Tag Archives: politics

Fashionable Opinions

I came across this quote by Adam Grant,

“We shouldn’t see our opinions as cherished possessions. We should treat them like everyday clothes.

Look at the views in your closet that were trendy once. Discard the ones that look silly to you now.

Wear the ideas that fit you today. Be ready to outgrow some of them tomorrow.”

I like the idea that we reflect and reconsider our opinions, ideas, and values… not getting stuck, and not growing. The challenge of ideas like this is that some things come into fashion that shouldn’t. Sometimes it is far more valuable to buck the current fashionable ideas and to wear your opinions no matter how unfashionable they may be at the time.

The question being danced around is: Is this just trendy or is it timeless?

Freedom, democracy, equity, fairness, justice, compassion… these are never out of style, even if not trendy at the time. Sure we need to, “Wear the ideas that fit you today. Be ready to outgrow some of them tomorrow.” But some ideas transcend the fashions of the time. And while these ideas are timeless, there are times where wearing them can be unfashionable.

So, while I agree with Adam Grant, don’t be afraid to be unfashionable for the right reasons.

Extreme beliefs

I went down a rabbit hole on Twitter yesterday. It started with me watching a video related to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. The video following this was a fundamentalist Christian talking about how this assassination attempt was pre-ordained, and this was the start of the End Times. The videos didn’t stray from this theme afterwards.

The power of religious fundamentalism never ceases to amaze me. People hoping for the rapture, or for an eternity in the afterlife, willing to sacrifice living life now for a future beyond this life. People prepared to sacrifice their life in an attempt to take another life in the name of God. People draining their bank accounts to support a church. People advocating for terrorism and yet believing they will be set free by their faith.

Religious beliefs that teach us to love, and to share, and to support their communities as well as strangers… these are religions that serve those that need religion in their lives. Extreme religious beliefs that divide, segregate, and exclude others… these are religions we must fight.

We cannot turn the other cheek when we are facing groups that undermine our safety and security. We can’t ignore people who will disrupt and undermine our lives, our liberties, and our freedom. Extreme beliefs are dangerous and they need to be dealt with as threats, as dangerous, and not just something we deal with like we would any other issue… because those acting on their extreme beliefs aren’t acting in good faith.

((What an ironic sentence to end on.))

A deviously democratic plan

You’d have to be living under a rock to be unaware that the USA has an election coming up. And I’m probably not the only one holding the opinion that neither candidate is up to the job. Well, here is a devious non-partisan plan that I’d love to see Biden enact in order to flip the whole election on its head.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision that, “Presidents and former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts they took while in office”… has created an opportunity for Biden to prevent Trump from running.

Step 1: Biden could pass an unconstitutional executive order making it illegal for someone who has committed Trump’s non-presidential related crimes from running for president. Now if Biden stops here, it would cause absolute chaos, and great civil unrest. So he’d have to do one more thing at the same time.

Step 2: Biden could choose not to run in the next election. What this does is that it completely levels the playing field for both Democrats and Republicans. It leaves both parties needing to find replacements at the same time. Both parties can then find new, younger, more suitable leaders, and maybe the craziness of the US election could become about platforms and not about people.

This won’t happen, but could you imagine if it did? I could legitimately see either party winning a fair fight. It would all depend on the candidates the parties choose. In both cases a moderate candidate would have a better chance than an extremist. A too far right republican candidate would not win over the ‘Never Trump’-ers’, and a too far left democrat candidate would push this same group and more to the republicans. Suddenly the entire election would be about the platforms and not personalities.

There’s the plan: A democrat using a republican biased court decision to rebalance an election. And the entire world would be in a better place than it is leading up to this election as it stands right now.

With a Discerning Eye

Yesterday, when I wrote ‘The inverted political bell curve’ about how politically many people have moved to the extremes. I ended by saying, “The bell curve is gone, only warring tribes remain, and the fighting is just going to get uglier.”

There are many reasons why I think this is true, and I think we are headed into a period before the US election where truth will be hard to discern, and extremist views will go viral. But I also think that many people can see it coming and will be ready. They will question, they will fact check, they will doubt the accuracy of what’s being spewed their way.

