I know right wing biased creators do this too, but in my experience it's done way more by left wing biased creators. Also I'm not referring to political creators obviously, I'm referring to creators who aren't political and do stuff that lets the audience know which way they lean politically unprompted.

An example is those creators who watch videos of cops getting scolded or abusing their power and go off on anti cop rants and say stuff like "but back the blue right?"

Like why is that needed? Anyone being reasonable can see the cop was in the wrong, you don't have to try to be clever and insufferable about it to push your political bias on the situation.

Mexican President Sheinbaum :"Seventy percent of the illegal weapons seized from criminals in Mexico come from your country. We do not produce these weapons, nor do we consume synthetic drugs. Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours.

You may not be aware that Mexico has developed a comprehensive policy to assist migrants from different parts of the world who cross our territory en route to the southern border of the United States. As a result, and according to data from your country’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP), encounters at the Mexico-United States border have decreased by 75% between December 2023 and November 2024.

So under Biden a lot has actually happened at the southern border but is not being talked about.

In 2023, the United States imported $480.05 billion worth of goods from Mexico. This is a 5.2% increase from the previous year. The US imports more goods from Mexico than any other country.

Some of the most common goods imported from Mexico include:

Cars and car parts
Computers and other electrical equipment
Beverages
Medical instruments
Household appliances
Plastic items 

How do you think the relation between Mexico and America is going to go over the next couple of years?

The debate takes place in Bergen, Norway, on December 15. It is organized by the Holberg Prize. More information:

https://holbergprize.org/events-and-productions/holbergdebatten-2024-is-the-west-in-decline/

https://youtu.be/ReNh8afSVPM?feature=shared

My main question is how will the smaller patch states defend themselves against a countries like China or Russia?

I am aware most folks have realized by now how much the tariffs will be costing them.

This will also cost your closest allies and trading partners ...

I realize that the states are the largest economy the world has ever seen ...

On all sides of all borders ... did America purposely vote to raise the prices for the middle class in damn near every country they trade with?

I mean the department of government effiencinecy already has "TWO" billionaires in charge... it takes a fair bit of cognitive dossodence to be able to reconcile that fact.. not so efficient...

this appears to be less about efficiency .. and more about gutting the social safety

Why did America decide that a few billionaires were worthy of directing /being in charge of the largest economy on earth?

America was built on a beautiful ideal.

These are all honest questions,
I'm not trolling. I honestly need to know how you folks can reconcile your feelings/ to your actions this year.

It appears from the outside many people voted against their own financial interests /security/ and healthcare /access to care.

I am Canadian. I only comment and ask/ because the actions in your country effect more than just the people who.live in your country,

I choose to believe most Americans care about their neighbors ... (I could be wrong on that one.. but I choose to believe the best until proven wrong)

Thank you to anyone who read my concerns.

I wish you all the best on your own search for understanding this world we live in

American culture endlessly propagates the narrative that the holiday season is an incredibly stressful, trying, and even traumatic time of year, something that must be “survived.” The problem is, it’s BS. When we look through history, or simply around the world, it quickly becomes clear that our so-called problems, like annoying cousins or Trump-supporting uncles, don’t amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things. This holiday season, it’s time to reclaim our grip on reality.

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/oh-however-will-we-survive-the-holidays

Looking at this from an economic standpoint, how have the self-proclaimed liberals and progressives become the side that is tolerant toward, and even in support of, illegal immigration and dishonest economic asylum seekers? (I say dishonest because most asylum seekers at the US borders are simply looking for work, which doesn't qualify for asylum under US law. They aren't fleeing any persecution, war, famine, disease, etc.)

Economic leftism, in essence, is the protection of the working class and a fairer distribution of wealth. Does anyone else find it confusing that the people who want more social welfare, higher taxes on the wealthy, higher wages, and a fairer distribution of wealth, are the side that wants to flood cheap labor into their country? The side that claims to be in support of better working conditions, better workers rights, and overall less worker exploitation. That is an inherently economically right wing position, charging higher prices while spending next to nothing on manual labor is a capitalists wet dream, and yet the left is who supports it. Where did they lose the plot?

There's a reason why the countries with the best welfare systems are extremely hard to immigrate to especially for low skill workers. Because low skilled, undocumented workers are a burden on the system. They don't provide much economic value on an individual basis, therefore they get more out of the system than they put in. The welfare state that the American left desires HAS to be very selective of who they let in because that's the only way their social welfare programs can work efficiently. They either need to abandon economic progressivism if they want lax immigration, or they need to abandon lax immigration in favor of stronger welfare systems but it seems like they're trying to have both.

Dismissing the freedom of religion provision in the first amendment—what is often called “the separation of church and state”—on which this nation was founded, Trump’s transition team, his policy statement on Education, and even his frontrunner for the Department of Education nominee, Ryan Walters, says that Biblical indoctrination in schools is a "national mandate.” 

Recently, movements to implement this motion have quickly been adopted by many red states (Tennessee, Texas, and Louisiana, among others).  In Texas, the state school board voted to approve a new K-5 curriculum that introduces students to a literalist understanding of Christianity (derided by religious studies experts and non-religious educators alike), that—confusing history with religion—teaches kindergarten students biblical stories, like the story of Genesis, as  history (or science): Students are asked "to identify the order of creation” and “come away from the lesson believing that it is a fact that God created the world in six days.”

