Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

US denizens were hitting the best standard of living in their history with the least amount of poverty, least amount of crime, nearing record levels of educational achievement at all levels, greatest amount of "ownership" and it was still not enough - still much anger and unrest. We had unprecedented levels of mental health issues despite these "great things."

Why?

The US is experiencing anger and unrest at an unprecedented level.

It's not Iran.

It's not global warming.

It's not SARS viruses.

It's not police murdering black people.

It's not Donald Trump.

It's all of those and more.

So what does the US need to make these things not cause so much civil unrest and anger?

Please select an option from the poll and explain your reasoning/provide a justification. I would like to poll tens of thousands of Americans with this.

"muh gaslight polls"

I went with Social Media and it's something I've discussed in the past between click baits, falsely framed narratives, echo chambes etc



https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201611/understanding-post-trump-stress-disorder

There is more to all of this of course but for starters humans have never in our history been bombarded with this much information so frequently in our history.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I went with Social Media and it's something I've discussed in the past between click baits, falsely framed narratives, echo chambes etc



https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201611/understanding-post-trump-stress-disorder

There is more to all of this of course but for starters humans have never in our history been bombarded with this much information so frequently in our history.

Good point and that's from Psychology today where their opinions are required to be backed by actual research (generally, a good site).

I definitely could not have worded it better. If people shut off social media, the news, etc. I wonder what that would do to mental health and the positive outlook on life? I wonder how much more the people who view themselves as "have nots" will start viewing themselves as "haves"?


Edit - And it is nice to see at least 1 person voted for Trump and politics like his as a cause. I would like to see whoever that was expand on their position quite a bit/go into details.

Banning lawyers is a start.


Lawyers, media, judges, and activists have long been in collusion as a money making operation. In many cases the wronged party doesn't even get a cut of the winnings.

Originally posted by cdtm
Banning lawyers is a start.


Lawyers, media, judges, and activists have long been in collusion as a money making operation. In many cases the wrong party doesn't even get a cut of the winnings.

I don't think I could take that extreme of a stance (banning lawyers). I get to work with them all the time and I really like the brains they add to my day to day work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think I could take that extreme of a stance (banning lawyers). I get to work with them all the time and I really like the brains they add to my day to day work.


Depends on their specialisation.



As a hobby I like to dig into legal corruption. It's hard to believe some of the things that happen.


The attorney actually writing up the verdict and passing it to a judge, for example.

And even in legit cases, I've spoken with lawyers on topics like discrimination suits against school departments asking where the money goes, and got told "Not to the classrooms or the kids"

As long as big bucks are part of the legal system, there will always be that confliict of interest.

Originally posted by cdtm
Depends on their specialisation.



As a hobby I like to dig into legal corruption. It's hard to believe some of the things that happen.


The attorney actually writing up the verdict and passing it to a judge, for example.

And even in legit cases, I've spoken with lawyers on topics like discrimination suits against school departments asking where the money goes, and got told "Not to the classrooms or the kids"

As long as big bucks are part of the legal system, there will always be that confliict of interest.

So you propose massive tort reform (federal laws) to get rid of the frivolous suits and the money-grab suits?


Good news or bad news, people like my old boss are working on AI that does all the lawyering stuff. It does it better than the human lawyers and for a lower cost. Not all areas are better handled with the prepackaged electronic lawyer and AI law stuff - obviously, it has a long way to go.


But that also implies we could have lawsuits drawn up and filed, automatically, with no human being involved. It scans the internet for "something" and it has a set of triggers that will auto-file lawsuits. That's pretty damn scary.

Education, or lack thereof.
Lack of critical thinking.
Desire for confirmation bias rather than actual facts.
Politicisation of every single issue.
Everyone has AIDS...AIDS AIDS AIDS

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Education, or lack thereof.
Lack of critical thinking.
Desire for confirmation bias rather than actual facts.
Politicisation of every single issue.
Everyone has AIDS...AIDS AIDS AIDS


Education is good. Stiffling curiosity due to political sensitivity is not.


For example, if people were encouraged to dig into data on the holocaust if they questioned aspects of the narrarive (Such as where data for the number of deaths comes from), instead of being told to just accept the figures or be branded an anti-semite, we may have less anti-semites.


