comment
stringlengths 1
9.49k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
I respectfully disagree.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge."
] |
>
I believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two.
I think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again.
But millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes.
Once millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t.
I’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in.
Imagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree."
] |
>
“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.
Even after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.
Gen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that."
] |
>
I'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.
Now is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there."
] |
>
? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general.
I do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then."
] |
>
I said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.
You could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways."
] |
>
Yikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality."
] |
>
Socialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states."
] |
>
Bruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.
The left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift."
] |
>
Lol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”
Eventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords."
] |
>
Yeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist.
This is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way."
] |
>
And they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.
A good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard"
] |
>
For sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).
Gen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc."
] |
>
I'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.
Thank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change."
] |
>
Not sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess."
] |
>
Seeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model."
] |
>
You are totally right
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused."
] |
>
Dataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.
Your data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life.
It'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) "They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values" or B) "This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party" And then it'll click the vote box for you.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right"
] |
>
Neoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you."
] |
>
One would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war."
] |
>
You will own nothing and be happy about it.
Renting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.
Basically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.
Scaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China."
] |
>
You will own nothing and be happy about it.
Nope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.
Renting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.
Not at all.
Basically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.
hard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.
Scaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.
It already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold."
] |
>
A rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.
I can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things."
] |
>
Two parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two "big tent" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.
What you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.
This is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles."
] |
>
I’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending.
A compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting."
] |
>
We seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care)."
] |
>
We'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system"
] |
>
Don’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism."
] |
>
A forward-looking one.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?"
] |
>
Depends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.
We're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one."
] |
>
I think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.
Whether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context..."
] |
>
Next global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.
But a state with full institutions.
remind me in 2 years
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon."
] |
>
Anti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general.
I don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like "traditionalists". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.
The left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.
There are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.
Wokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.
I think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP.
As to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years"
] |
>
First, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise.
I think a few people have mentioned "dataism", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that "simplify" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and "trad" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).
I expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness."
] |
>
One of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think."
] |
>
The most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.
I think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.
The more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem."
] |
>
My hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators."
] |
>
Solarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them."
] |
>
Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy:
I think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes."
] |
>
On paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory.
Problem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful."
] |
>
Call me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic "socially liberal economically conservative" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.
The problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant "woke" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.
Another thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code"
] |
>
Populism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers."
] |
>
I think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.
Once AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have "primitive humans" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.
The other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.
Way way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan."
] |
>
Lets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.
I say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate."
] |
>
I like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition"
] |
>
A serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition",
">\n\nI like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result."
] |
>
The new movement will presumably be spearheaded by what the UK calls 'JAM'S- Just About Managing. The left-behinds by tech and losers to immigration and sending jobs abroad/remote working. Leftist programs for what is currently recognised as disadvantaged groups actively deteriorate the JAM lifestyle, without recognising this effect. Or if they do, accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny will be directed at them (JAMs).
This group are not served well by right-wing policies, either, since attitudes towards union membership are not shared. Trump and Brexit has proved the strength of this group, when roused as, of course, they were until recently non- or rare voters.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition",
">\n\nI like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result.",
">\n\nA serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate."
] |
>
In a US context, I think we're on the cusp of seeing a big surge in libertarianism.
I use "libertarian" in the American context because it means something very different in the US political climate than it does...basically anywhere else.
To be more specific, I think we're going to see a big jump in interest in the type of libertarianism espoused by people like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. It's an ideological bent that has space for more conservative political stances as well as more liberal ones and it avoid a lot of the same hang up issues that the predominant value systems have.
It has the "middle way" appeal that liberals and conservatives lack.
We'll probably need a person to kickstart that, someone dynamic and charismatic. But once it gets rolling I think we'll see a lot more people gravitate towards the idea.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition",
">\n\nI like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result.",
">\n\nA serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate.",
">\n\nThe new movement will presumably be spearheaded by what the UK calls 'JAM'S- Just About Managing. The left-behinds by tech and losers to immigration and sending jobs abroad/remote working. Leftist programs for what is currently recognised as disadvantaged groups actively deteriorate the JAM lifestyle, without recognising this effect. Or if they do, accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny will be directed at them (JAMs).\nThis group are not served well by right-wing policies, either, since attitudes towards union membership are not shared. Trump and Brexit has proved the strength of this group, when roused as, of course, they were until recently non- or rare voters."
] |
>
Libertarianism hit its peak going into the 2008 election, with Ron Paul as the darling of the internet. I admit I saw the appeal back then. But I think people are better educated today and can see through its flaws now. Defending freedom for all people requires stepping in when conservatives try to restrict them, a concept libertarians ignore.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition",
">\n\nI like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result.",
">\n\nA serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate.",
">\n\nThe new movement will presumably be spearheaded by what the UK calls 'JAM'S- Just About Managing. The left-behinds by tech and losers to immigration and sending jobs abroad/remote working. Leftist programs for what is currently recognised as disadvantaged groups actively deteriorate the JAM lifestyle, without recognising this effect. Or if they do, accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny will be directed at them (JAMs).\nThis group are not served well by right-wing policies, either, since attitudes towards union membership are not shared. Trump and Brexit has proved the strength of this group, when roused as, of course, they were until recently non- or rare voters.",
">\n\nIn a US context, I think we're on the cusp of seeing a big surge in libertarianism.\nI use \"libertarian\" in the American context because it means something very different in the US political climate than it does...basically anywhere else.\nTo be more specific, I think we're going to see a big jump in interest in the type of libertarianism espoused by people like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. It's an ideological bent that has space for more conservative political stances as well as more liberal ones and it avoid a lot of the same hang up issues that the predominant value systems have.\nIt has the \"middle way\" appeal that liberals and conservatives lack. \nWe'll probably need a person to kickstart that, someone dynamic and charismatic. But once it gets rolling I think we'll see a lot more people gravitate towards the idea."
] |
>
It had appeal to me when I was younger too.
It offers simple solutions to basically any question. Minimum thinking is required.
However, if you look beyond the immediate gut reaction and effect of basically anything flowing from that ideology, you realize it either ignores and outright denies the existence of any other knock-on effects or consequences. Those effects are routinely larger or more destructive than the original problem.
