Both of you raise well reasoned objections to my post about hate speech which I have referred to the Department of Opinions to be Reconsidered. In the meantime, I'll try to avoid hate.

My problem with hate speech laws is based on just what I see here in the United States. It isn't a "hate speech law vs unlimited free speech" problem. It's a problem of using "hate speech" as a lever (or hammer) against individuals or groups who have offended others, or expressed unacceptable political opinions. Being offended by speech is not the same as being injured by speech. There should be little to no protection against being offended.

The problem of unambiguously hateful speech (as opposed to offensive speech) is that it inflames other people and can lead to harmful, injurious behavior. Keep it up long enough and it will lead to harmful, injurious results.

So hate speech laws are appropriate for unambiguously hateful speech. It's ambiguously hateful, offensive, annoying speech where hate speech laws are inappropriate.

According to Google Ngram (a word/phrase frequency application) "hate speech" did not register as a phrase used in print until 1990. Its rise to prominence follows the classic "hockey stick" pattern -- slow at first, then straight up.

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like.

Thanks for the video. That San Cristobal is a high crime / dangerous neighborhood doesn't jump out at one. One would need to hang around the place at night, but there are signs that are problematic.

The housing looks like "public housing", as opposed to privately developed residences. Public housing in itself is a social good, but if it isn't managed carefully, it can turn into concrete jungles. For instance, it's critical to have a balance of adults and children in the buildings. Too many children and too few adults spells trouble. It's important to screen out problematic tenants. The buildings have to be maintained in good condition. Etc.

Chicago's public housing turned into a nightmare and the most of the buildings were torn town. New York City's public housing didn't. It stayed good. Why? Better management and a commitment to long-term maintenance.

San Cristobal has a lot of repetitive concrete/brick buildings located in close proximity. It isn't brick and concrete per se that are problematic. It's the way the buildings either support community or impede it -- or even destroy - it that matters. Again, New York is a crowded city. There are some very desirable and crowded neighborhoods made out of repetitive brick and concrete.

It is difficult to tackle all the problems that make up "high crime" neighborhoods. There just aren't enough social workers, enough jobs, enough public programs, enough therapists, enough of everything. Glad you are not living there -- you were just visiting, right?

Javi's "walk on the wild side"...

In 1625, Francis Bacon famously wrote, "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man". In order to be a well rounded man, one needs to read, engage in conversation (speaking and listening) and in writing.

I would emphasize practice: One needs to write, receive criticism, and judge one's own work, again and again, If one doesn't read and converse, what would one have to say? Well, there is one's experience to write about, or one's imagination to spill out in ink, but that should be informed by reading and conversation.

Here's a poem I think is "classic" by John Donne, poet, scholar, soldier secretary and priest. It partakes of the routine misogamy and double-standard of his time (16/17th century), but what's true for a woman is/was even more true for a man.

Go and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging,
And find
What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.

If thou be'st born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return'st, wilt tell me,
All strange wonders that befell thee,
And swear,
No where
Lives a woman true, and fair.

If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet;
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet;
Though she were true, when you met her,
And last, till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three.

George Herbert's Love III is another classic from around 1630.

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lacked any thing.

A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

It's about God's love and I won't quote any more 17th century poetry for a while.

Did you ever read any of these? — javi2541997

Only the Odyssey and parts of the Iliad; Metamorphosis, Candide; several Dickens, Mark Twain, Henry James, Dr Zhivago by Pasternak. None of the rest; I've never liked Hemingway. I read Don Quixote, once upon a time.

There are too many great books for anyone to have read more than a small fraction. Life is short and there is only so much time to delve into more than a few. And that doesn't include very significant books which would not be a wonderful read--like Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe.

I'd consider Dune a classic; I've reread it several times, and of course the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Most science fiction doesn't rate "classic" to me because normally I do not reread them, unless I had forgotten that I had read it before. Sort of like movies you don't remember you have already seen until... half way through.

What about individual poems -- can they be classics along side novels? I think so. John Donne (15th/16th century) wrote wrote a number of poems like that. So did Shakespeare; so did a lot of poets.

