The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

Unironically, yes. Just don't label violence by anyone with left wing political views as "terror" and voila, no leftwing terror. Or, simply don't cover it. This has been the modus operandi since US organized leftwing terror organizations formally disbanded in the 70s and 80s and then the leadership all went and joined the Cathedral. Can't blame them though, that was the smart thing to do. The question is why were they accepted?

The "Cathedral" is a rhetorically derogatory term intended as an ad hom against the evolution of modern complex institutions. Generally speaking, we "accept" the emergent quality of these institutions because they reflect the construction of knowledge, justice, and ethics over time. This doesn't mean they're perfect, and in some cases they're far from it; but the reactionary right-wing offers no viable solution.

As far as left-wing terror today goes, there is none. The "antifa" rioting isn't organized by any coherent political ideology. It doesn't plan attacks or strategize. The optics fostered by major media reinforce the idea of rampant "left-wing violence" because many planned right-wing attacks (which would be deadlier than rioting if actually carried out) are--yes--foiled.

Yes, people learn modes of existing in their local communities. When one goes to college, this is a new community, and a new mode of existing is the primary lesson. People don't much remember most of the particulars they study in college. But they do become "educated". They must now behave as one who is "educated" might behave. They might also remember some important factoids learned in college that provide guidance on how someone who is "educated" might behave; what they are supposed to "know". These factoids, if they were ever even true in some objective sense to begin with, are unlikely to be true even 5 years later. This is true both of the factoids and even the things they learned which were directly applicable to their career:

https://fs.blog/2018/03/half-life/
https://hbr.org/2017/05/do-doctors-get-worse-as-they-get-older

So yes, misinformed. Either originally, or simply by the impossibility of staying perpetually up-to-date. The reason I say they are more dangerous, is that Joe Bubba, who has no pretense on being "educated", is unlikely to attempt to impose/enforce things on society For Their Own Good. But among the "educated", the technocratic urge rears its head, and it is supported by the "educated" status.

Students have their previous "mode of existing" to compare their new one to. That's the difference between being educated (which I won't put in quotation marks) and being merely raised. Education introduces people to a new mode of existence, but one they have to reconcile with what they've known all their lives. No matter how you slice it, that tends to produce a more intelligent, critical, and cultured individual (which isn't to say this always happens, or that everyone needs higher education for this to happen). You have the capacity to compare contexts and values, and to weigh one kind of knowledge against the other.

I believe that had I not gone to college and stayed home I'd be a libertarian with small-town values. I don't think I was brainwashed; rather, I was exposed to new information and perspectives, and could compare them with what I used to know. I didn't have to adopt this new mode of existence permanently; I could have dropped out of college, or chosen not to pursue graduate degrees. I chose to do it because I was persuaded by what I learned.

That's what academia shoots for. It doesn't always work, and it also produces overzealous graduates who adhere radically to certain positions without much critical thinking. But generally speaking, that's what happens to someone who goes to college. So no, I don't agree with you that they're "misinformed" and more dangerous than people who aren't educated but merely raised.

It is more deadly than the flu, but again, the risk is not even remotely distributed evenly. As best one can estimate, very little loss of life in terms of QALYs. The pressure on the HCS was a concern, but that appears to be over once the initial wave came through and picked off the weakest. The focus on COVID also failed to take into consideration the tradeoffs brought about by extreme measures like lockdowns and pseudo-lockdowns. Can we save grandpa for another .5 QALYs with a lockdown? Maybe. Are we going to lose 35 QALYs because Jennifer lost her job, couldn't pay rent, couldn't get human social contact and committed suicide? Maybe. The "educated" didn't seem to take that into consideration once it was clear that lockdowns and travel bans were no longer "racist" but instead recommended as something that "educated" people support.

If only we'd had an administration that would have taken bold steps to help people during lockdowns. Oh well, muh freedoms.

Doctors are obligated to do everything they can for every person, regardless of age (barring the patient's personal wishes). There's no easy decision in a pandemic--no one wants a lockdown. But sometimes we gotta bite the bullet, and for that we need a political infrastructure that's materially and intellectually equipped to respond.