Libertarianism is the most short-horizoned philosophy that exists in any significant amount in the US.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition",
">\n\nI like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result.",
">\n\nA serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate.",
">\n\nThe new movement will presumably be spearheaded by what the UK calls 'JAM'S- Just About Managing. The left-behinds by tech and losers to immigration and sending jobs abroad/remote working. Leftist programs for what is currently recognised as disadvantaged groups actively deteriorate the JAM lifestyle, without recognising this effect. Or if they do, accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny will be directed at them (JAMs).\nThis group are not served well by right-wing policies, either, since attitudes towards union membership are not shared. Trump and Brexit has proved the strength of this group, when roused as, of course, they were until recently non- or rare voters.",
">\n\nIn a US context, I think we're on the cusp of seeing a big surge in libertarianism.\nI use \"libertarian\" in the American context because it means something very different in the US political climate than it does...basically anywhere else.\nTo be more specific, I think we're going to see a big jump in interest in the type of libertarianism espoused by people like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. It's an ideological bent that has space for more conservative political stances as well as more liberal ones and it avoid a lot of the same hang up issues that the predominant value systems have.\nIt has the \"middle way\" appeal that liberals and conservatives lack. \nWe'll probably need a person to kickstart that, someone dynamic and charismatic. But once it gets rolling I think we'll see a lot more people gravitate towards the idea.",
">\n\nLibertarianism hit its peak going into the 2008 election, with Ron Paul as the darling of the internet. I admit I saw the appeal back then. But I think people are better educated today and can see through its flaws now. Defending freedom for all people requires stepping in when conservatives try to restrict them, a concept libertarians ignore."
] |
>
It's similar to MAGA conservatism which is just bumper sticker politics. Immigration? Build a wall. Crime? Be Strong! Healthcare? Repeal and Replace. Climate change? Hoax.
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition",
">\n\nI like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result.",
">\n\nA serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate.",
">\n\nThe new movement will presumably be spearheaded by what the UK calls 'JAM'S- Just About Managing. The left-behinds by tech and losers to immigration and sending jobs abroad/remote working. Leftist programs for what is currently recognised as disadvantaged groups actively deteriorate the JAM lifestyle, without recognising this effect. Or if they do, accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny will be directed at them (JAMs).\nThis group are not served well by right-wing policies, either, since attitudes towards union membership are not shared. Trump and Brexit has proved the strength of this group, when roused as, of course, they were until recently non- or rare voters.",
">\n\nIn a US context, I think we're on the cusp of seeing a big surge in libertarianism.\nI use \"libertarian\" in the American context because it means something very different in the US political climate than it does...basically anywhere else.\nTo be more specific, I think we're going to see a big jump in interest in the type of libertarianism espoused by people like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. It's an ideological bent that has space for more conservative political stances as well as more liberal ones and it avoid a lot of the same hang up issues that the predominant value systems have.\nIt has the \"middle way\" appeal that liberals and conservatives lack. \nWe'll probably need a person to kickstart that, someone dynamic and charismatic. But once it gets rolling I think we'll see a lot more people gravitate towards the idea.",
">\n\nLibertarianism hit its peak going into the 2008 election, with Ron Paul as the darling of the internet. I admit I saw the appeal back then. But I think people are better educated today and can see through its flaws now. Defending freedom for all people requires stepping in when conservatives try to restrict them, a concept libertarians ignore.",
">\n\nIt had appeal to me when I was younger too.\nIt offers simple solutions to basically any question. Minimum thinking is required.\nHowever, if you look beyond the immediate gut reaction and effect of basically anything flowing from that ideology, you realize it either ignores and outright denies the existence of any other knock-on effects or consequences. Those effects are routinely larger or more destructive than the original problem.\nLibertarianism is the most short-horizoned philosophy that exists in any significant amount in the US."
] |
>
|
[
"Liberal capitalism.\nI define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.\nThis ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.\nThe ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By \"socialization\" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale.",
">\n\nwe already have this",
">\n\nMaybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.\nWe had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\nWhat we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. \nWhat we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.\nWhat we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.\nWhat we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.\nThat is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.\nWe have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.\nI could go on.",
">\n\n\nWhat we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \nCorporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.",
">\n\n\nThat is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. \n\n😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.\n\nLiberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\n\nI would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.\nYou may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:\ntrades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.\nOne more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking?",
">\n\nI am a marxist, yes.",
">\n\nAlright then.\nYou accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?\nYou believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?\nI am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.\nAt least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.",
">\n\nYep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.\nTo your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher\nYou and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.\nIt's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.",
">\n\nI understand why you see things the way that you do.\nI am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.\nI don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too.",
">\n\nI believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads. \nWe see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US. We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest. \nThe US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power. And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident.",
">\n\nI disagree.\nThis is not the \"next big ideology\" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\nWe will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.\nThey have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.\nWhat's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority.",
">\n\n\nthat has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.\n\nIt has not been discarded. The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. \nSet aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday. We need only turn to the law and outcomes.\nAccording to the voting rights lab:\n\nOver the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.\n\nThat's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.\nAnd what of the Republicans that led the efforts? The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office. They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.\nOn the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office. 8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term. No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6. \nOur institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. \nAnd our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities. And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default. They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors. \nIt doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power.",
">\n\nI think you have summed up the fight pretty well.\nI'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.\nThey are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power.",
">\n\n\nThey are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.\n\nAgain, demographics don't matter whatsoever. It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters. Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor. \nIt is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century. We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge.",
">\n\nI respectfully disagree.",
">\n\nI believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. \nI think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. \nBut millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. \nOnce millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. \nI’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. \nImagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that.",
">\n\n“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.\nEven after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.\nGen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there.",
">\n\nI'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.\nNow is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then.",
">\n\n? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. \nI do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways.",
">\n\nI said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.\nYou could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality.",
">\n\nYikes. I didn't know about the 19 states.",
">\n\nSocialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift.",
">\n\nBruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.\nThe left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords.",
">\n\nLol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”\nEventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way.",
">\n\nYeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. \nThis is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard",
">\n\nAnd they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.\nA good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too. Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc.",
">\n\nFor sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).\nGen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.",
">\n\nI'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.\nThank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.",
">\n\nNot sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model.",
">\n\nSeeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused.",
">\n\nYou are totally right",
">\n\nDataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.\nYour data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. \nIt'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) \"They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values\" or B) \"This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party\" And then it'll click the vote box for you.",
">\n\nNeoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war.",
">\n\nOne would think so, but many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China.",
">\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.",
">\n\n\nYou will own nothing and be happy about it.\n\nNope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.\n\nRenting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.\n\nNot at all. \n\nBasically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.\n\nhard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.\n\nScaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.\n\nIt already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things.",
">\n\nA rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice. But, I don’t know if that will happen.\nI can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs. The US is on a path that is unsustainable. At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles.",
">\n\nTwo parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two \"big tent\" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.\nWhat you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.\nThis is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting.",
">\n\nI’m a libertarian. So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending. \nA compromise could look like this: Reduce military spending by 30%. Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit. Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care).",
">\n\nWe seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system",
">\n\nWe'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism.",
">\n\nDon’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this?",
">\n\nA forward-looking one.",
">\n\nDepends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.\nWe're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context...",
">\n\nI think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.\nWhether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon.",
">\n\nNext global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.\nBut a state with full institutions.\nremind me in 2 years",
">\n\nAnti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy. This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. \nI don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like \"traditionalists\". The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene. We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.\nThe left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars. It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past. The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used. Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week. That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.\nThere are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down. Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again. The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist. There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person. If only humans were so simple.\nWokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition. By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary. That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right. As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president). Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy? No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.\nI think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP. \nAs to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S. The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion. The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition. Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air. Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness.",
