Random political thought thread.

[Red Herring]

Everyone knows about that, but there's a left-wing equivalent to that, or at least, there was in my early twenties. They didn't approve of science, not as a topic to study for themselves, but as a thing that exists. I knew someone who she would insinuate that it represented some kind of indoctrination into a "white male" way of thinking (this seems incredibly racist and sexist, but what would I know). Who knows if these people still think that? They definitely thought that at the time.

If I talk any more on this subject, I'm going to sound like Jordan Peterson, lol. I don't share his views. Like I said, I need to do my homework here.

Oh yeah, there is this idea in parts of the woke environment that science and the enlightenment as well as human rights as enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights are the product of white male imperialism and therefor evil or at least only applicable to the West and basically outdated (not completely false but also so simplistic it's not even funny). Nigerian philosopher Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, a defender of classic enlightenment thinking, has an interesting reply to that which basically comes down to this being a patronizing white savior idea which is in itself racist.

You once asked me what complaints I had about the American progressive left and I never got around to answering. This would be a small peak at things but I am generally doubtful about identity politics in general though as I consider it to often be shortsighted, simplistic and only solidifying what it ought to endeavour to tear down. I'd take a college wokey over a Trump supporter anytime, obviously, but that doesn't mean there aren't things going seriously wrong. I have also bit my tongue at some posts on this forum in the last few months and weeks so as to not stir up too trouble since I am generally deeply conflict avoidant and don't think internal conflict is really helpful right now.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Oh yeah, there is this idea in parts of the woke environment that science and the enlightenment as well as human rights as enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights are the product of white male imperialism and therefor evil or at least only applicable to the West and basically outdated (not completely false but also so simplistic it's not even funny). Nigerian philosopher Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, a defender of classic enlightenment thinking, has an interesting reply to that which basically comes down to this being a patronizing white savior idea which is in itself racist.

You once asked me what complaints I had about the American progressive left and I never got around to answering. This would be a small peak at things but I am generally doubtful about identity politics in general though as I consider it to often be shortsighted, simplistic and only solidifying what it ought to endeavour to tear down. I'd take a college wokey over a Trump supporter anytime, obviously, but that doesn't mean there aren't things going seriously wrong. I have also bit my tongue at some posts on this forum in the last few months and weeks so as to not stir up too trouble since I am generally deeply conflict avoidant and don't think internal conflict is really helpful right now.

My basic intuition about some of this stuff is that it's like what you might learn from one of those inept Defense against the Dark Arts teachers in the HP series. But, as I said, I need do my homework.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

People should be free to choose for themselves want they want, and have the opportunity to choose, as long as that doesn't involve harming other people.

 

[Virtual ghost]

People should be free to choose for themselves want they want, and have the opportunity to choose, as long as that doesn't involve harming other people.

I am afraid that this is also the logic of the wild west.
Some 150 years ago it was possible to know pretty much everything that was. However today there is volume of knowledge that humans can't learn in a lifetime. Even learning the basics of pretty much everything of importance is no longer possible. Therefore what you are suggesting is no longer practical or possible. So either will experts make socialized choices or the society will lag more and more behind those societies that will make order about who makes a decision on the topic at hand.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am afraid that this is also the logic of the wild west.
Some 150 years ago it was possible to know pretty much everything that was. However today there is volume of knowledge that humans can't learn in a lifetime. Even learning the basics of pretty much everything of importance is no longer possible. Therefore what you are suggesting is no longer practical or possible. So either will experts make socialized choices or the society will lag more and more behind those societies that will make order about who makes a decision on the topic at hand.

Why does it matter if Russia takes over, then?

I'll also tell you that it will be a hard sell to get Americans to give up decision-making power to some kind of technocratic body. It it's a large corporation that's been gathering up data, maybe, but a governmental organization? I can't imagine how that could get sold.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Why does it matter if Russia takes over, then?

I'll also tell you that it will be a hard sell to get Americans to give up decision-making power to some kind of technocratic body.

I know that this will be hard or even impossible, but that doesn't change the point that technological reality demands it. This is exactly why US is more and more of a mess. As I told you technology of 21th century in the mix with 18 century economic model just isn't going to have all that great results. But unfortunately this is exactly on what your argument/wish is based, individualism and free market that comes out of it.


