DocWatts

United States has literally reached the status of a Banana Republic. Literal fascists storming the Capital to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a Democratic election. What a sad and frightening state of affairs we've descended to, even if it's not a surprising one...

From what I understand, a person has something like an %80 chance to survive a single gunshot wound if they receive immediate medical attention. It's fortunate that our highly trained police officers in America almost never unload an entire clip into someone, then fail to get them medical attention until it's too late ...oh wait, that's exactly what's happened to Breonna Taylor, and also in other high profile cases.

I believe 'less than lethal' is the more accurate technical term. A rubber bullet that hits someone at close range, hits someone with a medical condition, or in the wrong place such as the head, can absolutely kill someone.

Video is a few years old, but David Pakman had by the far the best take I've seen as far as Jordon Peterson. In it, he goes into some of the problems with Jordon Peterson without demonizing him, and gives due credit to the helpful aspects that people have latched on to, while also highlighting the problematic ways that his academic work and self help advice have become entangled with a Conservative, religious worldview (and how Peterson is not honest about the fact that he clearly subscribes to a Conservative ideology).

The idea is that it gives Police Officers a less than lethal way of subduing people, without having to resort to using deadly force. The problem, like it is for so many other things, is that the potential exists for that tool being abused, and some cops will inevitably end up using it as a first, rather than a last option. When you compare that with the number of lethal shootings by police officers in the US, it's hard to see giving police officers a non lethal way to deal with threats as a bad thing, even taking the potential abuses of tasers into consideration

What I meant was more mainstream Culture than anything else, but yes I agree that we're a long way from that happening. It's not impossible to imagine though in a potential future society that's on the whole much more educated, and whose media environment makes more room for complex ideas to be discussed in the larger Culture. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen under Late Stage Capitalism, several generations from now is a more likely scenario.

Is it though? Trump gained an additional 7 million votes despite running arguably the most incompetent and corrupt administration in all of US History. That's in addition to the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly caused by his criminally negligence in the midst of a pandemic. A 50/50 Split in the Senate still leaves a Biden administration with dismal prospects of getting any significant legislation passed, due to Republicans being able to use the filibuster to smother any meaningful legislation in the cradle. That's to take nothing away from the people of Georgia though, and to the grassroots organizers who busted thier ass to get out the vote and flip the state Blue. Even though only around a quarter or a third of the country actually likes Trump's brand of Authoritariaism, our political system also happens to give these people disproportionate influence over the rest of the country.

Call to mind the most high profile contemporary Yellow thought leaders and intellectuals that you're aware of (Noam Chomsky, Jared Diamond, etc), and try just having a conversation with a random person about any of those individuals. Odds are they won't even know who the hell you're even talking about. Now bring up a high profile Green person (Bernie Sanders for example), and the other person will likely at least have an idea of who he is, and have at least a vague notion of what his values and beliefs are, even if it's only a strawman. Yellow hasn't even permeated the Culture enough to be part of the Conversation. Once Green has become the center of gravity in our Society some generations from now, then maybe Yellow will have a chance to occupy the same space in the Culture that Green occupies now.

Basically this. Also keep in mind that the current Republican Party's entire governing platform is one of intentional obstructionism until they can claw thier way back in to power, and as such will not even attempt to work in Good Faith with the Democratic opposition. Any sort of policy Reforms from a Biden administration will almost certainly have to be based on things that are changeable from the Executive Branch without needing Senate approval, and as such will be much more limited in scope.

True, but even if Dems do end up winning in Georgia and gain control of the Senate by a razor thin majority, Republican obstructionism is going to be an almost insurmountable obstacle to any serious policy proposals that Biden hopes to pass over the next two years. The desk of Mitch McConnel is where Reform proposals (or even laws aimed at good governance such as increased oversight and accountability) go to die.

That's actually a great explanation, and matches many of my own intuitions on populist movements in a rather clear and succinct way. So, thanks for that.

Some more context would be helpful, as I'm not quite sure exactly what that statement is intending to convey. Is it that Trump voters are closer to flirting with fascism than middle class Democrats are to Socialism or Marxism? If so, that's hardly a profound statement. Also the spirit in which the word 'radicalization' is used is a bit unclear. Is it supposed to be aspirational? A pejorative? My own connotation on the word is a negative one, but that will vary widely depending on one's political biases and worldview.

Judging from my reading list over the past few years, I have a special affinity for philosophy, metaphysics, and history. Part of what I find so fascinating about those subjects is not only how they can be used to form a solid epistemological foundation on which to explore aspects of reality and society, but because the more I learn about those subjects, the more I realize how much more there is to be learned. They are also excellent for learning how to put societal trends and historical events into a larger context, and for helping to make sense of the world.

The Conversation is a high quality, relatively neutral Source that does complex news analysis, one that isn't compromised by a Corporate profit motive. It was recommended to me by someone on this forum, and I would also highly recommend it. https://theconversation.com/us AllSides is another useful resource for checking the Biases of various news outlets https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings#ratings

@SamCI realize that this almost certainly wasn't your intention, but genetic determinism is something that has been weaponized against groups as far back as the eugenics movement at the turn of the last century (and even before that), and has been used as a pretense for denying people full participation in Society. Reframing it as a question of socialization and environment largely avoids this problem.

