We're experiencing more problems with the products and services we use. Those problems are more severe, they make us angrier, and they produce lingering stress. More and more, we are seeking revenge on the businesses that piss us off"
The humble Hot Pocket is the perfect analogy for this. Since the dawn of time, every single Hot Pocket included its own crisping sleeve, that served as both a cooking vessel and eating utensil. The perfect microwaveable snack. And yet, in all of their wisdom, our corporate overlords have declared that they've "cracked the code" through various ingredient changes, to where it's no longer necessary, and through a combination of that plus some vague language around environmental concerns, we no longer need it. So now every Hot Pocket costs the same as it ever did, but gives us a strictly inferior experience. Copy and paste this "Screw you, I don't care because I know you'll just have to deal with it" attitude across all of society, and you get what we have today.
This writer appears to overcomplicates conservative vs. liberal. Conservatives care about those closest to them and generally dislike disruptive change. Liberals care about those far away and embrace disruptive change for the sake of those others.
This doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting we reject the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' due to their limited usefulness in describing reality and high potential to evoke emotional response?
I wouldn't disagree with that, but the author in question doesn't seem to follow that line of thinking so it seems irrelevant here.
> An army of wreckers, led by the demagogue John Farson (who styles himself "The Good Man") are slowly but surely conquering the land, laying waste to those few remaining outposts of civilization and conscripting the young men in the conquered lands to march on their neighbors.
What he's leaving out is that in the novels Farson explicitly was a rabble-rouser pushing for democracy, egalitarian rule, and the downfall of the aristocratic class--and he used that to cloak anti-social behavior and butchery.
Sound familiar?
(Not that Cory is a butcher--hah!--but that he's deliberately eliding the "type" of demagogue Farson is. Consider why that might be.)
reply