Hot takes on the Democratic frontrunners

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Flint

I would suggest, though, that when someone (and I'm not saying anyone here) takes a position that requires you to believe, "Snopes is lying!" or "Wikipedia is lying!" it doesn't help us come together on a common set of facts.

Jordan Hall's Situational Analyses* tease out what is happening: far larger than politics, it's partly a battle between how sense-making will happen into the future. It's between a "blue church" which represents the sense-making of institutions, and a "red faith" which represents the sense-making of "decentralized collective intelligence".

The institutions usually get things right, but are subject to failure. One example of how institutions failed was in the Covington Catholic kids incident, where the actual video proved out that the institutional narrative was mostly wrong. The institutional narrative was boxed in and accepted the first, edited video at its face.

In the case of Andy Ngo, I have followed a bit of both - the Portland Mercury, which presented the institutional narrative; and two sense-making videos out of the decentralized intelligence, which analyze the Ngo controversy. One from each side: the progressive David Pakman video dragging Ngo, and the Sargon of Akkad video "Andy Ngo Did Nothing Wrong" which addresses the Pakman video directly. I realize it's fruitless to suggest anyone else take this on; I'm just saying, I did; and there's my due diligence, if it counts for anything... not trying to prove anything

~ And as always, I could easily be wrong... I often am ~


*somehow i am too busy to link but not busy enough not to write all this shit