An article in The Dallas Morning News likewise discusses how a fifth-grade lesson on “Juneteenth” switches the focus from the actual history of the holiday (meant to memorialize the day on which the last illegally enslaved people in Texas—kept unaware by the Rebel government of how slavery had been repealed years prior—were forcefully liberated by federal troops sent down to Galveston for that purpose) to a very misleading and idealized focus on the “personal faith of Lincoln” (who was dead by Juneteenth, by most accounts, and whose--possibly atheistic--religious views are a matter of historical debate): “Abraham Lincoln…relied on a deep Christian faith and commitment to America’s founding principles that people should be equal under the law” the materials read.  This is just one example of the way that christian indoctrination as history leaves students ultimately oblivious to the actual history of what happened in Texas; the history of the civil war and the Restoration.  

To justify the implementation of often unconstitutional changes to the education system, Trump’s unorthodox, official policy statement on education consistently demonizes teachers as a homogeneous group of “radical Marxists maniacs;” and “sinister” “zealots who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education” who, disinterested in education (to which they have dedicated their lives in exchange for often negligible pay) are rather preoccupied with a uniform agenda to secretly turn their students into lesbians and transexuals; with indoctrinating elementary students with “Marxist and gender theory ideology”  and “Critical Race Theory” (which is not taught in k-12 schools, but is a critical lens reserved for graduate or specialized college study). 

Spreading lies that “critical race theory” is being taught in k-12, while declining to define just what this term means has the intended effect of intimidating teachers from teaching often complicated lessons on slavery, the civil war, Jim Crow, and the 3/4ths compromise. This goal is made crystal clear in Trump’s recent statement that teachers will be prosecuted and thrown in jail for even discussing non-binary sexuality with students.

While we have no proof that k-12 teachers are systematically indoctrinating students with transsexuality and Marxism, it is clearly stated by the Trump administration that it plans to use schools as an instrument for the indoctrination of biblical christianity and Christian Nationalist principles, which is unconstitutional. Trump’s policy statement on education (below) thus mirrors the language of Heritage Foundation (a think tank whose authors have and currently work under Trump) and their “Mandate for America,” Project 2025, whose self-described intent is to “embed religious doctrine into almost every part of U.S. law;” and government. (And indeed, it should come as no surprise that, despite disavowing it during the campaign, Trump's transition team has turned to Project 2025 to identify hires and policy for the incoming administration; that Trump is filling his cabinet with Project 2025 authors, including including his FCC pick, Brendan Carr; his appointment for “border czar” Tom Homan; and his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, often called the Project 2025 “architect.” 

Below is the Trump’s administration’s policy Statement on Education and the changes it outlines for education reform. A consistent theme is the accusation that teachers are instructing students in vague discourses that don’t even exist in lower education (Transgender and gender ideology; Marxist ideology; critical race theory) in order to justify the drastic implementation of a plainly unconstitutional, Christian Nationalist agenda. 

TRANSCRIPT: “President Trump’s Plan to Save American Education and Give Power Back to Parents” July 25, 2024

Our public schools have been taken over by the Radical Left maniacs. Here is my plan to save American education and restore power to American parents.

-“Cut federal funding for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory” (which does not exist in k-12 curriculum) 

- Find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education, and get to Congress reaffirm the president’s ability to remove recalcitrant employees from the job.

- “Veto the sinister effort to weaponize civics education” (with no articulation at all at what this might mean, creating an opening to hunt-down and procedure teachers for a multitude of ideological grievances)

-Additionally, on Day One, we will begin to find and remove the radicals, zealots, and Marxists who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education, and that also includes others, and you know who you are. Because We are not going to allow anyone to hurt our children. Joe Biden has given these lunatics unchecked power—I will have them fired and escorted from the building. And I will tell Congress that any appropriations bill I sign must reaffirm the president’s ability to remove defiant employees from the job. It’s all about our children.

- “Create a new credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace “patriotic values” (something that resonates with 1930’s Germany).  

- “Because the Marxism being taught in schools is aggressively hostile to Judeo-Christian teachings, aggressively pursue potential violations of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution” (“Marxist ideology” is not taught in k-12)

*“Implement massive funding preferences and favorable treatment for all states and school districts that make the following historic reforms in education: 

* Abolish teacher tenure for grades K through 12 and adopt Merit Pay.

* Drastically cut number of school administrators, including the “DEI” bureaucracy.

* Adopt a Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice.

* Implement the direct election of school principals by the parents, as the ultimate form of local control.- Implement the direct election of   school principals by the parents, as the ultimate form of local control.

(which means that schools who do not implement these changes will have federal funds withheld)

Hey, folks. I've been curious as to whether or not the phrase "go woke, go broke" is indicative of real trends. That is to say, did a company lose money (or even go out of business) after adopting policies that could be considered woke?

I hear the phrase a lot, but I don't know of any clear examples of it happening. As far as I can tell, most major corporations that have adopted woke policies remain profitable.

If you guys have specific examples in mind or know of any credible analysis of this phenomenon, I'd like to see it.

My reasons: I am an investor and stock analyst.

I'm doing a text interview with a 7th grade US social studies teacher, and I'm looking for feedback to improve my list of questions.

Here's my first draft. What would you add or change in this list?

