Someone will have to pay the costs eventually... — ChatteringMonkey

Yet thinking of it as a monetary cost is difficult. The way we pay for it is with changes in our environment, but that unfortunately is an aggregate of everything impacting the environment, so we'll never agree on what had this or that effect on the whole.

Cost to environments should be taken into account so that it becomes more expensive. Markets seem to fail to do that, so they should be corrected. Is that about right? — ChatteringMonkey

Far better is simply to have so much investment on renewables that they actually are cheaper than oil. That's the real death knell for fossil fuels. Yet there are obstacles. If electric cars are reality, electric aircraft aren't. Even if thanks to the pandemic air travel has hit extremely bad times (for example the local air line has it net revenue shrank by -90%) that is one of the problems to be solved.

And the best way to lower the cost to the environment is simply to have people be more affluent: they have less children, they have the ability to care for the environment.

And because the price of oil is currently too low, when the economy recovers supply won't be able to meet demand and the price will slingshot high. — praxis

Yes, something like that...even if renewable energy sources are coming to be more common.

The arbitrager lives from dramatic price changes.

Remember that the oil companies get the price for oil from the Casino called "the markets". The negative prices were a result of the vast majority of trades having nothing to do with actual physical need for oil. There are just so many tankers that can be used as storages, and even that takes a lot of money. Big hassle to take physical oil...that's the logic of negative oil prices.

I still will guess the economy will come back sometime in the future.

Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars. — fishfry

Got very close with Iran. Really close.

After the drone attack on Qasem Soleimani, Iranians did retaliate by firing ballistic missiles into several US bases. First time US troops were attacked with ballistic missiles. With huge luck no US servicemen were killed, wounded casualties were 110 which, of course, the Trump administration was totally silent about and Trump lied about it:

The number of US troops who sustained traumatic brain injury when Iran launched missiles at their base in Iraq last month has risen to 110, the Pentagon said Friday.

The figure is one higher than the last toll, which was announced on February 10.

All of the wounded were diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury, the Pentagon said in a statement, adding that 77 had already returned to duty. President Donald Trump had initially said that no Americans were hurt in the strike on the Ain al-Asad base in western Iraq on the night of January 7-8, although authorities later reported that nearly a dozen troops were wounded.

(The reason for brain injury and concussions was the blast wave from the explosions.)

. The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war? — fishfry

He as the neocons were Republicans, as you likely know.

No, that's why Biden is still making promises to address those same grievances that existed 50 years ago. Government accumulates more power by creating or promoting problems and offers bigger govt. as the solution.

But then that is the problem - that political parties adopt these movements and then end up skewing the grass-roots movement to something more sinister. This is what happened with the movement for getting George Floyd the justice he deserves. — Harry Hindu

The first thing for political parties is to control the public political discourse...on the lines they want to. And if polarization suits the political duopoly in the US, guess what you will have?

There you have it folks: Its okay for blacks to fear cops based on some stats, but not okay for cops to fear blacks based on stats, them ignoring instructions by the cop meant to keep both of them safe, and reaching into their vehicle. — Harry Hindu

In some other time and place the issue would be about the excessive use of lethal force by the police, not only an issue about systemic racism by the police. Perhaps with a white male with a warrant for arrest and resisting the arrest in a similar situation, the police officer would have fired far fewer shots in the back (after all, there's no hiding the racial profiling in these cases).

Here's a video I'd like people to watch from three years ago.

It does tell that even in the US there could exist a normal decent political interaction, the ability to engage the other side and the ability to understand that Americans make a nation together even if in a democracy the people naturally disagree on a whole range of issues. In a 2017 Trump rally (I guess), the organizers give the BLM counterprotesters two minutes talk their message and the BLM member that took the stage responded well to the occasion with his response to the Trump crowd.



But of course this above is ancient history. And perhaps even remarking about the above video is annoying, naive and destructive "both-sideism" for some people.

Time to choose which fellow citizens you hate, I guess.

(I will be happy if I'm wrong and the US calms down after the elections.)

I do not wish to underscore the noblest of ideals held by many in the military, but how does one justify risking ones life for any cause whatsoever without knowing what if anything may exist after life? — TiredThinker

How would anyone take a risk at anything, because obviously nobody knows if there is life after death?

