Pleasure vs. pain is too reductionistic. It is probably the case that single celled organisms operate on so simple a basis, moving toward food and away from averse stimuli. Simple organisms probably operate on a similar level. C. elegant has about 900 cells in total. They are far more complex than single-celled animals (or plants); they have about 200 neurons in their bodies. Large animals have far larger brains and can operate at a higher level than a binary + vs - stimuli.

Of course, you can wield an ax or a chainsaw and divide the pile of all possible experiences into + or - , but that seems pretty crude.

When we walk down the street, the most basic evaluation we make of other people is "A Potential",
"A Competitor", or "Irrelevant". That's a three way split.

When you look at the menu in your favourite restaurant, you have to choose among perhaps 5 favourite dishes, all very pleasant. Then there is the competing issue of cost. You might like the steak tartare, but it costs 3 times as much as the stuffed grape leaves which you also like. Your date is a vegan, so splitting the steak tartare is out of the question (you won't have to give so much as a bite of it). The desserts are good too -- Galatopoureko (custard baked in filo crust) isn't vegan so you won't have to share that either.

You have quite mixed feelings about your date. We won't go into all that, but at least it is a lot more than a simple split of pleasure and pain.

There is no need to reduce everything to a + or a - . It serves no useful purpose.

For all we know, the Lord of all Creation may have been micromanaging the affairs of every last bacterium since the beginning. The problem with positing such a position is that we can not show any proof that this is so. Atheists and believers alike are unable to marshal evidence or the non-existence or existence of divine beings.

I have absolutely nothing against people believing in God, or not, as long as both sides retain some modesty about what can be demonstrated.

I believe that there are no divine beings. I used to believe that such beings did exist. In neither case can I show a shred of evidence to support either case. We can legitimately speak at great length about our belief or disbelief in the gods. About the objects of our belief (or disbelief) we must remain silent.

i believe Humans are a reflection of a deep thinking and depressed extra-natural (my term) creator. — christian2017

That's the opposite of what I believe: I believe our gods are actually a reflection of deep thinking and depressed (neurotic) humans. The gods didn't exist and it was necessary that we create them. It was one of our greatest cultural achievements.

the core of depression and suffering is really the ability to feel the need to think deeply. — christian2017

Baloney.

I was reading a book about alienation, and to praise the author (it was a good book) I commented that he must have been really alienated to write so meaningfully about it. A political scientist shot that idea down with "Really alienated people don't write books." Later on in life I discovered that this was true: Really alienated and/or depressed people don't write books. Productivity doesn't come out of misery. More like immobilisation flows out of misery.

Thinking and feeling deeply does not lead to suffering. Actually, I don't know for sure how to get out of the sloughs of despondency, alienation, abandonment, and wretchedness that we get into. I've been in there, and got out, but I can't really say "this is how you get better". I got better. But then, how did I get into that mess? I could tell you about that, but it takes too long.

We are stuck being deep thinking depressed (depressing) creatures. Get used to it.

I don't find her philosophical views appealing; however, there is no reason not to enjoy reading her novels. When I read them I thought they were OK--not fabulous, but you know, not that bad.

That said, I also enjoy the kind of scathing comments people make about her -- mostly because they are well-crafted scathing remarks. Like this one:

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.

Some background:

Mickey Spillane was a VERY popular mystery writer; he sold 225 million books -- far, far more than Flannery O'Connor, who I adore. (All these people are dead.). "his specialty was tight-fisted, sadistic revenge stories, often featuring his alcoholic gumshoe Mike Hammer and a cast of evildoers. Critics, appalled by the sex and violence in his books, dismissed his writing."

Ms. O'Connor's writing had a little sex and violence, but it was much subtler than those tight-fisted sadistic revenge stories.

Spillane was criticised for the quality of his writing, but Rand defended him.

Here's one last snide comment:

Ayn Rand defended him. In public, she said that Spillane was underrated. In her book The Romantic Manifesto, Rand put Spillane in some unexpected company when she wrote: "[Victor] Hugo gives me the feeling of entering a cathedral--Dostoevsky gives me the feeling of entering a chamber of horrors, but with a powerful guide--Spillane gives me the feeling of listening to a military band in a public park--Tolstoy gives me the feeling of an unsanitary backyard which I do not care to enter." All of which goes to show that Ayn Rand's literary taste was no better than her literature.