That way we can find out:

1. The data is sound, ending debate.

2. The data is sketchy. This is useful infornation for correction.

3. The person researching is a nut, who won't be swayed. But at least there's a solid platform to debunk him other then "Take our word for it."

Give everyone LSD and just see what happens.

I would pay to see Trump have an acid trip whilst smoking potent cannabis.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
I would pay to see Trump have an acid trip whilst smoking potent cannabis.

Yeah, that was a good time when I was younger

I can see Trump getting stoned and when he gets the munchies he buys out a taco bell for the day............

Social Media, the actually so called journalist, and the whole woke culture. But it goes much further.

Everyone here knows where I stand. I see myself as a Libertarian, and I believe, let people live their lives the way they want, as long as their choices do not negatively impact others.

Stop bending backwards to be offended, not everything is racist/sexism, or whatever ism. I also believe in the freedom of expression, but do not force others to care about the fact that you see yourself as some other gender.

Stop rewriting history. Today if you ask a kids in high school why did we fight each other in the Civil War, the only answer is because of slavery.

Stop giving big corporations so much leeway.

Much importantly, Journalism needs to go back and be unbiased. There is a big difference between opinions pieces, and reported facts.

The fundamental problem is the economic system, that works in service of only a small number of people while leaving everyone else behind, whether that is through precarious employment and poverty, or the alienation of the destruction of meaning. So what it needs is policies that have worked before, strong labor laws, high taxes, regulation, investment in public infrastructure and commons, extensive free public services, basically everything that's called communism in the US but is just social democracy.

That would go a long way to help the racial problems, that would still persist of course, but it's nicer to argue when the world isn't on fire for most people and they don't know whether they will survive the next month or they don't know why the even bother being alive. Solutions for that are justice reform, dearmament of police forces, curtailing of their powers, decriminalization of a lot of crimes, alternative forms of dealing with criminals besides punitive, etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
Give everyone LSD and just see what happens.
My friend and I had the same idea in the middle of an LSD trip.

We also wanted to join the kids in the local park's play area. They were having so much fun, but we decided not to because people would react negatively to grown men on the monkey bars with 7 year olds.

Society and it's stupid rules!

Originally posted by Artol
The fundamental problem is the economic system, that works in service of only a small number of people while leaving everyone else behind, whether that is through precarious employment and poverty, or the alienation of the destruction of meaning. So what it needs is policies that have worked before, strong labor laws, high taxes, regulation, investment in public infrastructure and commons, extensive free public services, basically everything that's called communism in the US but is just social democracy.

Just a superficial reading, I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying. Perhaps there is a different way of stating how it works and you'd agree:

Mixed-Economies largely benefit the oligarchs and corporatistic dynasties but also drag along the proletariat into better Socio-Economic Status.


Originally posted by StyleTime
My friend and I had the same idea in the middle of an LSD trip.

We also wanted to join the kids in the local park's play area. They were having so much fun, but we decided not to because people would react negatively to grown men on the monkey bars.

Society and it's stupid rules!

Yes, playing with kids that are not your own or not part of your play-date group would be a bad idea.

Here is the look you'd get from other parents:

https://i.imgur.com/OX3ztCX.jpg



And this would be the outcome:
https://i.imgur.com/Rj2vd4I.gif

Originally posted by Artol
The fundamental problem is the economic system, that works in service of only a small number of people while leaving everyone else behind, whether that is through precarious employment and poverty, or the alienation of the destruction of meaning. So what it needs is policies that have worked before, strong labor laws, high taxes, regulation, investment in public infrastructure and commons, extensive free public services, basically everything that's called communism in the US but is just social democracy.

That would go a long way to help the racial problems, that would still persist of course, but it's nicer to argue when the world isn't on fire for most people and they don't know whether they will survive the next month or they don't know why the even bother being alive. Solutions for that are justice reform, dearmament of police forces, curtailing of their powers, decriminalization of a lot of crimes, alternative forms of dealing with criminals besides punitive, etc. I agree totally.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just a superficial reading, I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying. Perhaps there is a different way of stating how it works and you'd agree:

Mixed-Economies largely benefit the oligarchs and corporatistic dynasties but also drag along the proletariat into better Socio-Economic Status.


