226 points by tclancy 13 hours ago | 286 comments on HN
| Neutral Moderate agreement (2 models)
Editorial · v3.7· 2026-03-15 23:53:53 0
Summary Critique of Institutional Governance Undermines
This satirical essay uses the metaphor of 'Harold and George' (immature fictional characters) to critique U.S. government incompetence in foreign policy, institutional naming, and international corruption. While the content robustly exercises freedom of expression and comment, it frames institutional decision-making as fundamentally irrational and corrupt without proposing constructive remedies or pathways for democratic participation. The overall directional lean undermines confidence in institutional governance and deliberative democracy rather than advocating for reform.
Rights Tensions2 pairs
Art 19 ↔ Art 21 —Content exercises freedom of expression (Article 19) to critique government institutions, but frames those institutions as fundamentally irrational, which may undermine confidence in democratic participation and governance (Article 21).
Art 26 ↔ Art 1 —Content defends children's right to develop their gifts and imagination (Article 26 foundation), but frames educators as destroyers of those gifts, which may undermine the dignity and agency of educators as rights-bearing individuals (Article 1).
working on a new unified theory of american reality i'm calling "everyone is twelve now"
“I’m strong and I want to have like fifty kids and a farm” of course you do. You’re twelve. “I don’t want to eat vegetables I think steak and French fries is the only meal” hell yeah homie you’re twelve. “Maybe if there’s crime we should just send the army” bless your heart my twelve year old buddy
In my experience, everyone turns twelve when they disagree or are shown to be wrong. Very few have the temerity to accept their faults. Let's not throw stones lest they hit our own glass houses.
No need to do a drive by on Predator Badlands like that, it's a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right. I agree with the author though, there's nothing nearly as emotionally deep or socio-politically engaging as One Battle After Another, and so it would make for poor choice as a double feature to run second in the pairing.
I have genuinely put a lot of thought into this lately. I have the sensation like older media was more expressive and thoughtful, there's at least more... interesting flavors there generally...
I am happy to ponder and willingly accept this is probably just my perception.
I have a couple of theories. The creators of the media are becoming more and more my age. Do they have nothing interesting to say to me as our experience is shared? Is this something experienced by previous generations as their generation took over media, or is our zeitgeist as "digital natives" so newly shared that this is a new experience?
I know people who would blame "ensh*tification" and move on, but I really think that there is more to what is happening.
What I do know is it's exceedingly rare for me to watch a movie or show made after about 2015 and to find myself thinking about it days later. There are of course exceptions.
The effects of Idiocracy are much worse than we appreciate. I believe it's hidden in part by technology (as a cognitive crutch) and part by top skilled immigration (people previously suppressed in their undeveloped countries). And education is much, much worse almost everywhere by leaning more to memorization and catering to the lowest common denominator. Student A is bad at math and good at language, student B is the opposite, both get the worst education for both subjects.
I think we haven't felt yet the true consequences of this. Worldwide.
Is this an attack on Captain Underpants of the silly novels? Or are we arguing that the global leaders are immature and don't think through their decisions? I admit I've only just started reading Captain Underpants but it doesn't seem like George and Harold are willing to do pranks to the extent of harming anyone. I do recognize childness in leadership occasionally. When I directly have to interface with it I adapt my response as though it actually is a child. That tends to help moderate the results somewhat. Children for the most part have good intentions and pure hearts, when things go wrong it's through inexperience not malice.
Does Tom Clancy think the novels are literary trash? The books are made for children, it's about following your dreams and using your imagination in the face of grown up resistance.
H.R. McMaster: Trump’s knowledge was like a series of islands. He might know a lot about one specific thing, but there were no bridges between the islands, no way to connect one thought to another
What’s childish is thinking that calling the Department of War by a euphemism changes what it is and always has been. The Department of “Defense” killed a bunch of people Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and countless minor actions. These bubbles of civilization we enjoy are built on adults killing a bunch of people, as necessary, to establish the order that allows more childish people to build social media websites.