Single cell organisms far outweigh multi cell organisms on the earth. I'm not sure its rational for a single cell organism to partner with other single cell organisms. I think undirected evolution is an irrational concept. — christian2017

Rationality has nothing to do with it.

Single cell organisms have been, and remain, tremendously successful. No doubt about that. Multi-celled organisms formed--not by design, not for rational reasons. They just did -- just as single-celled organisms developed all the various features that various species display.

As for advantages and disadvantages, you have to ask, "In what circumstance?"

Just to add, “social media” seems a grave misnomer. It is more “anti-social media” than anything social, because we are literally interacting with screens and not human beings. Perhaps this adds to the detrimental effect. — NOS4A2

True, interacting with people in the way that this forum operates is not quite the same as sitting down for lunch together. But then, neither is writing a letter (and the recipient reading it), nor is talking on the telephone. People have been communicating electronically since about 1850, first with the telegraph. Telegraphing became an essential activity for many people almost immediately. Business operators, of course, but soon ordinary people found reasons for fast communications: "wll arriv denver noon 7-3 stgcch from golden stop" Over those 170 years we've added more electronics, but it's all pretty much the same: a message carried over wires or fibre optics.

What I really disliked about FaceBook is that it pushes way too much stuff at one's attention. It's to immersive. I prefer to pull information when I feel like it, rather than having it pushed. Here one has to pull information. TPF doesn't send messages like "Hey, SlyWeasel just got banned!" "TClark just responded to fdrake!

It's a good poem. I am familiar. That midwestern boy has pretty much disappeared, not by his own choosing. Banished and erased, more like it, by the moguls at MN Public Radio whose various enterprises reach pretty deeply into the public radio scene across the country.

The capacity of social media to wreak vengeance on those who cross the wrong line in the sand (there are so many lines...) is great. Keillor's erasure didn't require the Internet; radio and television networks or film studios have always had the power to pull the plug on a show or a performer. What the Internet can do via social media is amplify any voices organised enough to start a wave of negative comment. Institutions of all kinds live in dread of being targeted, so they react to any potential negative spin really quickly.

There is another factor having nothing to do with the Internet: Institutions (whether commercial or non-profit) work very hard to control their identities in the market place. Individuals without a lot of money can't really play this game. Corporations changing their names, logos, and advertising is an example. Phillip Morris Tobacco became Altria. They still sell tobacco, of course. Weight Watchers switched to WW with the tagline “Wellness that Works.” Apparently being associated with fat people wasn't good even for them. Lucky and Gold Star Corporation changed their name to LG. "Life's good." IBM doesn't make many computers anymore, but at least they haven't changed their name. Kraft and Heinz haven't become KHZ Corp. yet, anyway.

Language, on the other hand, builds or constructs or sets up information. — Banno

Perhaps in the land of Oz, but I've never seen language build, construct, or set up a damn thing. "English and Swahili are languages." They do not sow, neither do they reap. They are employed but do not get paid.

So I would agree that "Language is not moving information from one head to another." Communication that is sent and received moves information from one head to another, and it may not involve English or Swahili. Old lady elementary school teachers are quite good at transmitting information without language. They have a look which says, "You'd fucking better stop doing that in the next three seconds or I will make you very unhappy." My elderly elementary school teacher sister uses those expressions at family gatherings to convey various disapproving communications to her siblings (usually) or sometimes her (or other people's) children or grandchildren.

Every year it works less and less. Her siblings give her the "fuck you" smile.

English and Swahili are both sets of sounds or ink-bits on paper which have been assigned meanings and uses. Language is a repository constructed by bright apes over many years. We learn it, then we deploy it. If we do it well, those familiar with the language will interpret the sounds or the ink bits and will probably interpret what they heard or read reasonably accurately.

So, Banno, will you bare it all for our edification?

It is a perplexing paradox that "time and space" is in the box we call the universe, but that the box is all there is. There is no larger box. There might be, some think, other boxes (universes). So, if there are other boxes, doesn't there have to be a larger container?

I would probably need some mind altering drug to really enjoy the idea. Dead sober, I don't like it.

Our ancestors -- from hunter gatherers to 20th century immigrants getting off the boat at Ellis Island -- all survived the crises of identity formation and more. How did these billions of people manage to accomplish this amazing feat? One advantage they had was ignorance of all the possibilities for dysfunction of which we are well informed and to which we think ourselves doomed.

