If you thought the roll back of roe vs wade was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Devin said:

And to refer to what got us started on this, you think shunning materialism is bad for American culture? Will lead to decline and stagnation

Reform is always better than removal to leave a void for some of the reasons I've given above. 

With the greatest respect, again I ask for this to continue in a different thread. It's difficult for me to advocate the benefits and flaws of traditional culture and even materialism, while at the same time being dismissed as a left-wing extremist. While the contrast is amusing the two conversations don't overlap well.

You seem like a reasonable person to talk to and thank for you the discussion.

[Devin]

I'm still trying to figure out what we're discussing apparently, I think it's still the thought that America is devolving, the root of the thread.

People were saying America is devolving, I said American culture has never evolved much and pointed to materialism, and I'm trying to figure out what you mean about America losing a strong culture which you say would lead to collapse, I see the opposite. 

Although there's infighting, that's because of growing pains, America in the recent past was just a European prodigy, not really having outgrown European culture. I think the reason empires in the past have fallen is because they were too rigid in maintaining their traditional culture, they expand and encompass sub cultures and try to maintain or impose their culture on others.

What I'm trying to figure out about what you're saying is, by culture do you mean community? A strong community is required, culture to me is more about traditions. I think that's where I'm falling off, because I think materialism divides people in the long term.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Devin

[BlueOak]

@Devin
I wouldn't use the term devolving personally.

All countries are adjusting to the rise of authoritarian superpowers and their influence on the collective or geopolitics, which is trying to reach for a global stage green parity, at least at the level of intent for foreign policies and cooperation. I mean France very nearly went far right in this last election, and nationalism, even fascism has been on the rise through Europe for a couple of decades, especially in the east but in truth most countries. People can deny that all they want, all they need to do is look at election numbers and the leaders of those parties.

By culture I mean culture. It helps form communities with a common identity, but a community can have more than one for example. Traditions for me are created in the culture and are upheld through the culture, otherwise, they end.

Empires in the past like anything have fallen for a variety of reasons, one common one is a declining culture and the loss of a sense of common identity as a result, the empire, country, or group splitting apart into small collectives. Materialism does divide an individual from an individual but it still forms the basis of what being an American seems to be to a lot of people. Again I am not advocating for its merits/flaws, just stating an observation.

Edited July 6, 2022 by BlueOak

[Devin]

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@Devin
I wouldn't use the term devolving personally.

All countries are adjusting to the rise of authoritarian superpowers and their influence on the collective or geopolitics, which is trying to reach for a global stage green parity, at least at the level of intent for foreign policies and cooperation. I mean France very nearly went far right in this last election, and nationalism, even fascism has been on the rise through Europe for a couple of decades, especially in the east but in truth most countries. People can deny that all they want, all they need to do is look at election numbers and the leaders of those parties.

By culture I mean culture. It helps form communities with a common identity, but a community can have more than one for example. Traditions for me are created in the culture and are upheld through the culture, otherwise, they end.

Empires in the past like anything have fallen for a variety of reasons, one common one is a declining culture and the loss of a sense of common identity as a result, the empire, country, or group splitting apart into small collectives. Materialism does divide an individual from an individual but it still forms the basis of what being an American seems to be to a lot of people. Again I am not advocating for its merits/flaws, just stating an observation.

I don't see the authoritarianism being anymore prevalent today, if anything I think it's been diluted down from what it was. I do think we are more sensitive and perceptive about it now though. The world has gotten VERY liberal in a relatively short amount of time, many sub cultures do not understand the changes therefore are afraid of them, therefore desperately fight against them.

I don't follow the declining culture concept, I don't think camaraderie holds this or any country together, I think it's personal integrity, I don't see culture playing much of a role, especially one based on who can accumulate the most junk and competitive capitalism, Americans eat each other alive. I think our culture divides us.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Devin

[abundance]

Was waiting on Beau to make a video on this. 