 

[CiG]

Well at least you agree that AntiFa is politically incoherent.

This FBI testimony on terrorism from 2002 is an interesting read. It delves into left-wing domestic terrorism and its heavy decline since the 80's. For example:

Domestic right-wing terrorist groups often adhere to the principles of racial supremacy and embrace antigovernment, antiregulatory beliefs. Generally, extremist right-wing groups engage in activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action.

On the national level, formal right-wing hate groups, such as the National Alliance, the World Church of the Creator (WCOTC) and the Aryan Nations, represent a continuing terrorist threat. Although efforts have been made by some extremist groups to reduce openly racist rhetoric in order to appeal to a broader segment of the population and to focus increased attention on antigovernment sentiment, racism-based hatred remains an integral component of these groups’ core orientations.

Right-wing groups continue to represent a serious terrorist threat. Two of the seven planned acts of terrorism prevented in 1999 were potentially large-scale, high-casualty attacks being planned by organized right-wing extremist groups.

The second category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the “dehumanizing effects” of capitalism and imperialism. They aim to bring about change in the United States and believe that this change can be realized through revolution rather than through the established political process. From the 1960s to the 1980s, leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the most serious domestic terrorist threat to the United States. In the 1980s, however, the fortunes of the leftist movement changed dramatically as law enforcement dismantled the infrastructure of many of these groups, and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe deprived the movement of its ideological foundation and patronage.

 

[Dak]

The "Cathedral" is a rhetorically derogatory term intended as an ad hom against the evolution of modern complex institutions. Generally speaking, we "accept" the emergent quality of these institutions because they reflect the construction of knowledge, justice, and ethics over time. This doesn't mean they're perfect, and in some cases they're far from it; but the reactionary right-wing offers no viable solution.

As far as left-wing terror today goes, there is none. The "antifa" rioting isn't organized by any coherent political ideology. It doesn't plan attacks or strategize. The optics fostered by major media reinforce the idea of rampant "left-wing violence" because many planned right-wing attacks (which would be deadlier than rioting if actually carried out) are--yes--foiled.

Well I agree that currently there's no coherent alternative to globalist neocons. That doesn't somehow make globalist neocons extremely evil. But neocon liberalism is coherent at least. Currently reactionaries have mainly simply pointed out the problems. But it's also hard to form a coherent opposition when even payment processing is denied to forming oppositions that aren't to the left.

Antifa may not be coherent, and neither is random gang violence, but it certainly isn't right wing, and 5 dudes goin "muh freedoms" and egged along by an FBI plant aren't exactly the threat you'd like them to be in comparison. Also not coherent either.

Students have their previous "mode of existing" to compare their new one to. That's the difference between being educated (which I won't put in quotation marks) and being merely raised. Education introduces people to a new mode of existence, but one they have to reconcile with what they've known all their lives. No matter how you slice it, that tends to produce a more intelligent, critical, and cultured individual (which isn't to say this always happens, or that everyone needs higher education for this to happen). You have the capacity to compare contexts and values, and to weigh one kind of knowledge against the other.

I believe that had I not gone to college and stayed home I'd be a libertarian with small-town values. I don't think I was brainwashed; rather, I was exposed to new information and perspectives, and could compare them with what I used to know. I didn't have to adopt this new mode of existence permanently; I could have dropped out of college, or chosen not to pursue graduate degrees. I chose to do it because I was persuaded by what I learned.

That's what academia shoots for. It doesn't always work, and it also produces overzealous graduates who adhere radically to certain positions without much critical thinking. But generally speaking, that's what happens to someone who goes to college. So no, I don't agree with you that they're "misinformed" and more dangerous than people who aren't educated but merely raised.

Reasonable point about the having to make a comparison. Ultimately I don't think it holds up though in terms of actual human behavior. Most people don't actually critically compare ideas and keep the right ones, they instead take on the ideas of the circles they want to be in. Maybe that isn't the case for you, but it is mostly the case, because again, the average person picks where they want to fit in, and then they adopt the beliefs necessary. Being "educated" means believing things "educated" people do. I pay deep attention, and subsequently I don't believe much of what I used to, nor much of what I've been told. I'm no longer libertarian, and certainly no longer a Buckleyite conservative. But I'm certainly not in agreement with "educated folks". Reactionaries, as you said, don't have much in the way of coherent prescriptions, so there's nothing to glom onto there yet. As it stands, the US Constitution is what we have, and neocon liberals don't like it.