I see you are somewhat Marxist in your economic analysis. But I'd disagree to some degree, the term "mixed economy" spans a huge range of economic systems, some of them benefit both the elites and broad masses, others benefit only the elites, and potentially some might benefit the masses over the elites, but I am not sure there are historic examples of that (perhaps we could classify policy implementations like the New Deal as such).

However we can just look at the United States to see that systems that fall under the term "mixed economy" can be very different. The United states used to be a mixed economy much closer to what some might call a welfare state, the government would take care of its people, and it would limit the ability of the wealthiest capitalist to exploit the system, but ever since it was implemented, and around the end of the second world war this has been gradually eroded, and with the neo-liberal changes in the 80s the economy has moved far toward benefiting the economic elite at the expense of the masses. These changes should at the very least be reverted, imo, but I'd go even further, that for an optimum of freedom for your people (as well as security, and opportunity at happiness) you need a very strong welfare state, that heavily curtails overpowering individual or corporate interests.

low life thugs ceasing the rioting could help quell anger

Intelligence, decency, compassion, understanding, empathy, love, and mutual respect.

Originally posted by Surtur
low life thugs ceasing the rioting could help quell anger

I think most people want the rioting to stop, there's just disagreement over what the best way to do that is, and also what rights one should afford the people one perceives as enemies. As such one idea is the more authoritarian, "throw more police at them, beat them until they stop rioting", the other is one that's more diplomatic, I suppose, "look at the demands of the movement, and implement parts that are sensible and just". I personally am much more drawn to the latter, because I do think there are very valid reasons why people are angry, and those should be fixed, and I also think an authoritarian response leads to more violence both now and in the long term.

Originally posted by Artol
I think most people want the rioting to stop, there's just disagreement over what the best way to do that is, and also what rights one should afford the people one perceives as enemies. As such one idea is the more authoritarian, "throw more police at them, beat them until they stop rioting", the other is one that's more diplomatic, I suppose, "look at the demands of the movement, and implement parts that are sensible and just". I personally am much more drawn to the latter, because I do think there are very valid reasons why people are angry, and those should be fixed, and I also think an authoritarian response leads to more violence both now and in the long term.

But is it dangerous perhaps for anyone to defend it?

I saw a sad feminist site defending it. In fact they said improving your life with some creature comforts during such a time was political resistance.

That's pathetic and wrong, right?

Originally posted by Artol
I think most people want the rioting to stop, there's just disagreement over what the best way to do that is, and also what rights one should afford the people one perceives as enemies. As such one idea is the more authoritarian, "throw more police at them, beat them until they stop rioting", the other is one that's more diplomatic, I suppose, "look at the demands of the movement, and implement parts that are sensible and just". I personally am much more drawn to the latter, because I do think there are very valid reasons why people are angry, and those should be fixed, and I also think an authoritarian response leads to more violence both now and in the long term.

So you are more in line with give the people committing violence in the pursuit of a political agenda what they want in the hope that they agree to stop committing violence?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you are more in line with give the people committing violence in the pursuit of a political agenda what they want in the hope that they agree to stop committing violence?

That's a very loaded question, but yes, if the demands are sensible

Originally posted by Surtur
But is it dangerous perhaps for anyone to defend it?

I saw a sad feminist site defending it. In fact they said improving your life with some creature comforts during such a time was political resistance.

That's pathetic and wrong, right?

Are you talking about these riots in specific? I can understand why the opinions are split there. But if we talk in the abstract I think we can both agree that riots can be acceptable or even morally the right thing to do. Some near universal examples would be riots against Nazi rule in the 40s, or for many Americans riots by the revolutionaries in the lead up to the war of Independence are viewed as just, right?

Originally posted by Artol
That's a very loaded question, but yes, if the demands are sensible

Who decides what is sensible?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Who decides what is sensible?

Lol.

We both know who.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Who decides what is sensible?

Well, in a Democracy I would say the first level of that is the executive, which then works together with the legislative body (under the supervision of the courts) to implement changes. All of this hopefully being legitimized by the will of the people and a robust rule of law.

Originally posted by Artol
I mean I don't know your politics, but to me this statement sounds like most people would agree, but in different circumstances. A lot of conservative leaning Republicans would agree when it comes to the perceived overreach of the federal government, for example. Things like "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" are statements made in the same mind space, imo.