This is very concerning. This is not a time to be silent and twidle your thumbs. American democracy is an immediate danger.

https://youtu.be/ANrBplbZsFM

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by abundance

[BlueOak]

5 hours ago, Devin said:

I don't see the authoritarianism being anymore prevalent today, if anything I think it's been diluted down from what it was. I do think we are more sensitive and perceptive about it now though. The world has gotten VERY liberal in a relatively short amount of time, many sub cultures do not understand the changes therefore are afraid of them, therefore desperately fight against them.

I don't follow the declining culture concept, I don't think camaraderie holds this or any country together, I think it's personal integrity, I don't see culture playing much of a role, especially one based on who can accumulate the most junk and competitive capitalism, Americans eat each other alive. I think our culture divides us.

@Devin
Quote: I think our culture divides us.

Because of the changing view on materialism. Can you see if it was celebrated as before in past decades, it'd be the opposite? People were celebrating wealth, it was a defining aspect in media or film, and the now mocked American dream was a staple of the culture. Now its an extremely divisive issue that is quite literally a splintering factor in your own country.

Quote: Americans eat each other alive

Competition was/is a strong part of your culture, more so than mine. 

We'll have to disagree on the rest. I could continue to cite where authoritarian parties have risen in power and influence globally, but if raw numbers are not enough to demonstrate it, wars from expansive authoritarian powers, and landmark political reforms going on in your own country I don't know what will. The world hasn't had a progressive liberal phase at all, that's the problem. Part of the world's population in a couple of dozen countries has, over half a century. If the world had, or even the majority of governments, we'd not be having this conversation.

*I did want to add I agreed with this.

Quote: Many sub cultures do not understand the changes therefore are afraid of them, therefore desperately fight against them.

Edited July 7, 2022 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

This is a wider perspective on the spiritual/materialist connection that was just dropped for synchronicity. 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by BlueOak
Video was reuploaded

[Devin]

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@Devin
Quote: I think our culture divides us.

Because of the changing view on materialism. Can you see if it was celebrated as before in past decades, it'd be the opposite? People were celebrating wealth, it was a defining aspect in media or film, and the now mocked American dream was a staple of the culture. Now its an extremely divisive issue that is quite literally a splintering factor in your own country.

Quote: Americans eat each other alive

Competition was/is a strong part of your culture, more so than mine. 

We'll have to disagree on the rest. I could continue to cite where authoritarian parties have risen in power and influence globally, but if raw numbers are not enough to demonstrate it, wars from expansive authoritarian powers, and landmark political reforms going on in your own country I don't know what will. The world hasn't had a progressive liberal phase at all, that's the problem. Part of the world's population in a couple of dozen countries has, over half a century. If the world had, or even the majority of governments, we'd not be having this conversation.

*I did want to add I agreed with this.

Quote: Many sub cultures do not understand the changes therefore are afraid of them, therefore desperately fight against them.

I don't think materialism was celebrated, greed is usually and has been from fear.

 

Competition

It's not competition, it's stealing from others, lying to others, that kills personal integrity which I think is what builds a strong community. No one seriously in the materialism delusion trusts anyone, that kills community

 

I don't mean the world had a liberal time(except pre civilization), I mean it has gotten much more liberal recently.

 

[DocWatts]

This is literally the most important thing happening in our country right now since it's effectively a legal coup to end democracy in the United States.

Everyone and their brother should be talking about this.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by DocWatts

[Devin]

Gerrymandering can never override a  majority, when the right goes too far, the left will grow a majority. It's a self regulating system. Gerrymandering is nothing to be afraid of, it's just stupid bullshit to do, it can only have short term effect.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Devin

[WisdomSeeker]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

Gerrymandering can never override a  majority, when the right goes too far, the left will grow a majority. It's a self regulating system. Gerrymandering is nothing to be afraid of, it's just stupid bullshit to do, it can only have short term effect.