1. Let’s start with some basics. 
   1. What do you teach? Like curriculum.
   2. Who do you teach? 
   3. What type of school do you teach in?
   4. What school system do you teach in? (example, Kentucky public schools)
2. In our preliminary discussion you mentioned anti-intellectualism as a cause for some negative phenomenon occurring in schools. Please explain the phenomenon you're referring to.
   1. Give 2 or 3 examples that best illustrate this phenomenon.
   2. When did it start? 
   3. How has it progressed? 
   4. What caused it to happen in the first place?
3. When I was in school in the 90s (US public schools), it was common for parents to work with teachers in their children’s education. Now, it seems parents don’t even care about education. They’re hostile to teachers, and they want teachers to give their kids good grades so they can go to college and get a “good” job, and it doesn’t matter that the grades weren’t earned.
   1. I presume it’s something that started before the 90s. Any clues as to when it started?
   2. What caused (is causing) this change?
4. You’re an atheist, teaching in a school in a very religious area. I sorta did that too. I taught highschool physics and 8th grade science in an Islamic school (in a city with a tiny Muslim population), without telling anyone that I’m an ex-Muslim atheist, and I was able to avoid discussing my beliefs about god, despite the fact that my students sometimes tried to get me to speak about god.
   1. What was/is your experience? Are you openly atheist or did you do it like me?
   2. Please describe your struggles.
5. Suppose you were in a school that didn’t control what you teach or how you teach it (except for the basics, like don’t physically or verbally abuse children), and suppose that there’s more demand for you/your classes than you have availability. How would your job be different from what it is now?
   1. How many students would be ideal? Per class, and total.
   2. What topics would you include that you don’t teach now? (Suppose you could design your own curriculum and classes within that curriculum. You can make up whatever class subject you want. As an example to illustrate my question, you might want to teach physics and superstitions in the same class.)
   3. Aside from the above, what are some other main differences between this imagined school and the school you’re in now?
6. What do you think people living outside the USA misunderstand most about US schools?
7. What is the biggest obstacle to progress worldwide?
   1. (If you’re unsure because progress is not defined in the question, then you define it in your answer.)

For some background on this teacher, to help you brainstorm questions:

Lifelong atheist in a very religious area. Very into history and anthropology. Very into science, specifically zoology, biology and early human evolution. sort of fell into teaching in the past few years and found that I love it. My other passion is theatre, I'm a director and actor in my city.

I'm a 7th grade World History. So my curriculum covers the Ancient world (I cover Indus River Valley, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and early China), then we do the "Big Five" religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism), talk about individual cultures and regions. East Asia, the Mongols, we hop around in Africa a bit, India, Oceania, and finish by discussing colonialism where we revisit some of the areas we've previously studied. We don't really touch the Americas or Europe because those are covered in other grades.

I've worked blue collar and white collar jobs. I studied theatre in college and consider myself a low level professional in that regard. Hugely into art and cultural history in general.

If you would like to read the interview when its done, go to the UTC sub and turn on notifications so I can update you.

I've heard this argument multiple times and it just doesn't make sense to me. First of all, bathroom rape statistics have not increased in the places where gender neutral bathrooms and gender neutral policies have been implemented, so statistically there doesn't seem to be a real risk. The risk of rape is a lot higher in many other scenarios, statistically, such as at Sunday school.

Plus, the argument ignores that in order to rape someone, you would usually need to have the bathroom essentially empty, in which case, anyone could walk into either bathroom regardless of what their rules are.

Lastly, this claim seems to be based on the idea that men are going to go into the women's bathroom and rape people. But that completely ignores that, while it is true that female rapists are rare, male and male rape is not. So if this was really a problem, are we just saying that we don't care about our young boys potentially getting raped everyday when they go into the bathroom with other men?

Edit: Whoever is reporting people please stop. So far most people have engaged honestly, and offensive things haven't seemed purposeful. I am quite capable of reporting people myself if there's a problem.

It’s come to light in recent weeks that a variety of Wikipedia pages surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict have been maliciously edited — known as “vandalism” in the Wiki community. Edits have been made or content created to link Zionism to Nazism, others to whitewash groups like Hamas or regimes like Iran. One particular focus was in sanitizing the pivotal historical figure of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920s and 30s who played a key role in the Palestinian national movement and allied himself with the Third Reich.

In this piece, Alexander von Sternberg from the History Impossible podcast dives into this emerging scandal, sets the record straight on Husseini (a figure he’s been researching and podcasting about for years), and interviews a senior Wikipedia editor to gain more insight into how these things happen and what can be done about it.

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/wikipedias-islamist-vandals 

The episode is about 10 days old at this point, but I'm listening to #391, "The Reckoning" where Sam talks about why the Dem's lost this past election so soundly. I'm sure most people on this subreddit are aware, but Sam is the poster child for what has been dubbed "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and even he is making point after point that I can't help but cry "hell yeah" when he stops to take a breath.

It just feels like something has shifted since the election ended. I see more nuanced discussion on Reddit than I have during the last couple of years - it's like people aren't afraid to admit that they don't agree with the narrative that they're being fed anymore. It also seems like those discussions aren't getting shut-down as quickly as they used to either.

Just remember to tell the truth when you have the opportunity and support others who tell the truth as well, because it gives permission to allies on the sideline. You have more friends than you think and this is how we break a propaganda stranglehold.

Anyway, rant over. Here's a link to the episode if you're curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjr4IdCao8

Thought just came to me: reading a lot of criticisms from left-wingers arguing and/or upset about the "uneducated masses are too dumb to know what's best for them in the 2024 election."

Now I am biased to think this line of thinking is abhorrent in its arrogance and entitlement but...

If I ignored my bias and took this view seriously - is it not a reverse critique of the so-called "educated, managerial class?"