Then there are musical classics -- from far past up to yesterday. A lot of music falls well short of "classic" in the sense that nobody has been interested in it for maybe 500 years or since it fell off the current hit charts.

I liked the essay; for one thing, it provided another word for my list of words rarely used in English -- pulviscular, "dusty or resembling a fine powder". Google's AI referenced a Calvino essay.

Might "a classic" just be called "a great book"?

Each of his several definitions of "classic" will satisfy some people, leave other people indifferent or annoyed.

#5. "A classic is a book which even when we read it for the first time gives the sense of rereading something we have read before."

I like that. Several excellent history books I've read or am reading, from "The British are Coming" to Stephen Greenblatt's "Dark Renaissance: The Dangerous Times and Fatal Genius of Shakespeare's Greatest Rival" (just published 9/9/25) fulfill definition #5. They summon memories from college reading and lectures not thought about for decades; they tie together bits and pieces of readings about the topic; they extend insights, etc. Greenblatt's grim description of 16th Century English society (burnings, hangings, disembowelments, poverty, filth, the rigid exclusion of the many from any prospect of advancement (which is why Chistopher Marlowe, son of a poor shoemaker, is so exceptional), are stuff I haven't thought about since English major days in the 1960s.

A classic reinvigorates one's thinking on a topic. So, The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777 by Rick Atkinson has reinvigorated my thinking about what the American Revolution was really like -- how grotesque at times, how bloody, how savage, how dicey, how good luck or bad luck figured into so many events. I also have a better understanding of why the British didn't want to lose the colonies -- they were terrific money makers for Britain's ruling class.

I would nominate 15th century Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as a Classic I have re-read and enjoy studying, and Samuel Pepys diary 17th century diary. Both are fun reads worth returning to. I'd count John Skelton's 16th century work too -- like the Tunning of Eleanor Rumming. Not a pretty lady she.

Her lothely lere
Is nothynge clere,
But ugly of chere,
Droupy and drowsy,
Scurvy and lowsy;
Her face all bowsy,
Comely crynkled,
Woundersly wrynkled,
Lyke a rost pygges eare,
Brystled wyth here.

Wondrously wrinkled like a roasted pig's ear, bristled with hair! Maybe not Milton, but I haven't read Milton in a long time. Classic? Sure.

True. The "now" of a basketball game or tennis match is very short. The now of a marathon, not so short. Broadcast baseball games seem to have an interminable now -- God! When is this thing going to be over!!! Cricket I suppose has as speedy a now as molasses in January.

"living in the here and now" sounds like just one more cliche from authors making money in the self-help trade. Not that I have anything against "being in the present moment". What exactly is so great about being in the here and now of scrubbing the bathroom? Or of balancing one's checkbook? Or of having a bad headache? Etc. Quite often (in the real world) the here and now sucks!

I spent an evening with Richard Alpert, aka Ram Dass, at St. Catherine's College quite a few years ago @Wayfarer. It was lovely. Listening to something wonderful by Schubert, or biking in Wisconsin in perfect fall weather; or reading a really great book about how the continent of North America was put together have all been splendid. When one is doing something very enjoyable and worthwhile, one wants to "pay attention" or be present in that experience.

As far as the past goes, William Faulkner was right: "The past is never dead. It's not even past". (I haven't read the book where he wrote that. That's OK. It's still true.) That said, perseverating over past events doesn't help the present or the future. "Don't worry about the future" has always struck me as bad advice. True, the troubles of today are sufficient unto themselves, per Jesus, but there is no point in making tomorrow worse by what we are doing in the present moment--per Bitter Crank. So do worry about tomorrow at least a little, please.

NOW is always a juggling act with the past and future. How big is it? The "now" of my brain is a few minutes long, maybe. The "now" of geology lasts for centuries. The "now" of history is slow and spacious, until it suddenly switches to dizzying speeds. The "now" of a pop song on a 45 rpm record used to be about 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

Jack, I spent many years in the unpleasant present you seem to be occupying. Like you are doing, one endures; one questions why; one wishes life would be better. And periodically life does get better, at least for a time. Unfortunately, and it really is unfortunate, life just isn't organized around our being happy.

