Meta-point: If the people within an ideological camp are willing to drop a principle to favor their own position, the penalty for abandoning aid principle should be heavy enough to make people think critically about the principle itself.
Most people nowadays are now treating political positions as if they're fashion statements, despite the wide-reaching effects said principles can have on the structures & systems that surround us.
It's amazing how blind some people are to reprisal. If you punch someone in the face, you're going to get something back. It might not be immediately, but it's coming, rest assured. Every action has an equal or opposite reaction, yada, yadda. This phenomenon is so common, it spans multiple clichés. How do people smart enough to get published in The Harvard Law Review underestimate this fundamental human reaction?
"I may add that I did not enjoy the short time I spent in the company [Wallie] commanded.
He could never grasp the neighbourly principles which, by the tacit agreement of the troops, were held to govern trench-warfare, and to which I was introduced at once by my sergeant:
I had suggested "pooping" a rifle grenade into a German post where we had seen heads moving.
"Just as 'ee like, zir," said the sergeant, scratching his head, "but once 'ee start doing that kind of thing, 'ee'll get zummit back, zee?"
horseshoe theory. no one stopped to think it would impact their future because they lack conviction and choose optics over authenticity. hacker news also embodies this when it comes to anything controversial to this community.
Most people nowadays are now treating political positions as if they're fashion statements, despite the wide-reaching effects said principles can have on the structures & systems that surround us.