Holy shit can't you just say "that dumb kunt is wrong" ?

Originally posted by Artol
I mean I don't know your politics, but to me this statement sounds like most people would agree, but in different circumstances. A lot of conservative leaning Republicans would agree when it comes to the perceived overreach of the federal government, for example. Things like "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" are statements made in the same mind space, imo.

No, they're not. "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" is a statement about protecting someone's rights/property. while the other is a statement defending the act of stealing.

I guess I don't find that quoted snippet particularly problematic.

Originally posted by Artol
Well, in a Democracy I would say the first level of that is the executive, which then works together with the legislative body (under the supervision of the courts) to implement changes. All of this hopefully being legitimized by the will of the people and a robust rule of law.

Trump is currently head of the executive branch, so he gets to make the call in regards to what is sensible?

Originally posted by Artol
I guess I don't find that quoted snippet particularly problematic.

Not surprising. You're like whirly junior, but with less man boob(I'm hoping)

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, they're not. "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" is a statement about protecting someone's rights/property. while the other is a statement defending the act of stealing.

That's really a point of view issue. If the government comes to take your guns it's clearly illegal within the system to own them, so you are breaking the law, I would personally even agree that that can be an unjust law and you are morally justified to break it. But similarly, if you believe that the laws that have lead to the system where there's huge inequality are unjust, you may view the act of stealing as a justified act with a very similar argumentation of protecting your rights as a human.


It's a bit of an abstract discussion, I don't think this is the thinking of most people who do loot, they probably either are desperate, selfish or thrill seekers, rather than thinking about how their actions influence political power balances.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Trump is currently head of the executive branch, so he gets to make the call in regards to what is sensible?

Yes, he de-facto does, we can see this playing out right now. He's of course not the only actor with influence in a federal system with a balance of powers like the US, but as the first step Trump gets to decide, and he seems to tend towards the authoritarian response. I personally think that's the wrong response to fix the issue, but Trump and I generally have very different politics.

Originally posted by Artol
That's really a point of view issue. If the government comes to take your guns it's clearly illegal within the system to own them, so you are breaking the law, I would personally even agree that that can be an unjust law and you are morally justified to break it. But similarly, if you believe that the laws that have lead to the system where there's huge inequality are unjust, you may view the act of stealing as a justified act with a very similar argumentation of protecting your rights as a human.


It's a bit of an abstract discussion, I don't think this is the thinking of most people who do loot, they probably either are desperate, selfish or thrill seekers, rather than thinking about how their actions influence political power balances.

The statement was about the government going against the constitution and illegally taking your guns.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The statement was about the government going against the constitution and illegally taking your guns.

That would be your interpretation of the constitution, if the government actually comes to take your guns it likely has changed or interpreted the laws in a way that justifies its actions. Clearly already there are acceptable limits in the US on weapon ownership.

Again though, I feel like you are having a reaction towards a right you perceive as important while others can claim other rights that they feel important as a justification (even beyond the constitution of the United States).

I wasn't aware that there was a right to steal others property, can you point me towards it's location, so that I can research it?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I wasn't aware that there was a right to steal others property, can you point me towards it's location, so that I can research it?

Adverse possession law. (I wouldn't recommend reading about it though)

The system is broken.

In the last two decades, there has been a significant rise of income inequality, with the middle class and low-skilled workers (Workers without college degrees), being dealt a heavy blow. As China, Mexico etc. are low-wage countries (Relative to the U.S. and Canada), production of goods once made in the U.S. have moved, and then exported to the U.S. for sale. In fact, manufacturing exports to Mexico and Canada grew at less than half the rate after NAFTA than in the years before it.

Corporations promised they would create more factories under NAFTA but instead have fired U.S. workers and shifted production to Mexico. Data shows that more than 525,000 workers have lost work to offshoring under NAFTA. This has created downward pressure on middle- class wages as U.S. workers need to compete with low-wage workers in Mexico. Additionally, 66% of displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired saw wage reductions of 20% or more. Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence is that the average U.S. wage has grown less than 1% annually even as productivity grew at 3%. As a result, the share of national income collected by the richest 10% has risen by 24%, while the top 1% has risen by 58% since NAFTA.

