Stand Up Comedian Creator, Katiba na Chai History Buff
Nairobi, Kenya
Joined November 2010
- Tweets35.4K
- Following285
- Followers24.8K
- Likes73K
“The defendant did not attend the hearing nor call evidence in support of their case.”
Interesting...
Sifuna and Kang'ata on paper seem like such a dream pairing. Ideologically, though, they are quite different. If they ever became president and deputy, they would need a concrete priority plan on nation building.
If you read Kangata's articles, there is an emphasis on capital accumulation, productivity, manufacturing and building large Kenyan corporations capable of competing globally. Very Kibaki-esque. He also has rather socially conservative views.
Sifuna, on the other hand, emphasis is on constitutionalism, the rule of law, accountability, reducing government wastage and relieving the economic burden on ordinary citizens. If you listen closely, infrastructure and economic development mean little if citizens cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, afford basic necessities or access functioning public services. Like a young James Orengo.
Kang’ata seems to be more interested in how the country creates wealth. Sifuna is more interested in how the state wields its power, manages public resources and serves its citizens.
I think both men mean well for the country, but those differences become important when you move from political philosophy to actual governance. They have a priority problem. A nation needs both the capacity to create wealth and institutions that prevent that wealth from being captured by a few.
Agreeing on what kind of Kenya you want is the easy part. The kizungumkuti is agreeing on what must be sacrificed, funded or postponed to build it.
Ty Ngachira retweeted
More than 60 Christians killed in Ethiopia 'massacre', church official says bbc.in/4swbUDS
There are people with half your skill but 10 times your confidence somehow bullshitting through life succesfully
This paper answers why confident idiots run the world.
Cornell University published a psychological paper that explains every terrible boss, every loud influencer, and every broken corporate hierarchy.
It’s called “Unskilled and Unaware of It.”
they tested participants across logic, grammar, and humor to measure the gap between actual performance and self-perception.
And the results are wild.
participants scoring in the bottom 12th percentile consistently believed they were operating in the 62nd percentile.
they were not lying. they were literally incapable of recognizing their own incompetence.
the paper revealed a brutal paradox:
the exact skills required to master a domain are the exact same skills required to accurately evaluate your own competence in that domain.
if you lack the skill, you inherently lack the cognitive capacity to realize you are failing.
this creates a dangerous systemic loop.
the incompetent are blessed with absolute, blinding certainty. their brain protects them from their own ignorance, allowing them to speak first, demand authority, and never second-guess their decisions.
meanwhile, the actual experts suffer the exact inverse.
top performers in the study consistently underestimated their rank. because a task was easy for them, they falsely assumed it was easy for everyone else.
they hesitate. they obsess over nuance. they assume they have nothing unique to add.
we are biologically wired to confuse confidence with competence.
the loudest person in the room gets promoted, gets funded, and gets the microphone, not because they know what they are doing, but because they are physically incapable of seeing what they don't.
the only defense mechanism is building systems that stop rewarding absolute certainty and start demanding proof of work.
I love that they turned their anger to actual political nous and organisation
Serbia's Vučić concedes election defeat to student-led protest movement bbc.in/4sst0lV
Boundaries are the quiet refusal to let empathy turn into erasure. You can understand a person and still protect your life
Another 'trick' people use on here is the "Ona vile wamekasirika"
I make a provocative statement. Then rely on the fact that people are 'triggered' as evidence that I am right. Instead of addressing the validity of my claim
It works because the person making the provocative statement gets to appear detached and rational, while the person objecting to it is characterised as emotional and unreasonable. All the while never addressing the issue
It's called a SELF SEALING argument
There's a trick I see people use disingenuously during online discourse that I you urge to spot and not fall for
Its when someone dismisses a legitimate concern by arguing that other, supposedly more serious problems deserve attention
It's called the 'FALLACY OF RELATIVE PRIVATION'
Say you raise a concern about potholes on a road you use often and you post about it. A random user will come and say that at a time when people are starving and there's no medicine in hospitals how dare you speak about potholes
The reason why it's fallacious and most of the time not done in good faith is
1. The existence of a greater problem does not invalidate a lesser one
2. If only the most serious problem deserves attention, virtually every concern can be dismissed by identifying something worse.
3. Society can address multiple problems simultaneously.
4. It's often a veiled trick to shift from the merits of the argument to whether the issue even deserves to be discussed at all
Ty Ngachira retweeted
Sadly, we have been informed that the number of martyrs from the terrorist attack on St George’s Church in Jordan has risen from 7 to 9.
We pray for our brothers who have borne witness to Christ through their martyrdom, as well as for the swift recovery of the injured.