Yet people do various things that are dangerous understanding it's necessary... and simply weigh the risk involved to what otherwise would happen without taking a risk.

But everyone forgot bEnGaZzi!!! — Baden

If you don't have really bad scandals, then make something out of a minor issue. It all goes along with the normal way how campaigns are done in the US. And anyway, with Q-anons and Pizzagates, no reason to stick to reality, there is a crowd for that too.

In the end people will just reject politics in general even more. And which party would care about the people who don't vote?

This is very old data. Death by shootings has increased dramatically. But what really make people jam into the nazi-root nationalist party(SD) is the robberys, harrassment, explosions committed by immigrant root people. The political situation is terrible. — Ansiktsburk

What makes the Swedish system so terrible is the fact that this hugely popular nationalist party has it founding members were neonazis, and hence all the other parties flatly reject the party and have nothing to do with it. This might sound great, but isn't. If the populist cause and criticism against the lax immigration policies of is only driven by one "fringe" party, it obviously makes things worse.

Here I have to say that luckily Finland has avoided this inability trap, at least for now. Here the "True Finns" rose to popularity and did join the previous administration and got ministerial posts, starting from the position of foreign minister and defence minister. And then came the European Migrant Crisis. Once Sweden started to shut down it's borders, then a wave of immigrants landed in Finland from Sweden. I can just guess what would have politically happened if the True Finns party wouldn't have been in the government back then, but in the opposition and the administration had been made of a leftist-centrist government: even if the policies would have been exactly the same, the public outcry would have been naturally worse. Still, just being in the government at this crucial time made the True Finns to divide into two, with the old leadership starting a new party, which ended in disaster for them in the next elections for them. Yet unlike in Sweden (I guess), the anti-immigrant agenda wasn't treated as outrageous and totally politically-incorrect discourse by other parties from the start, even with the Social Democratic Party accepting that there have to be limitations on immigration and immigration had negative consequences.

Believe me, the situation is very very bad, has worsen dramatically last years. — Ansiktsburk

Remember that you are talking to Americans and for them a bad crime situation is something totally else than in Sweden as there bad crime areas are really bad (if the US homicide rate is about 5, in Chicago it's 23).

Notice where the US and Sweden are on this statistics:


Crime levels are 28% higher in the US than Sweden (see here) The rape statistics and overall crime rate seems to be higher, but I would take these stats with a grain of salt as the stats may be not well comparable. Especially the rape statistics:

Historically, rape has been defined as forced sexual intercourse initiated against a woman or man by one or several people, without consent. In recent years, several revisions to the definition of rape have been made to the law of Sweden, to include not only intercourse but also comparable sexual acts against someone incapable of giving consent, due to being in a vulnerable situation, such as a state of fear or unconsciousness. In 2018, Sweden has passed a new law that criminalizes sex without consent as rape, even when there are no threats, coercion or violence involved.

Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. So, in a societal sense, is research into, say, racial IQ differences worth it? — RogueAI

Go back hundred years or more and you would find firm believers in eugenics etc. in the academic scene in many universities with really bad societal ideas. Now there aren't anymore those kind of "scientific racists" as in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, so I think is more of a topic of PC scaremongering and something dear to the few real racists among us.

And coming to the topic of the thread, I remember Sam Harris saying that the racial IQ discourse is simply dumb.

It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. — Harry Hindu

Harry Hindu, which political movement has ever ceased it's activity once it's clearest goals have been achieved and the most obvious grievances and injustices have been corrected?

Which leader of a political movement has said to the members: "We did it. Thanks for everything, but now we close shop, so go find some other cause or something else to do."

That has never happened.

The more successful any political movement has been in the past, the more silly will the "next generation" and following generation after that be.

The nature of reality might be that there is inconsistency inherent within it, so that one person's observation might naturally contradict another's, for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not how we start it.

We don't assume inherent inconsistency in nature. We don't make sense of nature with inconsistencies.

If we observe something that seems to us inherently inconsistent, we simply make the conclusion that we don't know what happens. That it's a mystery to us at least for now and we hope an answer is found later.

Hence, if quantum mechanics seems inconsistent with classical mechanics, we simply cherish it as we do now: that it's consistent that it looks at first inconsistent.

Is the US going the way of North Ireland and it's "The Troubles"?

