Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

WE can make ME the next president. Can I count on your support?

Yes, unless you're asking me to fundraise.

Originally Posted by Adder

Are you using "progressive left" to distinguish from socialist left?

No.

But the lefties I see are pretty focused on health care.

It's also a little weird how little attention is paid to the very real possibility that all parents will soon have access to childcare that won't bankrupt them. Which is probably because Dems aren't fighting with each other about it.

Around these parts policing has been a major issue, with the progressive left trying to do something that is an immediate concern for a lot of people but also left a lot of room for the status quo to fear monger other people into saying no.

I'm not seeing anyone talking about healthcare or childcare.

What is the progressive left trying to do about policing? I hear slogans like "Defund the Police" that seemed designed to lose moderate support and not get anything concrete done.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What is the progressive left trying to do about policing? I hear slogans like "Defund the Police" that seemed designed to lose moderate support and not get anything concrete done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

His argument is that the govt had more control of a smaller media (a few networks and papers from which everyone got their news) that acted as gatekeepers and narrative creators.

OK, and my argument is that the government never had "control" in any sense of a smaller media. As I've said here before, when media technology (printing presses, TV stations) was relatively expensive, you tended to have fewer outlets and they had financial incentives to be centrist to capture broad audiences and sell ads. More recently, the costs of publication have dropped, and you have media outlets chasing niche audiences instead, which changes their incentives. None of that has anything to do with government control.

He touches on this, but not directly. His assessment is that this sort of thing (2008 bailouts) could have been gotten away with in a pre-Internet age. Post-Internet, however, the govt can't bullshit the public with some story about how the bailouts were equitable or morally defensible. The "public," as he describes the people in opposition to the govt and hierarchical institutions generally, can easily find information online to debunk such govt and industry spin, and then they can package counter-arguments which go viral. The result is a loss of control by authorities. This includes what you cite -- a loss of credibility and moral validity.

Government failures on important issues are not easily bullshitted away. See, e.g., Vietnam or the Great Depression. It's not like people were stupid and then the internet came along.

He's not a conservative. His admitted aim is to save democracy.

I wasn't saying he was a conservative or even talking about him. His "admitted aim" is to save democracy? That's not much of an admission. I think most conservatives believe they are saving democracy, but they also have convinced themselves that democracy has been hijacked by a bunch of people who are not legitimately part of the community. There is a strong conviction that Democrats are stealing elections by letting illegal immigrants vote.

He sees authoritarian creep and nihilism among both the masses and the "elites." He thinks the problem is that the public believes - delusionally - that it can demand and receive "fixes" for complex problems from the govt. The Trump voter thinks protectionism will bring back jobs. The progressive believes we can fix inequality and poverty other than at the margins by simply throwing money and govt intervention at them.

Do they? Is the problem that the public expects too much from the government, or is the problem that hard problems are hard to solve?

Bringing back jobs is hard. They went somewhere else for a reason.

Fixing inequality and poverty is hard. A lot of people like inequality.

These things can be attempted, sure, but they will not succeed all or even a small fraction of the time. Gurri argues that govt has been lying to a credulous public about how much it can do for a long time and thus given the public unrealistic expectations of its capabilities. This creates an angry public that operates like George Steinbrenner - throwing out the Manager every four years when it doesn't get everything it wants.

This is a nice story, but have you considered an alternative explanation? Some voters like change, and will vote for the opposition. Some voters always vote for the same party, but they are more energized to vote against the opposition than to vote for their own party, so they turn out more when the other party is in power. Both of those are real phenomena that explain why elections go back and forth.

Also, your "every four years" point needs some thought. Presidents who run for re-election usually get re-elected. Trump was an exception, because he was so terrible, but before him you have to go back to 1992 and George H.W. Bush. And I would wager that Obama would have beat Trump in 2016, if he hadn't been term-limited.

What does go back and forth is Congress. Part of that is that off-year elections favor Republicans, because a lot of people turn out to vote only in presidential elections, and they skew Democratic. But that's another feature explaining flip-flop results that has nothing to do with your guy's theory.

Gurri thinks this is abetted by "Intellectuals Yet Idiots" (policy wonks who think in the abstract but fail in the practical and concrete) who populate a lot of govt and institutions. These people can never admit being wrong or having limitations because their brand is being right about everything (smartest guys in the room syndrome). Secondly, politicians generally can't admit being fallible because the deluded public - again, unrealistically - will not accept that. No one can tell the truth: "This is a policy we think will work, but there's a chance it will fail."

Is it a newsflash that politicians oversell? Is this not a feature of most advertising? Do people lose faith in companies and consumer goods because the products they buy have been oversold?

He argues that what we need most from our leaders is humility. And what we need most from the public is circumspect thinking, tolerance for failure, and maturity.

