Home of Scripts 'n Styles for WordPress, Backstage2D and History Keeper! - Kevin Newman and Ken Newman
I’m trying something new. Always something new. I’ve set up a substack at https://unfocus.substack.com. I’ll use that to talk about the Just World Model engine I’m building with LLMs. The posts there will be more intentional, and more focused on that specific effort, while the posts here will be somewhat meta, or random, like a […]
I’m trying something new. Always something new. I’ve set up a substack at https://unfocus.substack.com. I’ll use that to talk about the Just World Model engine I’m building with LLMs. The posts there will be more intentional, and more focused on that specific effort, while the posts here will be somewhat meta, or random, like a personal blog. The first post at substack is similar to material I’ve posted before on medium, refined. The Circus and the Big Tent. Seems like a good split! I’ve been thinking about this topic for ages, so it’s kind of nice to finally be writing about it. The general idea is that most political communication from those other than the very organized, well funded right wing, is narratively, completely reactive. No one other than the right wing seems to have much of an understanding for how this stuff works, even though they are the more compassionate, and more reasonable ones (they don’t want to literally invoke rapture through nuclear war – mostly.) There is an app build coming with that – which is really more what the project is about than the writing. I probably won’t touch on technical aspects of that app, how it works, what its built with, there, but I might do that here from time to time, because it’s technically interesting stuff, and that is, after all, what I used to blog about here. More soon!
I’ve written before about the horrendous algorithm at the core of every social media platform‘s “engagement” algorithm. They align political posts with human posters, on an incredibly ignorant and stupid single dimension, based on American 2 parties, with left (Democrat) and right (Republican) steps. In Facebook you used to even be able to see this […]
I’ve written before about the horrendous algorithm at the core of every social media platform‘s “engagement” algorithm. They align political posts with human posters, on an incredibly ignorant and stupid single dimension, based on American 2 parties, with left (Democrat) and right (Republican) steps. In Facebook you used to even be able to see this – but they’ve hidden it all now. In the old days, you could have people who were anti-abortion, and anti-gun (but only motivated to vote on one or the other). These days, those idiotic sorting algorithms are so good a sorting posts and people to match everything and everyone against that single measure, that they effectively propagate uniformity among 2 opposing, and increasingly extreme sides. It’s maddeningly simple to understand and explain (1 short paragraph,) and would have taken almost no effort to fix back then – except now, the problem is exacerbated by LLMs and other AIs having been trained on this nonsense. Now AI sorts people in to the same 2 extreme camps, except we can’t actually fix it any more, because even the people who make this slop, don’t understand how it makes decisions. So – we are utterly screwed, when it comes to these anti-social platforms (to be clear- that’s Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, most especially TikTok, even YouTube, etc.) The only real way to fix it, is to divest – to just stop using those hateful platforms. In that vein, I’ve jumped out of medium, back to the old web 1.0 model of hosting my own blog. I’m also in the process of trying to break away from all the centrally planned hosted “web 2.0” platforms, and more toward decentralized platforms. Roughly, that means: Medium -> unfocus.com (a simple blog) Facebook/Twitter -> mastodon (social.unfocus.com) – https://unfocus.com/@kevin Discord/Slack/etc. -> Matrix (a synapse server) for private messages – @kevin:unfocus.com I don’t quite have an answer to the finance half of this. One of the things that those Web 2.0 things can do reasonably well is create a financial structure, where you can actually get paid for your contribution, with varying levels of success, and more than a bit of abuse. YouTube most especially has a decent (but not great) model, though Alphabet/Google are doing what they can to mess it all up. Twitch and Medium have this, TikTok to a very very limited extent. We don’t have an alternative to that that I’m aware of, just yet, but I felt the need to get started anyway. But even there, those web 2.0 financial transactions are really a subversion of essential capitalism. However you feel about that word these days, capitalism generally has at it’s core 2 aspects – profit motive for making things (over rent) and open markets (not free markets, they don’t exist, have never existed, and will never exist – markets are man made, authority regulated social instruments.) A double sided algorithm driven faux-market, where a rent seeking middle man, controls what the suppliers get paid, and what the buyers pay – and controls both not through markets, but through algorithms, is in no way capitalism. It is rent over profit, and it there is no real market. Those of you who like capitalism really should be paying attention to these changes. Those of you who criticize the current system as capitalism, should also pay attention. We don’t have capitalism anymore. That’s why Tesla, for one example, doesn’t need profit to keep it’s stock value high. (See Technofeudalism by Yanis Varoufakis if you’d like to learn more.) (There’s an argument that this is just a rentier form of capitalism – or that it’s just plain bad regulation. I don’t buy the former argument, but the latter, sure – maybe. It’s possible it just all collapses under the weight of its own nonsense.) Anyway, I chose these specific platforms for the following reasons: WordPress for unfocus.com – honestly, I just had a lot of history with WordPress, and an old blog with old posts, and it’s just kind of easy to use. I did replace it with an alternative for a couple of months, but it was too much. Despite the nonsense going on with the owner of WordPress.com, it’s still an easy to use, backward compatible, and mostly stable platform, with a rich ecosystem of themes and plugins. Matrix for chat – Matrix/Synapse has a bunch of different servers and implementations, is decentralized, and it uses e2e – end to end encryption, for chats. I’m not some super privacy nut – but I’m tired of corporate data mining, grabbing everything they can, including private conversations, and turning that in to ads. So e2e is the way. Mastodon for socials. Mastodon is an interesting mix of Facebook’s private posts, with Twitter’s public posts, and it’s decentralized. Bluesky does something similar, and I did consider it. But at the end of the day, it’s still algorithm driven, and measured by “engagement” which means it has all the wrong incentives. Mastodon is decentralized in a cleaner way, and it’s feed is just based based on who you followed, in the order they post, not based on “engagement.” This lines up better with what I’m after. Bluesky does let end users manage and even define their own algorithms, so it’s not off the table, and I do respect what they are at least trying to do, more than any of the manipulative ad driven monstrosities. So, Mastodon for now, maybe Bluesky one day. We’ll see. (It was also a lot easier to self host Mastodon.) Over time, I intend to get away from the centrally hosted, algorithm driven anti-social machines. The internet used to be fun and productive. We made the wrong move with web 2.0. Maybe there’s a way to go one step back, to take two steps forward. Update: I deleted my old twitter/x account @touvan. If you see posts there in the future, it’s not me.
I’ve been thinking a lot about what I want this space to be. The original idea behind unfocus.com, maybe born out of the naivete of youth, was that there was too much focus on myopic ideas around political ideas. The idea then was to take a step back and think about the bigger picture, thus […]
I’ve been thinking a lot about what I want this space to be. The original idea behind unfocus.com, maybe born out of the naivete of youth, was that there was too much focus on myopic ideas around political ideas. The idea then was to take a step back and think about the bigger picture, thus the idea of “unfocus”. Since then, I’ve learned a lot about politics, about political theory, strategy and especially messaging and how that works in our embodied minds. Most of that hasn’t really made its way on to these pages. I did spend some of the last few years blogging about those topics on medium, with dozens more drafts than published articles. I still find that space interesting, but it’s I think, not what I want to spend my effort on here. I think what I’d like to focus on here, are projects. That’s what I used to blog about, before the algorithm driven economy burgled the attention from my mind. That’s what I’d like to blog about again. I’ll probably leave the old political stuff up (to mirror medium,) but will likely remove it from any feeds on the site. So let’s talk projects! What do I want to do? I’m not sure. The software space is in a state of jubilee, from the over hyped, but still useful LLM driven AI bubble. Many things really are possible, and some things have never been easier. How to get passed the hype, and land on the slope of enlightenment early, might be worthy of some blogging. In this place, in the archives, there are still many articles about to achieve very difficult things with fun tech like Flash from back in the day. Today, the LLMs are actually pretty good generating code that can achieve much of what was hard back then, at least for “solved problems,” easily (ethics aside – we’ll get to that.) I’ve got a couple of ideas about things to work on. I’d really like to step away from the political turmoil we find ourselves in, and just make games, and other forms of art, but the collapse of western civilization is quite distracting. One idea I had which is technical, but still adjacent to politics, was to use an AI model to do some kind of analysis, and try to tease out the different moral world models (worldviews) that different factions are promoting, mindfully (Republicans) or not (non-Republicans – basically, everyone else.) There is a whole framework to communicate here, but I’ve had so little luck explaining it. Anyway – that’s one project. A kind of Ground News, but not just filtered on the bias of the publication, through an idiotic and destructive left/right spectrum, but analyzed per article, on the substance of the article itself, to reveal the underlying moral world models, and how it fits in or contrasts with competing models. Could be fun and interesting. Definitely is needed in the world. But it’s also very difficult, especially since there doesn’t seem to be many who understand how this stuff works (it really seems like Republican strategists are literally the only ones, and they use it to foment hate and derision… very disheartening.) So that could be a fun side project, and I might yet build it. The other things I thought of would all be efforts at media and artistic expression. I’ve always wanted to get in to the video game space. Ever since I was a small child, I have dreamed about which mechanics I’d add to the various games I’ve played. I haven’t really spent my career working on that skill, but hey, it’s never too late. I also have some stories I’d like to tell – and maybe that’s a better place to assert my insights about humanity, politics and moral world models, than some grand plan to fix the world. I could easily channel that in to some stories. Another muscle to build – something new and entirely different from what I do in my day job. That might actually be nice. I also might start simply writing more. An easy way in, could be to write more game reviews. I did write one for Metroid Dread a while back. I hated that game. But I also wrote quite a long review of Final Fantasy XVI, after it shipped to PC, that I never published. That one was fun – and I love that game. I might really lean in to that for the year. I’ve been playing a few AAA games, and a lot of indy games. I’ve also almost entirely been playing on Linux (and a bit on Switch 1/2,) on either Steam OS (original Steam Deck) or my custom Bazzite machine. There’s probably some cool stuff I could share about those. Maybe I’ll start by finishing that FF XVI review, then share some thoughts about gaming on Linux. I’ve also been running some cool home lab type stuff in my basement, including some web services, and some home assistant lighting coordination. That’s a whole domain that could be fun to blog about. In the short term, I’ve basically been dusting off some old hobbies. This blog for example. It’s not really what I want unfocus.com to be, but it’ll do for now, until I get the itch to build something different. For now – I’ll continue to blog some hobby stuff here, starting with the resurrection of Quint Dice! More to come on that soon.