I will continue to put educated in quotes because like you said, everyone gets educated on something. But not everyone is considered "educated". Most degrees are useless immediately, some are useless later, as in the applicability of the learning, and I already showed why. In all cases, the "sheepskin" matters though (although less and less, as a greater % of people get them). Caplan has already covered this. I don't dispute it.

If only we'd had an administration that would have taken bold steps to help people during lockdowns. Oh well, muh freedoms.

Doctors are obligated to do everything they can for every person, regardless of age (barring the patient's personal wishes). There's no easy decision in a pandemic--no one wants a lockdown. But sometimes we gotta bite the bullet, and for that we need a political infrastructure that's materially and intellectually equipped to respond.

We don't even really have a "pandemic". But the shitshow of a response to this not-pandemic makes me agree that we do need a political infrastructure that is materially and intellectually equipped to respond to an actual one. We didn't have it with 2016 Trump, won't have it with 2020 Trump and we won't have it with 2020 Neocon Cabal either. There's no salvation available among the "educated" in the US at the moment. Unless the culture turns right and inward, the US is going to continue to decline in all ways concretely measurable. The ostensible right in the US has been stagnant and subject to uninterrupted entropy for decades, and the left is aggressively burning down all capital, human or otherwise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well at least you agree that AntiFa is politically incoherent.

It is! I mean, it's not an official organization or political program.

This FBI testimony on terrorism from 2002 is an interesting read. It delves into left-wing domestic terrorism and its heavy decline since the 80's. For example:

Yeah, that pretty much tracks.

Well I agree that currently there's no coherent alternative to globalist neocons. That doesn't somehow make globalist neocons extremely evil. But neocon liberalism is coherent at least. Currently reactionaries have mainly simply pointed out the problems. But it's also hard to form a coherent opposition when even payment processing is denied to forming oppositions that aren't to the left.

Antifa may not be coherent, and neither is random gang violence, but it certainly isn't right wing, and 5 dudes goin "muh freedoms" and egged along by an FBI plant aren't exactly the threat you'd like them to be in comparison. Also not coherent either.

I'm not quite sure I get your point, as it's unclear to me what distinctions you're making between global neocons and neocon liberalism, and how/whether those distinctions parallel distinctions between conservative and progressive.

I think you're underplaying the potential threat of right-wing anger. Even if they're being egged along... it doesn't matter once plans take shape.

Reasonable point about the having to make a comparison. Ultimately I don't think it holds up though in terms of actual human behavior. Most people don't actually critically compare ideas and keep the right ones, they instead take on the ideas of the circles they want to be in.

I think this undersells a lot of people, but I don't have any evidence to give you.

Unless the culture turns right and inward, the US is going to continue to decline in all ways concretely measurable.

Well, "progressive" means transformation and moving forward--so it's very possible the U.S. changes into something else. Nations are imagined communities after all, and over time people will imagine something different.

Conservatism doesn't want anything different; they want to stay the same, if not go backwards. Anything else is usually perceived as "decline."

The ostensible right in the US has been stagnant and subject to uninterrupted entropy for decades, and the left is aggressively burning down all capital, human or otherwise.

The latter is demonstrably false. Sorry.

 

[CiG]

It is! I mean, it's not an official organization or political program.

If they were politically coherent they wouldn't have primarily arisen as a reaction to Trump (because these issues existed pre-Trump), I'm curious about what they will be like under Biden. The anti-Trump coalition was wide enough that AntiFa could sometimes get away with looking diverse, but with moderates likely to become complacent under Biden I think it will be even harder to ignore the obvious nature of AntiFa, that it's a tankie street thug movement of people who beat off to young Stalin photos and dream of putting capitalists in gulags.