I'm not making light of individual struggles; they are real and can be strenuously difficult. My own process of identity resolution was as unsightly an affair as most people's, if not more so.

How do we all get through it?

Time pushes us forward, for one thing. We mature physically and mentally (ready or not), society makes demands on us ("Get a job, you lazy bum!" or "Your grades are slipping, you'd better crack the books!") and so we do. One fine day we realise we are all grown up, the crises resolved or not, and we get on with it.

"Getting on with it" doesn't mean we are all-well-adjusted, fulfilled, highly productive, role-appropriate, sensible people. Many of us aren't. We don't have to be. Like @T Clark's good enough parenting we do well to achieve "good enough adulthood". "Good enough adulthood" is hard enough. If one can achieve excellence in adulthood, fine. We'll award you a blue ribbon. A blue ribbon and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee.

Getting to the grave gracefully and not too early is par. Enjoy life as much as possible along the way.

Try the Anarchist Library site.

And yet, I contest, that it's exacerbated by the internet. — Wallows

People have been contending that one thing exacerbates something else for a long time: the deleterious influences of cheap pulp novels on youth in the Victorian Period, or the higher hem lines and dances of the 1920s, or the lewd and lascivious scenes in the movies of the 1930s, or the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s, or the horror of hippies in the 1960s, or violence on TV in the 1980s, or video games in the 1990s, and so on.

It is not the case that there could be no relationship between violence on TV and violent behavior in real life, or that playing violent video games could have no effect on adolescent-adult behavior, or that viewing pornography never or always has good or bad consequences.

The problem is that providing strong proof, never mind proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, of a definite connection between this or that type of media and actual social or personal problems has proved impossible. And a hell of a lot of time, energy, ink, and paper has gone into the effort.

Some behaviors have more proven consequences. We know that sexually abusing children is more likely to result in the child being a sexual abuser when he or she reaches adulthood. We know that exposing children to lead has deleterious effects on intelligence and behavior. These sorts of relationships are relatively easy to demonstrate.

"I don't think it really needs to spelled out" but true enough, the Internet is not a very helpful tool for the adolescent to use for their self-development. Failure to achieve a stable identity and role in life predate the Internet. Adolescents have lost themselves in daydreaming, books, movies, and other solitary pass times. Reading can be a substitute for having a lively circle of friends. Spending a lot of time in a dark movie theatre is a good way to hide.

Look. I don't think the Internet is an appropriate vehicle for children to find, define, or establish themselves. Well-informed adults can have difficulty sorting fact from fiction on line, and for young people it is extremely difficult. Can teenagers end up getting twisted by being on the internet too much? Sure -- just as they can be twisted by falling in with the wrong crowd on their block.

The Internet IS good for many things, but young persons' social development is not one of them. Social development needs real (face to face) interaction; establishing one's personal identity requires actual experiences with the real world.

Most children in the world, with or without the Internet, do manage to successfully make their way to adulthood as well developed personalities.

Social media and cyberpsychological behavior: Comparison and low self-esteem, Depression, Social isolation and ostracism, Negative relationships, Fear of missing out (FOMO), Sleep deprivation, Addictive behavior, Eating disorders, ADHD, and memes...

ALL of this existed before the personal computer and the Internet. Long before.

Were there any outcries of the TV, as a new form of entertainment — Wallows

Indeed there were. TV was a favoured target for criticism from all corners. It was "the vast wasteland". It was, of course, a vast wasteland with a few oasis of high quality programs--but not too many. TV was criticised and named as the source of many social ills. Juvenile delinquency, sexually stimulating dance styles (it shared that crime with popular music), rampant stupidity, poor school performance, and so on and so forth.

Radio did not come in for that kind of criticism (for the most part) because it was pretty bland. News, sports, music, soap opera, quiz shows, and dramas just didn't trigger a lot of criticism. Like the first several decades of TV, there were only 3 networks (NBC, CBS, and Mutual) which all carried similar programming, and radio listening was, like television, a family activity. Teenagers didn't have their own radio or TV until later on. And even if they did, there were no "dark corners" of radio and TV broadcasting that deviant teenagers could tap into to be victimised.

Was life back then (1930s - 1970s) so pure and wholesome that parents need not worry? Hardly. But Radio and TV were controlled by large corporations like RCA, CBS, Westinghouse, and so forth, and the taste of the bourgeoisie prevailed.