I resurrected this blog! I intend to make some updates here eventually, hopefully not a false start. This blog has been dormant, and barely even functioning for years. In that time, I did post a bit on medium. Those posts are mostly political commentary in nature, as I watch my civilization implode, and I’ve back […]
I resurrected this blog! I intend to make some updates here eventually, hopefully not a false start. This blog has been dormant, and barely even functioning for years. In that time, I did post a bit on medium. Those posts are mostly political commentary in nature, as I watch my civilization implode, and I’ve back ported them here. But I’m actually looking to pivot away from that a little bit, so we’ll see if I keep them. I want to get back to my technical roots, and fun – I have updates coming for Quint Dice, and some other thoughts about technology (AI!) The intention is to use unfocus.com as central location for a bunch of things, on medium (maybe), youtube, and other stuff. The focus will be on tech, with maybe an occasional political rant. Longer form thoughts coming soon.
Weak Memes and Loser Frames Why are we so bad at this? Once again?—?IT DOES NOT MATTER IF WE ARE NONVIOLENT. Focusing on that, rather than on what we want our message to be in moral and values terms, is entirely counter productive. The fascists are going to cut to footage from another country, and claim […]
Weak Memes and Loser Frames Why are we so bad at this? Once again?—?IT DOES NOT MATTER IF WE ARE NONVIOLENT. Focusing on that, rather than on what we want our message to be in moral and values terms, is entirely counter productive. The fascists are going to cut to footage from another country, and claim we are violent, regardless of our actual behavior. It should go without saying, that of course, we should protect ourselves, and not start shit. Don’t be the one. But you have you know, ultimately, it doesn’t matter how peaceful we are?—?they don’t want peace. They ARE going to start violence. ICE is already violent?—?it’s already started. They ARE ALREADY claiming WE are violent, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Our behavior does not factor in to their plans. This meme does kind of sort of, in an extremely weak way, get around to something like a message?—?but it’s a counter message, stated at the end, when it’s already too late to frame anything. A proactive statement— would be “Constitution or bust”?—?a better phrase, which the weak as shit Democrats would caution against might be New Hampshire’s state motto, “Live Free or Die”?—?the lawyers?—?100% of the Democratic Party, and 90% of the problem?—?would probably caution against using language like that, basically, the reason we’ve already lost. I can think of a few other slogans: Trump, go fuck yourself Republicans are Fascists, and so are (centrist) Democrats <a class="markup--anchor markup--li-anchor" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/waitingforwar?__eep__=6&__cft__[0]=AZXbK_TDQmYJeP4ut134dhRQynompdKrFNKVrxN5-emSE5R3WAFaqC9W5mnfolrmZtpGXP_zo50a3_KFpJucwJo_7q-gc6o5Eri0y-yNagwZ3zc6drt_uR1L7cISYxFr59Yy7Se-0_JNys6ULTZkzVRj_93S6ZrzB5tXi9IaB3iAr23DvmEC-_1o2lJOp1pl98I&__tn__=*NK-R" href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/waitingforwar?__eep__=6&__cft__[0]=AZXbK_TDQmYJeP4ut134dhRQynompdKrFNKVrxN5-emSE5R3WAFaqC9W5mnfolrmZtpGXP_zo50a3_KFpJucwJo_7q-gc6o5Eri0y-yNagwZ3zc6drt_uR1L7cISYxFr59Yy7Se-0_JNys6ULTZkzVRj_93S6ZrzB5tXi9IaB3iAr23DvmEC-_1o2lJOp1pl98I&__tn__=*NK-R" rel="noopener" target="_blank">#waitingforwar Let’s maybe try civilization Billionaires are the problem, you fucking nitwits No peace without Economic Justice The problem is, this is all so reactive. They have a simple, describable plan to fix the problems real people are feeling. Their plan is abhorrent, but they have one. We have a reaction against their plan, and little else. The right wing has already rigged all 3 branches of government. They have already grabbed power?—?they aren’t grabbing power, it’s done. The “not right wing” (that’s everyone else, all dozen other sides, generally arranged in a circular firing squad) has no social contract on offer, so it’s hard to even come up with slogans to promote whatever the fuck we want. We end up just defending the status quo, like shutting down the entire government to defend a Medical Insurance subsidies?—?read that again. It’s literally what Democrats are defending. You can’t make this level of utter incompetence. The status quo is broken. It’s not breaking down?—?it has already broken down. Until someone other than the right-wing has a social contract to offer?—?which yes, includes a defined model of authority, and defined set of rules for civil order?—?then we literally just lose by default. But whatever, keep singing Kumbaya in the street. That’ll work.
Your Behavior Doesn’t Matter. The Republican Right Wing will Escalate Anyway.
Your Behavior Doesn’t Matter. The Republican Right Wing will Escalate Anyway. This photo is from 2017?—?Can you tell? Alex Radelich I keep hearing the dumbest take from the “not-right-wing” imaginable. They keep saying stuff like, “Don’t get violent, cause they’ll use it against us,” or “Don’t show up in black, cause it’ll look like the armed resistance […]
Your Behavior Doesn’t Matter. The Republican Right Wing will Escalate Anyway. This photo is from 2017?—?Can you tell? Alex Radelich I keep hearing the dumbest take from the “not-right-wing” imaginable. They keep saying stuff like, “Don’t get violent, cause they’ll use it against us,” or “Don’t show up in black, cause it’ll look like the armed resistance they need.” “Don’t give them what they need.” Truly stupid crap like that. Of course we should not start any violence?—?absolutely that’s true, and it almost goes without saying. But the rest?—?why is it stupid? It literally could not matter less what you do, or how you look, or what you say. It’s the “because”?—?the expressed consequence of bad behavior. No. It does not matter if you behave “badly” or wear the wrong color or style of clothes, but numbers do matter. Stop dis-inviting people because they wear the wrong clothes. Understand what is happening. The Right Wing has an entire media ecosystem, a messaging strategy, and an echo chamber, and nowhere in any of that is there a concern for reality. They will simply say you did something, they will say you said something, they will say you looked a certain way, or that you dressed funny, and then repeat it over and over again. They’ll show stock footage of unrelated events from foreign countries, or from 20 years ago. They’ll use AI to fake the footage they want. YOUR BEHAVIOR CANNOT IMPACT THEIR DECISIONS. You have to understand the game. Understand the media landscape. Understand social media algorithms. Understand how the messaging works to persuade and mislead. This is the dumbest take I keep hearing from the “not-right-wing.” It’s pervasive, reinforcing ignorance. It’s a doubling down on willful weakness. Your behavior cannot impact Republican decisions here. It could not matter less how peaceful your protests are, they are going to claim it isn’t anyway. Fox News, and Breitbart, and the 200 other right-wing media talking point factories they call “think tanks” they’ve built up over the last 50 years, are going to claim it’s an insurrection regardless of the truth. The truth does. Not. Matter. Not to them. Facts don’t matter. Your civil behavior?—?DOES NOT MATTER. I hope you are ready, because they are going to escalate, not matter what we do. Don’t wear black? Get serious. It simply, does not matter. The way to fight back is broader than reactive-protesting. Have a strategy, mindfully promote an alternative point of view?—?win the persuasive arguments, don’t just react to whatever hateful crap the Right Wing is doing. Yes, we are hopelessly behind in building a media landscape to match a vast right wing media machine, but there are paths forward. Start a youtube channel, write on Medium, start a sub-stack, all of that?—?build on strategy, not just reactive tactics. It starts from understanding the game.