That's an excellent idea. Let's elect a new public.

He writes on this problem. But if you really want to see someone attack this issue in a comprehensive manner, Michael Sandel's The Tyranny of Merit is the book for you. Sandel asserts that merit is becoming a back door into which something like an old school English class system, aiding exclusively the upper middle to affluent classes, is infecting American society, masked as defensible and just based on arbitrary metrics, a crooked education system, and legacy hierarchies (industry and govt) in which the same people with the same badges hand each other positions.

At the risk of outing myself (ha), I have taken a class from Sandel. He's smart. But is the problem "merit"? If you think for a second about what you say about, the problem is not "merit," it's that the upper middle class (etc.) have real advantages because they have more money. If you go to Scarsdale H.S., you're going to get a better education and better opportunities than if you go to P.S. 123 in the Bronx. How many kids from Scarsdale go to Harvard (hi Hank!), and how many from your average public school in the Bronx go there? The issue is not a Harvard degree is an arbitrary metric, the issue is that a Harvard degree tends to signal some measure of qualification, Jared Kushner aside. (Is it a perfect measure of merit? Of course not. But nothing is.) Everyone pays lip service to merit, but there are an awful lot of policies out there that undercut it, like funding public education locally, which ensures that people who live in expensive neighborhoods don't have to share their schools. The problem is not merit, it's an insufficient commitment to it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I am not sure what any of this even means.

George Floyd was murdered with no good reason, but there were times in his life he did shit that called for a response from someone carrying a gun.

I've heard of keeping social workers around to send on calls for the mentally ill, which sounds nice, I guess, for bigger cities. But my suburb isn't keeping social workers around 24/7, and it seems the worst police abuses are in smaller cities? Plus, too often the mentally ill are armed, so I'm not sure a social worker is the answer.

The two most poignant moments I can recall on LT are 1 Fringey's accident, and 2 Adder posting during the George Floyd riots. He had a post about how he spent the night on his front porch holding a baseball bat. I have never felt more empathy for anyone on here (well maybe Slave for the whole paigs thing?). But if the mob had come to his home the bat would only have made things worse. I know the Twin Cities po-po was ignoring the riots, but in theory Adder needed a force of armed people those nights.

The answer has to be integrating police forces more and being more selective about whom is given a badge I think.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

At the risk of outing myself (ha), I have taken a class from Sandel. He's smart.

There are two ways a person can say another is smart- one can recognize another has intelligence far beyond their own. Or one can be so much smarter than one can quantify the other as being "smart" to a certain level. Which was your statement here?

But is the problem "merit"? If you think for a second about what you say about, the problem is not "merit," it's that the upper middle class (etc.) have real advantages because they have more money. If you go to Scarsdale H.S., you're going to get a better education and better opportunities than if you go to P.S. 123 in the Bronx. How many kids from Scarsdale go to Harvard (hi Hank!), and how many from your average public school in the Bronx go there?

I'm from the 313 equivalent of tobacco road, so I have "merit" to my Harvard/Yale/Stanford degrees.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What is the progressive left trying to do about policing? I hear slogans like "Defund the Police" that seemed designed to lose moderate support and not get anything concrete done.

I don't know what the "progressive left" has to say on policing. Doesn't seem like a big issue for them.

"Defund the Police" is a long-standing slogan of Black police abolitionists, that it became really popular to for comfortable Dems to critique as bad politics.

It remains the case that we should be limiting the instances where we send armed men with guns to where they are actually needed and that's we've allowed the solution of armed men with guns to expand to the degree that they are our only public safety resource.

Locally, it will be interesting to watch whether our mayor, who ran on reform, will kill all of our pre-existing reform plans or not. (He didn't really mean reform, he meant the status quo)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Jesus, man, you're smarter than this.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I am not sure what any of this even means.

9 members (a veto-proof majority) of the city council stood on that stage and pledged to "dismantle the MPD as we know it." Because the activists who organized the event put those words on the stage, we're supposed to believe that those 9 meant to get rid of the police this fall. This is because they are all wild-eyed radicals in disguise (they are not).

I've heard of keeping social workers around to send on calls for the mentally ill

Locally, we just did a multi-year, detailed analysis of 911 calls, finding that a substantial majority of them did not require someone with a gun, and that virtually none of them that started out without that need escalated to need one. Unfortunately, I don't know more details than that because it hasn't gotten much press.

But my suburb isn't keeping social workers around 24/7, and it seems the worst police abuses are in smaller cities?

That's an interesting point. Your city likely has far fewer police, per capita, than a big city. It also probably doesn't have over-policed communities.

As you note, it nonetheless likely has some super racists policing.

Adder posting during the George Floyd riots.