Now, introduce to this whole situation an empty, absorbent, and young mind, and the situation seems rather precarious. — Wallows

In the late 1950s (my adolescence) I was exposed to 'pornographic' pamphlets from an anti-communism organisation; maybe it was the John Birch Society -- can't remember. There were lurid stories about devious, treasonous Americans and foreign agents undermining the foundations of freedom, democracy, free enterprise, The American Way, et al. My opinion about communism was given a further rightward twist. (There was a lot of anti-communist nattering in the 1950s.).

This anti-communist opinion stayed in place until it was washed out in college. It didn't take "pro-communist" propaganda; it just took new interests and zero reinforcement for extreme right-wing (or extreme left wing) opinions.

The internet seems to promote dis-inhibition in the form of sharing personal details, deep feelings, insecurities, fears, and other prominent psychological facets. What's your take on that? — Wallows

What promotes disinhibition on the Internet is positive feedback (or feedback period) from other humans. If nobody responded to one's gut spilling, one would stop doing it.

Anonymity probably facilitates over-sharing (maybe dis-inhibition). But, you know, people have been finding ways of disinhibiting themselves for a long time -- and not just through chemical courage. Sometimes people just decide to "let go".

It is unlikely that the Internet plays a significant role in personality development, identity formation, and so forth. Why not? The Internet is not an intelligent, warm-blooded, talking, touching, feeling being. Take language formation: Young children learn language from other humans. They do not learn language from television (or radio, film, audio recordings, etc.). Sesame Street aimed to teach language, but it couldn't.

I agree that the Internet is a tremendously rich source of information and entertainment, and evolvement with various platforms can affect moods, behaviour, awareness of problems, and so forth. Core identity is partly genetic but largely gained from live-one-on-one-and-group interactions.

It seems counter-intuitive that media like television (which some people consume in massive quantities) or the Internet would have little influence on language, character formation, identity, and so forth. Compare the Internet to books: There are billions of books, journals, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets available. One could claim that print shapes identity. Would you buy that idea?

It doesn't.

None of this is to deny that the Internet has real-life significance. It can certainly shape opinion, key perceptions, and the like. The blanket of advertising will stimulate interest in a lot of useless products.

There is a simple enough solution to the problem of the AI-managed automated world of the future where we are all watched over by machines of loving grace: DON'T DO IT.

I've had a number of office-type jobs where I thought, "Really, a computer should be doing this boring, tedious, complicated crap." But there are people who actually like doing those kinds of work I found too tedious for words. In reverse, the jobs I really liked are not everyone's cup of tea.

Human existence, whether hunter-gatherer or "advanced" civilisation, was, is, and will be entirely dependent on material goods. We have not, do not, and will not transcend our needs for food, clothing shelter, clean water, breathable air, heat, cooling, and energy (which comes from material sources.

The option of drifting off into a perpetual game/TV room and consuming entertainment as a way of life is not only a a bad idea, it isn't feasible. 7 or 8 billion people can not live sustainably on earth no matter how they live. But even if we reduced the population to 4 billion, or 3 billion, long-term sustainability is not going to be possible without increased labor inputs. We are using a lot of resources and materials to reduce personal work and produce convenience, and convenience products are fouling our land, waterways, and air--making it all less sustainable. The alternative is increased personal labor input to replace impersonal convenience.

people as ‘pets’ — I like sushi

I'm shocked that you could make a suggestion like this. People make TERRIBLE pets. They cost way too much to feed, clothe, house, and in general take care of. They have all these independent demands. They wander around, finding other caretakers who might offer a better deal, leaving you suddenly petless. As pet owners, humans are also deficient. They often lose interest in you as a pet, and throw you out of the house. You can't sue pet owners for losing interest in you.

Humans and dogs are made for each other.

I'll tell you why, because it was these same democrats that caused the college tuition to go up — halo

College tuition at public colleges and universities is largely a state issue, not a federal issue, since states decide how much their public colleges will cost. You are correct, though, that public college tuition has gone up a lot, and under both Democrat and Republican administrations across the country. The reason is that legislatures (controlled at various times by either party) have reduced the state share of college costs, thus driving up tuition. Where states used to underwrite colleges at 50%-70%, their support is now around 25%.

Tuition, corporate grants, corporate research contracts, and higher fees for student services have to cover the costs of running the colleges, whether it is Podunk State or one of the Big Ten colleges like U-Michigan.