Democrats Lose Because They Don’t Understand the Game
Democrats Lose Because They Don’t Understand the Game The Right built an empire on values. The Left strangles itself on defense with data. Ditch the Donkey. Here’s a Lion. (Keyur Nandaniya?—?unsplash) It’s not just tone-deaf communication?—?Democrats have a structural dependence on our opposition’s discourse machinery. We’re operating inside a Republican semantic field?—?the mental map their media […]
Democrats Lose Because They Don’t Understand the Game The Right built an empire on values. The Left strangles itself on defense with data. Ditch the Donkey. Here’s a Lion. (Keyur Nandaniya?—?unsplash) It’s not just tone-deaf communication?—?Democrats have a structural dependence on our opposition’s discourse machinery. We’re operating inside a Republican semantic field?—?the mental map their media ecosystem built?—?and we don’t even notice the walls. We chase the data led by Republicans, and pat each other on the back over it. It’s not just that we are the nerds who love to cite data points. It’s that we don’t bother to understand how that data is filtered and skewed by the worldview promoted by our opposition. It’s that we don’t do the work to sell our own better worldview. So we are constantly losing ground. Think about how that works in practice?—?Democrats, rather than building our own frames, invoked by our own language, poll-test Republican key phrases which invoke a Republican worldview, to find safe linguistic footholds within that worldview. It’s the weak behavior of the bullied. It’s not rational politics?—?it’s reactive branding. Democrats aren’t even attempting to take ground in the war the Right is waging; we’re running focus groups in enemy territory. The Fatal Mistake: Thinking “Big Tent” Means “No Values” The Democratic “big tent” ideal isn’t some empty kumbaya about letting everyone in. It’s a values-based worldview?—?openness, fairness, pluralism?—?but party leaders keep acting like those aren’t real political weapons. They treat values as window dressing instead of the foundation of persuasion. When DNC chair Ken Martin told Jon Stewart that Republicans have “an easier time” because they’re “more consistent ideologically,” he revealed his ignorance. Conservatives have little in common in libertarians. Republicans aren’t more consistent than Democrats. They’re more strategic. They know the war they’re waging?—?and it isn’t policy trivia. The Right’s Strategy Is So Simple It Hurts Republicans don’t sell policy. They sell a worldview?—?a moral frame through which every policy they want becomes obvious. They change the culture first, then the votes follow. They don’t start with “How do we win this election?” They begin with, “How do we make people see the world our way?” Then, everything else falls into place. For fifty years, they’ve invested in media, think tanks, megachurches, and campus organizations?—?institutions built to propagate values, not just win news cycles. And it worked. It keeps working. The Democrats’ Delusion: Rationalism as a Moral Escape Hatch Democrats cling to Enlightenment rationalism like it’s a moral get-out-of-jail-free card. They think data, facts, and “moving to the center” are proof of virtue. But rationalism is itself a moral worldview?—?one to defend, assertively, emotionally, and institutionally, not to treat like neutral math. Republicans play chess; Democrats are still arguing about whether the rules are “fair.” The Playbook to Steal (Because It Works) It’s maddeningly simple: Build institutions that promote values, not just policies. Two a year for 50 years?—?like the Right did?—?and we’ll have our own moral ecosystem. Name and own OUR values. Empathy, empiricism, justice, individual expression, loyalty to the spirit of the law?—?these are righteous frames. Say them out loud. Repeat them often. Stop assuming good faith. Republican operatives aren’t debating. They’re evangelizing. Treat them as missionaries for a worldview?—?because that’s precisely what they are. If you are in media?—?this applies doubly to you. Don’t treat this like good faith discourse on your TV panels?—?it’s not good faith. The Elephant in the Room Lakoff warned us not to think of the elephant. Stop helping them build their circus?—?we must develop our own Serengeti. When you repeat their talking points, even to refute them, you’re already inside their frame, and you’re helping reinforce it. Some Democrats understand that part and go out of their way to avoid trigger phrases, but they miss the bigger, more critical part. Republicans don’t sell the elephant; they sell the circus?—?the context in which the elephant is to be understood. The circus isn’t a policy; it’s the worldview. The policy, the elephant?—?that comes later. To win, to even mount a fight?—?Democrats must build our own moral frames, not fumble around in the big tent of the Republican circus. We must own and promote a different frame?—?the policy, the kind of elephant we prefer, doesn’t work in the circus, but it does work in the Serengeti. The frame is the important part, and it’s the part Democrats seem pathologically incapable of understanding. It’s maddening. So how do Democrats fight back? Sell the Serengeti, then the elephant. Sell the worldview, then the policy. It’s how we make our policy feel obvious. We have to sell our worldview?—?the one we already have and already operate from. We must surface that, and NEVER be afraid to assert our better values. Our worldview holds that empathy is strength, that protecting the vulnerable is patriotic, that economic and political equity is justice, and that individual expression and identity is liberty. THAT sets an understanding of policy. Once people accept the worldview?—?the Serengeti, not the circus?—?our policies feel obvious. Until then, Democrats chase the elephant that the Republican Right Wing defines, and wonder why we end up at the circus. TL;DR Republicans win because they sell a moral worldview, not policies. Democrats lose because we think reason alone can persuade. That is just not how our brains work?—?at all. If the Left wants to fight back, we must build cultural institutions, speak in values, and frame the world before the Right does.
Democrats, Here’s How to Fight Back Democrats don’t even know how to think about fighting back, let alone know how to fight. A clue: a desire for a “big tent” party is based on values, which suit a world view. It’s not some vacuous, “let everyone in” kind of position. It’s not some rational point of […]
Democrats, Here’s How to Fight Back Democrats don’t even know how to think about fighting back, let alone know how to fight. A clue: a desire for a “big tent” party is based on values, which suit a world view. It’s not some vacuous, “let everyone in” kind of position. It’s not some rational point of view. The desire is based on a world view, based on values. I recently listened to Jon Stewart interview clueless DNC chair, Ken Martin. A truly frustrating hour, where Martin hinted at a bunch of values, express a few, but then claimed that it’s easier for Republicans to have values, because they have a consistent ideology, and Democrats don’t. I’m so sick of explaining this. He’s wrong on both sides. Republicans don’t have a consistent ideology, any more than Democrats do, and Democrats are probably more consistent than Republicans. That’s not what’s happening, you unmitigated disaster of a politician. The actual difference its that Republicans know what they are doing. That’s the entire truth. And what they are doing is breathtakingly simple, and well documented, and also, completely reproducible. The Democrats are simply too arrogant, or too ignorant, or just paid too much by their donors, to adequately replicate what the Republicans are doing. Okay, that last part is just a dig at the biggest objective fact that undermines all Democratic legitimacy. The truth is, even if they think there is some way they can take legalized bribe money legitimately, there would be a world view to allow for that too—and they’d be able to describe it. But they don’t even bother justifying what they actually do. This to me is the clearest indication, that they just don’t know what they are doing. Let’s start with what they do—they promote specific policies, rationally, and they promote specific candidates, in specific races. All the money they funnel from their donors goes in to one of these 2 causes (and occasionally in to opposing anyone who has actual value, and expresses actual values, like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani, because their donors say so.) Okay, so you want to promote policies, but how specifically? Let’s just do something crazy, and look at the way Republicans do it. First of all—they don’t start there—at all. They understand a concept known as *strategy*. Not just having a goal (win), but specifically how are you going to win? What specific method will you use? Again, it’s breathtakingly simple—I’ll describe it here, in just a few sentences. That’s how simple it is—the simple thing Democrats seem pathologically incapable of understanding. Republicans sell a world view—a set of values—they do this without tying the effort to any specific policy, or specific election. The method, or the strategy is simple to describe. Change the culture, change the minds of voters by selling them a set of values they’ll use to understand the world, and then the policy will seem obvious. Republicans don’t sell policy. They sell a world view, and then just drift the policy in. I told you it was simple. So simple, that Democrats can’t seem to accept that it works, despite being utterly crushed by this simple strategy for more than half a fucking century. Democrats, think they are “outside of world views.” 17th Century Enlightenment Reasoning, is a moral world view—do you hear me, Jonathan Haidt? You aren’t “outside” of anything… So Democrats tie everything they do to one specific outcome, usually a policy or a specific election, and they do it after rationally chasing Republican lead data, and they call it clever sounding things like “moving to the center.” So delusional. Okay, so how do we replicate the very, excruciatingly simple thing the Republicans have been demonstrating works for more than half a century? I mean, I’m repeating myself here, since it’s so frustratingly simple. Have institutions that promote (or—wait for it—propagate) a world view, a set of values, that make it easier to sell your policies. This would work for “centrism” by the way—but it would also work for a genuine kind of progressive, integrating society too. But, it’s hard to justify taking legalized bribes, if you care about any of this stuff. What values—here are a few, but do the damned work, and figure this out—it’s not hard. Empathy, empiricism and reason as righteous, specific definitions of fairness and justice based not flat, but system maintaining notions of wealth distribution, the sanctity of science, loyalty to the spirit of the law, not just the letter, the sanctity of individual expression, not the protection of sacred victim groups, but of individual expression, etc. We have better values, so promote them. Build 2 of those institutions a year, for 50 years—like the right wing has done—make sure they are funded—and only, and exclusively, to promote a world view, not just win some Senate seat, or pass some half-assed policy that won’t solve anything (like Obamacare—Democrats literally congratulate each other for having “solved healthcare”—you can’t make up this level of incompetence.) That’s what the right wing does—it’s not magic, and it has a demonstrated track record. Okay, but we don’t have those institutions now—so what do we do. 1st thing, accept that you have a valid values based word view already, and start to figure out what those values are. Arguing without knowing them, just let’s the right wing operatives all over cable news push you around, because they know theirs, and you don’t know yours. If you’ve ever felt like you are arguing against a wall, that’s why—it is like arguing against a wall. They are just hitting you with values statements, and then changing the values, when the argument moves against them. And you just chase. It’s reactive, and yes, stupid. Get smarter. Another thing—stop pretending they are arguing in good faith with your highly rational statements—they aren’t. Republican/Conservative operatives are there to propagate a world view, and to secondarily, argue in favor of a candidate or policy. They will not meet you half way—ever. Not fucking ever. They are hard line extremists, on a mission. If you want values other than theirs, values based on good faith agreement, on balanced policy, on values that have merit as you define them—if you want a society based on enlightenment reasoning, and not strict father dogma—then you have to understand the game that’s being played, and win it. Otherwise, they’ll just keep pulling and pulling, until you don’t recognize the landscape any longer. Sound familiar? An example, in non-political terms—think about clowns. Think about high wire balancing acts, and tigers balancing on balls under big tents. Think about trapeze artists flying through the air, being caught by their partners. Now, don’t think of an Elephant. I bet you couldn’t. In fact, I bet you thought of a specific cartoon elephant with big ears. Do you understand? The elephant represents the policy, or the candidate. The circus represents the world view, the features are the values. If I had described the features of a the Serengeti, the sand, the sparse vegetation, the dry air and open skies. Then asked you not to think of an elephant, you would have pictured something entirely different. Why “Don’t Think of an Elephant”? It’s the title of a book by George Lakoff which explains all this in a lot more detail than I have done here, and it’s main lesson—what I’ve described above, seems often missed, for the simpler lesson. That simpler lesson is useful, but that main point was that they are selling a larger world view, and the elephant invokes that whole world view. Even if I tell you not to think of an Elephant, you still thought of it, which is why it’s so destructive to repeat right-wing talking points, even if you are going to refute them. It’s not good enough. You have to have your own strategy, your own talking points, and your goals in mind. Otherwise, we lose by default. It’s that simple, and we have been losing. Do you hear me, Ken Martin? How to fight back—understand what we need to do, then act from understanding. We need to sell a political world view—OUR world view, not their horrible one, one which includes notions of empathy, neighborly responsibility, the protection of the vulnerable—all that. Then the policy just seems obvious. We need to sell the Serengeti. If we do that we win. If we keep reactively, ignorantly, chasing the data the Republicans lead, we lose—everything. It’s that simple.