How are the "bitter clingers, rubes, uneducated drek, or minority race traitors" that voted right getting one over on you?

Wouldn't the educated, super smart people be able to sway these so-argued dumb-dumbs easily?

Maybe it's an online only line of thinking, but I was curious if anyone else has thought this?

Researchers are largely in agreement that the focus of the Trump Campaign on transgenderism, gender roles and masculinity, was one of the most effective aspects of their messaging. The wildly successful use of the issue of transgenderism by his administration is a symptom of his base’s pathological obsession with gender and masculinity (or heteronormative family structures), which has been very easily exploited by right-wing media programing. More specifically, this programing was able to convince the MAGA base that the very acceptance of transgender identities in public life is an essential feature of the radical Marxist left’s war on “traditional” gender roles and their attendant privileges.  

When, on the Joe Rogan podcast, Vance told Rogan that “liberal parents are forcing children to become “trans,” simply "to get into Ivy League Schools” (https://substack.com/@unclosetedmedia/note/c-75022991) he was not only demonizing and minimizing the actual experience of transexuals, his intention was to play into the larger narrative that a radical leftist regime is systematically “replacing” or dislocating white heterosexuality (and masculinity) from the center of culture, very much in line with the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, beloved by pseudo-intellectuals and media figures on the right (Vance; Tucker Carlson; Jordan Peterson; Musk; Fox News) who claim that an evil, radical leftist regime seeks to replace white Americans (and Europeans) with non-white immigrants.

Trump gained a good deal of his success by tapping into this psychology of racism and misogyny--into the idea that Americans are besieged by a protean rapacious enemy (Marxists / feminists / immigrants / the LGBTQ) that threaten to take their enjoyment; their place in culture; or their right to a traditional identity. Such is why his campaign also focused so successfully on the Gen Z’s “manosphere" brand of grievance that insists men are under mass persecution by women’s liberation; at the very time in which women’s rights are under global threat, and where, in America, women have lost their autonomy and their human right to life-saving care; and where, under the threat of Christian Nationalism they now face attacks on the 19th amendment.

Trump's 'they/them' ads combined culture war, economic worries to make effective pitch: expert: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-they-them-ads-combined-culture-war-economic-worries-make-effective-pitch-expert

The Trump Ads That Pushed Transgender Rights to Center Stage: Trump's 'they/them' ads combined culture war, economic worries to make effective pitch: experthttps://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-ads-transgender-rights-harris-election-b287c9d8

How Trump Won, and How Harris Lost: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/us/politics/trump-win-election-harris.html

About 4 years ago, I wrote what I knew was a provocative post on this sub. My view then was that while there was some overreach and philosophical inconsistency by the left wing, it paled in comparison to the excesses of the neofascist right in the US/UK to the degree that made them incomparable, and the only ethical choice was the left. My view of the right has got worse, but it's just by degree; I've come to believe that most of the leadership of the right consists exclusively of liars and opportunists. What's changed is my view of the "cultural left." Though (as I pointed out in that original post) I have always been at odds with the postmodernist left (I taught critical thinking at Uni for a decade in the 90s and constantly butted heads with people who argued that logic is a tool of oppression and science is a manifestation of white male power), I hadn't realized the degree to which pomo left had gained cultural and institutional hegemony in both education and, to a degree, in other American institutions.

What broke me?

"Trans women are women."

Two things about this pushed me off a cliff and down the road of reading a bunch of anti-woke traditional liberals/leftists (e.g., Neiman, Haidt, Mounk, et al. ): First, as a person trained in the philosophy of language in the Anglo-American analytic tradition, Wittgenstein informs my view of language. Consequently, the idea of imposing a definition on a word inconsistent with the popular definition is incoherent. Words derive meaning from their use. While this is an active process (words' meanings can evolve over time), insisting that a word means what it plainly doesn't mean for >95% of the people using it makes no sense. The logic of the definition of "woman" is that it stands in for the class "biological human females," and no amount of browbeating or counterargument can change that. While words evolve, we have no examples of changing a word intentionally to mean something close to its opposite.

Second, what's worse, there's an oppressive tendency by those on the "woke" left to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of bigotry. I mean, I have a philosophical disagreement with the philosophy of language implicit in "trans women are women." I think trans people should have all human rights, but the rights of one person end where others begin. Thus, I think that Orwellian requests to change the language, as well as places where there are legitimate interests of public policy (e.g., trans people in sport, women's-only spaces, health care for trans kids), should be open for good faith discussion. But the woke left won't allow any discussions of these issues without accusations of transphobia. I have had trans friends for longer than many of these wokesters have been alive, so I don't appreciate being called a transphobe for a difference in philosophical option when I've done more in my life to materially improve the lives of LGBT people than any 10 25-year-old queer studies graduates.

The thing that has caused me to take a much more critical perspective of the woke left is the absolutely dire state of rhetoric among the kids that are coming out of college today. To them, "critical thinking" seems to mean being critical of other people's thinking. In contrast, as a long-time teacher of college critical thinking courses, I know that critical thinking means mostly being aware of one's own tendencies to engage in biases and fallacies. The ad hominem fallacy has become part of the rhetorical arsenal for the pomo left because they don't actually believe in logic: they think reason, as manifest in logic and science, is a white (cis) hetero-male effort intended to put historically marginalized people under the oppressive boot of the existing power structures (or something like that). They don't realize that without logic, you can't even say anything about anything. There can be no discussions if you can't even rely on the principles of identity and non-contradiction.