Why allow state tuition to rise? In a word, change. For instance, There are reduced goals for how many 'middling BA degrees" are needed. Top notch graduates are in demand, and the reward for top notch graduates won't be discouraged by higher tuition. Middling BA degrees in technical fields are more expensive than English majors, and the rewards are higher--again, justifying higher tuition. Labor costs have risen at colleges. So on and so forth.

I am not advocating these policy changes, just observing them. I'm not in favour of the way students are forced to pay for their college education--privately financed loans. I'd prefer a publicly funded loan program with very low interest.

So, what is fake news, bad news, incorrect information, misinterpreted information, and irrelevant information has to all be sifted out.

Fake news from Donald Trump for me or you may be dangerous, or just stupid, but far more dangerous is fake news from sources we respect.

I would not believe it if Donald Trump said the economy will collapse into depression in 2021 unless he is re-elected. But if Warren or Sanders said the same thing -- and it was equally false -- I would probably take the claim seriously. So when Republicans make statements about the rightness of American policy, I tend to dismiss it. It is more of a problem when Democrats say the same thing. And, as luck would have it, both Democrats and Republicans regularly praise the American Way. Their praise is almost certainly fake news, but in the one case I am primed to dismiss it and in the other case, accept it. Because of the source.

Maybe the form was more important than the content for the Martian invasion panic. However, this was 1938. While radio wasn't totally new (regular broadcasting began in 1920) it took time to develop stations, networks, good receivers, and sources of content. The content on radio stations had been quite bland; music, sports, comedy, etc. "Fright" was not the reaction established broadcasters were aiming for.

A year earlier the Hindenburg air ship had burned up as it attempted a landing in New Jersey. Nothing to do with the War of the Worlds, but the reporter covering the disaster had become very emotional during his report. If I remember correctly, he was either fired or demoted for the emotionality of his report. Radio wanted to project suave sophistication.

Again if I remember correctly, Orson Welles began the program with a disclaimer -- this was drama, not news. Not surprisingly, people didn't hear or remember the disclaimer. It sounded like news to them (it was supposed to sound that way).

I do not blame the public, or impute stupidity to them. Horror shows get under my skin in 2019, and I'm a sophisticated person. I know what I am watching is Hollywood trickery. It still works.

People also sometimes think real news is fake. There are people who didn't believe that the moon landing took place, or that one of the 9/11 towers (not WTC 1 or 2) wasn't destroyed by explosives the government had, for some reason, but in place, or that Ben Laden hadn't been elected. And, to tell the truth, it is possible -- given enough lead time -- for video experts to produce genuinely awful 100% fake video news. Buildings on fire, explosions, bodies flying through the air, huge cracks opening up in the streets -- the whole schemer. If passed off as news, most of us would believe it initially, at least. Until glaring contradictions started showing up -- like NPR, which broadcasts from the LA area, not mentioning a meteor wiping out part of Los Angeles.

Thanks. Your report is encouraging.

"A post office called Finland has been in operation since 1915[4] and a cooperative general store was established in 1913, which is Minnesota's longest continuously operated store. A large share of the early settlers being natives of Finland caused the name to be selected.[5]

The Lutheran church was apparently struck by lightning on 6 July 2013 and burned down.[6]***

***According to the Minnesota State Theologian, the lightning strike was a sure sign of divine displeasure.

User-driven new media (smartphones, FaceBook, Twitter, the Internet, etc.) pick up and amplify whatever shrill sounds a noisy group emits. Feedback makes the racket even worse.

I would not use the term 'hyper morality' to describe all of the rights movements that have flowered in the post WWII economic boom: blacks, women, hispanics, native Americans, gays, disabled, and so on have all gained varying degrees of civil equality. Occupy Wall Street highlighted economic inequality. All of this is to the good.

Relatively (or definitely) privileged college students bitching and carping about micro-aggressions, mini-oppressions, and so on have gotten out of hand, aided and abetted by college administrators who are driven by enrolment stats. College is also a time and place when relatively privileged young people can try on roles which they probably will drop as soon as they graduate.

I don't know exactly what it is that makes the hyper-moralists tick. It might be that REAL, economic inequalities and oppressions are just too big for them to fight, so they switch to symbolic enemies -- like people who won't snap-to for whatever odd-ball nouveau personal pronoun they have chosen for their snowflake self.

I exist; I like it, more or less. What do I need a purpose for? 50¢ and a purpose will not get me a cup of coffee.

You were probably thinking people had these deep thoughts about their existence. Bah! Humbug!