Responsible Gun Protection Regulation Responsible people can handle dangerous things?—?it’s the irresponsible ones we need to regulate. Unsplash We need responsible gun protection regulation, which is right there in the constitution. An extreme in either direction is irresponsible, and protects no one. Unfettered gun access is an intentional misread of the constitution, it’s dangerous and […]
Responsible Gun Protection Regulation Responsible people can handle dangerous things?—?it’s the irresponsible ones we need to regulate. Unsplash We need responsible gun protection regulation, which is right there in the constitution. An extreme in either direction is irresponsible, and protects no one. Unfettered gun access is an intentional misread of the constitution, it’s dangerous and completely irresponsible. Totalitarian “gun control” is also an intentional misread of the constitution, and is also irresponsible. Both fail to protect both school children and the cause of freedom itself. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What we need is responsible gun protection regulation, to keep the guns out of the hands of lunatics and criminals, and to protect the right of American citizens to own and operate dangerous things?—?of many kinds. We can do both, responsibly, if we start talking about these issues responsibly, with the aim of protecting our people and our rights. We CAN do both. The public already supports just about every measure we already have on the table that can be described as “responsible protections”?—?universal background checks— at a rate of about 90%. We don’t have to accept that our public spaces and school campuses are dangerous, as conservatives want us to do. We don’t have to accept absolute government “control” as Democrats want us to do. How we talk about this issue (or any issue) matters. I really wish Democrats in particular, as both the more compassionate party, and the more reasonable party, would finally understand how this works… The gun issue is about protection, responsibility and accountability, and the constitution provides for that. Make it about responsible protection measures and we’ll solve this problem with surprising speed, because the right wing cannot respond righteously to these better values. But if Democrats keep reacting to and repeating right wing talking points, like “gun control” (just an other way to say “oppression”) we’ll continue to get nothing done. How we talk about things matters. Responsible gun protection regulation is how we prevent gun violence, not control, not bans. Responsible gun regulation.
Another Week, Another Shooting in America, Another Failure by Democrats.
Another Week, Another Shooting in America, Another Failure by Democrats. Blame lies ultimately with Democrats, because it’s their refusal to learn even a little bit about how moral messaging works that lets the Republicans cling to power using this among other idiotic wedge issues. Gun responsibility. Gun responsibility. Gun responsibility. And a bit of protection. […]
Another Week, Another Shooting in America, Another Failure by Democrats. Blame lies ultimately with Democrats, because it’s their refusal to learn even a little bit about how moral messaging works that lets the Republicans cling to power using this among other idiotic wedge issues. Gun responsibility. Gun responsibility. Gun responsibility. And a bit of protection. I blame Democrats for the state of the gun responsibility debate, because they keep saying “gun control” (while Republicans say “liberty”). Until they learn, nothing can actually change. It’s 1000% on Democrats shoulders to lead on this issue, but they are so arrogant, that they actively refuse to learn how any of this works. I see that you, Democrats, all have a lot of high level degrees, yes, you see yourselves as very rational. I get it. Very impressive. Now that I’ve acknowledge your merit, can you finally understand why that’s not enough? This issue has to be about a moral truth?—?responsibility and protection?—?the responsibility of gun ownership, responsibility to protect our citizens from criminals, responsibility to protect the constitution, all that. No amount of explanation about why you need to be allowed to “control” us will ever, for one minute, have a snowball’s chance in hell, of making any progress. Fuck your control, just because. Deal with it. It’s about responsibility, and it’s about protection. Every time the know nothing Democrats talks about “control” they hand victory to Republicans. And they have not one clue why. And it’s not that they aren’t smart enough to figure it out?—?it’s that they are too fucking arrogant to even try. Republicans are basically cartoon villains at this point. That makes it worse, not better. Democrats LOSE TO CARTOON VILLAINS. God, fuck the Democrats. It would be so easy to take the issue of gun responsibility, and the issue of reproductive liberty, away from the cartoon villains. When do we finally do it?
Windows Color Management, a Rant Microsoft is uniquely unable to solve a problem Apple solved ages ago. Photo by Fotis Fotopoulos I just got a new monitor, and it supports 98% of the P3 color space, a high gamut screen. I had a high gamut screen some 10 years ago. Just as 10 years ago, Windows […]
Windows Color Management, a Rant Microsoft is uniquely unable to solve a problem Apple solved ages ago. Photo by Fotis Fotopoulos I just got a new monitor, and it supports 98% of the P3 color space, a high gamut screen. I had a high gamut screen some 10 years ago. Just as 10 years ago, Windows is still unable to properly support this screen. The result is that on Windows, all colors are over saturated for everything. Now, the monitor maker has some blame here. The associated profile seems to resolve in the sRGB color space, and Windows is applying that. But the problem is, there’s no easy or obvious way to simply select a better color profile (like a generic P3 color profile). And, even if I do go to the ancient, incomprehensible ICC screens (I’d bet $100 the developers who built that thing don’t even know how it works), it doesn’t actually apply to most apps! The app has to be aware of color management and tag the content appropriately. But even apps that are aware, like Photoshop, only tag the content you might be working on?—?so their own UIs are often over saturated. Even color aware apps on Windows aren’t properly color managed… The problem is breathtakingly easy to describe, by simply describing the way it works on macOS. In macOS, I can simply choose a different color profile, including one that I produce myself with a color calibrator (Spyder or similar), and the result is that all the windows that aren’t color aware, are adjust to look not over saturated. It’s like magic! It’s also easy to describe why—macOS simply treats the unmanaged stuff as if it were sRGB, and adjusts it accordingly. So why is this so hard for Windows to photocopy? All I want to do is apply a more appropriate color profile, and not have red icons stab me in the eye. It already works on macOS. So what’s the problem? Get out your photocopiers, Redmond, and make it work. Maybe if this stuff worked right, we wouldn’t need “sRGB” mode, like this new monitor supports. What a crock?—?it should be called “Windows backwards compatible mode” because that’s what it is. Support for a hopeless platform. Maybe if this worked right, the associated profile could accurately reflect the capabilities of the monitor, instead of assuming broken, weak support in Windows, and using an insufficient sRGB profile. And don’t get me started on HDR…
America’s Three Moral World Views The concept of left/right in politics is debilitating in it’s lack of dimensions, but it’s useful to structure discourse. I thought I’d broaden things out to offer a less debilitating, and hopefully more accurate break down of American political world views. Things are still more complicated than this, but it’s based […]
America’s Three Moral World Views The concept of left/right in politics is debilitating in it’s lack of dimensions, but it’s useful to structure discourse. I thought I’d broaden things out to offer a less debilitating, and hopefully more accurate break down of American political world views. Things are still more complicated than this, but it’s based on the idea that there are actually 3 main world views in American politics, not just two. No one fits neatly in to just one world view, and no one is consistent on which they apply to all issues?—?most of us use one or another almost completely unconsciously, based on social context, and will apply different ones to different issues. The main things I wanted to show with this are where the identitarian politics and “centrism” really fits, because left/right doesn’t cover it. Identitarian politics, how I loath thee. It is the politics of identity, of “othering”?—?whether it’s about the aggrieved minority (Democrats), or the aggrieved majority (“white” Republicans), it doesn’t matter?—?it’s all the aggrieved in-group vs the out-group oppressors, asserted by a static unchallengeable authority, and it’s always dangerous?—?yes, even when Democrats do it. Terms like “liberal” and “centrist” have been so debased, that it’s hard to even discuss them. We live in a liberal culture, with a liberal democracy, and a liberal economy. We are almost all of us liberal, despite the way right-wing media uses that word as a slur against their favorite straw-man opponents. Whenever CPAC conservatives talk of “liberty” they are dipping in to liberal moral frames. “Centrists” are simply arrogant?—?they believe they sit in the void in the middle of this chart, but they are really just promoting a specific kind of economic classical liberalism mixed with a moderate amount of social support (progressive morality). Centrists have failed to noticed how much they’ve drifted to an extremist kind of liberalism (neoliberalism) away from support in any legitimate sense. Support is all just lip service from centrists, and that’s put progressives in sharp contrast. But we can work on that. Progressives have made their own mistakes, courting identitarian politics too aggressively, because they don’t have any natural aversion like liberals do, to leveraging authority. Conservatives can’t stand centrists, because they don’t represent conservative values of self-discipline and their specific kind of authority. Conservatives are all about authority, not liberty, not that they seem to be any kind of self aware about it. When they are talking about liberty, it’s a specific kind of liberty, the kind where they get to set up their own little strict father fiefdoms. Ask a conservative (who’s not also a libertarian) if you should obey a police officer. See if you get an answer about liberty. There is a funny alliance between “centrists” and identitarians, but we can see this starting to fray as the identitarians get ever more hard-line and inflexible about every little perceived slight, and lean harder and harder on conservative model authority (I’m right because my cause is righteous, and my authority to define terms shall not be challenged!). Identitarian politics is as illiberal as you can get. These inflexible identitarians are going to cost progressives and centrists a lot in the next election (2022), count on it. Look at the chart, it’s a completely ridiculous alliance. When “centrists” blame progressives for those losses, they’re partially right, but only because of the identitarian component?—?and we can do something about it, if we understand our values, and stop the madness (or we can cancel Whoopi for the crime of having said something unpopular, but probably true…). The key to understanding the blended positions is that they aren’t blended at all. The folks in those in between spaces hold multiple separate world views. There is no rational compatibility between liberalism and conservatism, or progressive and liberalism. That’s why the libertarians seem so bizarre, and centrists so wishy-washy. American libertarians are seen as something of an anomaly?—?but if you understand moral reasoning in the human brain, it’s easier to understand. Economic liberalism on the economy, so they can do strict father conservatism in their businesses and at home. That’s the exact opposite of progressive. It’s the same for identitarians and centrists. These multi-world-view in-betweens are more defined by what they oppose than what they support. Each of these in between groups will simply apply one of their world views to a different issues, or in a different social contexts. They aren’t blending anything. It’s more like balancing competing concerns. I almost labeled the “nobody” space “Zen.” It’s the liberal in me who has a problem with identity politics. The progressive in me wants to address their grievances. This is not easy to balance, but imagine how much easier it would be to balance if we could talk about it directly without getting cancelled. There are multiple incompatible world views at play. None of the 3 main world views are wrong in their morals, even if they are doing some reprehensible things in the pursuit of puritanical versions of each. They are each righteous inside their own frameworks. Even conservatism has a place?—?but it’s dangerous on its own?—?all 3 are. They must be balanced. BTW, rationalist thinks they are in the “nobody” place, but the truth is, they are mostly one of these groups, doubling down on a particular moral world view, and calling it more rational than the other rationalists. A real rationalist would be eager to learn how moral cognition works, and start to map this out, but they have mostly just doubled down on their own kind of identity based in-group mockery, and it has to stop. We need to figure out how to balance these things, so we can occupy that central space in a real way. I call one who would occupy that place, the radical moderate. More on that to come.
