Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by TeMPOraL on Friday May 28, 2021 @07:01PM
(#27321520)
Or, even simpler, they don't actually believe what they say they believe. They have some beliefs, but it's hard to say what exactly - publicly, they present whatever opinions they need people to see at any given moment.
Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by TheSpiceIsLife on Friday May 28, 2021 @08:08PM
(#27321976)
Yes, political theatre.
Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by TeMPOraL on Friday May 28, 2021 @08:40PM
(#27322130)
A spectacle?
(Paging 'dredmorbius; I'm way past my bedtime, and he knows this stuff better anyway.)
Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by dredmorbius on Saturday May 29, 2021 @02:31PM
(#27327241)
The purpose of a performative action is what it does.
To paraphrase Stafford Beer.
Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by teachingassist on Saturday May 29, 2021 @01:49PM
(#27326941)
It's reasonable to be this cynical about politicians, and I certainly find this to be true in two-party systems.
But, it's easily possible for democratic representation to result in a set of contradicting laws without any dishonesty.
Suppose laws A, B and C are incompatible, but any pair is reasonable.
35% of representatives fundamentally support A and B [and not C];
35% support B and C;
30% support A and C.
All three such laws will pass with majority support, with everyone holding true to their represented beliefs - but the system is still at fault.
That's called being a two faced lier.
Cognitive dissonance requires psychological stress as a driver of change in attitude.
Politicians seem incapable of changing their beliefs, typically because most of them are narcissistic.
Narcissism, self absorption general, and a lack of empathy, better explains why ploticians espouse differing beliefs depending on who and when the audience is.
Edit: fixed a word