Glad I Don't Live In America.

Post Reply New Topic

Even though I am still a little nostalgic of when TV and video was linear and if you wanted to watch an episode of a show you would have to wait until the episode was broadcast again, and especially big shows and movies were treated as a special moment. Am I that weird??

I'm not sure if you're weird or not, but I'd say that I never meshed well with that way of delivering content. Part of the reason I became so enamoured with the internet in the late '90s was that it seemed much more limitless and unrestricted in terms of how it provided whatever you were after. It might have mostly been text and low-res pictures at the time but it was on my terms.

It's probably only in the past few years that I've gotten more into watching video content online and honestly, if they were on a schedule I probably wouldn't pay much attention to them.

But if democrats and republicans look for something to fight about, how do they know which side of the issue to be on? For example, the defund the police thing... How did democrats know that they are suppose to be for defunding, whilst how did republicans know they were supposed to be against it?

Or another example, is covid... How did democrats know they were supposed to be for everyone getting vaxed, and how did republicans know they were supposet to be against it?

because the amuuurican right wing is basically socially darwinist and rampantly individualist, so things relating to charity towards the disadvantaged and the very concept of the public good, are going to be dissed by them, whereas the natural constituency of the democratic party demands sustained action on those two things.

Oh okay, but how do all democrats make the same interpretation though? It seems that the democrats like government services though, and the police is a government service. The democrats were for unions before as well it seemed, and then they decided to be against unions once Floyd was killed. So how do they know what they stand for, if things can be interpreted differently, and how do they know if they all want to change their views on something simultaneously therefore?

there is more nuance needed on various of these issues. nevertheless, good and bad in the aggregate, are empirical things, i.e. we all know that one doesn't have to be the ship captain to know if the ship is sinking [speaking figuratively]. we all know when unions go awry/get corrupted and when action needs to take place to fix this. when it became plain over the years that police unions' sole purpose was as a shield behind which corrupt officers could profit at the expense of the rest of us, that was when the "Defund the police" mantra became widespread. many people can't think of any other way to attack the problem [corrupt police and their enabling unions] except to stop it at its source [police funding] or to replace the police with public safety officers [armed social workers].

Oh okay. Would armed social workers be any better or different though?

being that it is a known fact that police departments recruit officers that by and large are within one standard deviation of IQ 100 on standard tests, i believe your typical social worker will be brighter than that, and more likely to be able to perceive/apply nuance in social situations involving people at their worst. an old saying is that a person armed with just a hammer will keep looking for things to nail.

Oh okay. It's just I know a social worker for example, and it's not like he is high educated, so I didn't think it would make much of a difference. But maybe .

But are in George Floyd's case, are social workers normally called to investigate and possibly arrest people for passing conterfeit money?

there is nothing to prevent that as a concept and a practice, it just has to be enabled via law. and to do nuance there is just no substitute for raw intelligence, formal education is subsidiary to this.

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely .
Give a man a hammer ?

Each side has a political narrative, and often engage in groupthink supporting their respective "Tribes".

A very biased opinion.

Favouring individualism and not collectivism doesn't make a person bad.
It makes them an independent thinker.
Well, often.

For the life of me, I don't understand how some autistics embrace collectivism.
We are disorganised "cats in a box" after all.

when you've met one autie, you've met one autie, and the one that stares back at you in the mirror is by no means representative of the larger world of auties. this autie prefers security and safety over all else.

But I think this is the problem right there, is that people need to be comfortable with their own beliefs, rather than be indoctrinated into tribes that are in a contest though, if that makes sense.

Is the problem with American politics and culture is that American's have become just weird and obsess over weird things politically? For example, I remember early this year, it became a huge political issue in the US as to whether or not the Mr. Potato head toy had a penis or not... and when people make political issues over that, maybe the culture needs to reset it's priorities on what's actually important, for example?

Last edited by ironpony on 11 Nov 2021, 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.