I mean, it's no more or less "just an idea, not an organization" than white supremacists who Republicans are constantly expected to disavow. There is no website or office where you can go and join "white supremacy" but if you were asked to yay or nay for them you wouldn't get away with "just an idea bro, not a group."

 

[Einherjar86]

If they were politically coherent they wouldn't have primarily arisen as a reaction to Trump (because these issues existed pre-Trump), I'm curious about what they will be like under Biden. The anti-Trump coalition was wide enough that AntiFa could sometimes get away with looking diverse, but with moderates likely to become complacent under Biden I think it will be even harder to ignore the obvious nature of AntiFa, that it's a tankie street thug movement of people who beat off to young Stalin photos and dream of putting capitalists in gulags.

I mean, it's no more or less "just an idea, not an organization" than white supremacists who Republicans are constantly expected to disavow. There is no website or office where you can go and join "white supremacy" but if you were asked to yay or nay for them you wouldn't get away with "just an idea bro, not a group."

I think the difference is that, as an idea, "anti-fascism" is more ethically agreeable than "white supremacy."

 

[CiG]

I think the difference is that, as an idea, "anti-fascism" is more ethically agreeable than "white supremacy."

Well of course I agree. But that's primarily a problem of optics because "white supremacy" wears its intent on its sleeves, you don't require follow-up questions. Nobody ever asks the so-called "antifascist" what they actually mean by it. For example just the other day "antifascist" activists marched through Washington (I think) and were chanting "fuck Trump, fuck Biden."

Edit: lmao.

 

[Einherjar86]

For example just the other day "antifascist" activists marched through Washington (I think) and were chanting "fuck Trump, fuck Biden."

Doesn't surprise me at all. This is why I don't believe that the Democrats courted antifa or its supporters (Biden has condemned the rioting before). Once Biden was the nominee, the people actually out breaking store windows weren't going to the polls. They're a fringe cluster that wants to see political dismemberment before it sees surgery. The protests and the riots are comprised of very different people.

Also of note: my wife works in tax, and one of the things she told me was that the decision to nominate Biden was potentially a good strategy for this election. Although Trump drew out more supporters this time around, there were also a lot of white, moderate working professionals in the suburbs who found him extremely unappealing. She said that while talking with some of her coworkers during the primaries, however, many of them expressed that they would never vote for Bernie Sanders. They saw Biden as a comfortable reconciliation of extremes.

That's not at all where my politics lie, and I see Biden as little more than a placeholder; but strategically speaking, he may have been the right choice at this exact moment--and only in this moment.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Biden’s strategy was to expand the Democratic Party into the suburbs, and it worked, though barely. Sanders’s strategy would have been to expand the party with the multiracial working class. I think that could have worked as well, though I also think that race would have been close. Trump would have done better with suburbanites if it were Bernie, but would have had done worse with working class voters. OR Trump would have had to actually come up with some good policy. Sanders would been out there everyday saying he would give everyone healthcare, raise wages, and provide stimulus through the pandemic. That’s a pretty appealing message to a lot of people right now, and in this election, neither was offering it.

 

[Baroque]

Doesn't surprise me at all. This is why I don't believe that the Democrats courted antifa or its supporters (Biden has condemned the rioting before). Once Biden was the nominee, the people actually out breaking store windows weren't going to the polls. They're a fringe cluster that wants to see political dismemberment before it sees surgery. The protests and the riots are comprised of very different people.

Also of note: my wife works in tax, and one of the things she told me was that the decision to nominate Biden was potentially a good strategy for this election. Although Trump drew out more supporters this time around, there were also a lot of white, moderate working professionals in the suburbs who found him extremely unappealing. She said that while talking with some of her coworkers during the primaries, however, many of them expressed that they would never vote for Bernie Sanders. They saw Biden as a comfortable reconciliation of extremes.

That's not at all where my politics lie, and I see Biden as little more than a placeholder; but strategically speaking, he may have been the right choice at this exact moment--and only in this moment.

I dunno how you guys do this, talk about politics day in and day out, I don’t read it all but I agree with this assessment of Biden. I even think, he should step down after 4 years, and let someone like Gov Gavin Newsom of California run as the democratic nominee. We need someone younger with more modern day ideals, i like Newsom’s political stances.

