When your attack ad is accidentally an endorsement
https://twitter.com/unrigla/status/2053217879722713478?s=46
@carramrod speaking of endorsements trump said he's thinking about endorsing pratt. pratt said i don't have a party. i don't need that. distancing himself. smart move in la county
I know it sells politically, but calling it an "evil racket" of politicians and NGOs profiting off the homelessness problem might be too much—at least as a description of the people involved.
He's probably correct that there's a large group of people in politics and NGOs who have a religious-like devotion to their priors, will not challenge them, and will fight dirty anyone who does. But I think, at bottom, that stems from a notion that they, themselves, are in the right and their identities are tied up in that — to change or admit wrong now would destroy their views of themselves and their careers. Jonathan Haidt (of The Coddled Mind and Righteous Mind) writes about this: when professional identity fuses with ideological identity, policy criticism becomes a personal attack to that person. That's why they come off as so vicious (and stupid) when challenged. Even presenting evidence to them is a personal attack on their very being.
And yes, for many at the top, changing course would also eliminate a really good salary. What locks the system in place is that the psychological and the financial reinforce each other — the belief system protects the salary; the salary protects the belief system. Neither has to be cynically chosen for the dynamic to be self-sealing. I think this is what public choice theory calls institutional capture. It leads to organizations that were created to solve a problem then developing a structural interest in its persistence. But most of the people inside it are sincere. Which is one big reason why they are so resistant to reform.
I know it sells politically, but calling it an "evil racket" of politicians and NGOs profiting off the homelessness problem might be too much—at least as a description of the people involved.
He's probably correct that there's a large group of people in politics and NGOs who have a religious-like devotion to their priors, will not challenge them, and will fight dirty anyone who does. But I think, at bottom, that stems from a notion that they, themselves, are in the right and their identities are tied up in that — to change or admit wrong now would destroy their views of themselves and their careers. Jonathan Haidt (of The Coddled Mind and Righteous Mind) writes about this: when professional identity fuses with ideological identity, policy criticism becomes a personal attack to that person. That's why they come off as so vicious (and stupid) when challenged. Even presenting evidence to them is a personal attack on their very being.
And yes, for many at the top, changing course would also eliminate a really good salary. What locks the system in place is that the psychological and the financial reinforce each other — the belief system protects the salary; the salary protects the belief system. Neither has to be cynically chosen for the dynamic to be self-sealing. I think this is what public choice theory calls institutional capture. It leads to organizations that were created to solve a problem then developing a structural interest in its persistence. But most of the people inside it are sincere. Which is one big reason why they are so resistant to reform.
I call BS on most people are sincere. Some are, but a majority aren't. If they were sincere, they'd accomplish their aims with free association instead of enslaving others. Shorter version, the welfare state wouldn't exist if people belied in the sh#t.
I know it sells politically, but calling it an "evil racket" of politicians and NGOs profiting off the homelessness problem might be too much—at least as a description of the people involved.
He's probably correct that there's a large group of people in politics and NGOs who have a religious-like devotion to their priors, will not challenge them, and will fight dirty anyone who does. But I think, at bottom, that stems from a notion that they, themselves, are in the right and their identities are tied up in that — to change or admit wrong now would destroy their views of themselves and their careers. Jonathan Haidt (of The Coddled Mind and Righteous Mind) writes about this: when professional identity fuses with ideological identity, policy criticism becomes a personal attack to that person. That's why they come off as so vicious (and stupid) when challenged. Even presenting evidence to them is a personal attack on their very being.
And yes, for many at the top, changing course would also eliminate a really good salary. What locks the system in place is that the psychological and the financial reinforce each other — the belief system protects the salary; the salary protects the belief system. Neither has to be cynically chosen for the dynamic to be self-sealing. I think this is what public choice theory calls institutional capture. It leads to organizations that were created to solve a problem then developing a structural interest in its persistence. But most of the people inside it are sincere. Which is one big reason why they are so resistant to reform.
I call BS on most people are sincere. Some are, but a majority aren't. If they were sincere, they'd accomplish their aims with free association instead of enslaving others. Shorter version, the welfare state wouldn't exist if people belied in the sh#t.
I think it’s a progression. Most people enter as sincere and then realize it’s a boondoggle. Once involved it’s too difficult to start over
@snarlcakes I’m kind of a big deal in that world. I’ve sat on countless boards. Two things can be true. They can be sincere and they can need the job and not be able to do anything else. If you solve a problem you just ended a job for however many MSWs. So they are always searching for related causes to justify their employment. What’s more they feel responsible for their ees and coworkers so they are constantly searching for money to meet payroll. You never asking a funding entity whether it’s another nonprofit foundation or political sub for less money.
so yes there is an inherent flaw to their utility and a disingenuous to their ongoing existence but whatever they find as their problem to give themselves a lifeline to continue on they are sincere about
@spartans9312 you and Brad might be right. I personally think if the government money went away tomorrow at least half of them wouldn't volunteer a minute of their time or a penny of their money.
@snarlcakes I’m kind of a big deal in that world. I’ve sat on countless boards. Two things can be true. They can be sincere and they can need the job and not be able to do anything else. If you solve a problem you just ended a job for however many MSWs. So they are always searching for related causes to justify their employment. What’s more they feel responsible for their ees and coworkers so they are constantly searching for money to meet payroll. You never asking a funding entity whether it’s another nonprofit foundation or political sub for less money.
so yes there is an inherent flaw to their utility and a disingenuous to their ongoing existence but whatever they find as their problem to give themselves a lifeline to continue on they are sincere about
I admitted some are sincere, but most aren't. It's more a sign of the amount wasteful spending.
@snarlcakes well that I agree with. They don’t work hard at all. 5:00 at a nonprofit is a ghost town
@snarlcakes well that I agree with. They don’t work hard at all. 5:00 at a nonprofit is a ghost town
To say it another way. According to Grok Christians donate 150 billion dollars to churches in the U.S. annually. If the government started spending 300 billion annually on churches/organization. I think you would see an explosion in Christians and churches, but a majority of the new converts wouldn't be sincere.
I know it sells politically, but calling it an "evil racket" of politicians and NGOs profiting off the homelessness problem might be too much—at least as a description of the people involved.
He's probably correct that there's a large group of people in politics and NGOs who have a religious-like devotion to their priors, will not challenge them, and will fight dirty anyone who does. But I think, at bottom, that stems from a notion that they, themselves, are in the right and their identities are tied up in that — to change or admit wrong now would destroy their views of themselves and their careers. Jonathan Haidt (of The Coddled Mind and Righteous Mind) writes about this: when professional identity fuses with ideological identity, policy criticism becomes a personal attack to that person. That's why they come off as so vicious (and stupid) when challenged. Even presenting evidence to them is a personal attack on their very being.
And yes, for many at the top, changing course would also eliminate a really good salary. What locks the system in place is that the psychological and the financial reinforce each other — the belief system protects the salary; the salary protects the belief system. Neither has to be cynically chosen for the dynamic to be self-sealing. I think this is what public choice theory calls institutional capture. It leads to organizations that were created to solve a problem then developing a structural interest in its persistence. But most of the people inside it are sincere. Which is one big reason why they are so resistant to reform.
You say it's not a racket, but then you proceed to list the incentives that contribute to it being a racket.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Steyer with a low-key citizen interaction at a campaign stop in LA
https://twitter.com/MaeveReston/status/2057883837036953820
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@hooky the funniest ever is that comic dog. Trump was going to an appearance in the hood but was riding in a tank. The one black guy who was in the crowd and started laughing was absolutely hilarious