">\n\nFirst, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. \nI think a few people have mentioned \"dataism\", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that \"simplify\" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and \"trad\" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).\nI expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem.",
">\n\nThe most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.\nI think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.\nThe more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators.",
">\n\nMy hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them.",
">\n\nSolarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes.",
">\n\nAugmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: \nI think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful.",
">\n\nOn paper, communism is awesome. It’s the people who always seem to mess it up. Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory. \nProblem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code",
">\n\nCall me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish. I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations. The classic \"socially liberal economically conservative\" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.\nThe problem is, this change won't happen gradually. It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing. We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant \"woke\" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.\nAnother thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers.",
">\n\nPopulism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan.",
">\n\nI think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.\nOnce AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have \"primitive humans\" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.\nThe other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.\nWay way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate.",
">\n\nLets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.\nI say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition",
">\n\nI like your script for the future. I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout. The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result.",
">\n\nA serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate.",
">\n\nThe new movement will presumably be spearheaded by what the UK calls 'JAM'S- Just About Managing. The left-behinds by tech and losers to immigration and sending jobs abroad/remote working. Leftist programs for what is currently recognised as disadvantaged groups actively deteriorate the JAM lifestyle, without recognising this effect. Or if they do, accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny will be directed at them (JAMs).\nThis group are not served well by right-wing policies, either, since attitudes towards union membership are not shared. Trump and Brexit has proved the strength of this group, when roused as, of course, they were until recently non- or rare voters.",
">\n\nIn a US context, I think we're on the cusp of seeing a big surge in libertarianism.\nI use \"libertarian\" in the American context because it means something very different in the US political climate than it does...basically anywhere else.\nTo be more specific, I think we're going to see a big jump in interest in the type of libertarianism espoused by people like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. It's an ideological bent that has space for more conservative political stances as well as more liberal ones and it avoid a lot of the same hang up issues that the predominant value systems have.\nIt has the \"middle way\" appeal that liberals and conservatives lack. \nWe'll probably need a person to kickstart that, someone dynamic and charismatic. But once it gets rolling I think we'll see a lot more people gravitate towards the idea.",
">\n\nLibertarianism hit its peak going into the 2008 election, with Ron Paul as the darling of the internet. I admit I saw the appeal back then. But I think people are better educated today and can see through its flaws now. Defending freedom for all people requires stepping in when conservatives try to restrict them, a concept libertarians ignore.",
">\n\nIt had appeal to me when I was younger too.\nIt offers simple solutions to basically any question. Minimum thinking is required.\nHowever, if you look beyond the immediate gut reaction and effect of basically anything flowing from that ideology, you realize it either ignores and outright denies the existence of any other knock-on effects or consequences. Those effects are routinely larger or more destructive than the original problem.\nLibertarianism is the most short-horizoned philosophy that exists in any significant amount in the US.",
">\n\nIt's similar to MAGA conservatism which is just bumper sticker politics. Immigration? Build a wall. Crime? Be Strong! Healthcare? Repeal and Replace. Climate change? Hoax."
] |
This is one of the hardest things about mental health.
When I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.
The thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself "because" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself "because" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was.
I was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. "Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!" "Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.
Now, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say "oh, just think positive", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.
One of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.
That's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.
The same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going "well, duh, how could it be otherwise?". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going "um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black".
What your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.
So, to get back to your questions:
Honestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?
We do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.
But even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)
Suppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?
How are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.
This is a very important point.
There is a difference between "I am sad" and "I deserve to be sad".
Right now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as "proof" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your "failures", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.
Part of the reason depression and anxiety are "sticky" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.
There is "something wrong with you" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it "mental illness" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.
When you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.
When your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean "stop working on your problems". They mean "stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved".
Idk maybe I never felt loved and accepted
Yeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life.
If I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go "man, that sucked", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.
|
[] |
>
You have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or "wins" it's in you as a person.
Your worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?
I'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life."
] |
>
Do you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?
Rearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.
If you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.
Actually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. "Fake it 'till you make it" and what not.
Does being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?
No, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.
Why would anyone want you if you were a "bad person"?
The fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.
How do you put all of that in without some positivity?
"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.
The fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with."
] |
>
No, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth."
] |
>
If you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all."
] |
>
My psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.
Most people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.
A better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think "this is what a put-together person has").
You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner.
What you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about?
No one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point."
] |
>
I have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part.
Me too! It ain't easy.
My psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.
Here's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.
Your mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.
Your psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.
I want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?
Try and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:
not "have a great career" but "sign up for the next semester of school" or "apply for 5 jobs"
not "have a body everyone admires" but "go cycling this week" or "sign up for yoga", etc
not "have a wonderful circle of friends," but "sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person" and so on
Try and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it."
] |
>
I haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.
If I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.
After a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.
I guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.
Maybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.
I'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.
Love and hope.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing."
] |
>
I want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?
You’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope."
] |
>
Some of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter"
] |
>
And individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.
You can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself.
It's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from."
] |
>
I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments
Think about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?
He's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is."
] |
>
That's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all."
] |
>
You must accept that what they are saying is true.
Consider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.
It is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.
What, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is."
] |
>
All you can do is the best you can do.
Repeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.
Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?
Let me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: "CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this."
It really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself."
] |
>
When you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do."
] |
>
The self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).
Those things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.
Checking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success."
] |
>
This is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.
You are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of "worth" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of "being worthy" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.
The "worthiness" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those.
What defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use.
In any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel "not worthy enough".
I think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.
To put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.
As far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are "goals to reach happiness". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.
I am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being "enough". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth."
] |
>
I agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road."
] |
>
No those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home."
] |
>
It’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way."
] |
>
You can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle."
] |
>
I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues. These things will make me happy and accepting of myself
Nope.
Ask anyone who has ever been on the 'I'll be happy when....' thing, where they think if they get the better job, lose X lbs, do whatever, they'll be happy.
You're still you wherever you go and whatever job you have.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.",
">\n\nYou can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you."
] |
>
You don’t have to achieve, possess, or belong to feel worthy. This is an artificial construct imposed by society and culture that can vanish or diminish in value just like that. Know the difference between “you” and “yours”.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.",
">\n\nYou can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you.",
">\n\n\nI responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues. These things will make me happy and accepting of myself\n\nNope.\nAsk anyone who has ever been on the 'I'll be happy when....' thing, where they think if they get the better job, lose X lbs, do whatever, they'll be happy. \nYou're still you wherever you go and whatever job you have."
] |
>
No, you're right. The whole "love yourself or no one else will love you" spiel is bullshit. When no one loves you, considers you, or treats you like you're worthy of love, care, respect, or consideration, how are you supposed to believe that you deserve any of that? When all empirical evidence (in the form of how people treat you) points towards you being worthless, then how, exactly, are you supposed to build healthy self-esteem?
