In the U.S., the federal government is obviously bad, but I’m honestly more concerned about the voting populace that elected it. They got so desperate and fed up with both parties they voted for the strong man that promised them he could rewind time, and apparently didn’t have the basic level of empathy and psychological wherewithal to see him for what he is: a pathologically narcissistic conman.

The Trump administration is a problem, but it’s not the problem. The problem is that both Republicans and Democrats are so dislikable as political parties that enough people are so fed up with them that they’ll vote for someone like Trump instead. That’s just really sad.

Not trying to dismiss you here at all, but my genuine advice is to get some therapy and not take advice about serious stuff like this from strangers online.

Yes, there are certainly good things to come of it, I never denied that. But we’re also the cause of the latest mass extinction event on the planet, so there’s that too. I’d call that “mixed results at best.”

Others ITT have already mentioned people as a source of hope. For me, this is something of a paradox, as I’m fairly misanthropic. I believe most people are—on balance—good or at least prosocial. They want to get along with others and not cause harm. However, I also think we’re inherently tribal and self-centered. Our capacity for empathy within our closest social circles is quite high, but outside of them it barely exists. We tend to make good choices when it comes to those we know, but beyond that we tend to be fairly apathetic and callous.

So, I am hopeful based on people’s desire to be good and make the world a better place for all. But our historical record demonstrates a failure pattern at scale that is anything but inspiring. Overall, I think we tend to hit at the middle of the road or slightly below it. I see the history of human civilization like a corkscrew: progress is made, but only very slowly and through many repetitions of past mistakes.

Ultimately, I don’t have much hope. Humans perform best in small groups; in large ones (10,000+ people) we splinter and start treating each other very poorly. We evolved to function in small groups of just a few families. When we settled down and started developing our civilization (only 15,000 years ago—no time for evolution to change us), we struck out into territory we were not prepared for. Human civilization is effectively an experiment, and I would argue it’s returned mixed results at best.

EDIT: I also think one of the chief problems with us as a species is that we are innately myopic. That is to say, we don’t truly recognize problems until they start to affect us directly. We had all the information we needed to predict the impacts of human-driven climate change in the 1950s, if not earlier. But people trying to draw attention to them were dismissed as alarmists. Only when we began truly witnessing the impacts around the turn of the century did we acknowledge the problem and start acting on it. I think the same will be true for AI, but much worse. We intellectually understand the threats that AI poses to our species, but won’t start acting on them until they actually start to take effect, and by that point, it will be too late.

People who chew with their mouths open should be fucking euthanized.

Obviously, I don’t actually think that, but as a misophonic person who was brought up right, it drives me fucking insane when people do this.

I would argue that instead of wishing for impairment to cope with the overstimulation, you just wish for the part of your brain that handles sensory input to be able to handle your normal sensory load without issue.

Not having any feeling in your legs, but not being paraplegic, so you could legit accidentally walk outside without any pants on.

Yes, but one choice makes you a pussy. /s

Be kinder to my younger brother.

To do the quote thing, just put a ‘>’ before every paragraph you want to quote.

Firstly, I disagree about communism needing to have only 1 political party

I mean, it’s pretty integral to communism. This is how it’s always been done. If you’re going to have the means of production controlled by the state, you can’t have multiple states vying for control of it. Again, point me to a communist state that doesn’t do this.

I would also disagree about it requiring a government run economy

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about when you refer to “communism” then. Communism is defined by the fact that the government runs the economy. In Capitalism, private entities control the means of production; in Communism, the government does. That’s the whole point.

Really, I was more so using this as an example of the difference between an economic system and a government system, not saying they were the same.

I think you’re falsely assuming there’s a barrier between a governmental system and an economic system. These are always linked. Capitalism and Communism describe the relationship governments and economies should have with one another.

I do agree that this is a common perception in the west, it just isn’t true. I am a communist, I don’t like or support the USSR or the CCP, I have never met another communist in person that supports either. These people obviously do exist, they just aren’t nearly as common as most people assume.

Then can you point to an actual example of a stable Communist nation that you support? Again, I argue that those that exist have all become dictatorships. You have the burden of bridging theory to real-world example. Communism sounds great on paper; it just consistently fails in implementation.

the difference is that communism has no money or similar system, and socialism, like you said, has government funded systems such as health care, education, etc.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Communism absolutely has a monetary system. The difference is that Socialism is a transition system between Capitalism and a true “stateless” Communist country, which is a flat-out fantasy. Socialism is a mediation ground, in which the government funds certain public institutions that are deemed essential for everyone. Real Communist countries never move past this model; and the most they achieve is an authoritarian state that controls it in limbo. The end goal of Communism has never (and will never) be achieved.

I agree that the US hasen’t always fully succeeded in stopping communism, but it(or another government) has always succeeded in greatly harming communist countries.

So what? Communist countries have clearly overcome U.S. interference. The USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, etc, have all survived U.S. interference and achieved their aims as far as establishing a Communist state is concerned. And look at the results.

“a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.” I fully agree with you here.