The Folly of Left/Right Filters Medium and the debilitating concept of left and right Photo by Yogendra Singh from Unsplash I wrote a while back about how Facebook and Twitter have made a core mistake in their political algorithm which filters all content, and all users, into the debilitating concept of left and right, leading to […]
The Folly of Left/Right Filters Medium and the debilitating concept of left and right Photo by Yogendra Singh from Unsplash I wrote a while back about how Facebook and Twitter have made a core mistake in their political algorithm which filters all content, and all users, into the debilitating concept of left and right, leading to media silos. In previous articles, I’ve written about the 3 common world views in America, and they aren’t even the only ones. Many others have written about how politics have become extremely partisan, and how much more consistent party identity aligns with believes about a given set of issues. All of this is due to the mistake of those sorting algorithms, which create silos on 2 extreme ends of a single dimension?—?party affiliation. And worse, party affiliation based on American notions of 2 party rule. A simple way to fix it is to stop filtering people based on the broken idea of left/right. What a reductionist load of shit that entire idea is. If you are pursuing “engagement” so you can sell clicks, reads, or ads, then it makes sense to only show people what they want to see. It’s not even good for that. The simplest adjustment would be to gauge individual user interests, on individual issues, instead of filtering everything through an absolutely moronic left/right false dichotomy. Then you could have someone who’s media silo shows them content that doesn’t align cleanly with party identity. You might for example, get a pro-life reader, who is also anti-gun. That used to be a thing. It is increasingly less so, and the the reason for that isn’t a mystery. It’s the social media, and Medium publication sorting algorithm producing remarkably consistent messaging machines aligned along party silos. It’s the ultimate algorithm driven echo chamber, and hit has to stop. A FAR better approach, at least for society and for mental health, would be to not even filter based on preferences, but filter based on something healthy. I suggest a measure of extremism, and inflexibility. Simply, don’t boost the extremist expressions, and don’t boost the hard-line expressions. It’s true, that would likely reduce the spread of Republican posts. That would be great, thanks. It would also halt a lot of what Republicans complain about from “the left” (which really just means Democrats , while “right” just means Republicans… life as understood by a 2 horse race…) How do we stop this madness? In Medium, I clicked on one right wing-ish article, and now I’m inundated with right wing shit posts about “right” issues, and “leftists” and screeds against “woke” —ARGH. If this is what Medium is going to be, then I’m all the way out. How do we fix this? We need to talk about whether “engagement” is the right metric for measuring all of this. But if we are going to measure and optimize for it, at least we can stop with the brain damage inducing left/right filtering. It’s literally destroying the world.
Progressive Morals with Examples Our morals are better. Let’s fight for them. Snowball fight? The right wing has a strategy to change American culture to adopt their abhorrent, often self conflicted, “strict father” moral world view. That strategy is well formed with a clear goal, and a specific method to achieve that goal. It’s based on […]
Progressive Morals with Examples Our morals are better. Let’s fight for them. Snowball fight? The right wing has a strategy to change American culture to adopt their abhorrent, often self conflicted, “strict father” moral world view. That strategy is well formed with a clear goal, and a specific method to achieve that goal. It’s based on science, to control the cultural narrative. Progressives don’t understand what this strategy is based on, how it works, or why we keep losing every battle. We let the right wing define the terms of every conflict, react to that, and then lose. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can lead again?—?but we have to understand the rules of engagement, and exactly what the right wing is doing. It’s not that complicated, but it involves understanding world views, and that’s especially hard when the new information conflicts with your own world view. Progressives have a moral world view based primarily on empathy and support. George Lakoff calls it “progressive family morality.” We have an authority model based on open inquiry and accountability. Conservatives don’t have any of this. Their moral world view, “strict father morality” is different. It’s based on discipline through punishment, and an authority model based on a mix of in-group seniority and gender, and often (but not always) other characteristics like religion and race, and that authority cannot be challenged, except on the basis of discipline or lack thereof. That last bit is important?—?it’s not important to them that their precepts are correct, only that they remain unchallenged. Now think about how progressive authority works?—?you might already see some conflict. A moral world view is the basis for all political views?—?the starting point, the premise of every political arguments is a moral truth defined by your world view, and a moral cannot be challenged or proven rationally. What is right (righteous) just is. This is the hardest part of all this for rational “centrists” and progressives to accept. We want to help immigrants because it is righteous to support and care for people who need help, according to our moral world view. Conservatives want to punish them for a perceived slight (crossing the border without paperwork, or really, for just being part of an “other” out-group). That’s the starting point. The thing with progressives and liberals is we are rationalists, and that partly makes up our world view. We tend to think we can logically arrive at the proper set of morals after reason, but that’s demonstrably not how it works. It’s a jagged pill to swallow for rationalists, but it’s simple and it’s true. All politics, and all political issues are filtered through our moral world view. The rest are arguments meant to justify the moral judgement. Progressives rationalize away the drug traffickers among the illegal immigrants as refugees. Conservatives rationalize away the refugees as drug traffickers. The facts don’t matter here?—?the judgment is decided earlier than the argument, by your moral world view. The truth about immigrants is a mix of these facts. So, how do we win, or at least make sure our preferences are considered on an issue like immigration? We understand why we want what we want, and we just explain that. Yes, there is a mix of bad actors in a mostly victimized group of people that we want to help in undocumented immigrants. The morals say, how we treat them is not only about them. It’s also about what it says about us. Americans help people. America’s culture IS nurturing. They need help, so we help them. And we are good, strong, and capability people who have the capacity to help them. Scarcity is a nonsensical conservative idea. How we treat people in need says everything about us. It says everything about us, to us, but also to the rest of the world. Conservatives can take their “all the world is a nail” punishment and stuff it. We are helping these people, because it’s the right thing to do. (The facts are on our side?—?feel free to explain that, but only after making the moral argument to frame the facts.) Which argument do you think will win? We should live up to our morals, or we should punch down on desperate people? If we talk about these issues morally, we’d make progress— but we can’t just react to focus group tested, right wing talking points?—?we can’t call them “illegal immigrants”. Their legal status is not the most important aspect. Our need to live up to our higher morals is. You might have noticed how easy it is in the previous section to conjure conservative values labels, and how comparatively weak the progressive labels feel. This is not an accident. Conservatives have been promoting their moral world view, systemically and successfully, for decades, while progressives and liberals have not. They have use focus groups and polling to both push and test for specific short phrases they can use to activate the compatible moral world view on their chosen issues. The result is that they are absolutely dominating the contest to change American character. Idiotic conservative drivel like DILLIGAF (do I look like I give a f***) is now dominating American culture. yes, I do give a f***. And you know what? Most American do too. But why is this effective? It’s because we all have multiple world views in our brains at the same time, and we make decisions based on which one is active at the moment of a moral question, and we do it almost completely unaware?—?unconsciously. And, they are activated by simply saying words?—?even when you then argue against them. If I say, “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” you can’t do it. That’s the science, and it’s another jagged pill for rationalists. It used to be that Americans exercised progressive morality in some contexts, like maybe a labor union meeting, or school, and exercised conservative values in other contexts?—?the home, or at work. It used to be that we saw those morals expressed in art and movies and writing, based on that experience, and the intuition that comes from experience. But its getting harder to find it in pop culture any more. All those “grounded” and “dark” TV shows? Yeah, they are pushing a particularly nasty conservative world view. Everything is conservative, action movie morality. Most people, even if they feel conservative values aren’t quite right for a given issue, seem unable to really explain an alternative. They certainly can’t explain issues in language other than conservative frames they’ve been given. They fall repeatedly, and frustratingly, into conservative framing traps, and don’t seem particularly aware of how it works. That makes sense. Conservatives and Republicans have entire institutions whose job is exclusively to propagate their moral world view. Progressives have exactly 0 matching institutions?