Why I pick the example of North Ireland is that the conflict between the unionists and the Irish nationalists happened also separately from the government and basically at the start of the conflict the British Army was introduced to calm things down (and only later found itself fighting a low intensity conflict). The conflict wasn't a classic insurgency and not a straight-forward continuation of the Irish war of Independence.

The basic problem is that I don't really see how to de-escalate or calm the situation. The opposing sides start to be formed between vigilante militias & Trump supporters in pickup trucks and the black clad Antifa / BLM crowd. Police now in the middle. Election results simply will not ease the tension and this is the basic problem. Would a Trump victory ease the tensions? Or would a Biden victory ease the Q-anon crowd? The cases of Kyle Rittenhouse and Michael Reinhoel show there's enough people with guns on both sides to take this to the next level. In a country filled with guns and with gun sales going through the roof, it's easy to anticipate what the next level will be. Also, the lack of any way to de-escalate the tensions will assure that the "next" generation, will "the fight" to defend their "cause and values" more literally. And that this isn't going to go away can be seen from how many will get extremely upset if I refer to both sides with the Rittenhouse / Reinhoel comparison.

And one problem is that the political establishment assumes this is just a normal election, that this is the way to get people eagerly to vote either democrats or republicans...when people aren't so excited about the candidates. Some other time a collective threat like a pandemic can unify the population, but not this time.

Do you think certain lines of research should be off-limits for the good of society? — RogueAI

I think there's a wide agreement in the scientific community that there indeed have to rules and limitations to research. Starting from the oath of Hippocrates, it is obvious that there is both a moral and a societal issue here. I do remember, just to give an example, the researchers that cloned Dolly the sheep were first asking for a serious public discussion and regulation on human cloning.

I actually considered emigrating to one Nordic country or another more than a few times in the 90s & the aughts. — 180 Proof

What Benkei said about different treatment of African Americans and Africans does hold. Once you talk English, everybody will know that you come from the US and nobody has problems with Americans. That changes if the people think you are a migrant worker or a refugee from Africa. Then you can get a lot of hostility, which just shows how people categorize foreigners and nationalities. I think it's a problem in all the Nordic countries.

Jeez. So there was no point in living other than selfishness. — Outlander

Oh you think that people that are totally alone are selfish or what?
Jeez.

As I earlier said, if you are important for others, if you have some role, if you have something to do, that gives life purpose. If people find reason for life, you might not be scared of death, but you surely won't be indifferent about it. Many people will say they aren't afraid about death, but they surely aren't indifferent.

My main question is for those that do not fear death or dying. What comes with the peace? Is there anything to follow? — Cobra

Waiting.

Waiting for death.

Once people don't have much if anything to live for, they cannot live the life they used to, then they can really say that they are totally OK with dying. Usually it comes with when your companion in life and closest friends have already died and one can see that you really aren't needed by the younger generations. These people rarely contemplate suicide, they just wait.

I know Marxists who do not put Marx on a pedestal. They simply think that he was fundamentally right. That's why they consider themselves Marxists. — David Mo

Ummm....Ok. :smirk:

In my view thinking a philosopher/economist was fundamentally right is the definition of putting him on a pedestal.

More important than what is true, is the science of interaction between the human perspective and the human reaction. — Judaka

A lot of things are not divided by truth or falsehood.

What is good and what is bad, what is beautiful and what is ugly, what we find interesting and what we don't are things not quantifiable with true or false, or answerable just by using the scientific method.

We can study is how people think and react, yet that doesn't at all answer those obviously very subjective questions. Getting a result that "the vast majority of people think this or that way" doesn't still answer the philosophical questions themselves.

It is rhetorical. Because they limit themselves to generalities and avoid entering into the fundamental concepts of Marx's thought, which would leave them with their asses in the air, as they say in my country. — David Mo

They did try, didn't work, then changed things.

But do you imply that the Chinese Communist Party wasn't before Marxist?

Or does this mean that Marx is beyond criticism to Marxists? Marxists really put him on a pedestal for worship with anyone straying of the path of wisdom is a heretic?

They long ago gave up Marxist rhetoric for pure capitalism. — David Mo

Apparently not, just look at the speech from Xi Jingping. So quoting Marx and Engels is giving up Marxist rhetoric?

