The Next Decade Could Be Even Worse

[Masark]

Okay so what is the next evolution after liberal democracy?

I would say either expanding democratic governance to the workplace (which mostly remains a bastion of hierarchical autocracy, which should have no place in a society claiming to be democratic) or attempting to abolish the workplace though radical automation.

[PC2]

I would say either expanding democratic governance to the workplace (which mostly remains a bastion of hierarchical autocracy, which should have no place in a society claiming to be democratic) or attempting to abolish the workplace though radical automation.

That's what you personally want but as far as Milch's prediction I would say there's no significant evidence that suggests any change like that is happening nor is it on the horizon.

[PresidentGreymane]

Okay so what is the next evolution after liberal democracy?

Luxury Space Communism, with mandatory dresses for men.




Future PM that will restore the UK.

[Ivanstone]

The problem you lot are having is you equate "Counter-Elite" with the author saying that Counter-Elite must equal "Good People", and from that flawed conjecture you are having your little temper tantrum, go back, set your partisan baggage at the door and re-read the article now that I have provided you the incite you yourselves were functionally incapable of having for some reason.

The problem is that I look at Bannon/Trumpism and I see more of same bullshit that's been happening since the Civil War ie rich assholes using racism to get more rich. They're the status quo. They're not countering anything, they're just manning their cog.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Progress to what?

If a proto human says "Hey, I think cultivating plants so that we may eat them and have a stable food supply" then there will always be someone else who views that practice with contempt and fear. Not everyone agrees what the proper course towards progress among humans is optiomal, but we do know is that conservatives will always be there to hamstring efforts to make the lives of everyone in a society better.

Of course, I'm sure you'd like to present some philosophical dilemma along the lines of, "is it really progress?" or "is it really good for human society as a whole?" among numerous other philosophical questions. You could potentially even argue that humans would be better off if we still lived in sparsely scattered villages dotting the land, each village with its own language and culture. Most would disagree, but it's still something you COULD argue, just like you COULD stab your foot.

But yes, if the great American empire falls, we can very much so point towards a cause to it. It's hard to continue down the path of rapid leaps forward in science, technology, health, and education when there is a political party that opposes all of those things and simply wishes to amass wealth for themselves.

[Josuke]

Luxury Space Communism, with mandatory dresses for men.




Future PM that will restore the UK.

How is a liberal democracies supposed to lead to luxury space communism if they keep electing chuds and neoliberals and never even a socialist?

[Cinnamilk]

A lightbulb in the thread title? You know what that means.

[Fuiking]

One of those things is not like the others, one of those things does not belong. Technically the first two contradict the later idea.

However, that is just a small sliver of Turchin's point. His suggestions to forestall collapse are mainly....
1) Increase the poors pay, buying their loyalty (Standard politics before Neo-Liberalism and its hyper ideological actors)
2) Whittle down the number of wealthy, probably with some intense taxation.
3) Stop mass producing elite aspirants.

RIP the netherlands.. its a stronghold of neo-liberalism. Then again that country will go blup blup blup blup anywhere between 2020 and 2065 anyway.

[Felya]

Then I apologize for the lack of clarity. I cited an example.

You stated an example, as proof that Abbot was the sole reason. The issue is what you are claiming your example shows:

You guys claim "We learned more science" but I've seen no evidence that that happened, all I've seen and had cited is a political psycho-drama. Abbot is the sole reason anything changed. If some science came out that changed peoples minds feel free to cite it, but I can cite, and just did the exact moment it switched. The Liberals about faced from "The Pandemic is not cause for concern" to "OMFG WE GOTTA LOCKDOWN AND REPUBLICANS WANT TO KILL GRANDMA FOR THE MARKET!" and since then the entire political valiance has stayed locked.

The issue is not lack of clarity, which you emphasized and used to deride, in the bold... this is gaslighting at its most obvious...

- - - Updated - - -

Aight, then I spoke terribly. I should have said "Patrickism" or something, Apologies and my bad.

Uhm... from urban dictionary:

Patrickism: A statement of unadulterated stupidity, often implying that the speaker is an incel or is struggling with a mental illness.

That’s doesn’t fit in what you said... how does calling the sole reason democrats changed, an incel struggling with mental illness, change the lie you posted?