Then it would seem our main point of disagreement is that Communism necessitates a single-party system. Again, I ask you to cite me an example wherein this has not occurred. To me, it seems inherent to the system. If you’re going to have a state-run economy, you can’t tolerate multiple political parties, because then who controls the means of production? Multiple political parties wound introduce a level of chaos into the economic system that would simply be intolerable. Suddenly, in a swing election, every industry in the country is controlled by a government that has an entirely different agenda than the last? There’s no way any business could run under such ephemeral rules.

It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism.

It doesn’t technically necessitate it, it just makes it very likely to happen, due to its insistence on there being only one political party. Communism isn’t just an economic system, it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.

Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist

If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’ Most people understand this to mean that you’re for things like free education, medical care, etc. When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP. I understand what you’re saying about there being some overlap in the terms, but the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.

Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work.

While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded. I would argue that the communist states that do exist demonstrate its main problem quite clearly: a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.

I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.

No, you didn’t make assumptions, and I appreciate your cordiality.

You made a lot of assumptions about me in your comment. I’m not going to bother with them, because that’s honestly your job to handle.

I don’t equate communism with (democratic) socialism. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and that’s part of the reason I consider myself progressive. The main difference is that democratic socialism makes room for multiple political parties, while communism accommodates only one. This is the essence of tyranny. No progressive should advocate for communism, because communism is another form of authoritarianism: subjugation to state rule.

I have my problems with “woke” culture, just as I do with conservative culture. But most of my problems with woke culture have to do with their rhetoric and means of achieving their goals, rather than the goals themselves. A racially mixed workplace is something I highly value; achieving it by means of affirmative action is not something I support, because I think 50+ years of it have shown that it doesn’t really work. Yes, it has been shown to improve interracial relations in the workplace, but it has also been shown to cause workers to question the competency of coworkers that benefit from it, and make those who don’t feel discriminated against. This is not what it was intended for. It was supposed to counter inherent racist biases in corporate hiring systems. Instead, it’s become a system that is the very least viewed as a loophole for non-white employees. Obviously, not every case is an example of a non-white employee gaining an unfair advantage over a white employee, probably only a small fraction qualify as such, but as a system it has created the perception that Whites are being discriminated against. And its proponents have done virtually nothing to address that. That needs to change. I’m not saying the spirit of affirmative action needs to end, but its implementation need to change.

If and when you respond, I would encourage you to not make assumptions about my stance. I don’t fit into the political boxes neatly.

I’ve seen people advocate for communism here and asked them to name an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship, and let me tell you, the hysteria and rage could power a small city. I’m fairly progressive, I like to think, but it seems like a lot of lemmings have gone so far down the anti-capitalist rabbit hole they’ve literally come out the other side in China and are wearing Mao stickers.

For the same reason liberals bash on Texas all the time: it’s a flagship state for the political brand that’s an easy target due to its size and problems (due to its size).

When my WiFi has a 5-10 minute hiccup because my ISP is upgrading its network.

<sigh> How will I ever last?

Chicagoan here. Chicago does have a problem with violence—but it’s really limited to certain areas. Chicago is a highly segregated city by today’s standards with a long history of neglecting and abusing it’s Black population on the South side of the city. The CPD is famous for corruption and racism, going back decades at least. Like any major city, gang activity is a major problem in the poor areas, and I suspect its in those areas that one can truly be shot “out of the blue.”

Don’t get me wrong, I love Chicago, and it’s a great city everyone should visit. But like any major city, it’s got its dark sides, and you’re right, we can’t do anything about that until we acknowledge it.

In the U.S., that crap about how the Democrats are actually a cabal of pedophiles and the entire organization is just a front for a global sex trafficking ring for children. Like, how do you get substantial parts of the population believing what QAnon says? Unbelievable.

You seem really set on insisting that there’s a link between intelligence and morality, and at this point I don’t think I have the energy to disabuse you of that notion. Suffice it to say, you’re wrong on both the individual and societal levels. Much of the history of civilization is war, and involved in that comes conquest and reorganization of societal boundaries. Pretty much every society today is the product of a chain of wars. Are you going to say all societies are bad, just because there’s blood in their foundations?

The world isn’t as black-and-white as you’re painting it. Intelligence isn’t linked to morality and morality itself is more gray than black-and-white. That latter part is something you should definitely have learned in your ethics class.

Yes, morals utilize reason and logic, but that doesn’t mean you’re necessarily more moral if you’re smarter. At best, it might mean that certain moral perspectives are easier to grasp if you’re smarter, but even if you grasp them that doesn’t mean you hold them.

“eugenics is unwise”

Is a statement describing applying reason to derive a moral understanding.

No. It’s a statement asserting that eugenics has flaws and drawbacks that will ultimately prove detrimental to its own goal. This has nothing to do with the moral argument against it.

There is no contradiction there. The “although, it is” simply acknowledges that eugenics is unwise; the point is that that isn’t what makes it a morally bad idea.

And there’s no magic going on. Morality and intelligence just aren’t the same thing and aren’t linked in any way. Smarter people are not necessarily more moral or vice versa.