Western countries are becoming more orwellian

[Saucexorzski]

I would say the source does matter in this kind of thing. It shows motive and intent, and words matter. Like naming a disgusting and unconstitutional piece of legislation the "Patriot" Act, when it's the opposite of anything patriotic.

Again, the right has learned to use Orwell for its own purposes. Just do your worst, then name it something turned completely upside down or hypocritical, and some people will buy it.

Like the Affordable Care Act...goes both ways...because both sides are good at the game.

[PC2]

You realize that the "criticism" you're talking about is nothing more than an assault on property rights and association rights, right? It isn't some defense of freedom, it's an attack on it.

If you don't like their actions, produce an alternative, and let the market decide. Don't try and bully them into giving up their own rights, and act as if you're the noble one.

Criticizing bad policy that goes against the values of a free society is not an assault on property rights. Letting the market decide means forming strong arguments where you don't need to use silencing policy on people with opposing opinions.

[Caolela]

Yeah, I've been to countries like this as well. Gotta love the edgy "WE LIVE IN A TOTALITARIAN STATE, YOU'RE A SHEEPLE IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THE GOVERNMENT," types.

People in actual totalitarian states don't have the luxury of whining on forums about totalitarian states.

Try this then, just with an adjective added:

Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin in 2003 to describe the emerging form of government of the United States.

Wolin believed that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" to illustrate similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. In Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco, inverted totalitarianism is described as a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics. In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

- - - Updated - - -

Like the Affordable Care Act...goes both ways...because both sides are good at the game.

I agree. I'm no fan of ACA or Obama, but then I don't consider Obama a leftist either.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I would say the source does matter in this kind of thing. It shows motive and intent, and words matter. Like naming a disgusting and unconstitutional piece of legislation the "Patriot" Act, when it's the opposite of anything patriotic.

Again, the right has learned to use Orwell for its own purposes. Just do your worst, then name it something turned completely upside down or hypocritical, and some people will buy it.

Example: Make America Great Again

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Well we certainly have brainwashed enough people into believing that rich corporations should barely pay any taxes at all.

[Saucexorzski]

Example: Make America Great Again

Change We can Believe in.

come on you really attacking campaign slogans, this is a joke even for you Mr Bats.

[Caolela]

Example: Make America Great Again

- - - Updated - - -



Well we certainly have brainwashed enough people into believing that rich corporations should barely pay any taxes at all.

Right on both counts.

[PC2]

Well we certainly have brainwashed enough people into believing that rich corporations should barely pay any taxes at all.

It's worked out seeing as we have one of the most productive economies in the world. Feel free to go to a high tax paying place or one that punishes large scale industry.

[Caolela]

It's worked out seeing as we have one of the most productive economies in the world. Feel free to go to a high tax paying place or one that punishes large scale industry.

No it hasn't worked out for the vast majority. The tax rates have little to do with productivity, and unlike the past when the economy was much better (at least for average people), the productivity gains since the early/mid 70s no longer go to workers but have been drained off to the top incomes:

See chart: http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Most Americans believe that a rising tide should lift all boats—that as the economy expands, everybody should reap the rewards. And for two-and-a-half decades beginning in the late 1940s, this was how our economy worked. Over this period, the pay (wages and benefits) of typical workers rose in tandem with productivity (how much workers produce per hour). In other words, as the economy became more efficient and expanded, everyday Americans benefitted correspondingly through better pay. But in the 1970s, this started to change.

[PC2]

No it hasn't worked out for the vast majority.

It's always been like that, but with globalization and places like China getting bigger, the average person will have to up their skills if they want to be competitive.

[Unholyground]

More like they are becoming Oil Well 'ian.

[Caolela]

It's always been like that, but with globalization and places like China getting bigger, the average person will have to up their skills if they want to be competitive.

No it hasn't always been like that as has been clearly shown above, for at least 25 years after WWII. You're being obtuse.

You can't "up your skills" enough to be "competitive" with a race to the bottom, which is another name for globalization. You're talking about competing with slave wages and economies, while those at the top rake off the productivity gains for themselves.

[PC2]

No it hasn't always been like that as has been clearly shown above, for at least 25 years after WWII. You're being obtuse.