[Cthulhu 2020]

By all the Gods you people literally cannot have a single fucking thread and just discuss the topic without making everything a personal discussion. I swear none of you have political opinions, just personal opinions.

I am glad you are sated by a guy wearing a mask and visiting the UN. Good for you.

The hilarious part is that pretty much every thread you make is you projecting your own personal views of what the "left" is. Through your eyes it seems to be some very sinister, untruthful, and incompetent organization. However when it comes to actual policy and action we see they're anything but. Perhaps if you stop reading from your own fan fiction and join us in reality to discuss actual happenings, others will stop giving their opinions to you?

[Theodarzna]

What more is there for me to say? He was on record as being anti-Trump long before that Dinner you posted. I showed you the transcript and everything. You claimed that it was the rejection that made him "Anti-Trump". I corrected you. End of Discussion.

Now my Turn:

Why do you keep ignoring that Joe Biden was talking about listening to experts before that Lt. Gov was talking about Sacrificing Grandma. If that was the turning point where Liberals started backing science...why was Joe Biden already talking about it two weeks earlier?

Listening to Experts isn't a policy. It doesn't mean anything? Who are we listening to? What are the actual plans?

- - - Updated - - -

If you tax people either 0 % or 100 %, the center or moderate between those two will be to tax 50 %. Heck the moderate/center between bad and good, would be exactly that, a lesser between either a moderate; one that doesn't do everything poorly or perfectly.

Nonetheless, the notion still stands. Why is it the fault of those who don't elect to be perfect, that worse exists? Because that's a logic that puts, in my mind, an unreasonable pressure on someone to enforce changes that aren't even that particular popular with the population; to avoid someone that'll do it, but in wrong directions.

Equally so, currently who is the one that those people are railing on, as if their lives depended on it? AOC. One that supposedly is the closest to what one would regard the right choices in this hypothetical situation. How exactly is that an indication that not going for moderation, will turn out any other outcome from embracing a more "extreme"; how is there any indication when that is reaction from the people who supposedly just need a different "extreme" to embrace?

True, but I did note bad people. That's sort of a crucial aspect.

Again, you are locked into the thinking that its a political gradient between positions, as if ACA is just a lesser version of Universal Health Care, which is a bit like arguing a Lizard is just a moderate version of a Bird, when I am trying to tell you those are separate animals.

[Felya]

Listening to Experts isn't a policy. It doesn't mean anything? Who are we listening to? What are the actual plans?

The CDC, WHO and professionals that have been dealing with this shit for decades, like Fauci. Think of it like you are buying a toy... are you going to listen to experts that say it’s dangerous to your children or politicians with a stake in the toy company? Now, apply the same logic you use for buying toys, to a pandemic.........

Again, you are locked into the thinking that its a political gradient between positions, as if ACA is just a lesser version of Universal Health Care, which is a bit like arguing a Lizard is just a moderate version of a Bird, when I am trying to tell you those are separate animals.

Birds evolved from Lizard... your argument is literally that ACA would have evolved into a universal coverage. Didn’t you claim to be an anthropologist assistant? How can you make this mistake?

[Egomaniac]

Listening to Experts isn't a policy. It doesn't mean anything? Who are we listening to? What are the actual plans?

As I said, you gave a pass to Trump for a year of doing nothing about the virus...but you're already up Joe Biden's ass to have a full strategy worked out when he isn't President yet. He hasn't had much time to meet with the existing Covid Task force yet...because Trump was blocking the transition.

Listening to experts is not a complete policy... but it's certainly better than ignoring them entirely. You listen to the experts. You create a plan based on the information you've received.

[Howel]

Again, you are locked into the thinking that its a political gradient between positions, as if ACA is just a lesser version of Universal Health Care, which is a bit like arguing a Lizard is just a moderate version of a Bird, when I am trying to tell you those are separate animals.

What? ACA is a form of healthcare system, it is intrinsically in the exact same category as universal health care; they both address and affect it. It is, a political gradient through and through...

[Ihavewaffles]

Why did we even leave the ocean?

Pizza.

And slushpuppies.