Also, how far you can get in life largely depends on who you know and how much people like you. Hard work and raw talent matter very little. So if you're the kind of person that others instinctually dislike and want to bully, you won't make it very far at work either and will struggle more financially, which further feeds into a negative self-perception.
Source: I am this person, I've tried incredibly hard to let other people's assholery roll off my back and think good things about myself. It doesn't work.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.",
">\n\nYou can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you.",
">\n\n\nI responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues. These things will make me happy and accepting of myself\n\nNope.\nAsk anyone who has ever been on the 'I'll be happy when....' thing, where they think if they get the better job, lose X lbs, do whatever, they'll be happy. \nYou're still you wherever you go and whatever job you have.",
">\n\nYou don’t have to achieve, possess, or belong to feel worthy. This is an artificial construct imposed by society and culture that can vanish or diminish in value just like that. Know the difference between “you” and “yours”."
] |
>
See, the thing about people who preach self-love as a miracle cure is that they are almost always successful shiny happy people with friends and loved ones around to constantly gas them up. They're biased towards loving themselves and having a positive self-image because other people love and like them. They've never had to live without that kind of support so they take it for granted and don't see that without the external validation they're used to, they would also start to question their own worth and if they were totally removed from their support system, they'd sink into depression too.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.",
">\n\nYou can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you.",
">\n\n\nI responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues. These things will make me happy and accepting of myself\n\nNope.\nAsk anyone who has ever been on the 'I'll be happy when....' thing, where they think if they get the better job, lose X lbs, do whatever, they'll be happy. \nYou're still you wherever you go and whatever job you have.",
">\n\nYou don’t have to achieve, possess, or belong to feel worthy. This is an artificial construct imposed by society and culture that can vanish or diminish in value just like that. Know the difference between “you” and “yours”.",
">\n\nNo, you're right. The whole \"love yourself or no one else will love you\" spiel is bullshit. When no one loves you, considers you, or treats you like you're worthy of love, care, respect, or consideration, how are you supposed to believe that you deserve any of that? When all empirical evidence (in the form of how people treat you) points towards you being worthless, then how, exactly, are you supposed to build healthy self-esteem?\nAlso, how far you can get in life largely depends on who you know and how much people like you. Hard work and raw talent matter very little. So if you're the kind of person that others instinctually dislike and want to bully, you won't make it very far at work either and will struggle more financially, which further feeds into a negative self-perception.\nSource: I am this person, I've tried incredibly hard to let other people's assholery roll off my back and think good things about myself. It doesn't work."
] |
>
I became a lot more accepting of myself by deciding what mattered to me and what I cared about. I don't love myself quite yet, but I like myself most of the time.
You have to make your own checklist, not just accept the one society pushes on everyone.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.",
">\n\nYou can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you.",
">\n\n\nI responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues. These things will make me happy and accepting of myself\n\nNope.\nAsk anyone who has ever been on the 'I'll be happy when....' thing, where they think if they get the better job, lose X lbs, do whatever, they'll be happy. \nYou're still you wherever you go and whatever job you have.",
">\n\nYou don’t have to achieve, possess, or belong to feel worthy. This is an artificial construct imposed by society and culture that can vanish or diminish in value just like that. Know the difference between “you” and “yours”.",
">\n\nNo, you're right. The whole \"love yourself or no one else will love you\" spiel is bullshit. When no one loves you, considers you, or treats you like you're worthy of love, care, respect, or consideration, how are you supposed to believe that you deserve any of that? When all empirical evidence (in the form of how people treat you) points towards you being worthless, then how, exactly, are you supposed to build healthy self-esteem?\nAlso, how far you can get in life largely depends on who you know and how much people like you. Hard work and raw talent matter very little. So if you're the kind of person that others instinctually dislike and want to bully, you won't make it very far at work either and will struggle more financially, which further feeds into a negative self-perception.\nSource: I am this person, I've tried incredibly hard to let other people's assholery roll off my back and think good things about myself. It doesn't work.",
">\n\nSee, the thing about people who preach self-love as a miracle cure is that they are almost always successful shiny happy people with friends and loved ones around to constantly gas them up. They're biased towards loving themselves and having a positive self-image because other people love and like them. They've never had to live without that kind of support so they take it for granted and don't see that without the external validation they're used to, they would also start to question their own worth and if they were totally removed from their support system, they'd sink into depression too."
] |
>
Self worth can also come from faith that you are literally a spirit child of a loving God, and have inherited divine potential.
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.",
">\n\nYou can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you.",
">\n\n\nI responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues. These things will make me happy and accepting of myself\n\nNope.\nAsk anyone who has ever been on the 'I'll be happy when....' thing, where they think if they get the better job, lose X lbs, do whatever, they'll be happy. \nYou're still you wherever you go and whatever job you have.",
">\n\nYou don’t have to achieve, possess, or belong to feel worthy. This is an artificial construct imposed by society and culture that can vanish or diminish in value just like that. Know the difference between “you” and “yours”.",
">\n\nNo, you're right. The whole \"love yourself or no one else will love you\" spiel is bullshit. When no one loves you, considers you, or treats you like you're worthy of love, care, respect, or consideration, how are you supposed to believe that you deserve any of that? When all empirical evidence (in the form of how people treat you) points towards you being worthless, then how, exactly, are you supposed to build healthy self-esteem?\nAlso, how far you can get in life largely depends on who you know and how much people like you. Hard work and raw talent matter very little. So if you're the kind of person that others instinctually dislike and want to bully, you won't make it very far at work either and will struggle more financially, which further feeds into a negative self-perception.\nSource: I am this person, I've tried incredibly hard to let other people's assholery roll off my back and think good things about myself. It doesn't work.",
">\n\nSee, the thing about people who preach self-love as a miracle cure is that they are almost always successful shiny happy people with friends and loved ones around to constantly gas them up. They're biased towards loving themselves and having a positive self-image because other people love and like them. They've never had to live without that kind of support so they take it for granted and don't see that without the external validation they're used to, they would also start to question their own worth and if they were totally removed from their support system, they'd sink into depression too.",
">\n\nI became a lot more accepting of myself by deciding what mattered to me and what I cared about. I don't love myself quite yet, but I like myself most of the time.\nYou have to make your own checklist, not just accept the one society pushes on everyone."