Will the extremes be loud, and will their messages be filled with personal attacks and un-researched facts that are actually fiction and propaganda? Yes.

But not everyone is going to listen. There are some savvy people who will be watching with a discerning eye. They will be the voices of reason. They will be as interested in determining the intent of the message as they will be in listening to it. They will hear something bad about a candidate they dislike, and still question the validity of what’s being said.

I don’t think this group will be a majority, but they will be present. And while yesterday I sounded like I saw a future of doom and gloom ahead of us, I also see some promise that not everyone is polarized and sitting on the extremes. And that keeps me hopeful that things might not get as messy as they could.

Watch the news and messaging on social media with a discerning eye in the coming months… question, fact check, and take the time to understand the context of things being quoted. We need common sense to prevail.

The inverted political bell curve

We no longer have an opportunity to be centrist. Extremes on either side make this challenging. Being centrist is too hard, hated by both sides because if you aren’t way over here on ‘our’ side, you lack the merit of being associated with ‘us’, so you belong with ‘them’. Rather than being seen as partial to common interests you are lumped in with everyone else that is not on ‘our’ extreme.

Examples: Liberal minded but worry about immigration? Well you may as well be fully right wing conservative. Believe in equal opportunities for gay marriage? Well then you might as well be a bleeding heart liberal, no matter how else your views may be conservative.

There used to be a bell curve where most people were not on the extremes, rather more centrist, more in the middle. That curve has inverted and flattened. Less people are ‘in the middle’ and more people are veering to the extremes. And it’s not getting any better because any political candidate who appeals to the center is not appealing to the masses. The once peripheral minorities are now a divided majority.

There is no room for nuance. No debate, just argument. Dichotomies, not a spectrum of ideas. But global issues are not well defined into clearly opposing views. Electric vehicles can be a net good while the environmental cost of dead batteries pose a problem. We can provide rights for some without taking them away from others. We can have strong border policies, and be both discerning and compassionate. We can disagree and not vilify, argue and not attack, debate facts and dismiss logical fallacies.

We can… but will we? Or are the propaganda machines too powerful right now? Are we entering an era where truth is elusive, and biased AI created videos constantly exaggerate perspectives? An era where fact checking is a requirement before accepting information? Throw in ad hominem, personal attacks, and intentional foreign interference focused on deepening polarization, and anti-social social media, and I’m afraid to think about where we are headed.

The bell curve majority of moderate thinkers have dispersed to the extremes, and these extremes are dragging everyone out of the middle. It’s 2024 and I can go on social media and watch a live debate between a scientist and a flat earther, and despite the evidence to the contrary, no flat earther is going to change their mind. I can find a bible prophecy that ignores wild extrapolations and factual inaccuracies, and no countervailing points will be accepted. I can find intelligent people arguing biased and counter factual points, and putting their intellect aside blindly to support a point, a belief, a perspective, or even a political candidate.

I’ve come to the realization that we are just monkeys. We are not civil, we are tribal animals, playing at being intelligent. We are more likely to solve disputes like other animals than we are as humans. We admire bravado, we look down on the meek, we beat our chests and vie for attention. Winning is more important than playing fair. I am safer when my tribe, my group, my monkey troop, is stronger and other troops are dominated.

The bell curve is gone, only warring tribes remain, and the fighting is just going to get uglier.

Ending discrimination

This article was in my inbox this morning: Premier’s, attorney general’s, parliamentary secretary’s statements on International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Niki Sharma, Attorney General, said:

“We all must do our part to fight racism in all its forms. But words are only as good as the actions that follow, which is why we will be introducing anti-racism legislation in the coming weeks to address systemic racism in government programs and services, and launching more supports for racialized people. On this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, please join us in standing up against racism to create a more equitable and safer province for everyone.”

Imagine a world where we cared as little about skin colour as we do eye colour. A world where bodily autonomy wasn’t controlled by religiously biased policymakers. A world where entire groups of people were not disenfranchised or discriminated against based on how they looked or where they came from.

If you asked me 25 years ago, I might have said this was possible by now. Ask me now and I fear we are much more than 25 years away from this. How have we gone backwards? What will prevent a further slide? There will not be an end to discrimination in my lifetime, but I do hope it’s possible in my kids’ lifetime.