 

[CiG]

Biden’s strategy was to expand the Democratic Party into the suburbs, and it worked, though barely. Sanders’s strategy would have been to expand the party with the multiracial working class. Sanders would been out there everyday saying he would give everyone healthcare, raise wages, and provide stimulus through the pandemic. That’s a pretty appealing message to a lot of people right now, and in this election, neither was offering it.

Biden had the widest coalition though. Wasn't he ahead with non-white voters throughout most of the primaries? I know this was especially true in the south at least.

The problem with "healthcare is popular when polled therefore Bernie" is that it depends entirely upon how you ask the question or whether you ask follow-up questions. It's really not just a meme when some people say Bernie is too radical for most Democratic voters. He probably would have done well against Trump, but he could never survive the primaries so we'll never know.

Doesn't surprise me at all. This is why I don't believe that the Democrats courted antifa or its supporters (Biden has condemned the rioting before). Once Biden was the nominee, the people actually out breaking store windows weren't going to the polls. They're a fringe cluster that wants to see political dismemberment before it sees surgery. The protests and the riots are comprised of very different people.

There are explicit examples of Democrats supporting or defending AntiFa so that's a strange belief and Biden only started condemning the rioting once it became unavoidable. But I agree they're a fringe cluster and not really politically relevant (except when they fuck up so badly that they become a weapon for Republicans to rhetorically use against Democrats).

Also of note: my wife works in tax, and one of the things she told me was that the decision to nominate Biden was potentially a good strategy for this election. Although Trump drew out more supporters this time around, there were also a lot of white, moderate working professionals in the suburbs who found him extremely unappealing. She said that while talking with some of her coworkers during the primaries, however, many of them expressed that they would never vote for Bernie Sanders. They saw Biden as a comfortable reconciliation of extremes.

That's not at all where my politics lie, and I see Biden as little more than a placeholder; but strategically speaking, he may have been the right choice at this exact moment--and only in this moment.

I think this is definitely true because a big theme was "a return to normalcy" and what better figure for "normalcy" than a wide-tent moderate Democrat with a name recognition connected to Obama?

 

[Sirjack]

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Biden had the widest coalition though. Wasn't he ahead with non-white voters throughout most of the primaries? I know this was especially true in the south at least.

Biden did super well with Black voters, especially older Black voters, who to be fair, vote at very high rates. My critique of that argument was always that these Southern states like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, etc. are safe red states. But to be fair he did flip Georgia.

Sanders, on the other hand, did better with Latino voters, who Biden did in fact struggle with in both the primary and general. He would have had a better chance in Texas and Arizona/Nevada wouldn't have been as close. I also think he would have performed better in Ohio and throughout the rust belt because he's strong on trade and unions. The biggest challenge would have been to focus on the economy when some in his circle were pushing the identity politics issues that are not as popular.

There's also a lot of these suburban liberals who do not like Bernie but whose lizard brain is so triggered by Trump, that they would have voted for Bernie anyways.

The problem with "healthcare is popular when polled therefore Bernie" is that it depends entirely upon how you ask the question or whether you ask follow-up questions. It's really not just a meme when some people say Bernie is too radical for most Democratic voters. He probably would have done well against Trump, but he could never survive the primaries so we'll never know.

Sanders is very persuasive and clear when explaining Medicare for All, and it polls super well when you consider the massive propaganda from the insurance industry and both establishment Democrats and Republicans. If you give me Sanders vs. Trump debating healthcare, I'll take that in a heartbeat.

I think the biggest challenge for Bernie is he is much closer to the activist base, so it would have been harder to distance himself from Defund the Police, which is not a popular position. I think would have been harder for him to toe the line on that issue, which is more of 30-70 issue against him.

But yeah, we'll never know, and Kalama is a massive favorite for 2024. So it might be a while until we find out.

 

[CiG]

You're right, I do actually remember Bernie's support among Hispanic/Latino people being discussed as one of his strongest groups during the primaries (except Florida iirc).