As people face greater scarcity, executive functions decline. Racism and sexism will actually start to increase.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Yes, playing with kids that are not your own or not part of your play-date group would be a bad idea.

Here is the look you'd get from other parents:

https://i.imgur.com/OX3ztCX.jpg

And this would be the outcome:
https://i.imgur.com/Rj2vd4I.gif


Me running from the soccer moms with tasers.


https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-06-2020/4Yqbct.gif

Originally posted by StyleTime


Me running from the soccer moms with tasers.


https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-06-2020/4Yqbct.gif

lol, y dem shorts, yo?

I was trying to blend in with the kids. That's why I busted out the Burger King crown too. biscuits





A group of us showed up there late at night and had a blast on the playground though. I don't care how old you are, hanging upside down on monkey bars is fun as hell.

For me America needs to live by it's old rhetoric and regain the moral high ground it has lost around the world through having Trump as President.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
The system is broken.

In the last two decades, there has been a significant rise of income inequality, with the middle class and low-skilled workers (Workers without college degrees), being dealt a heavy blow. As China, Mexico etc. are low-wage countries (Relative to the U.S. and Canada), production of goods once made in the U.S. have moved, and then exported to the U.S. for sale. In fact, manufacturing exports to Mexico and Canada grew at less than half the rate after NAFTA than in the years before it.

Corporations promised they would create more factories under NAFTA but instead have fired U.S. workers and shifted production to Mexico. Data shows that more than 525,000 workers have lost work to offshoring under NAFTA. This has created downward pressure on middle- class wages as U.S. workers need to compete with low-wage workers in Mexico. Additionally, 66% of displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired saw wage reductions of 20% or more. Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence is that the average U.S. wage has grown less than 1% annually even as productivity grew at 3%. As a result, the share of national income collected by the richest 10% has risen by 24%, while the top 1% has risen by 58% since NAFTA.

As people face greater scarcity, executive functions decline. Racism and sexism will actually start to increase.



If we consider following facts about black people:

1. Life expectancy greatly improved

2. educational attainment has greatly improved,

3. poverty were all improving since 2011 before these protests happened

4. And we hit record highs of black employment (in decades)

Then how to reconcile the problems you talked about? The facts don't fit with the picture you're painting.


Also, the income inequality idea you talk about is a myth. Quality of life is vastly superior, today, even for a poor black person than the average white person in 1900. Quality of life has improved for everyone across the board, despite the fact of the ultra rich are getting richer. I don't know where this notion came from that all of us should be rich but it's not feasible. Almost every last one of us has a smart mobile phone with access to the internet, clothes to wear, and food to eat. We have a ton of improvement left to do especially with our children and elderly but it's not like you make it seem to be.

I think your facts and your point would be more accurate in 2004. I think your position was accurate in 2004. But I also think it is outdated and no longer the case.





If you were making a point about the COVID-19 lockdowns causing this economic civil unrest due to lack of jobs, food, certainty, etc. Fair enough and you're 100% right. Ignore everything I just said.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
But if theyre black and on the streets then they are terrorist animals.


Not all are terrorists. I would say a majority of them are not terrorists.

I'll take it a step further: an extreme majority of this rioters, looters, and violent thugs are NOT terrorists. Only a small, very specific group of people in this mess are actual terrorists by the government's definition. The people organizing and committing crimes, facilitating and instigating the crime. You know, the people pulling over next to groups of black people and handing them bricks; the people in crowds suggestion they burn things, flip cars over, or set things on fire; and the people literally paying others to riot and loot. Those are the terrorists. And they comprise a very tiny portion of the protesters.

Many people are just opportunistic thugs. Some of them harming (financially and physically) the very people that the protesters are taking a stand for.

In one of the cities I live in, there are 3 planned protests on Monday. I support the first 2 protests and oppose the 3rd protest. The third protest is "Storm City Hall I Hate the Mayor." That's either someone gaslighting or it's legit hate about to be a bunch of crime going on...

Far far more people, good people, will be in the first 2 protests. If there is a 3rd, organized, protest to storm city hall and the down town area around city hall, that was clearly organized by terrorists.


Capisco? I feel like I'm rambling.