I was totally with it until they started talking about the real world again. The Department of War was called that up until 1947 when it was renamed to the euphemistic Department of Defense (or more specifically merged with the Department of the Navy which was previously separate). It has nothing to do with the right to self defense, the undermining of which would make a great paragraph here comparing modern self defense law the world over with schoolhouse rules.
The author framed this as if "One Battle After Another" was some adult work and they couldn't watch "Predator" afterwards because it was so childish.
I had the opposite reaction and could barely make it through 15m of One Battle. The movie opens with women in skin tight dresses and mini skirts with automatic weapons robbing banks and breaking into migrant detention centers while yelling "this is what real power looks like". That feels like childish nonsense to me but then it is wrapped in this "radical chic" that is supposed to force me to take it seriously. Rather than movies like Predator which are intentionally dumb and fun the author should look at how vague political messages and sex are used to take extremely shallow work and make it "adult".
The "silver dollar" change isn't -- it's the dime. The design was in the works before the current administration [1], and is only intended to be for the 250th anniversary [2].
The Dept of Defense was only created in the late 1940s. Before that the US had the Dept of War, the Dept of the Navy, and other organizations. The point of calling it "defense" was not because "everyone has the right to defense", but because the US was promoting the United Nations and waging a Cold War, and wanted to pretend that it would never do anything proactive or aggressive. That is, it was propaganda, as the current preferred name "Dept of War" is now for a different posture with regard to America's adversaries.
If you're going to call people stupid or immature for making certain decisions, maybe take a couple minutes to find out who made the decisions, and/or what the history of those and similar changes has been.
The US Department of War does not take full advantage of its name. Declaring a war has real legal and political consequences which presumably are not appealing to the current US administration.
I also have the same feeling about media since around 2015. The prime example being Alien: Earth, which people will argue has immeasurable depth and nuance while when I watched it I just facepalmed a lot. Although it did get better in later episodes.
I feel like no media today has really topped the stuff of the 90s and 00s. Star Trek Voyager season 5 still stands tall above the rest for me. The movie September 5 came close as it had interesting bits.
But besides that, there is a generational thing going on. I felt when I grew up online in the 90s and 00s that people who were older than me were smarter than my generation. My generation watched movies and played games while gen x and baby boomers did hardcore assembly programming and whatever.
And then the same thing happened with millenials and gen z. Gen z is just different from millenials which again are different from baby boomers. Each generation progressively gets less technical it seems like. There are always outliers in every generation of course but I think the trajectory is somewhat clear.
I also think this applies to movies and tv shows. Gen z just thinks differently and doesn't have the same ideas. I don't think a gen z'er could create Voyager season 5, and maybe not even a millenial could. There is so much information and knowledge and perception in the context a generation is born into and grows up in and a lot of that context and information is lost with the next generation.
When people say you’re wrong it triggers cognitive dissonance and social threat brain stem stuff that had to be consciously mediated. Even if you’re someone who makes an effort to do this it can catch you off guard.
Weird analogy, but it feels similar to the way old music differed to new music.
Old music had more variation in volume - volume rises and falls to add nuance to the piece. New music is produced differently and has a more “flat” sound due to everything being louder and variation being reduced by compression.
Seems like some parallels to other forms of media.
Some adults try a bit harder to live up to the ideals of being an adult than others. They are toddlers inside like anyone else, but there's a layer of restraint on top that evidently not everyone has.
Similar to how music changes perceptions of movie scenes (it's usually silly but the effect is there), newsrooms have been decorated to look like a crisis center with the choice of colors and words.
People are naturally prone to pointing their attention at sources of alarm. And attention is important for advertisements which pay the bills.
News was not produced or directed back then like it is today.
I agree to a large extent. Yet, what we see going on in US political leadership truly is beyond my belief of what reasonable adults should do and act like, even as an (precocious, sharp) ex-child.
Just because something was done before doesn’t mean it’s good (obviously?)