] |
>
|
[
"This is one of the hardest things about mental health.\nWhen I was poor and on my way to homelessness and saw no way out, I felt horrible. Years later, when I was rich and rising successfully in my career and was by all measures a pretty successful person, I...felt horrible. And I felt horrible in exactly the same way! The voice in my head said the same things, in the same language.\nThe thing about self-loathing and about anxiety is that it isn't the result of your circumstances, but it does justify itself by using your circumstances. So when I was poor, I hated myself \"because\" I couldn't afford groceries. And when I was doing well in my career, I hated myself \"because\" I fucked up at work. But more properly, I just hated myself, and was looking for justifications as to why that was. \nI was like a detective who has been told a murder occurred, looking for any data in the environment as to why the murder occurred. \"Oh, I see, a broken twig, that must be where the murderer came from!\" \"Aha, a hammer, that must be the murder weapon!\" And all of that made sense...except that no murder had actually occurred in the first place. I was fitting that data into the existing narrative, rather than questioning the narrative itself.\n\nNow, that's not to say environment doesn't matter, just that it isn't one-to-one with how you feel. Yes, a better environment will probably help, and yes, your current environment might be hurting. But there are plenty of people in worse environments than you who are happy, and plenty of people in better environments than you who are miserable. That isn't to say \"oh, just think positive\", which (in that form) is not very good advice. It's to say that circumstances and how you feel are different things.\nOne of the best analogies I have for mental health is color. You remember that dress that set the internet on fire five or ten years ago? Where half the internet was absolutely convinced it was white and gold and the other half was absolutely convinced it was blue and black? Everyone was looking at the same image, but taking something totally different from it.\nThat's because color, like all perceptions, isn't a property of the world. It's a property of your mind. It is of course related to the world, but it's filtered through many layers of unconscious processing long before it gets to any direct awareness by you as a conscious being - layers that can tell you the dress is white and gold or that it's black and blue in a way that, unless you are really vigilant or can compare to the experiences of others, you'll never notice.\nThe same is going on right now. Your brain wants to interpret your world as black and blue, and it is serving up the world to your conscious mind in a form that is so obviously black and blue that you as a conscious being are going \"well, duh, how could it be otherwise?\". And your therapist is telling you well, actually that dress is white and gold, and you are going \"um no that's fucking stupid it is obviously black\".\nWhat your therapist is trying to do here isn't to tell you you're being irrational. It's to tell you that your subconscious processing systems are broken in a way that is distorting the version of reality that can get into your brain. Those processing systems are looking for ways to interpret the world as proof that you're a bad person. And since most people are flawed, it isn't hard for them to find it.\n\nSo, to get back to your questions:\n\nHonestly, I don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nWe do to some extent. And in particular, healthy people can do this, because their brain doesn't minimize their accomplishments and magnify their faults. When they look at a dress, they see its color as it is, more or less, and so they don't think the world has more of one color than another.\nBut even then, things are comparative, not absolute. A student at Harvard who gets worse grades than other Harvard students might feel bad about that, even though they are, objectively, still far smarter than the average person. Someone who wins Employee of the Month at their local McDonalds franchise might feel good, even though that's not a very high bar. (This is part of why self-esteem can be harder in the modern world: we are exposed much more to people more successful than ourselves, and much less to people who are less successful.)\nSuppose you knew someone who had a severe disability. They can barely walk, or they're significantly less intelligent than the average person. Are they necessarily miserable, even though they objectively have much lower capability than others? Would you say they should dislike themselves for accomplishing less?\n\nHow are they gonna accept and love themselves because there's something wrong with the person which got them in such a position in the first place.\n\nThis is a very important point.\nThere is a difference between \"I am sad\" and \"I deserve to be sad\".\nRight now, your miserable circumstances are more than just miserable circumstances. They are a cudgel with which you can beat yourself. They act as \"proof\" of your self-loathing, as concrete demonstrations of your \"failures\", because you're seeing those circumstances through the broken processing layers we were talking about a little while ago.\nPart of the reason depression and anxiety are \"sticky\" is that they run on this loop. You feel bad, so you feel like you deserve to feel bad, so you beat yourself up more, so you sink further into depression, so you feel worse. And so on.\nThere is \"something wrong with you\" only in the sense that there is something wrong with someone who has a broken leg. It makes it harder for you to do certain things. But it isn't a moral failing on your part. You are sick, not bad. We don't call it \"mental illness\" for nothing: it is no more a failing of you as a person than getting the flu is.\nWhen you get the flu, you might feel bad. You might roll around feeling miserable. Your head pounds, you throw up every couple hours, and it's just an awful time. But at no point while having the flu did you do anything wrong. You just felt bad. And you'd understand that your suffering is just a temporary thing that isn't under your direct control. Sure, you can do a few things to help it pass (drink plenty of water, get some sleep). But you can't choose not to have the flu. You don't hate yourself for having it. You don't feel like having the flu is some immutable part of what you are.\nWhen your therapist says to love yourself, they don't mean \"stop working on your problems\". They mean \"stop treating your problems as a way in which you, as a person, are bad, and start treating them as external problems to be solved\".\n\nIdk maybe I never felt loved and accepted\n\nYeah, me either. I still struggle with that bit. I still constantly feel not good enough. But I have learned not to listen to that feeling too much. And I've learned to remind myself that when I falter, I didn't falter because I'm a bad person, I faltered because life is hard and because I'm burdened with a difficult path in life. \nIf I don't accomplish what I want to today, I'll feel sad, but I'll go \"man, that sucked\", curl up with a comforting book, cry a little, and go to sleep. And then I'll try again tomorrow. I can't not be depressed or anxious sometimes, because that's just how my brain works. But I can learn to cope with them and to navigate around them in ways that prevent them from establishing the debilitating loops in which I spent most of my life.",
">\n\n\nYou have to build up your own resilience and recognize that your worth is not in your achievements or \"wins\" it's in you as a person.\n\nYour worth as a person is absolutely tied to achieving your goals, otherwise you feel like dead weight on society. Does being a good person pay bills? Does being a good person turn you into an athelete? Does being a good person get you into relationships? No. Hard work, skill, and determination get you those things, and if you lack any of that, how are you supposed to assign positive value to yourself?\nI'm with OP where I no longer understand the concept of loving yourself, personally from going through multiple ego deaths. It genuinely seems strange and arrogant to me, especially if you have nothing to back it up with.",
">\n\n\nDo you think a single mother is a dead weight? Or retired people? Or just people whose goals didn't work out?\n\nRearing the next generation is literally one of the biggest contributions one can make to society. Retired people have already paid their dues, and deserve to reap what they have sown. They also contribute knowledge and experience. And as somebody who has come short in just about every benchmark i set for myself, I do genuinely feel like i'm dead weight in the grand scheme of things.\n\nIf you're a cunt to work with, you wont be working very long.\n\nActually being a good person is not the same as having people skills. \"Fake it 'till you make it\" and what not.\n\nDoes being completely negative about yourself help motivate you to be better and train?\n\nNo, but complete assholes can better themselves physically as well, so that doesnt really matter imo.\n\nWhy would anyone want you if you were a \"bad person\"?\n\nThe fact that psychotic narcissists and literal violent felons can have people fall in live with them says otherwise.\n\nHow do you put all of that in without some positivity?\n\n\"I dislike myself because I suck. I do not enjoy disliking myself. Therefore, I will do these things that make me suck less so i dislike myself less\" is how I convince myself to do things like work out and stay employed.\nThe fact that you exist is not praiseworthy in and of itself, as it is something that quite literally all of us are capable of. To me, that sounds like you're proud of yourself for being able to breathe, or that you can urinate. I understand that certain people cannot perform basic functions, but for them those small things are relatively impressive, and are absolutely something to be proud of. But fully capable people like us? It would be a very weird thing to brag about. It's what you do with the existence that you're given should be a point of pride and self-worth.",
