MAGA Riots, Woke Riots, impeachment, and hypocracy

Post Reply New Topic

I'm ten minutes in and Eric Weinstein explains how he's hesitant to feature in right wing talk shows because he doesn't want to be labelled right wing by the democrats and not get onto liberal media because of that label. Fair enough. And then GLENN BECK claims the same problem for himself. Batshit crazy Glenn Beck!
Weinstein just moves on to the next topic. Probably a good idea.

Getting through to the end I see what Eric's trying to do - he's trying to use what he has in common with conservatives to talk them down off the ledge (and if they never want to see him again - he will understand! ).

Yeah.... Maybe he thinks he can make a difference... But Glenn Beck has monetary incentive to not understand and say whatever he's paid to say again, the moment Weinstein is off the air. ...

I found he was almost trying to flatter Eric too much. It was funny watching Eric give him push back on the meaning of 'progressive' but I see his point - he's trying to shed the idea that it's a particular fixed frame associated with Marxism, ie. progress into 'whatever's most likely to work'.

Beck was demonstratively polite - but he also signalled to his audience that the person he was talking to was a highly intelligent scientist worth being polite to, the "next Einstein" - not a silicon valley capital advisor who formulated a unified theory which has gone entirely ignored by actual physicists, who also is providing some insight into social problems. .... listening to Weinstein yesterday I thought to myself: that's all sorts of ideas I have heard in other places before, uttered much earlier - but without the anti-capitalist/eat the the rich- solution.

Going 'anti-capitalist/eat the rich' periodically is what we do if we want more countries in the world to look like Argentina. Credit actually has to be given to the complexity of the situation we find ourselves in - ie. that we've used capitalization, patent laws, etc. as a means of rewarding certain behaviors that have spurred innovation. I think there's a great argument to be made that an individual company founder should be well rewarded but it's questionable whether we as a culture want to reward them north of eight or nine digits when that sort of success is really predicated on those working under them. The reward should be 'If you come up with a really good idea and make it work you should be set up for the rest of your life for work to be strictly voluntary', ie. having enough that you just won't have to worry. That doesn't really require billions.

The question even there though - is there a gradient of some kind that you'd want to put that in place with rather than a hard limit? Seems like that might be a fair approach because who knows - maybe someone does have a project in mind that costs a few billion and it's deeply personal to them but it's questionable who'd need that much wealth for personal use and equally questionable whether they'd really find no one of like mind to partially sponsor such ideas.