—?all progressive institutions are tied to specific issues or electoral outcomes. As a result, everyone has an easy time explaining conservative morals, and applying them to policy?—?including the media?—?but cannot even begin to describe the better, more American morals beneath progressive policy. It’s no wonder the media can’t make any sense of the words Nancy Pelosi speaks and keep asking for her “message.” They say “message”, but really, they are asking for her moral world view, or for a brand message, and she’s been unable or unwilling to articulate one. In a recent presser, after getting frustrated, she does get half-way there?—?she says the word responsibility repeatedly?—?but responsibility is defined differently by the two moral world views. To progressives, responsibility is to nurture and support. To conservatives, responsibility is more like obedience to their moral authority. It’s not enough to just say “we have responsibility”?—?responsibility to what moral truth? It’s not enough to say some policy is better than some other?—?better at achieving what moral outcome? Nancy Pelosi’s responsibility is defined by liberal notions of individual responsiblity, and progressive notions of compassion, nurture, and support. But she never said these words, and the reporters, were left scratching their heads. (Honestly, Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have to explain her world view, journalists should know about this stuff, but that’s another issue.) All of that is just context, and it doesn’t really show how to apply this in specific issues. So here are some quick and dirty examples of how to apply all to political messaging. Again, you’ll notice how much more work I have to do to set the moral frame than a conservative counter point. It’s not because it’s more complex?—?we just don’t have the decades of consistent tactics to build the labels. We empathize with those stricken with sickness and understand it can happen to anyone, at any time, without reason or discrimination. We must care for and protect each other in tough times, especially (but not limited to) those tough times over which we have no control, so we will provide health insurance to all. Conservatives want to punish the sick, because they see them as deserving their sickness?—?they must have done something wrong, or failed to prepare, or had no discipline, or some other twisted logic. Conservatives are not greedy on the issue of healthcare— it’s not about money. In fact, they are willing to spend more to punish the unworthy?—?and we do. They want to punish the sick, and they are willing to pay for it. We see CEOs who take home billions while paying their workers less than they can live on, as disloyal wage thieves, exploiting those who do the real work to build their companies. We see billionaire freeloaders who take and take, and don’t give back, no reciprocation. They can call their ill-gotten gains “earnings” all they want, we see right through that. Conservatives see folks like Jeff Bezos or Donald Trump not as exploiters, or obvious con men, but as disciplined strict authorities, and therefor deserving of the riches they greedily stuff in their own pockets. Greed is good to conservatives. To progressives, it’s obviously theft and unbalanced moral equation. Progressives want to take care of veterans, folks to whom we owe a moral debt for their service, and their sacrifice, especially those who have been injured in any way. Progressive nurture and support?—?even veterans. Conservatives want to let them suffer, because they weren’t disciplined enough, not ruthless enough, to take care of themselves after they are no longer of use in the military, or some other twisted logic. Veterans are not enough like Donald Trump to conservatives, not disciplined enough to deserve dignity after service. Trump once said, “Americans who died in ware are ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’”. To a strict father world view, that makes total sense?—?it’s all about discipline, empathy is not relevant. Every conservative, and every Republican ate that right up. Donald Trump is a very disciplined brand marketer. Extremely disciplined. It’s the entire reason conservatives love him. They don’t need anything more. It has made him the perfect strict father for conservatives. Not vets, who have sacrificed for us, and who deserve our respect for their service. Every voter who would side with Donald Trump, or any other Republican, after saying something like that has betrayed us all, but most especially veterans. I could go on?—?but you can see how knowing our morals, and those of our opposition can help explain the truth about why we believe these things are righteous. It’s not enough to explain the mechanics of how a policy works. It’s great that Democrats wan to provide day care to all workers. But why? What’s the moral underpinning of that? It’s to nurture and support. If it’s about discipline, then parents shouldn’t have had children until they were financially ready (we’d have almost no new babies if we did that…) We have to communicate the moral intent?—?and we have to do that FIRST?—?then we can explain the details of how it achieves that moral end until midnight. Once we internalize this, and use it to frame our arguments, we’ll start to win, and I believe there are a LOT more of us than the hateful conservatives. Until we do it, we’ll continue to get our butts kicked, decade after decade. Our morals are better, but we have to state them, at the beginning of every argument, repeatedly, every time?—?until we are sick of it, then repeat it some more. If we keep trying to sell policy through rationalism, without communicating the moral foundation on which those policies are built, we’ll keep losing every battle. We can already see where that leads. We can’t challenge the ascendancy of the right wing if we don’t understand them?—?and they are not that hard to understand. We also can’t beat them if we don’t understand ourselves. We aren’t much more complicated, but what we do is harder to pull off, yet produces greater rewards than the often self-defeating right wing “strict father” ideology will even allow itself to dream of. Our morals are better. Let’s fight for them.
The problem with the issue of climate change (other than calling it “climate change”…)
The problem with the issue of climate change (other than calling it “climate change”…) is that for most of the folks who are trying to get something done, they’ve adopted a needless barrier that we get universal buy in to solve it. That preference for solidarity based policy alone has done more harm to the […]
The problem with the issue of climate change (other than calling it “climate change”…) is that for most of the folks who are trying to get something done, they’ve adopted a needless barrier that we get universal buy in to solve it. That preference for solidarity based policy alone has done more harm to the mitigation strategy than any other aspect of this issue. What am I talking about? Well, there are multiple kinds of policies (I’m ripping this directly from Matthew Taylor’s RSA presentation on “The Power to Act”). 1. Solidaristic – we all agree to turn off the lights when we leave a room, and recycle our plastics. 2. Hierarchical (authority) – we ban the use of fossil fuels, or mandate catalytic converters, etc. 3. Market bases – we’ll compete to create better products, which reduce the reliance on the old ones, etc. The environmental movement mostly focuses on #1 (probably arguing they need that to get #2, which is in absolute terms, bunk). But really, I agree with Matthew Taylor, if we want to make any real progress, we need to properly balance all 3 (I’d actually argue, you only need to balance #2 and #3, and that #1 is a consequence of that balance, with Taylor’s 4th type – despair – being a consequence of failing to do that – the 4th one, sound familiar?) What would that look like? Well, how about if instead of trying to use that old conservative punishment model, where we restrict what people want to do (burn coal), we instead provide incentives to produce the competing technologies more rapidly. There are 6 renewable sources of energy, and only 4 dirty sources. We already know the clean ones will be more efficient than the dirty sources, it’s just a matter of time. So lets accelerate that. I know, I know, the “experts” say that it won’t be enough – well, the experts thought we couldn’t replace ozone depleting freon with anything else in refrigerators, and it took one congressmen, and a small cash reward, like a year to get 3 alternatives back in the 80s. So forgive my skepticism. (Honestly, I wish I could find a source for this – I heard it on the radio ages ago. Still, there are other examples of making the new thing cheaper, rather than making the old thing more expensive, and this is the clear direction we should be going.) And yea, it’s true that we need to be a lot more about carbon capture/sinking. So let’s fund some efforts to do that using hierarchy. Let’s stop waiting for global buy in – what a waste of time. Let’s just start putting the money and market activity using authority to fix this. We don’t need buy in, we just need some smart people to do the work. Most of the smart people who could do this work, just want to pay their mortgage while they do it. It’s not even expensive. Oh! That’s already happening. Even without scaring the next generation to death (seriously, they are petrified – that’s not helping), many countries are now (finally) starting to do exactly this. Now let’s get Australia to remove their ineffective shark nets. Gawd those are dumb.