The comparison with fascism is superficial. They have in common that they are capitalist police states and state interventionism in the economy. — David Mo

Well, A. James Gregor thought otherwise of fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism", but as I've argued here that Stalin was a leftist dictator, I'll go with the mainstream definition of fascism being right wing. Here are some definitions:

form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.

As obviously China is OK with the capitalist market economy, the Chinese Communist Party still controls quite largely the economy through the five year plans (now 13. is going) and huge like the projects as the "One Road, One belt initiative" started in 2013. In free market capitalist societies there isn't anything like that.

I value PF because a couple of occasions I've gotten really good advice from the forum. The forum (and it's predecessor) taken as an entirety as a collective has actually very much knowledge and understanding. If you have ideas about philosophy, math and logic, you can float it here and get an answer if it's crazy or not, or which reading might help you. Far easier than for example when being in the university.

In the fall of 2007 thanks to a discussion here (or basically on the predecessor site) I got alerted to the speculative bubble that was going to implode. As this isn't a financial forum, this viewpoint from another PF member got my attention and it was very important for me. And the last reminder of that PF members do notice what is happening was the coronavirus outbreak, which I have to say I didn't myself at first think so much about (as ebola, sars, etc. outbreaks had been contained), but the thread started by and especially Benkei got my attention.

In the political sphere I think the one of the best things that PF gives you more knowledge is not only to listen to intelligent remarks, but also to notice tone of the discourse itself. What is generally accepted, where do people really have disagreements. I tend to think that the discourse has gotten a bit more aggressive than before (even if it always has been somewhat aggressive) and that may portray something about the time we live in, not just that it's election season in the US.

I would get worried if the thoughtful Americans here would really start to talk about a civil war or something equivalent or would truly lose their faith in their country. But as that hasn't happened, I'm still optimistic about the future.

Yet again Barr is showing that his primary purpose is to protect Trump, not to do his job properly. — Michael

But in this administration, that is his job, to protect the President of the US from legal charges, indictments and from impeachment etc.

Unfortunately, suggesting to check the tabulation by breaking the law is still incitement. — Benkei

But Benkei, who could have known that? Nobody knew that.

I've been arguing against the idea that the Soviet Union was a Right wing or fascist tyranny, and I think you're on my side in that debate. — jamalrob

Yes. We really have to stick to the real definitions as otherwise they become just derogatory adjectives without any clear meaning.

Otherwise, maybe you want to suggest that the Soviet Union was both Left-wing/Marxist, and had no potential to become democratic. — jamalrob

Had it the potential? It is actually a good question. "No potential" might be too narrow minded. Remember that Western economists were indeed worried of Soviet Union, led by Khrushchev, really passing the US. Sputnik did dent that feeling of American technological superiority.

But, taking your last question seriously, here's the way I see it. The thinking of the party at that time was that there could be no democracy or true communism in the Soviet Union until western Europe and the rest of the world had their own proletarian revolutions, or rather Soviet-style, Soviet-dominated Communist rule for mutual security. Before that happened, democratization wasn't on the cards. Krushchev denounced Stalin and eased up on the repression because he wanted to be the one to do what everyone knew had to be done to ensure the country's survival. He was very far from being a democrat or humanitarian. — jamalrob

And are Marxist-Leninists humanitarians and democrats? Let's remember that Khrushchev did face a Stalinist opposition and faced a challenge with the Hungarian uprising. The historical fact is, if a country has had a totalitarian system and that then is tried to do away with, you do have to have all that bread and butter to keep the people happy. Just giving people a voice but not anything else is destined to create trouble.

In a way this question can be put to the present with modern day China. The Communists are in power and yes, they have transformed their country. The did get the economy going (and of course, sacrificed a lot in doing so). As I above showed to JerseyFlight, the Chinese leaders do have a lot of good to say about Marx, so much that they actually sound like Marxists. Even if the economic system is more closer to classic fascism than theoretical marxism.

The thing is that once people take to heart an ideology, they take it literally. How Marx said it is considered truth by some, not useful views that one can the use to mold something else at the present. That's the problem with ideologies: the hard-core believers try to dominate the discourse and accuse others of being sell-outs.

What liberal objectives had been achieved? — David Mo

Many.

