Every institution (let's say - my household) sweeps problems under the rug. It's the euphemism for problems that aren't worth dealing with.
Institutions (in the form discussed) are either reinvented from the inside out and thus are and remain institutions, or are "toppled" in which case they are not "institutions" but "failures".
Think of how the Tea Party and the Libertarian movements or affected Republican politics in years past, or how completely alien the party is compared to a decade ago. The institution of the "Republican party" persists, even though it's nothing like its former self.
Same name, same "it's all fine just keep trusting us" but meanwhile quietly burned to the ground from the inside out.
The backdrop is that centrism is failing everywhere. Macron's France is a great example but you can see it in Starmer's Britain. It might be sensible policy but it doesn't satisfy anyone emotionally whereas Trumpism does. Of course "satisfied emotionally" can leave you with one hell of a hangover the next day.
(whatever else the centre stands for in any institution, one needs to see the dividing line _clearly_. What is the dividing line that defines the R-C in HN? Usually has something to do with things that feel like they cannot be said, yes!)
Of course details matter*, but how else can we pull the rabbits out from under the rug?
*Such as virtuoso listening skills, a functional beta-blocker or quietapine regime, etc.
Churchill's description of centre-left trolling centre-right and vice versa is his description of politics as being a collision sport where it's important to both be going in the same direction when you make contact, just pushing each other sideways to attempt to achieve an advantage for your side (the common goal should be the primary component; factional goals are secondary)?
Just about the time you've finished your reading, I may have located an english .srt for the "talking 'bout [his] g-g-g-generation". Currently only up to Andress-as-Inanna scene, and apparently she's had more trouble with return of capital lately than return on capital...
The 1% effort seems very close to what I've arrived at as a strategy for doing something both novel and good (where, if the status quo is decent, most attempts will be either novel xor good). But then again, I've slept rough in my life, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask?
Who? Who are the other candidates, to be compared with Nishimura-san?
(or do the vids answer that? will watch them soon)
So is the basic issue (in Linebargian terms), how to offer decency, goodness, security, prosperity, authority, liberty under law to people who are searching for glamor, terror, inspiration, and romance instead?
...when Lewis states, "the German Nation has the chance at present of voting for its future tyrant," he is really saying "at least Hitler is not you, Mr. Tyrannical Democrat." ... by supporting a tyrant who menaces authority figures in his own country, he demonstrates that he won't submit to them. ... the puerile fantasy of Oedipal mastery is underscored by an ironic posture that, on this occasion, was ill-chosen.)
(This assumes that those who run trade schools are able to peddle your Linebargerian goods unbundled from asinine* baggage)
*neuroses signified by The party mascot
PS: HN front-page comments from my (otherwise uninformed) perspective: partition into US millennials-to-boomers / european+Oceania all ages / genz-to-late-millennial other regions (country of birth, not domicile)
What about US Gen-Z and younger? They fall into the Oceania all-ages bucket?
Heh, just a note on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46541796 : imagine a therapist believing that the proper route is to help someone cognitively figure it out by asking the right questions! Almost as difficult as imagining a dev who believes the proper route is to write a script that does it... la déformation professionelle?
Wrt: "once you know the right 20-30 people or their friends or colleagues" it makes me wonder if a good corruption coefficient might be "how many zeros does it take[0] before you stop seeing impartial institutions and start seeing corruption". I believe those 20-30 people exist in almost all countries, it's just in some lucky countries you don't notice them at USD 6-7 zeros, but do start noticing them[1] at 9-10 — and in some other countries, you even have the 20-30 people in the quarter who are corruptible for 2-3 zeros.
[0] or maybe an even better index would be calibrated to wealth distribution within the jurisdiction?
[1] ask anyone investing in US offshore wind about US institutional impartiality these days!
Q. Should I read a translation of "Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka za světové války" sometime?
Wrt the rest: a few more cycles of reflections needed..
(There's public evidence here that 9-10s won't unearth more than the 20 that any Joe knows about. The other 10 spurious ones depend on the situation and mission. I expect the situation in CH is almost the same, via a different design)
Every institution (let's say - my household) sweeps problems under the rug. It's the euphemism for problems that aren't worth dealing with.
Institutions (in the form discussed) are either reinvented from the inside out and thus are and remain institutions, or are "toppled" in which case they are not "institutions" but "failures".
Think of how the Tea Party and the Libertarian movements or affected Republican politics in years past, or how completely alien the party is compared to a decade ago. The institution of the "Republican party" persists, even though it's nothing like its former self.
Same name, same "it's all fine just keep trusting us" but meanwhile quietly burned to the ground from the inside out.