The practical outcome of the idea that logic stands for nothing and everything resolves to power is that, contrary to the idea that who makes a claim is independent to the validity of their arguement (the ad hominem fallacy again...Euclid's proofs work regardless of whether it's a millionaire or homeless person putting them forth, for example), is that who makes the argument is actually determinative of the value of the argument. So I've had kids 1/3-1/2 my age trawling through my posts to find things that suggest that I'm not pure of heart (I am not). To be fair, the last time I posted in this sub, at least one person did the same thing ("You're a libertine! <clutches pearls> Why I nevah!"), but the left used to be pretty good about not doing that sort of thing because it doesn't affect the validity or soundness of a person's argument. So every discussion on Reddit, no matter how respectful, turns very nasty very quickly because who you are is more important than the value of your argument.

As a corollary, there's a tremendous amount of social conformity bias, such that if you make an argument that is out of keeping with the received wisdom, it's rarely engaged with. For example, I have some strong feelings about the privacy and free-speech implications of banning porn, but every time I bring up the fact that there's no good research about the so-called harms of pornography, I'm called a pervert. It's then implied that anyone who argues on behalf of porn must be a slavering onanist who must be purely arguing on behalf of their right to self-abuse. (While I think every person has a right to wank as much as they like, this is unrelated to my pragmatic and ethical arguments against censorship and the hysterical, sex-panicked overlap between the manosphere, radical feminism, and various kinds of religious fundamentalism). Ultimately, the left has developed a purity culture every bit as arbitrary and oppressive as the right's, but just like the right, you can't have a good-faith argument about *anything* because if you argue against them, it's because you are insufficiently pure.

Without the ability to have dispassionate discussions and an agreement on what makes one argument stronger, you can't talk to anyone else in a way that can persuade. It's a tower of babel situation where there's an a priori assumption on both sides that you are a bad person if you disagree with them. This leaves us with no path forward and out of our political stalemate. This is to say nothing about the fucked-up way people in the academy and cultural institutions are wielding what power they have to ensure ideological conformity. Socrates is usually considered the first philosopher of the Western tradition for a reason; he was out of step with the mores of his time and considered reason a more important obligation than what people thought of him. Predictably, things didn't go well for him, but he's an important object lesson in what happens when people give up logic and reason. Currently, ideological purity is the most important thing in the academy and other institutions; nothing good can come from that.

I still have no use for the bad-faith "conservatism" of Trump and his allies. And I'm concerned that the left is ejecting some of its more passionate defenders who are finding a social home in the new right-wing (for example, Peter Beghosian went from being a center-left philosophy professor who has made some of the most effective anti-woke content I've seen, to being a Trump apologist). I know why this happens, but it's still disappointing. But it should be a wake-up call for the left that if you require absolute ideological purity, people will find a social home in a movement that doesn't require ideological purity (at least socially). So, I remain a social democrat who is deeply skeptical of free-market fundamentalists and crypto-authoritarians. Still, because I no longer consider myself of the cultural left, I'm currently politically homeless. The woke takeover of the Democratic and Labour parties squeezes out people like me who have been advocating for many of the policies they want because we are ideologically heterodox. Still, because I insist on asking difficult questions, I have been on the receiving end of a ton of puritanical abuse from people who used to be philosophical fellow travelers.

So, those of you who were arguing that there is an authoritarian tendency in the woke left: I was wrong. You are entirely correct about this. Still trying to figure out where to go from here, but when I reread that earlier post, I was struck by just how wrong I was.

People have strong opinions on DEI.

Those that hate… why?

Those that love it… why?

Those that feel something in between… why?

Perhaps more distrust in government all together

In our society, IQ, formal educational attainment, and job title are considered to be the most important/significant factors when deciding whether to listen to someone or not.

However, this is simply a form of appeal to authority bias and is not rooted in science or reality.

IQ tests pretty much measure spatial ability and working memory, they practically tell you your chances of being able to do math/physics at higher levels. Outside of that, average IQ is sufficient for most other domains/life tasks.

High IQ is also pretty much useless in politics and leadership roles. What is significantly more important in these domains is critical/rational thinking ability. And I have found that personality type is a much more important determinant of critical/rational thinking compared to IQ, formal education attainment, or job title. Yet there is virtually zero knowledge or emphasis about the importance of critical/rational thinking, in society.

And IQ is barely correlated with rational thinking:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/

I believe that if there were more focus on personality type and critical/rational thinking, a lot of the unnecessary problems we have on earth, which are due to lack of critical/rational thinking, especially from leaders, would be solved.

These are the phenomenon that are the root of most interpersonal problems on earth:

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

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

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

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

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

Certain personality types have a protective mechanism against these phenomenon, but unfortunately the majority of personality types are conducive to these phenomenon, which is logically and unsurprisingly why the vast majority of people, including those in leadership roles, heavily operate based on these phenomenon.

The reason certain personality types have a protective mechanism comes down to a few main factors. I will state 3 of the most important/relevant ones. One is, if we accept a deterministic view of the world, it becomes paramount how much information we expose ourselves to. Certain personality types have a love of knowledge, and constantly expose themselves to more sources of knowledge, whereas most personality types do not do this. So obviously, assuming determinism is true, we are 100% the product of our environment, and if our environment gives us limited info, how can we learn enough to offset the above linked phenomenon?