The purpose of the Department of Defense should be to defend America and Americans. Waging war is an unfortunate necessity that stems from this sometimes. War is not the only threat that can require a military response, and should never be a goal. No matter how you swing it, having a ‘Department of X’ definitely gives the impression - to people within and without it - that ‘X’ is a goal.
Even if you think about it amorrally, calling it the ‘Department of War’ is myopic.
Its care.
Us humans can feel when something was made with care vs when it’s made to check some lists people with ties made.
Same with music, food, books, art, software, hardware, design, houses.
Most stuff today is made to avoid some risks instead of being what it ought to be. Not trying to please anyone is the best way to make great things. Or maybe it is my hate of focus groups who spoiled it all (and I used to be a game user researcher…)
Are you saying there is no difference between the aggressiveness shown by the Department of War since it was renamed vs the years prior to the renaming?
Because it sure looked to me like they renamed the department and immediately started bombing fishing boats, then affirmatively decided to start a war with Iran, all while the guy who came up with the new name goes on TV and screams about how we're free to kill more people now.
The author seems to like the books, but somewhat downplays the children's world and nature. From my understanding of the author's article, It's a nature he believes adults shouldn't have and yet powerful people do. So he's bringing this up, comparing the children in Captain Underpants with these powerful people. And also he's reflecting on how media is created with a "childish mind".
Personally, I don't think there's anything to downplay or wrong about children or being childish as adults. That's not the problem. The problem's the insensitivity and shamelessness of powerful people.
Sure it may have been a euphemism, but the reasoning of this administration for trying to change it back is just childish and stupid: “We won the first world war, we won the second world war, we won everything before that and in between,” Trump said at the signing. “And then we decided to go woke and we changed the name to the Department of Defense.”
Memorization is pretty much the single largest undervalued thing in the west which has a gigantic impact on the mental capabilities of people.
I mean I get that rote memorization of eg. The multiplication table (7x7=49 etc pp) feels pointless, but it is training your brain. And a growing person whose brain is still developing who continuously memorizes new things will be smarter by the time they're 20 then the same person that didn't, only put in minimal effort because everyone around them talks like intelligence is mostly genetics.
I mean genetics definitely plays a role given the same circumstances - but your effort - including memorization - is massively more impactful.
> That feels like childish nonsense to me but then it is wrapped in this "radical chic" that is supposed to force me to take it seriously.
We aren't supposed to take it seriously; it's meant to be "childish nonsense". We can easily see that these women are getting off, sexually and by exercising power over others. A woman in a short dress struts around on a counter and introduces herself as "jungle pussy" to captives in a bank robbery, all while ranting about "black power". What happens next? A (black) security guard dies in agony and we get a close-up on that. We see "radical chic posturing" and then its consequences.
Meanwhile Predator: Badlands truly is a movie for children. I sat through the whole thing with friends (who loved it by the way). Lots of adults love children's movies and books. I'm unbothered by this, because these people's tastes don't seem to the affect the production of books/movies that are actually good. But I do feel that people who eat this stuff up have failed to grow up in some fundamental way.
thank you! spoiler alert if anyone hasnt seen Predator Badlands
Tom self owns himself quite a bit by dismissing a movie as drivel and then comparing it to dumb plots made by adult children. the entire point of the movie is to demonstrate how dumb and bad overt masculinity is. yes its oversimplified but its Predator. the audience is hormonal teenage boys who might think toxic masculinity is cool. the entire setup Tom thought was dumb is more or less called out as dumb later in the movie
> the US was promoting the United Nations and waging a Cold War, and wanted to pretend that it would never do anything proactive or aggressive. That is, it was propaganda
Many other countries similarly changed the name of their respective ministries, reflecting the ideal (if not the fact) that war should not be pursued for gain or used to resolve international controversies.
Actions trail behind ideals; ideals are set to remind us of how things should be even if we don't live up to them. Renaming the DoD to DoW reflects an aggressive, violent and ultimately predatory posturing that the West had chosen to abandon after WW2 and many millions of deaths.