">\n\nNo, I get the point, I just disagree with it. Self-love comes from being worthy of love yourself, a trait that is not inherent in every single human. The majority of people deserve it imo, but not all.",
">\n\nIf you're talking about loving yourself just for existing, then yes, I do not get the point.",
">\n\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nMost people never achieve most or even half of these things. If you're making this the benchmark, you've set yourself up for failure.\nA better question is to ask why you want each of these things and what they actually enable you to do in practice (not just desiring them because you think \"this is what a put-together person has\").\n You are emphasizing the external, which suggests to me you may be particularly concerned with how you are perceived or how you compare to other people. I'm not saying these things can be completely ignored, but they aren't anywhere near as more important as whether you are enjoying what you do on a day to day basis. Most people have to choose between money and a career they enjoy/aren't stressed out by (or find some middle ground). Most people are lucky to find one really good friend or partner. \nWhat you are not listing are specific practices that are enjoyable or meaningful to you. Do you have hobbies? Are there individuals you love? Are there issues you are passionate about? \nNo one is keeping a scoreboard on how well you did at a, b, or c. What matters is making the most of your time (spoiler: few people are ever completely sure they're doing this, but you have some choice in the matter). If you feel you're doing the things you want ( within your power/circumstance) then self-esteem tends to come with it.",
">\n\n\nI have ADHD, low self esteem and bunch of other issues as well. I need perspective from you guys on self esteem part. \n\nMe too! It ain't easy.\n\nMy psychologist asked me what will make me accept myself, to which I responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues.\n\nHere's the bad news ... none of these things will make you accept yourself. I went out and got a career, I've done very well in it, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the US, I've got loving romantic relationships and a big circle of supportive friends, and I still have ADHD, low self esteem, and chronic depression.\nYour mind is great at coming up with excuses for the way that it functions -- at the end of the day, if your brain is predisposed toward depression and low self-image, the extrinsic factors make much less of a difference than you think they do: you get to choose between feeling like a failure, and feeling like a fraud.\nYour psychologist is right -- you certainly should go for the career, the relationships, etc, but you need to treat the way you feel about yourself as an independent problem, and start working on it now ... not come up with reasons to work on it later, because I promise you, it'll still be there waiting for you.\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself? What derives your self esteem/worth?\n\nTry and cut the narrative. It's just a process that's gotten stuck on repeat. Set little, tangible, achievable goals for yourself:\n\nnot \"have a great career\" but \"sign up for the next semester of school\" or \"apply for 5 jobs\"\nnot \"have a body everyone admires\" but \"go cycling this week\" or \"sign up for yoga\", etc\nnot \"have a wonderful circle of friends,\" but \"sign up for a group activity and talk to at least one person\" and so on\n\nTry and build momentum, and disrupt the ongoing feelings of defeat with little, tangible victories. Believe me, it piles up, and especially if you have ADHD like me, getting into a habit is a huge thing.",
">\n\nI haven't come to accept myself fully yet, but I used to think like you.\nIf I make more friends I'll feel comfortable. If I have a loving long term relationship I'll be comfortable in myself. How can I love myself if I'm not lovable to others.\nAfter a long time I think I've realised that the problem was always inside me. Looking for outside worth means you can avoid looking for what's wrong inside. For me, at least.\nI guess I realized that there was a fundamental part of me that I'd separated, pretended wasn't me, and locked away. I'd lost my hopes, dreams, and interests for my own life, and instead lived my life to live up to the perceived expectations of others. I didn't live my own life based on my internal drive, I lived for others, and so I didn't love myself. I wasn't proud of who I was because I wasn't truly me.\nMaybe you have such a locked box yourself. Maybe not. Maybe there is something deep down that you don't want to look at or admit to yourself. Something influencing your life which you don't really want. Something that feels a bit off.\nI'm not a psychologist, these are just my thoughts based on my own experiences, and they might not apply to you. Just giving one perspective.\nLove and hope.",
">\n\n\nI want to understand from you guys, what makes you accept yourself?\n\nYou’re a microscopic slightly evolved chimp on a slightly less microscopic ball of dirt hurtling through endless space. You’re here for basically a microsecond in cosmic time. Do you care about which ant is higher in the hierarchy in an ant colony? So why should you care who’s on top of an only slightly more advanced hierarchy? To use another metaphor, someone might be the chief of a small uncontacted tribe of the Amazon, within his society he’s a big man. Do you think other world leaders are concerned with him? Problems of low self worth come from comparing ourselves to others, but at the cosmic scale when we realize how inconsequential we are this all seems silly. Everyone will be forgotten soon enough. Use your time to find what brings you joy in the very small moments you have to be alive don’t concern yourself with stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter",
">\n\nSome of the happiest people you will ever meet are the mentally disabled. They have none of the things that check your boxes, and they don't care, because that's not where it comes from.",
">\n\nAnd individuals self worth may be influenced by external factors, but not derived.\nYou can be successful and still have low self esteem or a total f-up and think highly of yourself. \nIt's about self acceptance and about what your focus is in life is.",
">\n\n\nI don't understand this, isn't this how it works? Don't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments\n\nThink about the guy who can't help but talk about how great and accomplished he is. Dude's an asshole. Do you want to hang out with him and be bombarded with his tales of greatness all day?\nHe's not happy. He's the most insecure guy of them all.",
">\n\nThat's what people want you to think. But self worth is more about self acceptance. Accomplishments definitely can contribute to that and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you're only defining yourself by what you've done according to others, that's not self worth anymore. That's called reflected self worth, or - your perception of yourself is based on what others tell you it is.",
">\n\nYou must accept that what they are saying is true.\nConsider a deserted island where you are all alone where you, or someone else, would have none of the items you’ve listed.\nIt is still fully possible to have varying degrees of self worth with different people in that situation, because self worth is not dependent on external items.\nWhat, conceptually, must change in your view is that self worth is not how you measure up against any societal influences of what is valuable. Self worth is nothing more than how much you value yourself.",
">\n\nAll you can do is the best you can do.\nRepeat this! ALL you can do is the best you can do.\n\nDon't we all tend to tie our self worth to our accomplishments etc or am just an idiot out there?\n\nLet me tell you I was right there years ago. And everything in my life was cratering. I had just been pulled over for speeding for like the 3rd time in 6 months, and I was really beating myself up about it. And then I had my epiphany: \"CallMeCorona1: You have to love yourself! If you can't love yourself, no one else can! Lots of people get speeding tickets; you are not that special in this.\"\nIt really is as simple as loving and forgiving yourself, and telling yourself that all you can do is the best you can do.",
">\n\nWhen you fundamentally believe that you are the problem, that you are not good enough and that is why you do not succeed, no amount of external success can lead to change in that mindset. All external success gets you from that is imposter syndrome where you constantly think you are a faker and everyone around you would leave if they knew the real you. You need to change your internal narrative first to be able to enjoy your success.",
">\n\nThe self-worth comes from the confidence and methodologies you employ in order to achieve said goals (professional accomplishments, social).\nThose things can change - you can lose a job, people can more, whatever - so like you need to prepare to acquire them again.\nChecking boxes is, to some extent, seeking the approval from others. Like goal setting is good but should be de-coupled from self worth.",