The second is intuition. Most personality types take things literally, they look at the surface, but certain personality types filter everything they see and check it against their vast internal previously stored data (which links to point/factor one in the previous paragraph) in order to make sure to interpret it properly/catch any flaws with it- you can see how this for example would help someone not be manipulated by lies or misleading claims.

The third is thinking over emotion, the majority of personality types are feelers/primarily use emotion to make decisions, but certain personality types are more likely to put their emotions aside when making decisions. Statistically speaking, a very small % of people are a personality type that combines all 3 factors, which is why very few people are immune to the above linked phenomenon, but the issue is that in a democracy they cannot be voted in, because the masses are so different from them and misunderstand them and instead fall prey and vote for charlatans or other people who lack one or more of these 3 factors.

Quick about me: I studied this region specifically in college to prepare for my next career step. And did some further work directly in UA with the USG. I actually know this region beyond being defined by their adversaries.

Most people understand Russia, and all adversaries, as defined by the West, which creates an extremely warped false view of everything. It's like a creationist teaching about evolution. It's always going to be unfavorable. But I actually studied the region and know the details, history, culture, motivations, fears, strategies, etc, etc...

Anyways, I'm not here to debate this war. I'm not "Pro Russian" or Anti Ukraine. I'm just here to write up my experience watching Western propaganda go down, how it worked, how I viewed it, and basically a general overview through the process.

When the war started, I'll be honest, I thought UA would crumble, as did everyone else. But Russia made two significant logistical mistakes, one tactical, and one strategic. Strategically, they failed to bring actual supplies for a prolonged war assuming it would end, and tactically, when they realized they needed supplies for a prolonged war, they sent their supply convoys ungaurded on main roads, headed to the front line, which allowed UA special ops to literally destroy the entire supply chain, bringing Russia to a crawl

It was a VERY lucky moment for UA, thanks to the support of US intelligence and expertise, they actually pulled off a black swan that no one expected. Ukraine was simply not equipped and ready for a Russian invasion, and their internal military network was extremely disloyal, fractured, and very likely to defect and sell off everything in arms reach.

But this black swan event, actually kept the military moral up high just long enough to keep some semblence of order... Then Elon's Starlink came into play allowing actual communication, further preventing the expected military collapse. It was incredible, and totally unexpected.

At the time, no one thought Ukraine could actually win this, but prolongue it long enough to cause enough domestic pressure on Russia for them to collapse... Which was the goal all along. Actually beating Russia is something NO ONE but the state department controlled MSM was saying. No expert thought Ukraine could actually win.

The US strategy was with enough sanctions, pressure, and covert ops, we could get their economy to collapse into a free fall, and their elites afraid of losing everything, would coup Putin.

At the time, we saw what Russia's play on the battlefield was, which was keeping pressure on Kyiv, while they fortify the ever living hell out of the seized territories... Russia was primarily focusing on setting up supply lines and massive defensive fortifications, which made it clear, Russia's backup plan was their infamous war of attrition... Something impossible for Ukraine to win. No metric is in Ukraines favor. None. Not a single one. Every single metric benefits Russia. Ukraine would have to pull off some miracle to actually push Russia out after fortifications.

Anyways, so then I come onto social media and turn on the news, and the message is vastly different. Originally the bulk of it was appeals to emotion, "This is genocide, morally evil, scary, Putin is the next Hitler, we need to stop him now or else Europe is next and your way of life is ruined!" Those are typical early war propaganda messages to emotionally get people to support a conflict.

But it was the story being told, was an outright lie. The MSM and social media was talking about how Ukraine has a huge upper hand, Russia is a paper tiger falling apart, that any day now the whole military will collapse, they are days away from running out of ammo, their going to get absolutely destroyed... And I remember thinking, "What? That's simply not true. I mean, some of it could be possible, but in terms of their military, yeah it's weaker than we thought for sure, but not SO WEAK that Ukraine is going to beat them in a war of attrition." Okay that's weird.

I then remember reading reports about how Russia's ramping up production faster than expected, and all those "missing" munitions the media was reporting, were actually showing up. I'd read reports about their supply lines fortifying, and progress being made... But then turn on the news and it was all about some small minor victory made by Ukraine... That's all that would be talked about, with constant dishonest reminders that Russia's military is crumbling and will fall apart any day now.

None of this was true from an educated perspective. Every single expert was talking about how there is no way Ukraine can win. It's not possible. Even our own Pentagon thought the AT BEST, a stalemate with no exit... So a forever war, was the unlikely, yet best case scenario for them.

But again, go back to social media or turn on the news, there's some former high ranking DoD official saying the opposite. But they also fail to let the viewers know that these bullish opinions are coming from someone who's now retired from the military but working as a defense contractor who benefits from these long wars. But I digress

Just reading the messaging coming out of all of our news outlets and social media, were so wrong about everything, it was like living in the Matrix. And reading comments online were just the same, poor, misleading, not thought out, repeated over and over, chants

All the while I'm going back, reading about how multiple people are reporting the US was effectively forcing Ukraine to keep fighting even though they too wanted it to end pretty early on... But go on social media? No that's a lie. Propaganda. The US can't force them to do anything. (Yes the west can. They NEED the west on their side, so they MUST do what we ask, else they are left for dead.)

But just all sorts of these things where expert reporting is saying one thing, but you go into the media scape, and no one is talking a word about these things... It's just cherry picking some single good story they can find, and spreading it all across every corner of the media. It would be like 3 positive things showing Russian momentum, but 1 good thing from Ukraine, and that latter is all that would be discussed. Not a peep about the bigger picture.