Starting from things like representative democracy and universal suffrage, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the ending of mercantilism and feudalism. Or starting from things like a conservative will not say that the monarch has supreme power because he or she is anointed by God and because the Bible says so.

Nope, your present day conservative will utter something that 18th and 19th Century liberalism fought for and won. And as a conservative, guess that fight was long ago.

The challenge for you is to get serious, try interacting with the ideas of Marx! — JerseyFlight

The challenge for you is to understand that Marxism-Leninism has something to do with Marxism and that Marx did have influence on history. Hence we indeed can reflect how the theory has worked in reality.

And then of course we could start talking about another country, quite sidelined from this discussion btw, where it's present leader gives a speech about Karl Marx in 2018 with the following quote:

Comrades,

Today, we gather here filled with reverence to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx, remember his strong character and historical achievements, and review his eminent spirit and brilliant ideas.

Marx is the revolutionary leader of the proletariat and the working people the world over, the principal founder of Marxism, the founder of Marxist parties and of the international communist movement, and the greatest thinker of the modern era. Two centuries have passed, during which human society has undergone massive and profound changes. However, Marx’s name continues to be met with respect around the world, and Marx’s theories continue to emanate their brilliant rays of truth.

-

Today, Marxism firmly advances the progress of human civilization; to this day it continues to provide theoretical and discursive systems of major international influence, and Marx to this day continues to be acknowledged as the “number one thinker of the millennium.”

-

I once said that China’s great social transformation is not a masterplate from which we simply continue our history and culture, nor a pattern from which we mechanically apply the ideas of classic Marxist authors, nor a reprint of the practice of socialism in other countries, nor a duplicate of modernization from abroad. There is no orthodox, immutable version of socialism. It is only by closely linking the basic principles of scientific socialism with a country’s specific realities, history, cultural traditions, and contemporary needs, and by continually conducting inquiries and reviews in the practice of socialism, that a blueprint can become a bright reality.

The vitality of theory is in its continued innovation, and promoting the continued development of Marxism is the sacred duty of Chinese Communists. We need to be persistent in wielding Marxism to observe and decipher the world today and lead us through it, applying the lively and plentiful experiences drawn from contemporary China to drive the development of Marxism, and utilizing an extensive worldview to draw on the civilizational achievements of all of humankind. We need to be persistent in protecting our foundations while constantly innovating to continually outdo ourselves, and learning widely from the strengths of others to continually improve ourselves. Finally, we need to continually further our understanding of the laws that underlie governance by a communist party, the development of socialism, and the evolution of human society, and open up new prospects for the development of Marxism in today’s China and the 21st century.

But if I would start talk about this country above and their belief in Marxism, likely you, JerseyFlight, would disregard it and not even think of them as true Marxist. Yet in my view the above quote comes from person that holds dear Marx in a way he could be argued to be a Marxist.

I hold that the Democrat party in 2020 and since the 1960s has been increasingly and is now essentially different from the Republican party and that in substantive ways the two are not connected at all.

What I'm interested in is the argument that shows me wrong. — tim wood

What connects them is that they don't want any competition besides them. They can share the system very well.

Just to give one example, the US electoral system is a single-member district plurality system, a winner takes it all -system that gives the two major parties an advantage. The two parties wouldn't be in favour of a proportional representation system (like for example my country has with the D'Hondt method). And then there are obstacles like the following in Arizona, just to give an example:

If you are a Republican or Democrat, the two major parties in Arizona, you only need to collect about 6,000 valid signatures to appear on the ballot. Dare to be an independent, though, and the number is six times higher — around 37,000 valid petitions are necessary.

Getting 6,000 signatures than 37,000 is more easy, wouldn't you say?

I know all that. It's not the point. — jamalrob

Have to say a lot of references to Stalin from many people here.

Yet the Soviet Union lasted after Stalin for nearly 40 years. Surely when Nikita Khrushchev came into power the Russian Civil War was ancient history and the Communist Party was firmly in control. Krushchev denounced Stalin, relaxed the repression and cencorship in an era which is called the "Krushchev Thaw".

Wouldn't that have been the perfect moment to have this democratic Marxism as surely Khrushchev was a confident marxist-leninist?