If there was, is, or will be a crisis over "fake news" it will be less the fakery and more the refusal of the public to evaluate what they hear and sift the wheat from the chaff. This isn't something one can just wake up one day and do. It takes practice.

It doesn't take a news junkie to recognise that "MOON WILL CRASH INTO EARTH NEXT WEEK" is fake news. On the other hand, it can be more difficult to tell whether the latest stupid thing the POTUS has said is true, fake, or neither -- just sounds the mouth of the POTUS happened to make at some point.

Teaching the public that they can't tell between truth and fakery is useful for dictatorships.

The content of education matters, as well as its free availability. Free education is quite beneficial, but... At no time in secondary school did I ever hear anything about such a thing as "the working class", class conflict -- god forbid -- Karl Marx, the IWW, Trotsky, et al. I do remember a lesson discussing the merger of the AFL and CIO (for whatever that was worth). I had read several anti-communist pamphlets from the John Birch Society. The whole school was shown an anti-communist film one year. (I grew up in a small town)

In college (1964-1968) there was very little discussion about class (except in a couple of mid-level sociology courses). In an American history course, the prof suggested I write a paper on the 1919 "Red Scare". This was quite 'enlightening' as I hadn't heard anything about it before.

After college, I roomed for a year with a guy from the University of Illinois who had been involved in leftist politics on campus. We talked about Marx and Trotsky, and the like.

I grew up during the height of the Cold War, so enthusiastic talks on Marx would be pretty unlikely. But the Cold War is over, 30 years past. Still, I don't think much is being said in schools about Marx, class conflict, or anything along those lines. It obviously isn't in the interests of the ruling class to encourage the masses to think about over-throwing them.

if the Nordic model was brought to these communities, the child income would start to decouple statistically from parent income. — boethius

We do, basically, share the same viewpoint. BUT, "IF the Nordic model was brought to these communities" is a very big IF, indeed. It's a big IF especially when the US seems to be disinvesting more than investing in education and quality-of-life programs.

There is a program in New York City called the Harlem Children Zone. One part of the program is to remediate one of the earliest appearing educational deficits that poor black children manifest--low verbal development. Poor black children (sorry, I don't have comparative stats for poor white children, say in Appalachia) hear about 20-30 million fewer words by the time they are 5 years old (I'm citing this from memory--it might be 4 years) than middle class white children. Further, they hear about twice as many command words (shut up, sit down, get out of the way) and about half as many positive phrases (good job, nice work, that's right!...) as middle class white children, same age.

If the deficit is not addressed early in life, it tends to result in life-long literacy deficits,

So the remediation program was directed to new mothers, or recent mothers in the project area. They were recruited on the street. The remediation consisted of coaching the mothers to talk to their children more, read to them, say more positive things, say fewer command words, and so on. Engage the child verbally, in other words. (TV has no effect here. It has to be caretaker to child.)

The results weren't magic, but they were very positive -- children in the program did better in school and for a longer period of time than children who were given remedial education once they got to first grade.

Naturally the program has not received generous support from the Dept. of Education (during several administrations). Surprisingly, the non-profit hasn't died of starvation, but I bet that it serves far fewer clients than it could with better funding.

That's just one small example. When you compare not-disadvantaged young children who are in excellent pre-school programs with ones that are at home, they tend to do better in social interaction, verbal skills, eye/hand coordination -- all that basic stuff. I don't have children, but I know parents who do have difficulty finding excellent, affordable day care and pre-school programs. I think France, for instance, does much better at this than we do.

Minnesota, where I live, is a lot like the Nordic countries in a number of ways. Our rate of gun deaths per 100,000 is about the same as Northwestern Europe. The state spends a lot on education and other pieces of public social infrastructure. At the same time that Minnesota schools rate close to the top, the gap between white students' and black (and other minority) students' performance is the largest in the country.

When I was a high school back in the 1960s in small town US, classroom decorum was quite a bit more civil and reserved than it is now. Of course there were no cell phones back then, and gum chewing was forbidden. There were more enforced rules about proper behaviour.

What stopped was court-ordered busing, or at least it was greatly reduced. Open-enrollment is pretty common now, replacing rigid school assignments. So a lot of buses are now collecting students and delivering them all over within the school district. More upward-mobile students (regardless of address) can select better schools within the district--provided there is still room when they make their choice. Attending school in adjacent districts is more complicated, because (for one thing) students have to arrange their own transportation. Since school districts are locally funded, crossing district boundaries can be financially problematic.