So, now I'm watching an entire population shift. Nothing I could say or do would ever open a good discussion.

I remember trying to have calm, logical write ups explaining things, and it NEVER went well. No matter how much effort to be neutral, I'd immediately be downvoted to hell, attacked by multiple people, all screaming how I'm a Russian shill, defending Putin, etc...

At first, I'd respond to the people going, "Provide sources, unless you're just full of shit as we all expect" (lots of times they would speak as a collective "we" community which I find an odd way of communicating. Like it's me versus the whole place). And early on I'd take the bait

It's really easy to demand someone go provide a bunch of sources... It's really easy to demand someone go on a laborous side quest to find which of the 10 different reports I read specifically support my claims. Which I think is the point.

No one wants to go on a long 30 minute side quest for someone being an asshole, compiling all this information, only for them to not even respond once you do. You quickly learn, it's NEVER worth it.

One of the arguments people like me made, wasn't that we're pro Russia, but that we (experts), understand the reality of this conflict. That it will be extremely expensive, cost enormous amounts of lives mostly from drafted young men who don't even want to be there, and eventually Russia will win the war of attrition because it's almost impossible that they don't. So cut a deal while you can, because if you keep going to long, Russia will no longer need to cut a deal, and tons and tons more people will be dead, with tons and tons of dollars spent.

These were the primary arguments when they weren't just saying I'm supporting Terrorism for wanting out of Iraq Russias actions and hate the west, "If they aren't stopped in Ukraine, they'll wont stop! They'll keep taking more and more!" Which is just silly... Russia barely scrapes by in Ukraine so now they'll take on NATO, responsible for 75% of the world's military spending. It makes no sense

Another "If Ukraine makes a deal with Russia and doesn't fully push them out, Russia will just regroup and come back again!" Which again, makes no sense. If Ukraine DOES push them out, Russia could still regroup and attack again. Yet this argument was everywhere.

When Ukraine didn't clobber Russia in the summer offenses, as expected, and Russia didn't fully collapse, as they've been claiming would be any day for years now, it's "Well it's the west's fault for not providing enough weapons! They would have won by now, but we just didn't help enough" You said they were a fucking incompetent paper tiger. At the time no one was saying they need more weapons, they were saying these huge gifts we sent were more than enough to end it all.

But now the talking heads in the media and people on social media are talking about how "Well it's up to the people of Ukraine what they want to do. The west can't make them do anything. If they want to negotiate and bring an end they can." After enough leaks about the west wanting to end this, and how the majority of Ukrainians want to end this... As expected, the goal posts are moving once again, as do the messages.

But you literally just spent 2 years saying Russia can't possibly win! That if Ukraine agrees to a cease fire, Russia will literally just come back and invade and take over NATO! Now you're saying it's okay?! What happened to this existential crisis throwing everyone into massive fear?

This is obviously just a rant I want to get off my chest. Spending years, literally reading expert analysis from NGO's, think tanks, people I still know inside, leaked intelligence reports, everything predicting this direction, and unfolding EXACTLY as predicted (Even holding the same prediction I made years ago that this will probably end in Spring 2025). Spending years just seeing an onslaught of MSM and social messaging just being so wrong about everything, and not a damn person who wanted to actually listen. It was like living in two separate realities. Nothing I said would get in. No actual experts would leak through to the general population. Everyone who tried was branded and labeled a traitor or dismissed. Or like me online, forced to go on laborious side quests just to be taken seriously, but down voted to hell anyways, making it all pointless.

It was western propaganda at peak performance.

There are a lot of concerns that Trump is going to implement "Porject 2025", but when I google it, articles say that Trump is not going to follow it. He said that he agrees with some things, but as I understand, there are no rule "If its in p 2025, Trump will do it".
But a lot of people have fear that this is going to happen, women crying on a video, Billie Eilish calling election results "war on women", as I can understand, based on concerns that Trump is lying and actually gonna implement some reproduction right restrictons from p 2025.
I don't see evidence that he actually gonna do it, but maybe I'm missing something, what can I look for?

I don't get it. I mean I get it... Anti vax blah blah blah... But RFK is super liberal on A LOT of things, directly in the Trump administration. Do Dems really prefer a truly evil HSS that's hardcore right wing like we're getting with so many of the other agencies?

Is vaccines really that high of priority that they rather have a different anti vax guy who's also hard right? Because at least with RFK we'll have someone who's also generally a liberal. His stance on a lot of things are things liberals would like and consider wins...

But the "heretic" is just too much for them to muster? I don't get it. Take the win where you can in this case.

He's not going to make vaccines illegal. Where are people getting this idea? Do people not understand how government works? At best he'll be able to form an exploratory committee and demand more data to make public and submit a recommendation. You guys are nuts thinking he's going to get into the HSS and magically ban all vaccines. But meanwhile, what he CAN do about making healthier food, more transparent reporting, ending the pharma revolving door, etc... Is something he can do and would be a great liberal win.

The over obsession with his personal stance on vaccines and what he can do, or even wants to do, is not grounded in reality.

A mixed economy, in short is a economy where individuals are free to open businesses, and have somewhat economic freedom. But the government can intervene and punish companies if they hurt consumers, or hurt their employees. Basically it's capitalism but with a couple of socialist principles. This economic model is probably the best we can make. Here's why.