On Medicare-for-all, the problem with polling for incredibly complicated policies like that is everybody is usually on board with it until you start talking about what actually goes into it; cost, what you will have to give up in order to make it work etc. Bernie's strength in this area was that his rhetoric was simple and punchy (especially in contrast to Warren who regularly got bogged down in details which lead to gaffes).

Of course much like Trump's populist rhetoric that sidesteps details in favour of soundbites that energize the base, when the details are ironed out public opinion actually looks very different:

Last week, I noted that Bernie Sanders is winning over Democratic primary voters on health care. Whether you love, hate or are indifferent toward his “Medicare for All” plan, polls show Sanders leading when Democratic voters are asked which candidate they think is best able handle to health care.

The thing is, though — according to new polling from Marist College this week — Sanders’s plan isn’t actually the most popular idea in the field. Instead, that distinction belongs to what Marist calls “Medicare for all that want it,” or what’s sometimes called a public option — something very similar to Joe Biden’s recently unveiled health care plan, which claims to give almost everyone “the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare.”

In the Marist poll, 90 percent of Democrats thought a plan that provided for a public option was a good idea, as compared to 64 percent who supported a Sanders-style Medicare for All plan that would replace private health insurance. The popularity of the public option also carries over to independent voters: 70 percent support it, as compared to 39 percent for Medicare for All.

All this is to say that while Bernie might be ideal to a lot of progressive Democrats, he struggled to bridge the progressive/moderate gap within the party (and for reasons beyond Kulinski-esque conspiracy theories) and Biden isn't so bad a result considering his healthcare policy is actually the more popular one.

There's also a lot of these suburban liberals who do not like Bernie but whose lizard brain is so triggered by Trump, that they would have voted for Bernie anyways.

Without a doubt. I think it's safe to assume that whoever won the primaries, Democratic voters would have gotten behind them in the presidential race. It's how two party politics works but especially when it's against Trump.

I think the biggest challenge for Bernie is he is much closer to the activist base, so it would have been harder to distance himself from Defund the Police, which is not a popular position. I think would have been harder for him to toe the line on that issue, which is more of 30-70 issue against him.

God the whole #DefundThePolice thing is such an annoying issue too, because I think it's pretty obvious very few people want to abolish cops. What they mean when they say "defund" is to re-allocate funding into areas of the police force other than strong arm policing (counsellors, empathic training, community outreach etc) and so all Bernie would have to do to avoid this "gotcha" moment is explain what the concept means. It's the single worst political messaging I admit, because when you read/hear "defund" you think "get rid of."

Ironically Biden actually did a pretty good job on this very subject:

 

[Dak]

Well, "progressive" means transformation and moving forward

The latter is demonstrably false. Transformation is simply change, and change is almost always negative, all the way down to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Changing in a beneficial way is difficult and/or rare. Liberals always fail to understand this fact. In related news:

https://www.startribune.com/minneap...side-police-officers-amid-shortage/573021751/

Also, see the entire polity of San Francisco and Chicago.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

"We're not gonna be having these people out taking bicycle theft reports. These are going to be people out combating crime issues," said John Elder, a spokesman for Minneapolis police.

Racial dogwhistle if I've ever heard one.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You're right, I do actually remember Bernie's support among Hispanic/Latino people being discussed as one of his strongest groups during the primaries (except Florida iirc).

On Medicare-for-all, the problem with polling for incredibly complicated policies like that is everybody is usually on board with it until you start talking about what actually goes into it; cost, what you will have to give up in order to make it work etc. Bernie's strength in this area was that his rhetoric was simple and punchy (especially in contrast to Warren who regularly got bogged down in details which lead to gaffes).

Of course much like Trump's populist rhetoric that sidesteps details in favour of soundbites that energize the base, when the details are ironed out public opinion actually looks very different:


All this is to say that while Bernie might be ideal to a lot of progressive Democrats, he struggled to bridge the progressive/moderate gap within the party (and for reasons beyond Kulinski-esque conspiracy theories) and Biden isn't so bad a result considering his healthcare policy is actually the more popular one.

