Here are several statements made by José Antonio Kast around his recent election win and campaign:

“Chile wanted change — we’re going to restore respect for the law and govern for all Chileans.”

“We will expel more than 300,000 immigrants and seal the northern border to protect our country.”

“Chile will once again be free from crime, free from suffering, free from fear.”

“Violent crime and illegal migration are overwhelming our communities.”

“By taking a firm hand with crime and immigration, we are making Chile safer for families.”

“This victory is part of a broader surge of right‑wing leaders defending liberty and security.”

“My government will build new prisons, strengthen police powers, and reduce public spending.”

🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?

🔎 Context summary:
José Antonio Kast — leader of the Republican Party of Chile — won the presidential runoff with about 58% of the vote, defeating Jeannette Jara and marking a significant rightward political shift in Chile’s politics. His campaign focused on security, immigration control, law and order, and economic recovery.

🗣️ Here are several statements made around the recent debate on California’s menopause bill:

1. “With the way he’s overlooked women, he probably shouldn’t be our next president either.”
2. “By vetoing the menopause bill two years in a row, he’s devaluing half the population.”
3. “Illinois is the first state to mandate hormone therapy coverage, and California should be ashamed not to follow.”
4. “Women deserve better — the days of outliving men but doing it in poor health are over.”
5. “I have zero left to give, and I’m going to fight like hell because women’s longevity depends on it.”
6. “The bill would have unintentionally raised health care costs for millions of working women and working families — something we must avoid.”
7. “By working together, we can expand menopause care without raising bills for women.”

🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?

here’s the fallacy?” — Edition: Political Rhetoric
🗣️ Here are a few statements recently made in a heated political back-and-forth:

1. “The president resorts to very bigoted, xenophobic, Islamophobic rhetoric whenever he’s trying to deflect from his own failures.”
2. “This administration hasn’t fulfilled most of its promises — from lowering costs to stopping tariffs that are decimating businesses.”
3. “Somalians ripped off that state for billions of dollars. Every year, billions. And they contribute nothing.”
4. “I don’t want Somali immigrants in the U.S.”
5. “He’s demonizing an entire community — educators, artists, doctors, entrepreneurs — people who bring energy and diversity to Minnesota.”
6. “There are radical Somali migrants invading our country and stealing from American taxpayers.”

🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps do you spot in these statements?

🗣️ Fran Lebowitz once said…

“Leaf blowers must be the stupidest invention ever created.”

“Airports were obviously invented by people who hate everyone.”

“If I see adults with those trendy dolls on their bags, I immediately know they look ridiculous.”

“I would never try mountain climbing — I don’t understand why anyone does those things.”

“Contemporary novels aren’t good anymore; people only praise them because the writers are young.”

“We import fruit in February, which just proves everything is terrible now.”

🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot?

Everyone’s going crazy over wind and solar, but what they don’t tell you is how often those things fail. I read about a blackout in Texas and someone said it was because wind turbines froze. So obviously renewables are unreliable and we can’t depend on them. We’ve had fossil fuels for over a century — they’ve always worked, so why change now? These so-called “green” solutions are just another excuse to raise taxes and kill jobs. Ever notice how these climate fanatics want to shut down coal plants, but never talk about how many families depend on them for work? It's clear they care more about trees than people. This whole movement is driven by emotion, not logic. And don’t get me started on electric cars. Lithium mining destroys the environment, but nobody wants to talk about that. Plus, most EVs still charge from coal-based electricity — so where’s the climate benefit? The only reason anyone buys one is to virtue signal on Instagram or get government handouts. If the climate crisis were really that urgent, why aren’t the billionaires panicking? You think Bill Gates is giving up his private jet or beachfront mansion? They clearly know something we don’t. This whole thing feels like a hoax to make the rich richer while the rest of us pay the price.

Organic food is healthier because it's natural. Studies show organic produce has fewer pesticide residues. The organic industry has grown 300% since 2000, proving consumers understand its benefits. However, a 2012 Stanford meta-analysis found no strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional ones. Big Agriculture lobbies spend millions to suppress this kind of research, which is why mainstream media rarely reports it.

I just typed the final sentence of my new Sock Life guide—for anyone stepping into shared living, whether it’s marriage, partnership, or simply the brave act of choosing to build a life together under one roof.

Lately, I’ve noticed the conversations online: some say living together is outdated, others argue it’s the only way to truly grow. The truth? There’s no single script. Shared life takes many forms, and each one is valid. What matters is not the label, but the practice—how we listen, compromise, celebrate, and sometimes argue, all while remembering we’re on the same team.

This book isn’t about rules. It’s about offering gentle signposts: ways to handle that first fight about bills, how to celebrate little victories, how to stay curious about each other even after a hundred breakfasts together.

In the end, living together is less about fitting into tradition and more about creating traditions of your own.

For those of you who’ve lived with someone—partner, friend, or spouse—what’s the smallest daily habit that made the biggest difference?

Just lost a brutal round of Catan. Thought I had the perfect strategy lined up—until someone slipped in with a sneaky settlement and flipped the whole board against me.

And it hit me: this is exactly how today’s “debates” play out. It’s not about who’s got the best plan or the clearest facts—it’s about who can twist the rules, shift the narrative, and distract long enough to grab control.

Maybe I’m just salty from losing, but watching misinformation flood into politics and tech regulation feels a lot like watching someone win Catan by bending the spirit of the game. It’s not clever—it’s corrosive.

It’s tempting to talk about “the West” or “the East” as if they were single, unified blocks — one voice, one agenda, one mindset. But this kind of reductionism flattens reality. The United States, for example, is not one policy or worldview; it’s a landscape of competing voices — from grassroots activists to corporate lobbies, from academic thinkers to local communities.

When we say “the U.S. always does this” or “the East always thinks that,” we stop asking the harder questions: Which voices? Which groups? Which institutions? In a world already flooded with oversimplified narratives, maybe the most radical act is refusing to treat whole societies as monoliths.

Do you think media (and even experts) rely too much on “monolithic” labels when analyzing global politics? What’s lost when we accept those shortcuts?

We often think of social media as just a tool — a neutral way to connect with friends, news, and entertainment. But research in cognitive psychology shows that algorithm-driven feeds are far from neutral. By prioritizing emotionally charged content, they exploit our brain’s natural biases toward novelty and outrage. Over time, this can subtly “rewire” how we focus, what we remember, and even how we make decisions.

The question isn’t only what we see online, but how repeated exposure to these patterns shapes our mental habits. Are we losing the ability to pause, reflect, and question — or can awareness of these effects help us take back control of our attention?

Discussion Question:
Do you believe algorithms are reshaping the way we think, or are they simply magnifying tendencies that already existed in human psychology?