Calling well-earned criticism of economics anti-intellectualism is using the composition/division fallacy.

Most people’s lives have been affected for decades by Chicago School of Economics voodoo nonsense, that’s where much modern criticism is aimed.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt

• https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion

• https://pluralistic.net/tag/chicago-school/

It’s this: https://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-deletes-post-depicting-8647-after-backlash-online-2073031

James Comey posted a picture of “8647” (get rid of Trump) spelled in shells.

The “light truck” exemption is a huge problem, and needs to be repealed.

Big cars also reduce everyone else’s visibility.

Yes, and if that’s the only issue that matters to you, and you ignore the impact on all those other people, I guess that’s fair to say they are the same. But does all that extra suffering serve a purpose? Are you volunteering yourself to bear any of it, or only others?

Straw men? You understand that these are actually things that are really happening, right?

The GOP didn’t update their platform since, like, 2015, unless you count Project 2025, which Trump claimed to know nothing about. In the 2020 election, it still referenced running against Obama.

I’m more into the FRC.

I understand how you’ve arrived at that conclusion, but you should investigate Popper’s Paradox.

Whatever Happened to the World of Tomorrow? is a really good graphic novel about a kid’s relationship with his dad through the lens of retrofuturism, as it gradually tarnishes, starting with the 1939 World’s Fair.

I’ll probably go to Expo 2025 in Osaka this year, since I’ll happen to be there, but it’ll be hard to maintain any real optimism.

If voters bear no responsibility, do you really believe in democracy, or are you thinking about this as an issue to be solved by authority?

The self-righteousness of this discussion is a problem. Politics requires some humility, which we seem to be short of.