Plus Russia is also fairly bad at this. Since they don't value experts all that much if what they are saying goes against the norms. This is why their country is a mess once you take a closer look. All of this is exactly why some people in your country are flirting with Russia. Since lack of knowledge and level of overconfidence are kinda close when you compare the details.


The better examples of how this works and that it work are EU or Japan. In other words the structure is irrelevant if there is no competency to back it up. However you also need structure to create competency, since today genuine education lasts for decades (if not a life time). Therefore this is the delicate dance that many wouldn't be able to master. Even if this is the very foundation of future tech and thus future economy.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I know that this will be hard or even impossible, but that doesn't change the point that technological reality demands it. This is exactly why US is more and more of a mess. As I told you technology of 21th century in the mix with 18 century economic model just isn't going to have all that great results. But unfortunately this is exactly on what your argument/wish is based, individualism and free market that comes out of it.

Oh, I wasn't talking about economics and the free market. I was talking about social policy.

 

[Coriolis]

Everyone knows about that, but there's a left-wing equivalent to that, or at least, there was in my early twenties. They didn't approve of science, not as a topic to study for themselves, but as a thing that exists. I knew someone who she would insinuate that it represented some kind of indoctrination into a "white male" way of thinking (this seems incredibly racist and sexist, but what would I know). Who knows if these people still think that? They definitely thought that at the time.

If I talk any more on this subject, I'm going to sound like Jordan Peterson, lol. I don't share his views. Like I said, I need to do my homework here.

I wonder if their disaffection came in part from the use of flawed science to justify bigotry, as in some of the early studies that claimed to show Black people were less intelligent or able to master difficult tasks like flying. There also has been pushback against the practices of science as being a male or masculine way of doing things, that suppress more feminine, less structured ways. In other words, that the only way women can succeed in STEM is by trying to be men. This is a more complicated situation to unpack. I suspect part of the association is that scientists, especially those well-known to the public, have largely been men. This means methods essential to the practice of science have been tied to masculinity, rather than being seen as the discipline by which the fundamental human trait of curiosity can be productively pursued. There is certainly validity to the idea that stereotypically feminine qualities like communication, empathy, and teamwork are de-emphasized in many STEM environments. We all need these, including science which is inherently collaborative. I hope as more women enter STEM fields, both these fields and those who practice them will become more open to the full range of skills and qualities that contribute to accomplishment.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Oh, I wasn't talking about economics and the free market. I was talking about social policy.

Ok, but in my opinion it is kinda naive to think you can separate the two. I never really understood why people in some countries are doing it to be honest. Because if social policy is evidently liberal and individualist then this has to be reflected in economics as well.

Obvious example: if you legalize all kinds of light drugs and make sure unhealthy food is part of everyday life that would be in direct contradiction with socialized medicine. Since such system can't process all the problems that are coming from the concept that everyone is doing whatever they want. This is exactly why GMO is banned in my part of the world. As well as hundreds of various chemicals that are bad for human health. This is also why we have active clamp down on drugs. Which is being expanded on stuff like vaping.


This is why US has so much problem with making the health care system that you want. Since that requires much more to work than most people realize. Since the concept can only work if the costs are reasonable. However costs can't be reasonable if there is evidently liberal social paradigm and "everything is ok". This idea that Bernie can sign just a few papers and that this you will get functional healthcare is a fantasy basically. Also having that kind of healthcare without free/socialized college also isn't likely. Since this is vital part in bringing down the cost. However if you do healthcare and education like this that evidently requires that taxes have to go up significantly. Therefore if you want to live life as you want that kinda has to be reflected in economics as well. Since you can't fully mix elements from one social equilibrium with another equilibrium. Since that will almost surely result in dysfunction and debt in the end. What results with people being unhappy.


However this rule works kinda across the board, this applies to much more than just healthcare. Even if healthcare is pretty good example of where the problem is.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ok, but in my opinion it is kinda naive to think you can separate the two. I never really understood why people in some countries are doing it to be honest. Because if social policy is evidently liberal and individualist then this has to be reflected in economics as well.