You can't "up your skills" enough to be "competitive" with a race to the bottom, which is another name for globalization. You're talking about competing with slave wages and economies, while those at the top rake off the productivity gains for themselves.

If you gain desirable skills you can command much more than slave wages.

[Spiffums]

No, I am referring to the "You're either with the establishment or against us and has to go" attitude, among other things that we see in politics, social media and even in companies.

You're talking about lining up people who disagree with "us" along the front of a ditch and shooting them...............yeah its getting there. It amazes me the number of people who call for someone's death because they hold a different opinion.

[Bollocks]

Like the Affordable Care Act...goes both ways...because both sides are good at the game.

How exactly is the ACA equal? Had it not been gutted the usa would have a similar system to the one Singapore has, which is ranked among the best.

[Caolela]

If you gain desirable skills you can command much more than slave wages.

Tell all of the skilled labor here that who have seen their wages and bennies decline for the last 40 years (those whose jobs have not already been sent elsewhere), while the execs are making 300-400 times what they're making, an increase from only about 30 times more. Tell the workers at GM, Ford, Chrysler, Verizon, Caterpillar, and so on that tried to "command" better wages this past year. Those workers would laugh you right outta here. Those execs did not "up their skills" 10 fold either.

[PC2]

Tell all of the skilled labor here that who have seen their wages and bennies decline for the last 40 years, while the execs are making 300-400 times what they're making, an increase from only about 30 times more. Those workers would laugh you right outta here. Those execs did not "up their skills" 10 fold either.

Many skills from 40 years ago turned out to be easily learned, there scarcity went down. You have to future proof yourself and improve constantly.

[May90]

It already works, free speech is going great. Each time Twitter or Facebook bans someone based on feelings, we criticize them constantly. There is really no way for them to win a long term debate with silencing tactics when the truth still gets around, unless most of Congress and the president all conspired to destroy free speech. As far as I know there are no plans to do that, not that we would allow it anyways.

It doesn't work, since the amount of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other illustrious things, resulting also in a lot of crimes (including violent ones), is arguably much higher in the US than in most European countries, for example. It doesn't work, and we don't even have anarchy really: there are still some restrictions of what you can say in the US and how you can do it.

How you know you don't live in an Orwellian society: You're educated enough to know what Orwellian means.

Besides, I'd say Western society is FAR closer to Huxley than Orwell. Just look at the Trump campaign.

I'd say it's even closer to Bradbury. Except for books that is: people read surprisingly much nowadays, despite everything!

[Caolela]

Many skills from 40 years ago turned out to be easily learned, there scarcity went down. You have to future proof yourself and improve constantly.

As I said, tell that to those workers at GM, Ford, Chrysler, Verizon, Caterpillar and other places just from this past year. They'd tell you you're talking through your ass, as the productivity vs. wage chart I linked to shows as well.

[PC2]

It doesn't work, since the amount of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other illustrious things, resulting also in a lot of crimes (including violent ones), is arguably much higher in the US than in most European countries, for example. It doesn't work, and we don't even have anarchy really: there are still some restrictions of what you can say in the US and how you can do it.

Again, correlation does not equal causation. Europe having different statistics doesn't not mean the correlation is caused by a progressive policy. You could just as easily say being more homogeneous is the biggest factor.

And regardless of what all the factors are, violence has been going down in the US. It isn't the increasing issue most people think it is.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said, tell that to those workers at GM, Ford, Chrysler, Verizon, Caterpillar and other places just from this past year. They'd tell you you're talking through your ass, as the productivity vs. wage chart I linked to shows as well.

Can they be easily replaced by a large group of people with similar skills? If their skills are so scarce they could easily take them elsewhere.

[May90]

Again, correlation does not equal causation. Europe having different statistics doesn't not mean the correlation is caused by a progressive policy. You could just as easily say being more homogeneous is the biggest factor.

And regardless of what all the factors are, violence has been going down in the US. It isn't the increasing issue most people think it is.

In this case, causation is pretty obvious and logical. If you allow hate speech to thrive, then it results in more hate in the society, and this hate leads to higher rates of crimes based on hate. I would be surprised if the correlation didn't exist, actually...

True, violence has been going down. The society evolves. Old model of semi-anarchy is being reconsidered, and the system slowly moves towards a European-like model. Not saying that this is the only factor, but it does contribute.