[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  THE SKIN DOCTOR [@theskindoctor13](/creator/twitter/theskindoctor13) on x 857.8K followers Created: 2025-07-13 12:23:12 UTC NDA-III has plenty of issues and should rightfully be criticised, but saying it’s worse than UPA isn’t correct. Human memory tends to soften the sharp edges of past bad experiences, what psychologists call “rosy retrospection.” Over time, we remember the past as better than it really was, downplaying the negatives. That’s why the scams, policy drift, and national embarrassment over 26/11 don’t sting as much now; they’ve blurred into history. In contrast, today’s issues feel sharper because we live them in real time, amplified every hour by social media. Every controversy stays alive longer, and every criticism finds an audience. Part of why we remember UPA less harshly is also because social media wasn’t widespread then. News faded faster; local issues rarely went national. Today, a single tweet or video can go viral in minutes, keeping criticism alive and magnified. And just on one hard parameter: UPA’s meek response to 26/11 versus the clear, robust reaction to the Pahalgam attack shows that despite all flaws, NDA is far ahead. NDA should absolutely be criticised for everything it does wrong, they’re in power and must be held accountable. But comparing them to UPA and claiming UPA was better is, frankly, laughable. XXXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [drift](/topic/drift) [scams](/topic/scams) [$6753t](/topic/$6753t) [Post Link](https://x.com/theskindoctor13/status/1944372035095851123)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
THE SKIN DOCTOR @theskindoctor13 on x 857.8K followers
Created: 2025-07-13 12:23:12 UTC
NDA-III has plenty of issues and should rightfully be criticised, but saying it’s worse than UPA isn’t correct.
Human memory tends to soften the sharp edges of past bad experiences, what psychologists call “rosy retrospection.” Over time, we remember the past as better than it really was, downplaying the negatives. That’s why the scams, policy drift, and national embarrassment over 26/11 don’t sting as much now; they’ve blurred into history.
In contrast, today’s issues feel sharper because we live them in real time, amplified every hour by social media. Every controversy stays alive longer, and every criticism finds an audience.
Part of why we remember UPA less harshly is also because social media wasn’t widespread then. News faded faster; local issues rarely went national. Today, a single tweet or video can go viral in minutes, keeping criticism alive and magnified.
And just on one hard parameter: UPA’s meek response to 26/11 versus the clear, robust reaction to the Pahalgam attack shows that despite all flaws, NDA is far ahead.
NDA should absolutely be criticised for everything it does wrong, they’re in power and must be held accountable. But comparing them to UPA and claiming UPA was better is, frankly, laughable.
XXXXXXX engagements