Obvious example: if you legalize all kinds of light drugs and make sure unhealthy food is part of everyday life that would be in direct contradiction with socialized medicine. Since such system can't process all the problems that are coming from the concept that everyone is doing whatever they want. This is exactly why GMO is banned in my part of the world. As well as hundreds of various chemicals that are bad for human health. This is also why we have active clamp down on drugs. Which is being expanded on stuff like vaping.

Do you have bans on alcohol? That can be pretty harmful.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Do you have bans on alcohol? That can be pretty harmful.

Some (for driving and minors).
But there is currently campaign that is trying to lower general consumption. There is currently one about drugs as well. Another is one about smoking as well. In other words the system has officially realized that it wouldn't able to cover everything if many don't become more serious their own health. The money, demographics, inflation and staff just wouldn't allow that the situation is fully covered if things continue to snowball. What means that the only way is to go after snowballing effect before things get out of hand. This is exactly why the system is offering you various free tests, so that the medical problem can be found even before things go south (the cancer is obvious example). Because being preventive is basically the only way how to keep costs under control.

This is why I wrote what I wrote. Keeping this boat floating trough geopolitical mess isn't trivial task. Since you can't just charge extra to people that want treatment. Because that overrides the whole point of the system.

 

[Red Herring]

Some (for driving and minors).
But there is currently campaign that is trying to lower general consumption. There is currently one about drugs as well. Another is one about smoking as well. In other words the system has officially realized that it wouldn't able to cover everything if many don't become more serious their own health. The money, demographics, inflation and staff just wouldn't allow that the situation is fully covered if things continue to snowball. What means that the only way is to go after snowballing effect before things get out of hand. This is exactly why the system is offering you various free tests, so that the medical problem can be found even before things go south (the cancer is obvious example). Because being preventive is basically the only way how to keep costs under control.

This is why I wrote what I wrote. Keeping this boat floating trough geopolitical mess isn't trivial task. Since you can't just charge extra to people that want treatment. Because that overrides the whole point of the system.

From what I have been reading one of the reasons Cuba has so much bang for the buck in their healthcare system is that they have a huge emphasis in preventive medicine. Keeping people healthy in the first place and offering quick low threshhold intervention is much cheaper than paying for expensive treatments when the patient is already seriously i'll.

 

[The Cat]

Money is made up.

 

[Virtual ghost]

From what I have been reading one of the reasons Cuba has so much bang for the buck in their healthcare system is that they have a huge emphasis in preventive medicine. Keeping people healthy in the first place and offering quick low threshhold intervention is much cheaper than paying for expensive treatments when the patient is already seriously i'll.

Of course it is.
In a sense that is one of the basic points of the collective healthcare system. That it is fully open to people before things get complicated. Because in medicine things very rarely get better on their own over time. So prevention is evidently the way to go. Therefore if people in mass don't care about their health no healthcare can really fix that (especially if you want reasonable prices in the mix).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Brussels to slash green laws in bid to save Europe’s ailing economy

The hope was that where Europe went, the world would follow.

What evidently didn't happen.
Therefore this will just have to wait for more peaceful times.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Musk’s self-promotion on X needs probing, EU lawmakers say

Elon Musk brands UK a ‘tyrannical police state’

 

[SensEye]

From what I have been reading one of the reasons Cuba has so much bang for the buck in their healthcare system is that they have a huge emphasis in preventive medicine. Keeping people healthy in the first place and offering quick low threshhold intervention is much cheaper than paying for expensive treatments when the patient is already seriously i'll.

This is one of those things that seems intuitively obvious but is probably not true. It's generally accepted that elderly people need a lot of healthcare as they near end of life. So healthy people who live into their 90's place a high burden on the healthcare system. However, they are in the minority as not many folks get that far. Compare and contrast to a smoker who gets lung cancer in his/her 60's. Sure they need some heavy healthcare for the six months they survive post diagnosis, but then they are off the books. I think the jury is still out as to which type of individual needs more health care over their entire lifespan.

However, no need for us to get in a bun fight about this. Socialized medicine is the way to go, regardless of whether a nanny state society can legislate clean living, which is usually can't. Vices are popular for a reason.

 

[The Cat]

Well Well Well...