Less a matter of who 'deserves' capital, and more about making sure that the way capital is obtained and used isn't destructive. And also about using societal resources in a more equitable way, including giving more people the ability to become entrepreneurs and start businesses. How many more people would be willing to become entrepreneurs if Health Care wasn't tied to a wage slave job, and if some sort of Universal Basic Income program was implemented which people could fall back on? I know quite a few people who Freelance for a living, and the fact that Health Care is basically unaffordable if its not being subsidized by an employer is a huge hardship for people trying to break away from Wage Slavery. What if we stopped subsidizing mature businesses (such as the fossil fuel industry), and instead used that money on Grants and low interest Loans for entrepreneurs who are just starting out, and don't have access to a ton of capital? Some priority could be given for start ups and businesses which serve a communal need, for example someone willing to open a Grocery Store in a poor neighborhood whose residents are living in a food desert. Or more generally, more support could be given to people who are willing to invest in and bring economic opportunities to poor communities. That's aside from the fact that the excessive accumulation of Capital among a relatively small group of people begins to damage Democracy, and makes it so that Corporations and Wealthy individuals can basically write Laws that give them unfair advantages. For the longest time you couldn't purchase a Tesla in Michigan, because the Car Dealership Lobby passed a Law targeted at Tesla, which made it illegal for direct car sales without conforming the Dealership business model. Obviously all these problems are indicative of Late Stage Capitalism. A better system would still heavily rely on Markets to distribute Goods and Services, but in a more equitable and less destructive manner. The fact that in a Wealthy country that essentials (Health Care, Education, basic Housing) are tied to the Market is indicative of a moral failure on the part of our Society (in addition to it being unsustainable). Social Democracy or Market Socialism are possible responses to this, but a Restructuring of our Current System could be as well, though I see that as less likely due to how thoroughly Late Stage Capitalism has corrupted our Democracy in America. Also I'm sure you know this, but it's possible to be highly critical of Capitalism, while still seeing Markets as a highly necessary and useful structure, one that could still be retained under a more humane socio-economic System.

And in a healthy, well functioning system there's no reason why a society couldn't foster and support entrepreneurship while also putting rules in place to make sure that the accumulation of capital doesn't destabilize society and cause harm to other people.

I'm really not demonizing the wealthy, and I realize that this is a Systemic issue rather than any moral failure on the part of individuals. I also understand that wealthy people create value for society, but so do middle and working class people. Try running a company like Ford without anyone on your assembly lines or answering the phones, and see how far that gets you. The reason why I care about this issue is because there's a basic (and important) fairness principle being violated here. A small handful of people shouldn't own more wealth than the bottom half of the whole society, especially when a significant portion of people aren't able to meet thier basic needs (food, housing, transportation, education, health care). Right now in America, the richest country in the world, around 40 million people are facing eviction during a pandemic. In addition to that, the vast wealth inequalities that exist are distorting and eroding Democracy, since the wealthy are able to buy thier way into getting favorable legislation passed, and furthermore they're able to isolate themselves from the problems of society. None of this is abstract, it effects people in very real ways. It's not hard to imagine a world where millionaires exist, but differences in wealth and opportunity aren't so vast that people aren't able to meet thier basic needs in a supposedly developed country.

Once someone has far more than they need to live a happy and fulfilling life, should the creative aspirations for one individual take precedent over many more people whose basic needs aren't being met, who don't have access to affordable housing, a decent education, or basic healthcare (things funded by taxation)? How many more people aren't meeting thier creative potential because all of thier time and energy is expended just trying to meet thier basic needs? But hey, in some cases maybe it really is the case that a wealthy individual's creative plans bring enough value to society (Elon Musk with SpaceX, or Leo with actualized.org) for that argument to be plausible. But would you say that's the case for most, or even a majority, of people? And also even under a much higher rate of taxation, extremely wealthy individuals are still in a much better position to achieve thier individual ambitions than virtually everyone else in thier society.

Do they though? For every Bill Gates or Warren Buffet who follows through on that by pledging to give away almost all of thier wealth, there are a lot more who actively lobby to defund the government (and pull the rug out from under ordinary people through reduced assistance and poorly functioning services), so they can get away with not paying taxes. If the person claiming this dies a billionaire, it should be evident that this is a Bad Faith argument.

I suppose I would counter that I prefer to use that 'bonus money' to support charitable causes that are doing good work (rather than having a portion of that money diverted to the Military or Corporate Subsidies), but fair point. I wasn't enthusiastic when Michigan started charging Sales Tax for online purchases, but I understood the reasons for it, so I don't begrudge the few extra dollars that I end up spending when I buy something on Amazon. Ditto for things like tipping at restaurants; yeah it's an extra cost on my end, but it's justified. Not something I would go out of my way to avoid either.

That's fair, but I think it's a mistake to assume that people only support higher taxation for completely self serving reasons (ie because they're poor, and will change thier tune if they ever become wealthy). Having myself experienced working class poverty for much of my adult life, I'm much more empathetic towards the struggles of people who depend on social services to get by, and see the higher taxes that I now pay as my social responsibility to people who haven't had the same opportunities I've had. Once you have more than enough to live a happy and fulfilling life, bitching and moaning about having to give something back seems really petty imho.

As an aside, I do find it interesting that the vast majority of millionaires in the United States consider themselves to be 'middle class'. Just being honest about the fact that you're Rich is something that's difficult for most wealthy people to admit, since our perceptions are so heavily shaped by comparisons against our peers. Of course this argument can be extended more broadly to people who happen to be living in developed countries (when compared to the rest of the world), but even a wealthy country like the US contains millions who are unable to meet thier basic needs (something we should feel shameful about).

For anyone who's interested, here's a spending breakdown of the previous Stimulus Package (the CARES act, couldn't find a similar infographic for the most recent Stimulus bill). Obviously targeted aid to people who needed it the most would be preferable, but fact is our legislative system is so dysfunctional that it's basically impossible to pass any sort of large spending Bill without a significant portion of its funds being diverted to Special Interests. Stimulus Checks only made up about %15 of the last Stimulus Package.