The greatest threat to mankind

I recently wrote about the Top Risks of 2024, which were in order of concern:

  • The United States versus itself
  • The Middle East on the brink
  • Partitioned Ukraine

Any of these three risks can have dire consequences on the stability of global politics, global trade, and global conflicts far beyond the borders of the mentioned countries.

These are imminent dangers that leave the rest of the world feeling like pawns on a chessboard filled with ‘other’ power pieces making all the strategic moves. But there is one danger on the geopolitical chessboard that I think will become the biggest threat we face when in the near future, and that’s the pawns themselves. Not the powerful pieces, but rather a rogue ‘nobody’.

While people fear Artificial Intelligence, and the rise of AI robots, what I fear is rogue humans using AI with harmful intent. The future will permit individuals with evil intentions to have too much power. It comes down to two well known adages: information is power, and power corrupts.

The problem isn’t a rogue leader, or a rogue country, it’s a rogue individual with too much information and too much power. A perfect example? See #5 on this article: ‘Why we’ll never actually destroy the last samples of smallpox’,

5) We could always recreate smallpox from genetic information

One could argue that in the information and genetics age, nothing really dies forever. It just dies until the technology to resurrect it appears. And for smallpox, that time is now.

The technology is here. And so is the necessary information: the complete DNA sequences of roughly 50 smallpox samples are available to the general public. This means that people could make smallpox in the lab. “Someone could if they wished recreate live virus from scratch just from that public information,”

We are less than a decade away from one intelligent crackpot, working in his or her (more likely an incel ‘his’) basement lab, creating or recreating a deadly virus and having it spread covid-19 style across the globe.

We are 15-20 years away from some crackpot scientist developing a nuclear bomb from parts and resources ordered online… without ever raising red flags to warn of his intentions.

The greatest threat to mankind isn’t wealthy people, politicians, and powerful countries, it’s one individual with malice in his heart and access to knowledge and information more power than anyone should ever have.

Top Risks 2024

I’d never heard of Eurasia Group before a good friend of mine, an investor, shared the infographic below with me yesterday. According to their website,

In 1998, Ian Bremmer founded Eurasia Group, the first firm devoted exclusively to helping investors and business decision-makers understand the impact of politics on the risks and opportunities in foreign markets. Ian’s idea—to bring political science to the investment community and to corporate decision-makers—launched an industry and positioned Eurasia Group to become the world leader in political risk analysis and consulting.

According to their ‘Top Risks 2024‘ report:

2024. Politically it’s the Voldemort of years. The annus horribilis. The year that must not be named.

Three wars will dominate world affairs: Russia vs. Ukraine, now in its third year; Israel vs. Hamas, now in its third month; and the United States vs. itself, ready to kick off at any moment.

Russia-Ukraine … is getting worse. Ukraine now stands to lose significant international interest and support. For the United States in particular, it’s become a distant second (and increasingly third or lower) policy priority. Despite hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions of displaced people, and a murderous hatred for the Russian regime shared by nearly every Ukrainian that will define the national identity of tens of millions for decades. Which is leading to more desperation on the part of the Ukrainian government, while Vladimir Putin’s Russia remains fully isolated from the West. The conflict is more likely to escalate, and Ukraine is on a path to being partitioned.

Israel-Hamas … is getting worse. There’s no obvious way to end the fighting, and whatever the military outcome, a dramatic increase in radicalization is guaranteed. Of Israeli Jews, feeling themselves globally isolated and even hated after facing the worst violence against them since the Holocaust. Of Palestinians, facing what they consider a genocide, with no opportunities for peace and no prospects of escape. Deep political divisions over the conflict run throughout the Middle East and across over one billion people in the broader Muslim world, not to mention in the United States and Europe.

And then there’s the biggest challenge in 2024 … the United States versus itself. Fully one-third of the global population will go to the polls this year, but an unprecedentedly dysfunctional US election will be by far the most consequential for the world’s security, stability, and economic outlook. The outcome will affect the fate of 8 billion people, and only 160 million Americans will have a say in it, with the winner to be decided by just tens of thousands of voters in a handful of swing states. The losing side—whether Democrats or Republicans—will consider the outcome illegitimate and be unprepared to accept it. The world’s most powerful country faces critical challenges to its core political institutions: free and fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and the checks and balances provided by the separation of powers. The political state of the union … is troubled indeed.