Yes, I'm aware this history, though it is not directly relevant to economic segregation; you could have rich largely black communities due to this history if inter-generational social mobility was high. But social mobility is low for poor people of all colours in the US. — boethius

I disagree that school segregation Is anything less than directly relevant to economic segregation. The slaves were freed, but once free they ran into high impenetrable walls, and not just in the south. The great migration of blacks during the WWI and WWII out of the south brought large numbers of them to places like Cleveland, Chicago, and Detroit. They generally found that the only housing available to them was in already ghettoed black neighbourhoods, which became much more crowded and much more dilapidated. When they attempted to move out of the ghetto, they ran into intense resistance or outright violence.

The FHA program was intended to benefit gentile whites, pretty much exclusively. Blacks, Asians, Jews, and Hispanics were all excluded. Roosevelt couldn't get the enabling legislation for the FHA past the southern block in congress without those restrictions.

Once the program began, millions of white homebuyers had the opportunity to purchase first-time homes which were well built in new communities--all of which would appreciate in value quite steeply. Homes that had a current value of $100,000 in 1950 were worth twice as much by 1970, and today are worth a little over 4 times as much. Appreciated housing value gave the white owners equity that could be used to finance their children's college educations, and give their children an enduring boost upwards.

The southern congressional intention was to keep poor blacks poor--poorer if at all possible. Northern whites, while perhaps not as rabidly anti-black as the KKK, were not interested in the future prospects of the black population. The blacks were out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Blacks did, for the most part, stay poor -- or got poorer.

None of this is to say that all whites benefitted from the FHA. In order to qualify for an FHA loan, one had to be adequately employed (or for a VA loan, be an employed veteran). FHA loan programs did very little for small-town America (until quite a bit later). Rural America didn't benefit much at all from the program. There were, are, and will be substantial populations of poor whites with very poor future prospects.

Poor people tend to stay poor because they lack social capital. One needs to have parents that are competent climbers; one's family needs a reasonable amount of cash to successfully launch children into social advancement. An interest in, and the capability of obtaining education is critical. Having good local social contacts is important, and so on.

Without social capital, people who are poor tend to stay that way.

THE COLOR OF LAW is a 2017 book about the FHA -- very good read.

"BUSING" were 1960s-70s court-ordered solutions to civil rights litigation over de facto segregated schools. How did schools get so segregated? Segregation of urban populations began in the 1930s as part of Federal housing policy. The government set out to increase home ownership among the white population (racial preference was explicit, not implicit), and at the same time to upgrade the quality and expand the supply of housing stock. The result was the massive expansion of suburban development on otherwise unoccupied (agricultural) land.

The formal racial segregating parts of the law were ruled unconstitutional and then removed by law, but by the time those changes took effect the demographic die was cast. The financial benefit to the white population of the FHA and VA housing programs was huge and has endured. Public housing developments were designated for black populations. These were rental properties in which no equity could be accumulated.

Importing poor black students into middle class suburban schools was hotly resisted, and as ZhouBoTong noted, has been abandoned.

The United States does a good job educating the top 20% of students. They do well in school, graduate from the top universities, and generally perform essential functions in society.

The 80% who are not among elite students are not one big undifferentiated lump, of course. Their performance ranges between abysmal and excellent, with the distribution skewed toward the 'average' and 'below average'.

But then one has to ask, "What good does 'education' do?" I value education quite highly, but the fact is that its utility is not guaranteed. There is a significant difference between the life-outcomes of students with no social advantages (or significant disadvantages) and those who are loaded with social advantage. Social background matters. White students from low-income working class families will usually not achieve at the same high level that white students from high-income middle class families, everything else being equal.

If education is worthwhile for its own sake, (the "life of the mind" and all that) then it is always worthwhile. As a ticket to upward mobility, it has less utility. Less utility because family background is a critical factor.

(Being no indirect or passive-aggressive reference to your interaction with me in threads btw, Bitter Crank). — THX1138

It never occurred to me to take it that way.

Self-possessed people, gay, straight, or otherwise, seem to be harder to come by in general.

There is a pop culture Buddhist saying: Don't just do something; stand there! Another version of the idea is "An idle mind is the devil's playground."