Well, there's multiple things. First, even in the poll you linked to, it has a super-majority of support within the party. Second, all of that was before the pandemic when millions of people lost their private health insurance. I think the proposal is more popular now than ever, because COVID-19 actually affirmed a lot of the strongest arguments for MFA. Third, the public option/medicare for all who want it plan basically is a way for tax payers to subsidize the health insurance industry. All the healthy people would be given cheap deals from the health insurance industry and the sick people/old people would be priced out and end up on the public plan, spiking the cost, which in time would fall on the tax payer. Once you explain that to people, most people prefer Medicare for All.

Out of curiosity what is the structure of the healthcare system in Australia? And how do you like it?

God the whole #DefundThePolice thing is such an annoying issue too, because I think it's pretty obvious very few people want to abolish cops. What they mean when they say "defund" is to re-allocate funding into areas of the police force other than strong arm policing (counsellors, empathic training, community outreach etc) and so all Bernie would have to do to avoid this "gotcha" moment is explain what the concept means. It's the single worst political messaging I admit, because when you read/hear "defund" you think "get rid of."

Ironically Biden actually did a pretty good job on this very subject:

Yeah the name is terrible marketing; it's actually gonna make it take longer to achieve. I do agree Biden did handle it well there. And at this point, it just doesn't have the public support, so I wouldn't encourage candidates, outside of very left districts, to run on it.

 

[CiG]

Out of curiosity what is the structure of the healthcare system in Australia? And how do you like it?

Here our system is a blend of both public and private options, so universal healthcare access with the option to pay more and go private if you want. This is a good article if you want to read how it manifests itself. Personally I like it and have never had any issues with it (yet).

Good point about the polls being pre-COVID, in that sense Bernie got kind of fucked by the timing of the pandemic but not in the way one would expect; The Democratic debates happened just before everything got really bad, right?

Third, the public option/medicare for all who want it plan basically is a way for tax payers to subsidize the health insurance industry. All the healthy people would be given cheap deals from the health insurance industry and the sick people/old people would be priced out and end up on the public plan, spiking the cost, which in time would fall on the tax payer. Once you explain that to people, most people prefer Medicare for All.

Bernie's plan is probably the most extreme healthcare policy I've ever heard of and this is why referencing polls based on broad or vague questions is problematic. No co-pays, no deductibles, no cost for insurance, full coverage of dental and vision, and then outlawing all supplemental private insurance. I'm pretty sure these are the details that kill the policy the moment it has to go beyond soundbites at rallies. I mean, didn't Obama have a super-majority and even then his policy got watered down to the ACA?

Edit: This is going down a weird rabbit hole lol.

 

[Einherjar86]

The latter is demonstrably false. Transformation is simply change, and change is almost always negative, all the way down to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Changing in a beneficial way is difficult and/or rare. Liberals always fail to understand this fact.

Fair enough on "transformation," but I think it's pretty clear that I was specifying change forward through time, in a manner that expands upon the past in an effort to rectify social ills.

If we want to bring thermodynamics into the conversation, then let's turn to a scientist--many of whom will tell you that appealing to the laws of physics in arguments about social issues is less a logical component of the argument than it is a rhetorical gesture. It provides the illusion of logic. I'd encourage you to read the chapter on "Progress and Entropy" in Norbert Wiener's The Human Use of Human Beings, specifically this passage:

We are immersed in a life in which the world as a whole obeys the second law of thermodynamics: confusion increases and order decreases. Yet, as we have seen, the second law of thermodynamics, while it may be a valid statement about the whole of a closed system, is definitely not valid concerning a non-isolated part of it. There are local and temporary islands of decreasing entropy in a world in which the entropy as a whole tends to increase, and the existence of these islands enables some of us to assert the existence of progress.

Once again, you're really not providing any argument. At most, you're offering an explanation for why people behave certain ways, or continue to.

 

[Sedition and Pockets]

The Bernie thing was never about his policies (which are within the norm of practice in the rest of global capitalism), their costs (which were manageable), or even the mythos of "electability." The DNC pulled out all the stops to crush the Sanders movement because they were afraid that he was, in fact, eminently "electable," and Bernie Sanders as a sitting Democratic President would have shifted the institutional center-of-gravity of the Democratic Party in a way that would have made it a less useful tool for the ruling class interests that control it.