Political Discourse and the Media. All politics is moral. The facts of any given political issue are filtered through a moral world view. Every determination is colored or even dictated by the underlying morals of the world view applied to that issue. Even the facts are accepted or rejected based on that. It’s in our brains. […]
Political Discourse and the Media. All politics is moral. The facts of any given political issue are filtered through a moral world view. Every determination is colored or even dictated by the underlying morals of the world view applied to that issue. Even the facts are accepted or rejected based on that. It’s in our brains. It’s how we work. This reality MUST become the basis of a new 21st century model for political discourse, if we are to avoid catastrophe and warfare. In America, we have 2 parties, and one of them has been leveraging this knowledge to their benefit for decades, almost completely unchecked by the other. Let’s examine the issue of immigration through 3 different world views in America. For progressives, the morality of immigration all about support and nurture. They see immigrants at our border as folks who need help, and they want to do what good progressives always want to do?—?to help and support people who need help. Every response to the issue of immigration can be understood through that moral lens. To accusations of wrong doing, progressives mostly reject that wrong doing occurred?—?rationalize it away as asylum seeking due to extraordinary circumstances. Even if we acknowledge that crossing a border without papers is legally wrong, progressive corrective action is guidance and support, especially for a minor offense like not having your paperwork in order, so there should be no punishment. But really, it’s the moral impulse to help that guides progressives. Conservatives apply a different set of morals to this issue, the morals of sanctity, of following the law, and of social order. Their only possible response, given their world view’s exclusive method for corrective action, is punishment, not guidance or support. The simple judgement is that those folks broke the law, and should be punished, because that’s what you do to people who break the law. It doesn’t matter how trivial the infraction is, and pointing out that it’s a misdemeanor will not persuade. It’s a simple moral calculation, and reason has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter that that is barely true that they “broke the law,” because the facts don’t matter?—?the morals matter. There is a third group. Liberals?—?real liberals?—?would see the border itself as an infringement on freedom and liberty. These are the “free trade” kind of people. They might make arguments about how the border was completely open before the 1950s (yes, really), and the appearance tickets you’d get for crossing it without paper work, was barely enforced before the 1990s, and only really enforced after 9/11/2001. But reason and rationalism don’t persuade. (Liberals are the most distributed group, taking up space in both parties. They often refer to themselves as “centrists,” but that’s just not an accurate label. They make up the increasingly unpopular leadership within the Democratic Party, and social conservatives who are liberal on economic policy in the Republican Party, and the strange Republican Libertarians. The old Washington consensus of neoliberals are economic liberals, with varying social leanings. That’s why they agree to privatize everything, and on free trade. It’s a moral agreement between the parties?—?all politics is moral.) If you see the issue of immigration as a law and order issue, an argument about freedom or nurture might as well be the sound of wind. Only if you see this as a moral issue about liberty, might you be persuaded by an argument about liberty. Only if you see this as an issue of nurture, might you be persuaded by an argument about help and support. If you have multiple leanings?—?the race is on?—?who’s going to apply the most compatible moral frame first? This is why rational arguments don’t persuade in politics. For progressives, this is a simple issue, with a simple moral calculus. It’s the same with conservatives, and the same for liberals. And it’s the same for people with multiple world views?—?and we all have multiple world views, even though they aren’t compatible with each other. We make judgements about these issues based simply on which world view we are applying to an issue in the moment. And there are tricks we can use (and that Republicans have been abusing for decades) to activate the world view compatible with your desired judgement. Some people are remarkably consistent on which world view they apply to political considerations?—?but most people are wafflers, applying a different world view to different issues, and even applying different world views to the same issue, in different contexts (conservative at home, progressive at work, for example). It’s true?—?humans have a remarkable ability to believe multiple incompatible “truths” at the same time! Well, not exactly at the same time, we mostly switch world views unconsciously, rarely being forced to reconcile them, and never at the same time. There is no blended world view. There is no rational “centrist.” They do not exist. (There is a way to put things in balance, but not without understanding the foundations, and not without accepting that some moral precepts simply conflict. That’s for another article.) Narratively, we can activate one or the other, before explaining our policy. This is what is meant by moral framing. If I’m talking about immigration, and my judgement is we should help those folks, because my morals say we should help those who need help, then I might choose to tell empathetic stories about the plight of the immigrants, and connect their current situation to the situation our fore-bearers experienced. Or I can simply explain that how we treat people is more about us than it is about them, and demand that America is and be a kind and nurturing place —then demand we provide support. If I’m conservative, and have a knee jerk reaction that says those “other” people are not like us, then I need to come up with a rationalization to justify punishment. They don’t have their paperwork in order, etc. That’s enough reason to separate their families, and lock everyone up, right? Oh, it’s about the drugs, you literally just made up out of thing air… Got it, you want to punish them. We can choose a world view to apply if we are aware of them, but only if we are aware of how this works. If we are not aware, we are almost certainly getting manipulated. Republicans have been using and understanding of moral framing for decades in their marketing, almost completely unchallenged by any other political group?—?least of all the Democrats, and especially not the media. So what do we do about it? My preference is education?—?I’m a progressive?—?nurture and support. If we can get a broadly disseminated understanding of all this, we can have real dialog again. But I can’t wave my hands and get the entire country to understand this, so instead we must use this information to lead. Let’s frame this righteously, that’s the point, right? To a liberal, whose world view is all about individual liberty, maybe this feels manipulative. No it isn’t. It’s just clear communication and leadership. This is what leadership has always been, selling the moral vision?—?taking us to the promised land. The way to persuade on any given political issue, is to invoke the right moral world view, before describing policy or judgement. Everything in politics is a moral equation, not a rational one. If we ignore that, we cannot be effective political leaders. If you are in the media an ignore it, you cannot hope to explain any given issue to your readers effectively. If it’ll ease our liberal conscious, we can simply also explain the trick. Honestly, it’s so hard to get anyone to truly understand this stuff, that it won’t have much of an impact, but let’s try anyway. This is so important for journalism. Journalists are supposed to be the intermediaries?—?that’s where the word “media” comes from. It’s true that Democrats suck at moral branding, which you in the media often conflate with having “a message”. Democrats have a message?—?they just don’t have branding, and because of that the media is just essentially ignoring it, in favor of the right wing’s brand messaging. But Democrats frankly shouldn’t have to have a brand strategy to make headway in the media. The intermediaries in should know what a politician’s bias is, and be able to explain it to their readers effectively. If you write about politics, and you can’t take any given issue?—?including economic issues, not just social or justice issues?—?and write three paragraphs, one for each of the 3 major world views in America, then how can you call yourself a political reporter? How can you repeat focus group tested talking points from one party or the other, designed to manipulate as part of a strategy, without understanding how that strategy works? How can you analyze data, when all the questions follow a Republican lead? How can you write about this stuff, without explaining to your readers what the strategies employed by the politicians and parties are? How could you possibly educate your readers? You can’t. The Democrats are failing to manage the media sure, but the media?—?America’s 4th estate, is utterly failing in their core responsibility to tell the whole truth to their readers. Utterly failing. Every time a journalist asks Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden for their message (by which they mean, brand message), after an hour long press conference, they are demonstrating that they understand none of this, or at least are not applying that understanding, if they do. A journalist shouldn’t have to ask a politician for their world view, which is what they are really asking. Joe Biden’s world view is obvious, if you understand what that is, and listen to the words he’s saying. It might even help ask better questions. It’d certainly help write better, more informative articles. Maybe it’d even move units. It’s the morals, stupid. The arguments liberals and progressives and the non-partisan media make sound rational. But they mostly just repeat what different groups say about any given issue, without even trying to describe the moral context, or highlighting the shared world views at play. Rarely do they put the rhetoric in a moral context?—?and all politics is moral. Because of that, journalists, the well meaning ones anyway, are often entirely manipulated. They do occasionally touch the moral substance, but usually only after repeating right wing moral phrases, and usually only after things get really bad, like armed insurrection on January 6. Honestly, it’s maddening. What will it take? World War III? American Civil War II? What will it take for the media, Democrats and Progressives to finally learn how this works. What will it take for them to finally respond in kind to a Republican machine they’ve been building for decades to manipulate the population on this ground? What will it take for the well meaning among us to finally fight on equal footing? What will it take? And one more thing for the Democrats?—?this is not about brand marketing. A lot of Democrats in particular seem to write this stuff off as “branding,” throw up their hands, and continue to try to persuade with rational discourse. It doesn’t work. Branding, incorrectly applied, doesn’t work either. But this is NOT about branding?—?not exactly. There is cross over with marketing and branding, because brand marketing is largely built built on an intuitive understanding of this kind of groupish cognition. In particular, if you can adequately frame a political issue in a moral “value” you can indeed sell your “product” (policy) more readily. Republicans do this a lot. They don’t actually have a moral core, morally speaking, they don’t stand for anything (Biden is right about that, and everyone knows it)?—?they just know the difference between a political moral world view, and brand value. Brand marketing works on top of moral cognition (sometimes intentional, sometime accidentally), but its not the same thing. This is deeper than brand marketing. This is about political morality, the basis for all political judgement. It has to be incorporated in our discourse. Even better, if we can start to think more clearly?—?even rationally?—?about all this, we might even be able to discuss it rationally again. But we can’t just ignore it, and fail to respond to Republican attempts to manipulate the discourse. We definitely can’t just reject it as brand marketing. That’s been losing elections for decades.
Matt Taibbi’s take on school closures, is completely rational?—?and entirely wrong
Matt Taibbi on school closures?—?completely rational?—?and entirely wrong Matt Taibbi: School closures, not critical race theory, was primary issue for parents in Virginia…Journalist and podcaster Matt Taibbi said Thursday that Democrats are on the road to losing more support on an issue…thehill.com Understanding that all politics is moral, there’s an even simpler way to see this. […]
Matt Taibbi on school closures?—?completely rational?—?and entirely wrong <a class="markup--anchor markup--mixtapeEmbed-anchor" data-href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/587748-matt-taibbi-school-closures-not-critical-race-theory-was-primary-issue-for" href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/587748-matt-taibbi-school-closures-not-critical-race-theory-was-primary-issue-for" title="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/587748-matt-taibbi-school-closures-not-critical-race-theory-was-primary-issue-for" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matt Taibbi: School closures, not critical race theory, was primary issue for parents in Virginia… Journalist and podcaster Matt Taibbi said Thursday that Democrats are on the road to losing more support on an issue…thehill.com Understanding that all politics is moral, there’s an even simpler way to see this. Rather than understanding the supportive role that public school takes up in society, parents have been primed by decades of unchecked Republican talking points, telling them how morally bad government and public school is, and especially those dirty teachers from that “other” librul group (itself, ridiculous). Rather than the heroic nurturers of future generations they really are, “everyone knows” that teachers are lazy, incompetent and have sneaky intentions to brainwash and indoctrinate your children. There’s a reason “everyone knows” that, and there’s nothing rational about any of it. It’s unchecked moral propaganda, unanswered by Democrats, who always seem to seek badly reasoned rationalizations for their loses, rather than moral understanding. In this case, Matt Taibbi makes one up, right out of thin air. No it’s not CRT (critical race theory), a talking point that promotes a sense of a moral “truth” (it’s not about the policy, it never is?—?people don’t vote for policy, ever), no, Taibbi suggests, it’s parents doing the rational thing for their children. Ugh. This is not complicated. Republicans are using plane old, vanilla in-group/out-group dynamics based on their superior understanding of moral politics. Moral politics explains this so much better than rationalism. It’s a nice sounding story that parents are rational self actors (homo economicus) and are just protecting their children from the educational harm of not being in school (itself a moral argument, if rational sounding). But it’s hilariously untrue. Parents were pissed off at an unfortunate set of circumstances, and yes, the issue of school closing was a top issue because of it. But it’s the moral story the parties told in response to that, which swayed the outcome, not the reason, not the rationalization. It’s so important to understand why and how Republicans exploited that. Republicans used the opportunity to cash in on their moral positioning to scapegoat Democrats, by making a moral argument, not a rational one. It’s a simple tactic, they’ve used as part of a broader strategy to change American morality, and they’ve been doing it unchecked, for decades. They use propaganda to seed the moral landscape?—?nonsense like CRT is all about seeding the moral landscape. No one really cares about CRT. That makes it easier to sell their abhorrent policies, like school privatization?—?get ready for the sell to come (again) when they take back congress in 2022. Remember when those bad-guy (Democrat) teachers and corrupt (Democrat) schools failed your kids in 2021? It’s coming. Will you be ready, Democrats? Matt Taibbi and the general neoliberal Democratic Party just keep falling for the same basic trick, over and over again. It’s not rational, and Democrats are not losing because reason. All politics is moral.