Flower's experience was much more harrowing than mine. He was much closer to it.

in theory Adder needed a force of armed people those nights.

We pay one. They quit on us, and have been on a work slowdown/sick out ever since.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's an interesting point. Your city likely has far fewer police, per capita, than a big city. It also probably doesn't have over-policed communities.

As you note, it nonetheless likely has some super racists policing.

Actually it is a 70% dem 1 square mile suburb 2 miles north of Detroit. It is probably 90% white, but the police are 50% black. I doubt very much there are super racists on the police force, at least I hope/expect not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

9 members (a veto-proof majority) of the city council stood on that stage and pledged to "dismantle the MPD as we know it." Because the activists who organized the event put those words on the stage, we're supposed to believe that those 9 meant to get rid of the police this fall. This is because they are all wild-eyed radicals in disguise (they are not).

So people should just read in the wink and nod that they weren't serious?

Locally, we just did a multi-year, detailed analysis of 911 calls, finding that a substantial majority of them did not require someone with a gun, and that virtually none of them that started out without that need escalated to need one. Unfortunately, I don't know more details than that because it hasn't gotten much press.

I've somehow fallen into the groove of watching Adam 12 reruns on MeTV 5-6 weekdays. There is a weird vibe to seeing network TV trying to process drug use and hippies and race in the early 70s and still make it fun to watch!

But the policing moments are also mostly boring things that Flower and I could probably handle- until the ones happen where flower and I would be running away like crazy. None of that shit is predictable I'm afraid.

Flower's experience was much more harrowing than mine. He was much closer to it.

ehh, maybe, but who has empathy for flower? He's a fucking GOD! I honestly worried for you those nights because of your posts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

There are two ways a person can say another is smart- one can recognize another has intelligence far beyond their own. Or one can be so much smarter than one can quantify the other as being "smart" to a certain level. Which was your statement here?

It kinda makes you wonder why they run ads for new televisions. If you're watching on a television good enough to tell how awesome the picture is, you don't really need a new one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Jesus, man, you're smarter than this.

Careful, Adder, Hank has your number on this one.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So people should just read in the wink and nod that they weren't serious?

People should read what the CMs actually said, which was that it was gong to be a process over time to change how we do public safety, not a sudden adoption of chaos.

But the policing moments are also mostly boring things that Flower and I could probably handle- until the ones happen where flower and I would be running away like crazy. None of that shit is predictable I'm afraid.

My impression of the 911 study was the it turned out to be pretty predictable.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So people should just read in the wink and nod that they weren't serious?

A veto-proof majority of the City Council stood on a stage with the giant words “DEFUND POLICE“ in front of it and talked about dismantling the police department, and how the time for incrementalism was past. The notion that nobody was supposed to believe that they actually intended to defund the police is quaint, and if they were not being serious, the irony was lost on many:

“Last June, a veto-proof majority of Minneapolis City Council members pledged to defund and dismantle the police department.”

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/25/10002...rm-have-soften

“Over three months ago, a majority of the Minneapolis City Council pledged to defund the city’s police department, making a powerful statement that reverberated across the country.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/26/u...nd-police.html

When everyone learned that there were no specific plans, and that nobody really even knew what “defund” or “dismantle” meant (thus plunging Minneapolis into this terrible limbo where many police basically stopped stopped doing their job), some members of City Council switched course, while one embarrassingly tried to argue that he did not see the sign and did not know defunding police was on the table. (In his defense, from his perspective, he may have thought he was attending a “ECILOP DNUFED” rally.)

There is a lot of blame to go around for how this opportunity for this whole situation was mismanaged, and to put all the blame at the feet of the City Council is unfair. But they did their fair share of mismanagement, in part because it was not a popular position to acknowledge both that 1) the Twin Cities has a long and horrific history of abusive policing and that prior efforts at reform have been half-hearted and ineffectual, and 2) despite this history of police abuse, there are vulnerable communities that rely on police to keep them safe. When we were discussing this issue probably a year ago, I talked being involved with a local domestic violence prevention organization. Many advocates there (many of whom are young progressive people of color) state that they believe they have a good working relationship with the police, and that while this was not always the case, they now largely saw the police as valuable partners who are able to respond effectively and with compassion and sensitivity to domestic violence calls to protect victims of domestic violence. It was probably two posts after this that Adder said, “It’s not like the police ever make anyone safer anyways.” I understand that this was just hyperbole on Adder’s part, but it was telling. And Adder is correct that the “Defund Police” rhetoric was distorted by a fear-mongering right who wanted people to believe that any attempts to rethink policing would result in a swift devolution to nihilism. But, to blame the failure of the ballot amendment on a “fear-mongering status quo” misses a whole lot of the story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

For Sebby.