“who died in 1985 of intestinal disease before taking office as Brazil’s first democratically elected leader”

So the U.S. killed Tancredo in favor of Lula?

Knowing America’s history of meddling in Latin American politics, this wouldn’t surprise me. However, why would the U.S. want a working-class and clearly leftist politician like Lula in power in the middle of the Cold War? Especially since this president advocated for agrarian reform, the very same policy that just 30 years earlier got Guatemala on the U.S.'s sight.

More broadly, by the time Tancredo was elected, the U.S. had spent the last ~30 years supporting rightist military dictatorships in Latin America, of which arguably the most infamous were Guatemala, Chile, and Argentina. These were set up to protect American interests.

And so a question arises, how could a leftist president represent American interests in the middle of the Cold War?

But perhaps more pragmatically, Lula supported Tancredo in the 1985 elections. I don’t know the exact reasons why, but it’s not hard to imagine that it has to do with the fact that Tancredo was a social democrat.

This doesn’t exclude the possibility of conflict, which is why I’m asking both (1) why Lula would want to kill Tancredo and (2) why Lula would be of interest to the U.S…

Interesting. I didn’t know this. How did America make Lula president?

I agree that maybe there’s something that could be done.

Fact checking is tricky

As to fact-checking, I’m not really sure what to do. On one hand I worry the ‘reputation’ system would be too restrictive. On the other hand, in general (by which I mean that I haven’t seen this crop up in Lemmy but I wouldn’t like to see) I’d hate to see anti-vax, flat-earth, or otherwise blatant fake science showing up.

Nudging cognition and affect is as well, but seems more viable

But there is something that could be done regarding the way in which the Lemmy interface nudges our thoughts and feelings. The paradigmatic example in the Fediverse is Eunomia. I wonder (and don’t doubt we could find) literature on these nudges to improve interactions.

The goal could be to avoid finger-pointing as well as aggression, and to incentivize thought/understanding, kindness, and, in general, positive emotions so that we’re able to be both flexible and critical. Note that the positive emotions part is not me being hippy-dippy; by now it’s well established that positive emotions enhance cognition and permit a much broader set of automatic thinking habits than negative emotions. In particular, negative emotions have no desirable characteristics that positive emotions can’t deliver (make sure you read p.110 ¶2 sentences 4 and 5).

It would be great if we can find a way of changing interfaces in such a way as to nudge us towards positive emotions and critical thinking.

But until the heavy lifting for that is done (something that, once I feel comfortable with my CS training, I could attempt), I wonder if the minimal Democratic manifesto could be done with tricky situations like these in mind. In other words, make an explicit, clear, and widespread expectation that we’re here to share, understand critically, and interact kindly.