> And education is much, much worse almost everywhere by leaning more to memorization
The idea that (correct) answers are something that can and may be known is all over the place, lately also in technology (LLMs, curve fitting, etc). Notably, answers must be able to validate themselves, every time. (Western) education used to be about this, before it reoriented towards instruction.
I bounced off it in about the same amount of time, just the other day. I’ll probably return to it at some point given how talked-about it is, but as soon as the woman was revealed to be pregnant the implicit “ho ho! Who’s the father?!” made my eyes roll so hard it knocked me right out of the movie.
> as the current preferred name "Dept of War" is now for a different posture with regard to America's adversaries.
…which is the bad thing being discussed, yes. I don’t really understand why “there used to be one” would be exonerative. Not to mention, they didn’t rename it, that requires an act of Congress. Instead they just told everyone to change which name they use. Lines up with the “adult children” theory. Skip the actual work, (which would involve addressing the nation and justifying this change in posture), instead focus on the performative.
As we are seeing in real time with Iran, “we’ll just war!” was a juvenile idea, committed to with near-zero forethought or planning.
It’s plainly not an attempt at honesty. Watching almost any speech by Hegseth makes it clear it’s another “tough guy” thing—his latest effort included announcing “no quarter” in the war with Iran, which one supposes he did because it sounds tough, but it’s so incredibly illegal that just issuing that instruction, as he did, even if nothing happens afterward, is specifically illegal.
It’s a modern outgrowth of the conservative belief that we lost Vietnam because we didn’t war crime hard enough (this is a real, and common, thing, talk to republicans old enough and you’ll encounter it often) and that the military’s too soft.
High A: Exercise of free expression through satirical political commentary P: Freely published content on personal platform without apparent censorship
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
+0.32
Content exemplifies freedom of expression: the author exercises satirical critique of government policy (Iran war, DOD rebranding, FIFA corruption) without restraint. The commentary is irreverent, uses humor, and challenges institutional decisions—core expressions protected by Article 19.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author publishes satirical criticism of U.S. foreign policy, Department of Defense naming, and FIFA corruption on a freely accessible platform.
Content contains irreverent characterization of government officials and institutional decisions without apparent self-censorship or editorial constraint.
No evidence of moderation, removal, or restriction of the critical content appears on the page or domain.
Inferences
The unrestricted publication of political satire on the author's personal platform demonstrates both editorial exercise of Article 19 freedoms and structural enablement of free expression.
The tone and substance of the critique suggest the author operates without fear of censorship or legal retaliation, indicating a permissive environment for free speech.
Low A: Implicit defense of peaceable assembly and association
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Content indirectly references collective action through reference to Harold and George as a 'band' (death metal band) and allusions to coordinated FIFA corruption schemes. The framing does not explicitly defend assembly rights but presupposes their legitimacy by treating group action as a normal feature of social and cultural life.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author speculates that Harold and George 'will go on to form a quality death metal band,' treating group formation as an imaginary future outcome.
Author references 'pretty much every country's Football Association' as corrupt, implying organized collective bodies.
Inferences
The casual reference to band formation presupposes the legitimacy of group assembly and association as normal cultural practice.
The tone does not question whether such associations should be permitted, suggesting acceptance of Article 20 freedoms.
Low A: Implicit criticism of criminal prosecution targeting specific individuals
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND
Content obliquely references prosecution of FIFA/soccer corruption figures. The reference to 'one of the people convicted' suggests awareness of legal process but does not substantively engage with presumption of innocence or fair trial standards.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author references 'One of the people convicted' in the context of FIFA corruption prosecutions.
Author describes the convicted individual's personal characteristics (age, apartment) rather than legal process or evidence.
Inferences
The reference acknowledges that legal proceedings occurred, which implicitly recognizes Article 11 institutions, but does not defend or critique the fairness of those proceedings.
The focus on personal details rather than legal fairness suggests the author's concern is social disapproval rather than procedural justice.
