akakunai
The way to beat this system is to build alternatives and wean people off of their dependence on it, and deprive it of victims.
And how do you propose we do this considering the only way the system can have alternatives is if the system allows for alternatives which (spoiler) >!it won’t!<.
I see where you’re coming from.
Sayings have to be short and memorable, meaning they usually lack nuance, are wrong depending on context, or are just straight up wrong. That’s why I don’t like the bridge jumping one; it’s the same reason I don’t like most sayings. I don’t think the bridge jumping saying is “straight up wrong.” Simplistic and lacking nuance? Yes.
I think you’re right in that few make their own decisions and defer to their “heroes.” I’d instead say few truly think critically, despite believing they do.
There are always people who do things nobody else does, don’t do things everyone else does, do things with an uncommon approach, or hold opinions that are considered outside the sphere of common thought. As a whole, this is okay. Not just okay, but good. Good for making societies interesting.
When everyone does x, that doesn’t mean you should be doing x. Divergence sometimes proves righteous. This is what I presume is intended by the bridge jumping saying.
However, I feel that many are far too arrogant in their divergencies. If something is different from everything else, that does not make it inately better. Often, it is not.
This is especially true in the West. Western (especially American) culture is so individualistic that arrogance is rampant. How often do people really stop think whether they are really right about an ingrained divergency, to think that maybe they are in the wrong…maybe they’re not a rare enlightened one. For example, maybe prevaling theory from experts might have just a modicum of validity. Maybe more than some nunce’s gut feeling.
Anyway, I’m rambling so to get to the point:
If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, don’t jump blindly, but question why you aren’t jumping. You might be right not to jump. However, as the only one not jumping, you should consider if jumping might be just fine. Maybe everyone else has a good reason to be jumping.
I’ve never liked this saying.
I usually hear it as “if your friends […], would you do so too?” If my friends—who I feel are quite level-headed—were jumping off of a bridge, I think they would probably have a pretty good reason. Is there a bear charging us from behind and they’ve noticed but I haven’t? Is it because the bridge is short and they’re safely jumping into some water for fun? (I’ve done this before. If the conditions are right, it’s perfectly safe for those who can swim.)
Surround yourself with good, level-headed people. If your friends are arrogant/ignorant or not all that bright, you can’t assume they’re right to jump. If you’ve built up a sensible group of peers and they all are or are not doing something, you should at least consider why you are the outlier.
Then again, I just wanted to dispute this saying. I’m not saying I agree with OP here.
I agree, she’s not the candidate I’d want leading the dems—far from it. But people are used to voting between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as their president. Biden is something different, more agreeable than some other candidates the Dems have run. But people are seriously concerned about voting for a man who’s mental acuity is declining rapidly towards senility and very possibly will not live through 2028.
Plus, I haven’t read too far into it but I’ve heard that only Kamala would be able to use the Biden/Harris campaign war-chest. It’s sad as hell that that is so important, but it is nonetheless.
True, I’m just saying that if someone wants to assassinate a current or former American President, that would be a massively more difficult hit.
The Abe killer was unscreened (like everyone else in attendance), and managed to walk directly up to Abe from behind and fire shots from 7, then only 5 metres away.
Regardless, meme funny.