Democrats SUCK at Messaging The media keeps asking for your messaging, because what you’ve said is not good enough. In this article on “The Hill” there is a video of Nancy Pelosi, being visibly annoyed at the media for asking what I assume, she thinks is a stupid question. Go watch that and then come […]
Democrats SUCK at Messaging The media keeps asking for your messaging, because what you’ve said is not good enough. In this article on “The Hill” there is a video of Nancy Pelosi, being visibly annoyed at the media for asking what I assume, she thinks is a stupid question. Go watch that and then come back. Ready? Here’s the problem. Acting responsibly, to protect and provide for our people, those are moral values. That’s what Democrats are trying to do, and what irresponsible Republicans refuse to do, with regards to running government, following science, and distributing vaccines. Democrats keep describing policy, as if that’s what motivates people… NOBODY CARES. The moral values that underpin the policy is what Democrats need to describe?—?FIRST?—?to “frame” the issue. It’s like setting the why of the issue first, then explaining the policy, if you must justify this through 17th century reasoning. Democrats are SO BAD AT MESSAGING. That’s why the media keeps asking for your message… All politics is moral, and the dumb stuff you say literally doesn’t make any sense from any kind of messaging stand point, unless you already agree with the unspoken premises. Pelosi. Makes. No. Sense. Literally can’t be comprehended. Look, it only took me a few sentences to explain this. George Lakoff explains moral politics even better (all the time). When will Democrats learn? Republicans DON’T SHARE OUR MORALS. They want to change them?—?and have been successfully changing them for decades, and we have to fight back. And all we have to do to fight, is simply state our morals. Better if we put a similar effort in to it as conservatives, but it is not complicated. Our morals are better than theirs. Progressives and even so-called centrist Democrats primarily emphasize care and nurture and sense that we are in this together. We have straight up, plain vanilla, better morals, than that scornful nonsense Trumpian (fake) big “C” Conservatives believe. “Build Back Better”. ? Get it together Democrats.
MMT Explains Our 2 Tiered Economy and Inflation
MMT Explains Our 2 Tiered Economy and Inflation A novice take on the way Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) explains inflation from a permanent K shaped economy. Basically, MMT says we get inflation when money policy juices demand and we are at full employment, or we juice just one sector which is at full employment, while […]
MMT Explains Our 2 Tiered Economy and Inflation A novice take on the way Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) explains inflation from a permanent K shaped economy. Basically, MMT says we get inflation when money policy juices demand and we are at full employment, or we juice just one sector which is at full employment, while the others are constrained. This all follows from the basic rules of supply and demand. We have a 2 tiered worker economy?—?wealthy professionals, and everyone else. The wealthy professionals can still afford Nike sneakers, houses, and new cars, but everyone else can’t. It’s telling that Nike stopped even trying to sell sneakers to poor people around a decade ago. That’s the K as measured by either income or ability to spend?—?one group’s trend is going up, and the other is going down. Some call this a “K shaped recovery”?—?but it’s permanent, if policy doesn’t change. So what happens when Nike and car companies choose to produce fewer, much more “premium” (expensive) products, and sell to fewer people with increasing expectations? Inflation! Supply and demand. Pretty simple. Wealthy professionals, the top of the K, have produced more demand than there is supply. The bottom of the K?—?their demand is irrelevant, because they can’t afford anything, having negative disposable income. Democrats make this worse by emphasizing education as the only possible way out, while we are pretty much at the peak of the ability of our education system to churn out more professionals. That had been raising the top of the K, but we are now at full employment in those ranks. Those who can professionalize, become the only ones who can afford a house, a car, or Nike sneakers, and we are just about at saturation. Republicans make this problem worse when they cut social support, and suppress wages, and therefor reduce the ability of blue collar and service workers to spend in the economy. That deepens the bottom of the K. Both exacerbate the problem by encouraging over seas production?—?another trend we are passed capacity on. The way to fix this is exactly what most on the left have been advocating for centuries?—?it’s always the way to balance the equation, whatever the economic theory. Bring the bottom of the K up (through various means —which ones is the whole political ball game), and suppress the top of the K’s ability to spend through taxes. These two groups aren’t really separate. They make up our entire socioeconomic system, and a K shaped economy is not sustainable?—?for either side, for so many economic and political reasons. But the top has the most to lose the system fails. We are currently doing exactly the opposite. Even though we can’t produce more professionals, we are deepening the permanent K. The wealthy are literally subsidized by government through “tax relief” gimmicks?—?yes, even for the upper income middle, the professional class. They get a lot of tax carve outs on their houses, for example, and education, and 401ks and other financial instruments, personal llc, and all sorts of other tax dodge scams, to offset all that mildly progressive income tax they pay. For big businesses, states and municipalities will even throw large sums of cash to entice them to show up and open an office, or a factory in their town. These tax policies increase the professional class’s ability to spend, while the working poor are taxed, to suppress their consumption. What’s interesting about MMT, is the way they go through the history of money?—?and feudal lords understood this pretty clearly. They used to simply burn tax revenue (in the form of tally sticks), and paper money was invented because you can burn it (and tally sticks were a real pain). The devil is in the details. MMT is not quite as well tested as other models, but it’s pretty friggin’ convincing if you ask me, partly because of how easy it is to apply, but also because of the story it tells compared to other apologetic economics, which I and many others?—?especially business people?—?have rejected for its obvious flaws. Orthodox economics might as well be talking about money on Mars. It seems to have nothing to do with reality, despite all its fawning over questionable mathematics and sociological assertions. MMT explains that money is a feature of the human experience that predates writing, and is neither good nor bad?—?it just is, and this is how it work (explained through history). I suspect this is going to be just as annoying to know about as moral cognition in politics, because it completely changes the necessary narrative around taxing and spending, and why we should do each of them. And just like with moral cognition in politics, I’ll have to fight against embedded myths to make any headway…
Metroid Dread, more like Metroid Hate The E.M.M.I. are a hateful, game breaking gimmick. Metroid Dread should be called Metroid Frustration, because that’s all it is. I don’t even mind the difficult bosses. They are a bit old school, and require failure, then rote pattern memorization, but that’s fine?—?there’s a way to beat them, and once […]
Metroid Dread, more like Metroid Hate The E.M.M.I. are a hateful, game breaking gimmick. Metroid Dread should be called Metroid Frustration, because that’s all it is. I don’t even mind the difficult bosses. They are a bit old school, and require failure, then rote pattern memorization, but that’s fine?—?there’s a way to beat them, and once you figure it out, it’s not that hard. The world, and the winding path through that world (even if it is a bit too linear for a Metroid game?—?Fusion had a similar problem) are beautiful?—?and I mean gorgeous. I didn’t like it at first, and if you are feeling the same near the beginning, try to stick through (if you can stomach the E.M.M.I.s), it gets glorious. That’s not the same with the E.M.M.I. They are frustrating, and hateful, and because their final killing blow is randomly timed, there is no way to reliably escape, which amps the anger and frustration, and the feeling that the game designers hate the player. I don’t play games to feel pissed off. That’s all I feel from this particular aspect of the game, anger, hate, and frustration. But I don’t want to just complain, so here are some simple ways to fix it. 1. Just get rid of them. I mean it. Not having them would be FAR more atmospheric than having them. The mood could be set by having creepy music, and that spooky lighting scheme going on in there. You could even leave the red dot on the map, just for atmospherics. Remove them, at least until you have to defeat them with the powered up lazer thingy. That’d be fine too. Make it an option, please. I’d love to replay this game one day?—?but I’ll NEVER replay this, as long as they are there. I’m not even sure I’m going to get through this game once… It’s so unpleasant. 2. At least make the escape timing challenge something that can be defeated reliably. It sucks every time to get caught, but all that little mini-non-game does is frustrate further. It adds nothing, except extended frustration, because there’s no way to reliably beat the non-game. This mechanic is maddening. I can’t underscore how much these E.M.M.I.s ruin the game?—?ruin. They are game breaking. Just being there is a problem, but if they have to be there, at least make it possible to escape. 3. You could simply remove the escape mechanic. If the E.M.M.I. have to hunt and catch you, make it a real instakill. That’s what it really is anyway. The E.M.M.I. don’t have to be there, they are subtractive, they remove from the game, rather than adding anything. But if you think they do need to be there, just get rid of the frustrating, agonizing, hateful non-game with the impossible to time escape mechanic. GET RID OF IT. It’s game breaking, frustrating, and it makes me feel like you hate me. It makes me hate you. You don’t want me to hate, do you? Do you hate me? Is hate the feeling you were going for? Metroid Hate? The rest of the game is good! It’s a shame this one thing completely (I mean it?—?COMPLETELY) ruins the experience. Nintendo. Fix it. Please. Release a patch, or a Game Genie code, or something, to just remove the E.M.M.I. from the game. At least an option. That would be great. Thanks.