[Theodarzna]

What? ACA is a form of healthcare system, it is intrinsically in the exact same category as universal health care; they both address and affect it. It is, a political gradient through and through...

It is a health care system, sure, just like a Cow and a Squid are both animals of some type. But they are not the same thing. One produces ink another milk, if I want milk I'm not getting it from a squid.

The ACA is a private marketplace, a glorified mandate to buy a shitty substandard product and feed profits. An NHS is a health service, the two are not actually at all the same thing. Nor is an ACA just a watered down NHS. That is patently ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said, you gave a pass to Trump for a year of doing nothing about the virus...but you're already up Joe Biden's ass to have a full strategy worked out when he isn't President yet. He hasn't had much time to meet with the existing Covid Task force yet...because Trump was blocking the transition.

Listening to experts is not a complete policy... but it's certainly better than ignoring them entirely. You listen to the experts. You create a plan based on the information you've received.

Listening to Experts means nothing, Again, who are these experts? What are they demanding be done? Why? Are they trustworthy?

[Felya]

Listening to Experts means nothing, Again, who are these experts? What are they demanding be done? Why? Are they trustworthy?

They have spent their lives studying the subject and have no political motivation. I take it your claims of being a teacher’s assistant in anthropology was a lie?

- - - Updated - - -

The ACA is a private marketplace, a glorified mandate to buy a shitty substandard product and feed profits. An NHS is a health service, the two are not actually at all the same thing. Nor is an ACA just a watered down NHS. That is patently ridiculous.

No, I like your previous comparison more... it’s like a lizard to a bird... ACA would evolve to universal coverage, which is why you hate it.

[Shadowferal]

No, I like your previous comparison more... it’s like a lizard to a bird... ACA would evolve to universal coverage, which is why you hate it.

I wish that were true.
I certainly wouldn't bet on any changes soon.

[Kaleredar]

They have spent their lives studying the subject and have no political motivation. I take it your claims of being a teacher’s assistant in anthropology was a lie?

These people fundamentally misunderstand science. They think that scientists work only to prove themselves right, and that some vast form of nebulous funding is at their beck and call to personally enrich them so long as they get right results. So they assume that these scientists have incentive to lie to appear “correct.”

They don’t understand that scientists don’t exist to prove points, they exist to find answers... that in science, an experiment that fails to produce an expected result is valuable, even as valuable as a positive result.

I believe they may think of it as such because, from their own myopic sort of view, they only know that the less academically rigorous jobs the have and do pay them to do their job well with a strict set of expected outcomes, for risk of firing if they get something “wrong” on the job. So they assume that scientists, too, must operate like this: that scientists have some big boss that divvies out money to bring back expected results that fits the “company line,” with that company line being some nebulous boogeyman about vaccines or global warming or some other concept they don’t understand.

Historically, the scientists that “lie” aren’t the ones at universities or government researchers. They’re the ones hired by corporations whose intent is to sell a product. (asbestos, DDT, lead, fossil fuels, etc) Which is the directive of the corporation, not “big science.”

[PC2]

These people fundamentally misunderstand science. They think that scientists work only to prove themselves right, and that some vast form of nebulous funding is at their beck and call to personally enrich them so long as they get right results. So they assume that these scientists have incentive to lie to appear “correct.”

They don’t understand that scientists don’t exist to prove points, they exist to find answers... that in science, an experiment that fails to produce an expected result is valuable, even as valuable as a positive result.

I believe they may think of it as such because, from their own myopic sort of view, they only know that the less academically rigorous jobs the have and do pay them to do their job well with a strict set of expected outcomes, for risk of firing if they get something “wrong” on the job. So they assume that scientists, too, must operate like this: that they have some big boss that divvies out money to bring back expected results that fits the “company line.”

Historically, the scientists that “lie” aren’t the ones at universities or government researchers. They’re the ones hired by corporations whose intent is to sell a product. which is the directive of the corporation, not “big science.”

Yeah and I'd say the bolded part is an extreme understatement. For example with a scientific theory like GTR literally thee only reason to keep making scientific tests is to prove GTR false so that physicists can find an anomaly that gives them new information. Proving things right in science is fundamentally pointless because you don't gain new knowledge by gathering more supporting evidence and confirming something that you already think is true.