Good Cop, Bad Cop

I've tried so hard not to get swept into political discussions but X keeps throwing it at me and considering that we now supposedly have a crypto president, one cannot truly avoid it.

First things first:

"Good Cop, Bad Cop" is a psychological tactic often used in interrogations or negotiations. It involves two people taking opposing roles:

The "Bad Cop" is aggressive, intimidating, or harsh, putting pressure on the subject.

The "Good Cop" is sympathetic, friendly, or understanding, offering a way out or a solution.

To sum it up, the methods or approaches may be different, but both sides want the same thing, ultimately.

When it comes to politics, that ultimate goal is power and it comes in many forms including money and relationships.

A lot of things are happening right now in the United States and the world at large but despite the differences in race, system of governance or methods of enforcing laws and controlling the economy and the people of a country, every single one of these establishments are aligned in what they work towards.

Be it a Nazi, A Jew, an American, an African, an Englishman, a Chinese, whatever it is, perceived in the light of good or bad, none of that changes what the system they operate on aims to achieve.

None of the systems of governance applied across the globe incentivizes working for the interest of everyone, none.

Today, people are making the same mistakes, as always, to trust that the current administration of the United States gives a fuck about the masses. Clearly people haven't weighed how the system has loopholes designed to enable immunity to punishments because if they did, they would understand that there's not enough risks present in the system for the amount of rewards it holds to be justifiable.

The entire political scene is a game field of people playing the good cop to the bad cop(often the governing party) and we just keep falling for the trick when both sides are fundamentally after the same thing.

The Lesser Evil is still EVIL

The system works because people are generally not morally competent as morality in itself is a complex construct with not a definitive form because half the time it is fluid and subjective, resulting in people leaning towards the lesser evil in their decision making.

This is to say that people will make decisions based on what collectively appears immediately less painful especially if the opposite likely outcome appears to involve greater pain. In the end, they still chose pain, rather than sought for no pain at all.

What's also important to note is that half the time, there's no adequate knowledge to measure the impact of these decisions, so they are, by this reality, emotional and desperate.

The good news is that we don't have to continue living in this system because whilst our morality may be fluid, our ability to challenge its flaws are not.

This is to say that if we vote people into power because they are the lesser evil available, our fluidity ends there because the ability to fix our choice if something goes wrong is limited.

Moving into a system based on compensating risks and rewards truly changes the dynamics and gives us more flexibility in governance. We cannot always make smart decisions which is why we need to be functioning through a system flexible enough to enable changes to be enacted rapidly when the direction of things reveals a problem.

Posted Using INLEO