One could say that boredom or the fatigue of doing nothing is the cause of some of our problems, at least. But weakening "all of humanity's problems" would ruin the aphorism. Nobody would quote, "About 39% of humanity's problems stem from man's poor performance at sitting quietly in a room alone." It has lost its punchiness. Furthermore, lowering the figure from "all" to "39%" makes us want to know "Where did you get your statistic from?"

We don't have to take Pascal's "All of humanity's problems" literally, as 100%

Some men make a BIG distinction between receiving a blow job from another guy or getting fucked. Receiving a blow job is "getting serviced"; one is only receiving what is due. And he is "on top". Getting fucked, on the other hand, is being made subservient, on the bottom. Big difference for some men between bottom and top. In the older literature on homosexuality going back into the 1950s and earlier, the difference between inserter and insertee, and which position one took--pitcher or catcher in other terminology--top or bottom--was thought to be therapeutically significant. There was more likelihood of a cure for pitchers, tops, and inserters than for catchers, bottoms, or insertees.

So, in 1972 the APA decided that homosexuality wasn't a disease anymore, and the whole therapeutic business was thrown out. I've had a lot of partners in both positions; I don't think there is any significant difference between tops and bottoms--beyond some guys preferring one or the other.

Well, after you've received the blow job and you are still in bed with the guy, claiming attempted rape is not convincing. He might have found getting fucked just then an imposition or an inconvenience, but rape... no. Just my opinion.

If the guy I messed around with wants to spread the word that I'm a potential rapist because I tried to penetrate him when he started dozing of, so be it. — THX1138

Next time, wake him up first.

I've found that sex is usually better if ones partner is awake and involved.

Re: smoking & drinking... Smoking tobacco, particularly, has been a public health catastrophe in terms of deaths, disability, and illness during the 20th century. Where the percentage of smoking was once not too far from 50% of adults, it is now down to around 15% of adults (in the US). As a result, lower rates of heart disease, lung cancer, and COPD are becoming normal (but not for the 15% still smoking).

Alcohol addiction has been less of a problem, but one of greater intensity (and shorter duration). Lots of people aren't here anymore because they died of alcohol related accident or disease.

I'm not quite sure what the current national stats are on drinking and alcohol related disease.

I used to smoke (24 years ago), used to drink quite a bit (still drink a little), and used to engage in unsafe sex -- which for gay guys in the 1980s was playing with fire. Why do people do these things -- drug use, smoking, drinking, unsafe sex, hang gliding, etc. that have known and fairly high risks? I don't know. I have been more risk tolerant than some people in these areas. In financial matters I'm much more risk averse. Why -- don't know.

I'm surprised that the morality of using illegal drugs has attracted so much interest. The illegality of cannabis has seemed absurd to many people for a long time. I think opiates and amphetamines are more dangerous, but I don't see them as "immoral". Snorting coke or smoking crack might not be good for a person, but if one uses them occasionally they probably aren't that harmful. (But some people seem predisposed to addiction -- then it becomes a bigger problem for the individual and society.).

Know one is HIV+ and failing to disclose the fact to unprotected sex partners is morally much more problematic than smoking weed, crack, meth, or shooting up heroin (other factors being equal).

Gay sex was unambiguously immoral for most people when I was a child. It's taken a good 60 years of concerted efforts on the part of a lot of people to move the consensus to homosexuality being neutral for most people, like it is being heterosexual. (This situation isn't fixed for all time, however. We could always see a back-rolling of progress.)

Childhood has become highly freighted over the last 100-150 years, or so. Where once children were merely miniature adults, and more or less as durable, they gradually became innocent, precious, and vulnerable to all sorts of potential harm. (Based on the testimony of numerous people in print and in conversation)... many of us who are in our 70s and older can remember a time when children were sent outside to play--whatever that might mean to the children, wherever was available. We weren't supervised, for the most part. Our being gone for two or three hours was not alarming.

Was the world perfectly safe 70 years ago? No, of course it wasn't. There were plenty of serious risks of getting hit by a car, drowning in a stream, getting poisoned by tasting fruit in the woods, getting bitten by something, falling out of trees, getting into fights, stepping on nails, and experimenting with sex. Were our parents stupid? No, they apparently accepted that children playing on their own would take risks and might get hurt. Sure, we were advised and warned, but children on their own for the afternoon forget the details of good advice.

Never mind supernatural beings. Maybe @Brett will give me $100 for some new plastic flooring in the bathroom.

"Who may have sex with whom and with whom one may not" is certainly an addressable philosophical issue.