@DevinThis is actually incorrect, and the contrary has been proven in the last 2 decades time and again. I could use multiple examples, but lets just take the example of 2012 elections. In House races in 2012, 1.7 million more votes were cast for Democrats than for Republicans. And still, thanks to the way those votes were packed and cracked, Republicans came away with thirty-three more congressional seats. I dont think you are fully understanding the implications of unchecked gerrymandering to our Democracy.

This doesn't even touch on how this bleeds into state legislative committees appointing judgeships and the ramifications to our state and local courts, etc. or the fact that local and state legislature has more impact on our day to day lives than the federal.  

There are so many more ramifications I havent even touched on and yes, just by monopolizing the gerrymandering process a political minority could hypothetically control a political majority indefintiely,  and no disrespect @Leo Gura, but to your comment about going out and "voting in the right way," Gerrymandering quite literally means your vote doesn't matter if you are living in a gerrymandered district that doesnt favor your politics.  

#expandthesupremecourtseats

Edited July 7, 2022 by WisdomSeeker

[Devin]

59 minutes ago, WisdomSeeker said:

@DevinThis is actually incorrect, and the contrary has been proven in the last 2 decades time and again. I could use multiple examples, but lets just take the example of 2012 elections. In House races in 2012, 1.7 million more votes were cast for Democrats than for Republicans. And still, thanks to the way those votes were packed and cracked, Republicans came away with thirty-three more congressional seats. I dont think you are fully understanding the implications of unchecked gerrymandering to our Democracy.

This doesn't even touch on how this bleeds into state legislative committees appointing judgeships and the ramifications to our state and local courts, etc. or the fact that local and state legislature has more impact on our day to day lives than the federal.  

There are so many more ramifications I havent even touched on and yes, just by monopolizing the gerrymandering process a political minority could hypothetically control a political majority indefintiely,  and no disrespect @Leo Gura, but to your comment about going out and "voting in the right way," Gerrymandering quite literally means your vote doesn't matter if you are living in a gerrymandered district that doesnt favor your politics.  

#expandthesupremecourtseats

More votes were cast is about the majority of voters not the majority of electorate,

trump won the majority of electorate(eligible voters) although he lost the popular vote

The majority of the electorate chose that legislature as a whole, therefore chose the corrupt judges,....

popular vote does not mean majority

Your vote does matter in a gerrymandered district, that's why they think they need to gerrymander the district

 

If the majority of the electorate vote a way, that's the way it goes, no matter how much gerrymandering.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Devin

[WisdomSeeker]

26 minutes ago, Devin said:

More votes were cast is about the majority of voters not the majority of electorate,

trump won the majority of electorate(eligible voters) although he lost the popular vote

The majority of the electorate chose that legislature as a whole, therefore chose the corrupt judges,....

 

@Devin You're talking about presidential elections. I'm talking about specifically house of rep elections. Judgeship, first starts out at local state, etc. In many conservative leaning states, judges are appointed by governor or by state legislative committee. It is the latter where judgeships are vulnerable to gerrymandering/corruption. That was my point.

Edited July 7, 2022 by WisdomSeeker

[Devin]

25 minutes ago, WisdomSeeker said:

@Devin You're talking about presidential elections. I'm talking about specifically house of rep elections. Judgeship, first starts out at local state, etc. In many conservative leaning states, judges are appointed by governor or by state legislative committee. It is the latter where judgeships are vulnerable to gerrymandering/corruption. That was my point.

The house majority will always be able to be decided by the majority of the electorate as well

Judges are not the end of the line either; they make a decision, we can change the law, remove a judge

The worse things get the more people will vote left, you get a super majority you do whatever you want.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Devin

[WisdomSeeker]

15 minutes ago, Devin said:

The house majority will always be able to be decided by the majority of the electorate as well

@Devin I just explained very clearly where this was not the case, as a result of Gerrymandering. Most clear example was 2012, but there are more examples which preceeded and proceeded 2012. "In House races in 2012, 1.7 million more votes were cast for Democrats than for Republicans. And still, thanks to the way those votes were packed and cracked, Republicans came away with thirty-three more congressional seats."