None of these three conflicts have adequate guardrails preventing them from getting worse. None have responsible leaders willing and able to fix, or at least clean up, the mess. Indeed, these leaders see their opponents (and their opponents’ supporters) as principal adversaries—“enemies of the people”—and are willing to use extralegal measures to ensure victory. Most problematically, none of the belligerents agree on what they’re fighting over.

Think about this, the Russia-Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas wars both take a back seat to the US election as the top risk of 2024. Both have no positive outcome in sight and they still don’t pose the same threat as a tight election result in the United States. I wish I could disagree, but I too see this as a genuine concern. What makes it worse is Risk #4 – Ungoverned AI, and specifically disinformation:

In a year when four billion people head to the polls, generative AI will be used by domestic and foreign actors—notably Russia—to influence electoral campaigns, stoke division, undermine trust in democracy, and sow political chaos on an unprecedented scale. Sharply divided Western societies, where voters increasingly access information from social media echo chambers, will be particularly vulnerable to manipulation. A crisis in global democracy is today more likely to be precipitated by AI-created and algorithm-driven disinformation than any other factor.

I want to explore the other risks as well, but by far my biggest concern for 2024 is the US election. My greatest fear is a close and contested election. The by-product of this would not just be tragic for the US, but for the entire world. I wish this was just hyperbole, but it’s not, and reading a report like this just magnifies concerns I already had. Buckle up, we are in for quite a ride in 2024.

You can get the full Top Risks 2024 white paper on their website, (or click the image below).

Intolerance for bad faith actors

I have always been a pretty strong advocate for free speech. To me it’s the underpinning of a robust democratic society. We don’t have to like what someone says, but they have a right to say it as long as it isn’t hate speech or harmful to someone. We shouldn’t allow racism, threats, and doxing, but we should allow differences of opinions and even angry rants when they are not threatening to a person or group of people.

But I’m struggling with the lack of good faith that I’m seeing. In our country, I see a lot of protests and anger towards our Prime Minister. I believe people should be allowed to protest and share their concerns, but when I see articles like, ‘Attack on Trudeau unsurprising, experts say, warning of future violence against politicians‘ stating that he was “pelted with gravel while at a campaign stop in London, Ont.” Or I read that he was heckled so loudly that he couldn’t continue a speech… Then that is going way too far. This isn’t protest, it’s fascist, it is intolerant and oppressive.

There is a difference between voicing concerns and harassment. There is a difference between protesting and threatening, there is a difference between peaceful, civil behavior and what seems to be happening today.

If I was to describe my politics, I’m definitely left of center. And while I fundamentally disagree with many things Ben Shapiro thinks and says, I get upset when I read articles that he can’t even speak at a university because of safety concerns… And that was 6 years ago! Things are even worse now. Much worse.

When I recently read, “The presidents of three of the nation’s top universities are facing intense backlash, including from the White House, after being accused of evading questions during a congressional hearing about whether calls by students for the genocide of Jews would constitute harassment under the schools’ codes of conduct.” I am deeply concerned. Should students be allowed to protest? Absolutely! Should they be allowed to promote genocide of any person or people as part of their protest? Absolutely not.

It’s an easy line to draw. Absolutely not. That’s acting in bad faith. That’s undermining our democracy and our freedoms.

We need to differentiate how we handle protests and free speech by people who are acting in good faith from those acting in bad faith. The very rights and freedoms we are given in a free and democratic society depend on us doing so. When we give those freedoms to people that abuse them, we subvert our own liberty. We diminish our freedoms and allow others, with harmful words and actions, to impose less civil values on us.

When free speech is misused, it harms us all. When violence is advocated or permitted; when protests prevent civil conversation and debate; when harassment is permitted; we all suffer. We can’t let people acting in bad faith weaken our civil liberties. We can’t just expect people to act in good faith, the minority who don’t will be too disruptive. We need to squash the bad faith actors. The trick is that we need to do so with legal actions. We need to have zero tolerance for intolerance, and we need to create laws that clearly restrict and penalize threats, hate crimes, and malice.