">\n\nThis is my interpretation, but i'd say this is the road vs target problem.\nYou are going to spend your life on the road, toward certain targets that you define. They may may change, and you may or may not reach said targets. The issue of \"worth\" is that not everyone has the same definition of it. Your definition of \"being worthy\" will be different from someone else, and sometimes completely opposite. As an example, someone may consider getting very rich as having worth; while another may consider giving away your riches to help others and live in relative poverty is more worthy.\nThe \"worthiness\" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not absolute. Societies as a whole may define some values, but you are an individual; you dont need to conform to those. \nWhat defines you is the means you use toward said targets and how you yourself decided what was valuable. You may decide the end justifies the means, scam and rob people to get rich, and consider that acceptable. Or you may consider only hard work is the way. There are an infinite variation of roads toward a goal, and it is up to you to decide if you are worthy or not. The people you will meet along the road with tag along as they accept the means you use. \nIn any case, reaching a target is instantly gratifying, and very quickly isnt anymore. Because you now need to find a new road, toward a harder target, to get satisfied. Ticking those boxes arent going to satisfy your quest for worth, because if you consider your worth related to reaching said targets, you will create another, harder one to reach every time, and will always feel \"not worthy enough\".\nI think this is what your psychologist is trying to tell you: focus on the road. You wont get happy by ticking boxes.\nTo put that in perspective, think about the astronauts that went on the moon and back. The road there was very long, for a short event; and once you accomplish that, what target are you going to set ? It is going to be pretty hard to top that. Thats the reason they fell deep in depression coming back.\nAs far as I can tell for myself, I am also fighting that a bit. I had no real goal, so accepted what society considers are \"goals to reach happiness\". Work hard at school, make some friends along the way, find a job, find love... well it didnt satisfy me. Then I set other goals, some accomplished, some not, some I cannot accomplished anymore because that ship has sailed.\nI am not happy, nor I consider my self worth being \"enough\". But I do understand why little by little, and I am trying to focus more on the road.",
">\n\nI agree. My self esteem mostly derives from being adept/proficient at my job and/or feeling like I’ve done a good job with cleaning/being productive at home.",
">\n\nNo those things are determined externally and that's how you are valued externally. How you determine yourself worth can be determined by those things if you choose to, but you don't have to determine them that way.",
">\n\nIt’s a balance. External factors do matter, and humans can’t help judging themselves relative to others (am i better or worse off). But you are also better off than 100s millions of people, if not billions. So you can partly decide if you want to focus on how lucky you are, how unlucky you are, or do something in the middle.",
">\n\nYou can’t derive your self worth from external factors, because you have no control over the external. Something will always be going wrong in your world. If everything has to be going right for you to feel validated, if your self esteem can be shattered by an off hand comment from a total stranger, you will never really be happy. You need to learn to accept yourself and work to make yourself the best person you can be. Then you will be secure enough to handle whatever life throws at you without letting it derail you.",
">\n\n\nI responded, career, money, healthy social and dating life and a life free from my anxiety issues. These things will make me happy and accepting of myself\n\nNope.\nAsk anyone who has ever been on the 'I'll be happy when....' thing, where they think if they get the better job, lose X lbs, do whatever, they'll be happy. \nYou're still you wherever you go and whatever job you have.",
">\n\nYou don’t have to achieve, possess, or belong to feel worthy. This is an artificial construct imposed by society and culture that can vanish or diminish in value just like that. Know the difference between “you” and “yours”.",
">\n\nNo, you're right. The whole \"love yourself or no one else will love you\" spiel is bullshit. When no one loves you, considers you, or treats you like you're worthy of love, care, respect, or consideration, how are you supposed to believe that you deserve any of that? When all empirical evidence (in the form of how people treat you) points towards you being worthless, then how, exactly, are you supposed to build healthy self-esteem?\nAlso, how far you can get in life largely depends on who you know and how much people like you. Hard work and raw talent matter very little. So if you're the kind of person that others instinctually dislike and want to bully, you won't make it very far at work either and will struggle more financially, which further feeds into a negative self-perception.\nSource: I am this person, I've tried incredibly hard to let other people's assholery roll off my back and think good things about myself. It doesn't work.",
">\n\nSee, the thing about people who preach self-love as a miracle cure is that they are almost always successful shiny happy people with friends and loved ones around to constantly gas them up. They're biased towards loving themselves and having a positive self-image because other people love and like them. They've never had to live without that kind of support so they take it for granted and don't see that without the external validation they're used to, they would also start to question their own worth and if they were totally removed from their support system, they'd sink into depression too.",
">\n\nI became a lot more accepting of myself by deciding what mattered to me and what I cared about. I don't love myself quite yet, but I like myself most of the time.\nYou have to make your own checklist, not just accept the one society pushes on everyone.",
">\n\nSelf worth can also come from faith that you are literally a spirit child of a loving God, and have inherited divine potential."
] |
This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically "hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can"
|
[] |
>
also Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\""
] |
>
Yup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up"
] |
>
sweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan."
] |
>
~$657k for the Americans
Re: the snarky comments about the amount:
Chill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid"
] |
>
That number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks"
] |
>
Bro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.
4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event."
] |
>
7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+"
] |
>
So hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks"
] |
>
these appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone.
ruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that."
] |
>
The Turkish people are grateful.
Is Erdogen?
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks."
] |
>
Turkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea.
That shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict.
Fuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?"
] |
>
Honestly Erdogan’s outright support Ukraine has shocked me, not that he would’ve fully supported Russia but I would’ve figure him to just kinda be silent like India.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?",
">\n\nTurkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea. \nThat shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict. \nFuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out."
] |
>
Because turkey has traditionally played off both sides. They have to. The Turks and Russians have be historical enemies. Just because they're friendly doesn't make them friendly.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?",
">\n\nTurkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea. \nThat shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict. \nFuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out.",
">\n\nHonestly Erdogan’s outright support Ukraine has shocked me, not that he would’ve fully supported Russia but I would’ve figure him to just kinda be silent like India."
] |
>
Exactly this. People don't realize that Erdogan / Turkey are still playing both sides. I just saw a report (either here or on twitter) that they were sending RU non-military (but for the military) supplies.
Turkey is doing whatever Turkey can do to make money since their economy crashed these last few years. They want to be the regional leader which is why they also want to help negotiate any deals possible.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?",
">\n\nTurkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea. \nThat shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict. \nFuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out.",
">\n\nHonestly Erdogan’s outright support Ukraine has shocked me, not that he would’ve fully supported Russia but I would’ve figure him to just kinda be silent like India.",
">\n\nBecause turkey has traditionally played off both sides. They have to. The Turks and Russians have be historical enemies. Just because they're friendly doesn't make them friendly."