Edited July 7, 2022 by WisdomSeeker

[Devin]

40 minutes ago, WisdomSeeker said:

@Devin I just explained very clearly where this was not the case, as a result of Gerrymandering. Most clear example was 2012, but there are more examples which preceeded and proceeded 2012. "In House races in 2012, 1.7 million more votes were cast for Democrats than for Republicans. And still, thanks to the way those votes were packed and cracked, Republicans came away with thirty-three more congressional seats."

That's the popular vote, that's not the majority of the electorate

Edited July 7, 2022 by Devin

[WisdomSeeker]

49 minutes ago, Devin said:

That's the popular vote, that's not the majority of the electorate

I see you've vastly edited what you wrote previously, with much more elaboration than originally provided. So popular vote aside, strictly regarding direct voting via your district, to my point, if districts were reflective of fairly drawn maps and this has been show algorithmically via computer simulations in the 2012 case, Republicans wouldnt have had those 33 seats and wouldnt have had the majority of seats, period. Additionally, if you can draw maps of you electorate on a district basis, you there by have created a majority on a district basis, even though that wouldn't reflect the popular vote or electorate vote for the country as a whole. TA.. DA!  

Edited July 7, 2022 by WisdomSeeker

[Devin]

28 minutes ago, WisdomSeeker said:

I see you've vastly edited what you wrote previously, with much more elaboration than originally provided. So popular vote aside, strictly regarding direct voting via your district, to my point, if districts were reflective of fairly drawn maps and this has been show algorithmically via computer simulations in the 2012 case, Republicans wouldnt have had those 33 seats and wouldnt have had the majority of seats, period. Additionally, if you can draw maps of you electorate on a district basis, you there by have created a majority on a district basis, even though that wouldn't reflect the popular vote or electorate vote for the country as a whole. TA.. DA!  

I agree gerrymandering effects results, but only because people don't vote, it's easily overridden if people would vote.

As a whole, gerrymandering doesn't effect a vote by the majority of electorate

 

People don't vote, that means they vote for whoever wins, their choice, it's their vote; they're voting for the corruption

Edited July 7, 2022 by Devin

[BlueOak]

5 hours ago, Devin said:

I don't think materialism was celebrated, greed is usually and has been from fear.

 

Competition

It's not competition, it's stealing from others, lying to others, that kills personal integrity which I think is what builds a strong community. No one seriously in the materialism delusion trusts anyone, that kills community

 

I don't mean the world had a liberal time(except pre civilization), I mean it has gotten much more liberal recently.

 

Now you've arrived at that perspective. Back then it was the backbone of the culture, the strive to be rich was over here as well to a lesser degree. You are looking at something through a modern lens, and not appreciating how it used to be. I would suggest watching interviews on how the mall for example was the meeting spot for American youth, or how wall street was seen as a positive progressive force by most people. How and why things like muscle cars were a sex symbol, or the fanatic nature of fans which went even further than it does now.

I don't know American culture as well as someone that was born there, but I do know the time quite well as I was born at the end of it. We had some of what I've written above, where money was everything, it defined almost all opportunities in life rather than as it is now, where you can with a good work ethic, some luck, and the training/team achieve almost anything. Naturally, because money almost completely defined not only your social status but almost value as a person, materialism was aspired to more readily. Things were status and the act of trying to get things, was an identifying aspect of culture back then.

I'm trying to give you a snapshot into the mindset because its completely different to when I was young.

I'll close with, just because something is harmful doesn't mean culture isn't built around it. War for example was a pillar of many cultures through history even if the average people in those cultures hated and never wanted to see it.

[WisdomSeeker]

11 minutes ago, Devin said:

As a whole, gerrymandering doesn't effect a vote by the majority of electorate

Can you provide stats on this? I think getting people to vote is a whole separate issue, imo.