This is known as the paradox of tolerance, “The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”

Instead, what I am seeing is things like this happening:

People who have caused over a decade of harm to others do not deserve a social media platform. That’s not censorship, that’s prevention of further malice, pain, and suffering to innocent people. As I contemplate leaving Twitter, news like this makes me lean towards shutting down my account. But I don’t pretend that will have any meaningful impact beyond my own peace of mind.

The acceptance of bad faith actors has been building over the past decade, and we are deep into the consequences now. Free speech should only be a right for people who act in good faith. There can be disagreement, there can be discourse, there can even be civil arguments and protests. What there can’t be are bad faith actors and activists using free speech as a mechanism to promote harmful ideas, hate, violence, and disruptions to public discourse. For this we need zero tolerance.


Related: Ideas on a Spectrum

Going Meta

If I was going to give this post a subtitle it would be, ‘How do you know that you’re smart enough to know the difference?’

Just to be clear, I’m delusional. But guess what… so are you. The world we live in and the world we think we live in are two different things. We don’t see the world as it is, we see it as our senses are capable of seeing it. Then we go further and apply our individual perspective to add meaning to what we observe.

I say think of a dog, and I guarantee you that you aren’t thinking of the same dog I am. Not the same kind, not the same size, probably not the same disposition… which might be different in our perception even if we were thinking of the same dog.

So we live lives of illusion and delusion, except most of our delusions are close enough to each other’s that we don’t think of each other as crazy… Most delusions. Although, maybe less of them than at any time in recent history. Because now more than ever people seem to be seeing the world in vastly different ways.

So what can we personally do? We need to get meta. We need to think about our thinking. We have to start from honest awareness and seek to debunk ourselves, to figure out how we are deceiving ourselves. We have to see the frame we put around things. Observe ourselves, (the observer).

This meta self reflection is most important when we talk to someone with a different perspective or world view. It’s so easy to see the bias of others, and much harder to see our own. Yet this self reflection is essential.

A wonderful example of this is looking at the growth in numbers of people who think the world is flat. It flabbergasts me to think that this number is actually getting larger. How is that possible? Flat world views. That is to say, people are asking one question, looking from one central position: ‘Show me the curve… I’m on earth and I can’t see it. You must be delusional and gullible to believe it’s round, when you can’t see it.’

Only then, and from that biased position, can someone make jumps to conclusions like NASA is trying to fool us, and the conspiracy to fool us is suddenly everywhere. Then evidence that fits this world view suddenly starts to appear. Except it doesn’t.

No, what actually happens is that these flat mindsets start to create excuses for everything that doesn’t fit this world view. Never mind that civilizations like the Mayans, 4,000 years ago, understood the movement of the stars and probably already knew the earth was round. Never mind the view of earth from the Apollo moon missions. Never mind simple science experiments that have been around for hundreds of years proving the earth is round.

All that said, the flat earthers start with an observation, or lack of observation of a curve. They are using their senses, that are basing the criteria on their view of the world… their delusion.

That’s an easy example, because there is a lot of evidence debunking a flat earth. But there are a lot of topics where one perspective isn’t so clearly wrong. There are arguments on different sides of the political spectrum, different sides of a global conflict, and different sides of hot topics where the perspective someone, the perspective you, take is not necessarily the clearest. Suddenly our delusion is potentially working against us.

If we aren’t willing to go meta and really look at where our view is coming from, we are susceptible to flat world views. We can get stuck in a single delusional frame of mind where we don’t see what’s really happening, what a better perspective might be. And so just like the flat earther, we only see the issue from a perspective that we can observe, but isn’t correct.

The irony is that the more humble you are, the more likely you are to be able to go meta and see other possible perspectives. It seems that being humble is a key ingredient, because a lot of smart people struggle with this. Religion, politics, and culture all seem to undermine intelligence, and smart people get lost in dogma. Even scientists can do this. It’s not about how smart you are, it’s about how humble you are.

Are you willing to recognize other views? Are you able to let go your ego and really observe an issue from a different perspective? Are you willing to change your mind? Ironically if the answer is yes, you probably don’t need to get meta as often as others. It’s still useful to do though, both to solidify your own view, and to change your mind.