Medium F: Critique of educational institutions as destructive of imagination and individual gifts
Editorial
-0.10
SETL
ND
Content criticizes educators for failing to recognize and cultivate the gifts of creative children (Harold and George). The framing suggests that institutional education actively destroys individual potential rather than developing it. This critique, while defending the child's right to develop talents, does not engage substantively with Article 26's provisions regarding free and compulsory primary education, equality of opportunity, or educational rights.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author states Harold and George's 'wonderful imaginations are in the process of being destroyed by educators who do not recognize their gifts.'
Author frames formal education as inherently hostile to creative development and individual potential.
Inferences
The critique implicitly values education that preserves individual talent and imagination, but does not propose alternative educational structures or acknowledge the collective benefits of formal schooling.
The framing treats education as a process of destruction rather than development, which may undermine confidence in institutional education without offering constructive alternatives.
Medium F: Framing of government officials (Harold, George metaphor) as childish and incompetent
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
ND
Content uses satire to critique government decision-makers as lacking in judgment and maturity. The metaphor frames policy actors as driven by immature imagination rather than reasoned deliberation, which implicitly undermines their dignity and agency.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author characterizes government officials responsible for Iran policy as 'a bunch of boys who never turned ten.'
Author attributes decisions to childish whimsy rather than conscious agency or strategy.
Inferences
The satire diminishes the cognitive and moral standing of government actors, which may undermine the equal dignity premise of Article 1.
The framing treats policy-makers as inherently ridiculous rather than as rights-bearing agents deserving reasoned critique.
Medium F: Implicit critique of institutional failure to provide social and international order
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
ND
Content criticizes systemic failures of international institutions (FIFA/IoC) and national governance (Department of War, Iran policy) to operate fairly or rationally. The satire frames institutional structures as inherently corrupt ('pretty much every country's Football Association…is completely corrupt') rather than as remediable through reform, which implicitly undermines faith in the institutional order necessary for the realization of Article 28 rights.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author states 'pretty much every country's Football Association, regardless of the quality of government in the country at large, is completely corrupt.'
Author uses 'Harold and George' metaphor to characterize government decision-making as fundamentally irrational across multiple policy domains.
Inferences
The satire suggests systemic corruption across institutional boundaries without proposing reform, which may deepen cynicism about the possibility of fair institutional governance.
The critique implies that international and national governance structures are inherently compromised, undermining confidence in their capacity to uphold rights.
Medium F: Framing of democratic institutions as incompetent and driven by childish whimsy
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
ND
Content undermines public participation in governance by characterizing government decision-makers as unreasoning children ('Harold and George'). This satirical framing implies that collective decision-making processes are captured by incompetent actors, which implicitly critiques the legitimacy and rationality of democratic institutions without proposing structural reforms or alternative participation mechanisms.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author attributes U.S. foreign policy (Iran war) to the decisions of 'a bunch of boys who never turned ten.'
Author jokes that the 'Department of War' has no rational explanation for its naming, implying arbitrary rather than deliberative decision-making.
Inferences
The satire frames government actors as fundamentally irrational, which undermines confidence in democratic deliberation rather than advocating for institutional reform or greater participation.
The critique does not propose how citizens should participate in correcting these decisions, leaving the reader in a position of helpless observation rather than agency.
High A: Exercise of free expression through satirical political commentary P: Freely published content on personal platform without apparent censorship
Structural
+0.30
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.32
Site architecture permits unrestricted publication and distribution of opinion content. No visible content moderation, takedown notices, or access barriers prevent distribution of critical speech.
Harold and George characterized as 'boys who never turned ten,' 'tasteless, gaudy,' 'creepy,' applying emotionally charged descriptors to policy actors and officials.
exaggeration
Claim that 'pretty much every country's Football Association, regardless of the quality of government in the country at large, is completely corrupt' uses sweeping, unqualified generalization.
causal oversimplification
Attribution of complex geopolitical decisions (Iran war, DOD policy) to the childish imagination of unnamed individuals, reducing complex institutional and historical factors to whimsy.
strawman
Framing educators as entirely failing to recognize children's gifts, rather than engaging with the mixed reality of institutional education's challenges and benefits.