12 Comments

Forgot to add, the discussion on the original tweet that Joey was criticizing is itself really interesting. As always, they are reasonable people. They are saying, "of course this specific case makes sense, but in general, deregulation is not a good thing" (because, it can't be a good thing, if your tribe's identity is defined by being against it)

> There's also not many common sense opportunities for deregulation

https://x.com/stylianos_k/status/1855658263238607282

Expand full comment

>> There's also not many common sense opportunities for deregulation

Not when we’re not looking!

Default mode network issue > skill issue

Expand full comment

I care somewhat about actual tribes but political tribes are meaningless. In a democracy it's just the ideas that matter. Good for the Democrats who recognized this as well.

Expand full comment

This is extremely smart: Dems to cooöpt deregulation as an issue, strategically.

Expand full comment

yesssss!!! as long as there are unresolved & valid edge cases that the dems/left don't handle, they will find solace in the other side. If the coalition grows finer discernment and just integrates these cases, winning becomes much easier (and it will force the other side to have to integrate too in order to compete, to have to take the good parts from the other side), and we spiral upwards as a society towards greater, more competent societies

Expand full comment

MGP 2028!!!! This is the strategy Clinton used to win in 1992 (championed by Biden of all people), the New Democrats. Need to bring that back.

Expand full comment

> I think humans need tribes, and healthy competition between tribes is good for everyone.

Collaborative competition.

There are players who want to win, and players who want to play an amazing game, and the latter makes for a more deeply enjoyable and sustainable sport.

Expand full comment

Really insightful take! I love how you’re on the hot edge of this cultural evolution.

What would you call this? It’s like epistemological hygiene?

Expand full comment

I was thinking of it more around something like "precision", of narrative? You still have the good guys and the bad guys, but you have better discernment about what is good for you & what is bad.

Ironically, I think humans in the olden times were better at this. Fairytales that weren't true didn't survive contact with reality. Here you can go for a long time "without brakes on your car" because the systems are so big, top down, and lack feedback mechanisms.

Expand full comment

Jennifer Pahlka wrote about this exact same incident!! https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/stop-telling-constituents-theyre

my tweet thread on it: https://x.com/DefenderOfBasic/status/1860063059206897694

> It’s the job of our government to give them that in practice, not just on paper.

> What if the best way to do that isn’t adding a new right, but subtracting from or editing the regulation that caused the confusion in the first place?

Expand full comment

Y’all still think democrats are relevant?

Expand full comment

Many arguments around policy really are ad hominem. As in "thing is bad cause the other side likes it".

Expand full comment