] |
>
People definitely realize that he’s playing both sides. But he’s a treaty ally of one side. Turkey is committed to play one side only and they’re playing doing both.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?",
">\n\nTurkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea. \nThat shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict. \nFuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out.",
">\n\nHonestly Erdogan’s outright support Ukraine has shocked me, not that he would’ve fully supported Russia but I would’ve figure him to just kinda be silent like India.",
">\n\nBecause turkey has traditionally played off both sides. They have to. The Turks and Russians have be historical enemies. Just because they're friendly doesn't make them friendly.",
">\n\nExactly this. People don't realize that Erdogan / Turkey are still playing both sides. I just saw a report (either here or on twitter) that they were sending RU non-military (but for the military) supplies.\nTurkey is doing whatever Turkey can do to make money since their economy crashed these last few years. They want to be the regional leader which is why they also want to help negotiate any deals possible."
] |
>
But being apart of NATO doesn't mean you can't play buddy buddy with a potential enemy, especially when that enemy is right next to you. Turkey was in a rough spot before this, to say the least. Its not a good thing, but it seems to me they kind of had to.
However, if push comes to shove, I'd bet my bottom dollar Turkey abides by Article 5.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?",
">\n\nTurkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea. \nThat shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict. \nFuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out.",
">\n\nHonestly Erdogan’s outright support Ukraine has shocked me, not that he would’ve fully supported Russia but I would’ve figure him to just kinda be silent like India.",
">\n\nBecause turkey has traditionally played off both sides. They have to. The Turks and Russians have be historical enemies. Just because they're friendly doesn't make them friendly.",
">\n\nExactly this. People don't realize that Erdogan / Turkey are still playing both sides. I just saw a report (either here or on twitter) that they were sending RU non-military (but for the military) supplies.\nTurkey is doing whatever Turkey can do to make money since their economy crashed these last few years. They want to be the regional leader which is why they also want to help negotiate any deals possible.",
">\n\nPeople definitely realize that he’s playing both sides. But he’s a treaty ally of one side. Turkey is committed to play one side only and they’re playing doing both."
] |
>
The value of NATO is in its members trust of each other. Turkey has again and again violated that trust. Of course they have the right to do it. But no one else has to put up with their neo ottoman bullshit.
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?",
">\n\nTurkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea. \nThat shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict. \nFuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out.",
">\n\nHonestly Erdogan’s outright support Ukraine has shocked me, not that he would’ve fully supported Russia but I would’ve figure him to just kinda be silent like India.",
">\n\nBecause turkey has traditionally played off both sides. They have to. The Turks and Russians have be historical enemies. Just because they're friendly doesn't make them friendly.",
">\n\nExactly this. People don't realize that Erdogan / Turkey are still playing both sides. I just saw a report (either here or on twitter) that they were sending RU non-military (but for the military) supplies.\nTurkey is doing whatever Turkey can do to make money since their economy crashed these last few years. They want to be the regional leader which is why they also want to help negotiate any deals possible.",
">\n\nPeople definitely realize that he’s playing both sides. But he’s a treaty ally of one side. Turkey is committed to play one side only and they’re playing doing both.",
">\n\nBut being apart of NATO doesn't mean you can't play buddy buddy with a potential enemy, especially when that enemy is right next to you. Turkey was in a rough spot before this, to say the least. Its not a good thing, but it seems to me they kind of had to. \nHowever, if push comes to shove, I'd bet my bottom dollar Turkey abides by Article 5."
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot)
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his condolences to President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish people over an earthquake that struck in south-eastern Turkey.
Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba said in a tweet that Ukraine is ready to provide any necessary support to overcome the consequences of today's earthquake.
"We are deeply saddened by the loss of life and damage caused by today's tragic earthquake in Türkiye. Our heart goes out to the families of the victims and we wish a speedy recovery to the injured. Ukraine stands ready to provide any necessary support," Kuleba wrote.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: earthquake^#1 Turkey^#2 people^#3 President^#4 Turkish^#5
|
[
"This is a good diplomatic move by Ukraine, it's basically \"hey we appreciate that you're helping us by providing us with drones so we want to help you in your time of need however we can\"",
">\n\nalso Turkey is the only NATO member opposing new membership of countries which are opposed to Russia's invasion, theyre trying to cozy up",
">\n\nYup, once Finland and Sweden announces humanitarian aid it'll really force the hand of Erdogan.",
">\n\nsweden is sending 7M SEK in humanitarian aid",
">\n\n~$657k for the Americans\nRe: the snarky comments about the amount:\nChill. Sweden gives out quite a bit of money in aid every year. I have no doubt Sweden will be sending more money as the situation unfolds. Now stop filling my inbox with your dumb comments about how they’re not sending a lot, thanks",
">\n\nThat number is only going to grow. That’s just what has been announced so far, less than 24 hours after the event.",
">\n\nBro until the aftershocks and new magnitude 6+ stop popping up every hour, it's still ongoing as far as I'm concerned.\n4 major shakes(6+) so far and 50+ at 2.5+",
">\n\n7.8 and a 7.6 in such quick succession is going to level city blocks",
">\n\nSo hard to conceptualize two earthquakes of that magnitude in succession like that.",
">\n\nthese appear to be occurring along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. \nruptures on one section of a fault zone can increase stress in another. that's why of why aftershocks occur, and potentially even additional earthquakes that could be considered their own mainshocks.",
">\n\nThe Turkish people are grateful.\nIs Erdogen?",
">\n\nTurkey has been doing one very important thing for Ukraine that no one else has so far. Which is escorting its grain shipments at sea. \nThat shit is super intense and right on the edges of direct conflict. \nFuck Erdogan in a million ways and they have still been helping out.",
">\n\nHonestly Erdogan’s outright support Ukraine has shocked me, not that he would’ve fully supported Russia but I would’ve figure him to just kinda be silent like India.",
">\n\nBecause turkey has traditionally played off both sides. They have to. The Turks and Russians have be historical enemies. Just because they're friendly doesn't make them friendly.",
">\n\nExactly this. People don't realize that Erdogan / Turkey are still playing both sides. I just saw a report (either here or on twitter) that they were sending RU non-military (but for the military) supplies.\nTurkey is doing whatever Turkey can do to make money since their economy crashed these last few years. They want to be the regional leader which is why they also want to help negotiate any deals possible.",
">\n\nPeople definitely realize that he’s playing both sides. But he’s a treaty ally of one side. Turkey is committed to play one side only and they’re playing doing both.",
">\n\nBut being apart of NATO doesn't mean you can't play buddy buddy with a potential enemy, especially when that enemy is right next to you. Turkey was in a rough spot before this, to say the least. Its not a good thing, but it seems to me they kind of had to. \nHowever, if push comes to shove, I'd bet my bottom dollar Turkey abides by Article 5.",
">\n\nThe value of NATO is in its members trust of each other. Turkey has again and again violated that trust. Of course they have the right to do it. But no one else has to put up with their neo ottoman bullshit."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.