People hate him though, so the clarity of his points gets lost in the emotional reactions he provokes in people. There are a few of these public figures that are like that, the mere mention of their names taps into a ready waiting mob that feel like they need to tear him down. — DingoJones

Well, any non-woke commentator will get at least irritation from the woke identity politics crowd from the left. I guess Sam Harris got his baptism of fire and the full wrath of that crowd after presenting his views on islam. And have to say, Harris does take it under his skin (which is understandable) and for example his conversation with mainstream journalist Ezra Klein some time ago was simply painful to listen, even if both tried to be cordial.

From what you posted, it seems like you just mean a professional or working philosopher? — DingoJones

Something like that, yes.

Harris talks to larger public and typically explains the more advanced terms etc. and tries to keep his talk as understandable as possible. A very good communicator in my view.

Before answering your question, I would remind that not to be a "genuine philosopher" isn't negative or condescending (perhaps in our times it would be the opposite). Being a "philosopher" is as loose or even looser than being a historian.


a) that the person says/admits/confesses that he or she is a philosopher / puts it as the first thing in his or her CV
b) That enough of those in academic philosophy departments regard the person as a philosopher, a peer
c) that he has published well received literature in philosophy
d) and that people generally describe the person as a philosopher.

COVID is the worst thing since WWII. Right? — Michael

For whom?

Just the Vietnam War killed far more people than COVID and during 1959-1961 the Great Chinese Famine killed between 15 to 55 million people thanks to the "Great Leap Forward".

But who cares about if many millions of people died in Mao's China.

I could agree with this if the time period is changed to this century, to the 21st Century and up until now.

I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, the clarity and precision of his insights is impressive. — rickyk95

I don't think Harris is really a genuine philosopher, but what this neuroscientist is, is one of the best intelligent academic commentators and interviewers who is thoughtful, respectful in an era where others hurl accusations and vitriol.

Of course that Harris belongs to what is loosely called "the intellectual dark web" may raise hostility in PF, as other member of the group are widely hated here... at least by some. Usually this is just a knee-jerk reaction.

Yet radical changes can happen through the democratic system without violence: giving universal voting rights to all men and later women, making land reform and giving land renters their own land etc. all radical departures from what has been before can be made without violence and made by politicians that aren't from the extreme fringes of the political spectrum.

That was 18th century liberalism. Later, liberalism has become the doctrine that accepts any junk dictatorship as long as it allows capital to do business. — David Mo

Actually the 19th Century was when liberalism had it's major successes. Yet once the objectives had been achieved, classic liberalism became part of what is now part of conservatism.

No.

That photo above works better than that famous "holding the bible" scene at Lafayette Park.

That's the issue. It's a great photo op.

But whether there is violence or not, we are so much the better for polarization in the cases of slavery, civil rights, because one side lost that argument. — NOS4A2

What the hell are you implying? You think that it's better that something like slavery is abolished ONLY AFTER A VICIOUS BLOODY CIVIL WAR?

I think it's far better when reforms can be done WITHOUT violence, without people getting killed, without extremist delusional and vitriolic opposite views taking over political discourse... and oh wait, that has been possible in many countries.

No, ssu, I’m saying polarization is a natural feature of democracy, and can address injustices. — NOS4A2

Wrong. It's not.

What is normal the extremist views are exactly what they imply: extreme views only supported by a fringe of the voters. What is normal for democracies is for the TO WORK. People getting in to decide on the issues and if there isn't a consensus what to do or a majority that can win the argument, then a negotiated compromise is found. That's how representative democracies and republics ought to work. Extremists don't go for that, they don't compromise. For them it's win or die as the opposition is the enemy.

It's still comorbidity, Hanover.

And Derukugi's argument was that only 9000 have died in the US to COVID-19 and hence the whole pandemic scare is negligible, which I think is a wrong conclusion.

I don’t understand polarization to mean violence. Maybe there is something lost in translation here. — NOS4A2

In politics, polarization (or polarisation) refers to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Think of it as views and attitudes going to the opposite polar extremes without no middle ground.

So what's the problem?

Political parties move toward the poles and people increasingly distrust members of the other political party, it has become difficult for politicians to agree on a way forward. Congress is more likely to gridlock and find it difficult to pass legislation, while campaigns and partisan media can become more divisive.

So NOS4A2, you think that political views becoming more extreme, more apart, will help the representative democracy to function better?