Free market Capitalism, and socialism have flaws, and we should use the pros of both systems. For an example, private land shouldn't be abolished, all industries shouldn't be nationalized, and workers shouldn't own the means of production. But while private land shouldn't be abolished, there should also be public land that the people should use, for an example natinol parks. Free market capitalism also makes poor people harder to get rich, and earn a living wage. And free market capitalism also allows companies to become just as morally evil like the government.

A mixed econamy includes the best parts of capitalism and socialism

In a mixed econamy, individuals can still open business, non essential utility industries aren't nationalized, and the government is still held accountable. But also rich people get taxes more, which can go to financial assistance to the poor, and essential utilities like roads and healthcare, are free to the public to use.

And my final point. Just look at the countries who have a mixed economy.

Many European countries and regions including UK, Germany, and the Nordic countries are one of the best countries to live in. Australia and Canada have some form of a mixed economy.

Now I would like some constructive criticism and not just call me buzzwords on why I'm wrong. And I would like to know what in your opinion, is the best economic system.

There are people who take advantage of unfortunate situations and human emotions to get their way. Aka "the boy who cried wolf."

These people are the biggest reason there's major pushback against social justice initiatives from the left.

I'm not going to argue about whether George Floyd's death being caused by himself, Chauvin, or Both. But I'm still waiting on actual proof that the incident happened due to bigotry.

No, just because the cop and suspect are of two different races/skin color doesn't make it an incident of bigotry. This is a heavily multicultural country, therefore you have a good chance of having a negative experience with someone of different biology and/or characteristics.

As a past black Democrat, there are people who intentionally call these situations bigoted because they want to have their way against cops because they hate cops and are looking to play off emotions of white people with white guilt. These are the same people that will see someone shoot up a place and get on social media saying "free them" because they don't understand or care about the severity of what was done.

I know this country has a bad past and it's normal to want to help people. But everyone needs to realize everything isn't as black and white as it's made to be and there are opportunistic assholes who will abuse someone's help for personal gratification even upon the worst situations imaginable.

The same thing happens with women getting upset at men and making false rape accusations because they know more than likely their reputation will suffer even before they have the chance to be proven innocent.

I feel like identity politics has seeped into our societies for so long and has been accelerated by social media bubbles to an extent, where it has changed the perception of the people around us. We seem to exist in completely different versions of reality.

This has become quite apparent to me when I went for coffee with a girl today I got to know recently. On the second half of our conversation, she started talking about feminism, how unfairly women are treated by society, how privileged men are and how men are a threat to women. And while I can empathize with her sentiment, her narrative felt quite distorted and -quite frankly- sexist. I tried to meet her half way and wanted to show her, that men struggle in their own ways, that the grass on the other side is just as brown as on hers and it's not all sunshine and lollipops and that we (the sexes) have to come back to a mutual understanding of and empathy for each other instead of resentment. Needless to say that I didn't get through to her. She was pretty much hellbent on her narrative, her victimhood and scapegoating men.

Regardless of my best efforts to show understanding and calm the waves, I wasn't able to get through to her. And that gave me to thinking.

How do we handle people that have been spoon fed ideology and and have a as a result a distorted worldview? Especially those that are close to us?

I find it ironic that so many politicians criticize college campuses as institutions that brainwash their students with woke ideologies, yet there are numerous examples of politicians who graduated from those same universities. (Donald Trump- Wharton school of University of Pennsylvania, JD Vance- Yale law school, Ted Cruz- Harvard law school, Josh Hawley- Yale law school).

Contraservatism is a portmanteau of contrarian and conservatism.

A contrarian is a person who likes or tends to express a contradicting viewpoint, especially one who denounces the majority persuasion, usually because of spite or nonconformity (Wikitionary).

So combine this instinctual rejection with a hint of right-wing core values (non-interventionism, social conservatism, populism) and you get contraservatism.

MAGA is as extreme contraservatist as it can get. There's nothing you cannot convince MAGA to rally against. You only need A) mainstream support for the cause you want to resist, regardless its merit, and B) a contrarian with enough credit within the MAGA movement that leads the resistance. Case in point: vaccines and RFK Jr.

Contraservatism is damaging to any right-wing movement. The group members become increasily epistemologically nihilist, easily controllable by domestic and foreign forces in a Pavlovian way and ethically corruptible to the core.

The more detached people to become from any anchoring point outside what they get told by others, the more they spiral to conspiratorial and delusional thoughts. The more the outside world rejects them for it, the more psychologically vulnerable they become to be part of the only group that welcomes them. This group is lead by one person and a few chosen people in his good graces which are the only ones they believe in. MAGA has already the signs of a cult.

It's very difficult to combat contraservatism by political discourse, as it immunisizes itself by rejecting any truth claims by outsiders. Contraservatism is like steel: it strengthens if put under stress.

The only way to escape out of that Orwellian nightmare is to FAFO. Contraservatives have to feel the consequences of their actions. Oh, you think tariffs are payed by China? Watch them see the economy crash and burn. Shock therapy is the only remedy.

The title says it all.

From what i understand, a drug has to beat the placebo effect to be certified.

Is anyone else wondering if that the erosion of trust in science/medical professionals, is going to have an adverse effect on the worlds health? (besides the obvious)

If the Placebo effect is the standard medicine hopes too achieve/beat

.. what happens when we don't believe in it anymore?

Via the erosion of trust in science and DR's..

As the title says. Someone in this sub used that term to say they support a livable wage.

How does that work? Has the free market not already shown us that it's not pro-livable wage?