Yeah, and can you force people to behave? Without violent indoctrination? Without capital punishment and constant fear of death? No, you cannot. — Outlander

A depressing--and not at all realistic--response.

A "conscientious cooperative civil society" isn't forced -- it is reared from childhood. You have to teach children -- who become adults -- how to behave.

Does this result in perfect compliance with the law under any and all circumstances? Does this absolutely prevent violence under any and all circumstances? No. What it does is result in a LOW level of unlawful and violent behavior.

Do such societies exist? Certainly they do. Most of us live within such societies.

Many of us also live within societies which are fraying, owing to excesses of free enterprise in such businesses as gun manufacture, gambling, illicit drug use, and the like.

I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." — RogueAI

You didn't say that, of course; Kirk did. And it's specious. Having a gun never protected "God-given rights", other than the holy sanctity of private property--and then only maybe. What best protects civil rights is a conscientious cooperative civil society.

But I wonder whether Kirk had any limits to this sort of justification. In 2023 44,000 people died of gunshots. That's quite a few. Year after year, 40,000 here, 38,000 there, it begins to add up to to a sizable city.

We get used to the statistics of excess deaths -- those above and beyond what are the result of natural causes, like heart attacks, cancer, and strokes.

Americans feel they are entitled to do what they want to do, carry a loaded gun into church, drive the way they want to drive, take whatever drugs are on offer, and so on. 39,000 people died in auto accidents last year--quite a bit less than used to be slaughtered on th highways. In 2023, 80,391 people died of drug overdoses -- down from 110,000 in 2023. Are these acceptable numbers to justify "freedom of the gun", "freedom of the road", "freedom of the drug"? Taken together, guns, cars, and drugs killed roughly 160,000 people last year. I consider that a monstrous cost for a policy of non-interference in lethal activities.

This thread reminds me just how little I know the lot of you. — Outlander

Of course! The lot of us actually disclose very little pertinent information about our drab wretched lives. Some people here seem to feel they might be giving away private information if they acknowledge which continent they live on.

Charlie Kirk is a complete unknown to me. Every day anonymous strangers are killed whom I cannot mourn.

As for The Malcolm X issue of ballots vs. bullets, I am strongly in favor of 'the people' organizing themselves to engage in effective politics for the best interests of the country. "Best interests" will be contested, of course. What's in the best interests for small farmers might not be what is in the interests of urban dwellers. It seems quite clear that the legal framework in which gun manufacturers operate (very weak product liability, for example) is not in the best interest of anyone except gun manufacturers. (Gun manufacturers contribute much less to GDP than pet food manufacturers. The economy can flourish without gun makers!)

The 2nd Amendment / gun fetishists have grossly distorted what the constitution claims, and have in the process created a major menace. Sure, someone's decision to shoot up a school or kill some notable person may be highly irrational, but the more significant fact is that an irrational person someone contemplating mayhem will have no difficulty finding a well-stocked gun shop.

So, no sympathy from me for 2nd amendment victims of gun violence.

Perhaps we will reach a sufficient level of national disunity that we will be faced with a civil war. When and if that day arrives, we can get a gun, join a local militia, and blast away at the designated enemy. But we are not at that day now, and we do not seem to be on the verge of that day.

Vigorous, focused, competent political activism is still a better bet for a civil society, good government, honest business, and a free citizenry.

No advice from me on where you should go. Given the thread, I will note that if one did not exist, housing choices would be much simpler. I can only hope that everyone who didn't get born is not living in a poorly managed city of the non-existent where there are neighborhoods of nobodies ranging from elite ocean-side gated neighborhoods to third-world shit holes.

Most cities have bad areas, and they shift over time, so what might have been a nice neighborhood is now gangland. In Minneapolis, the area where a lot of shootings, drug dealing, drug doing, street crime, thieving, etc. etc. is creeping closer to my neighborhood which has seen low rates of crime for a long time. "Uptown" used to be a slick shopping and sort of bohemian housing area, next to the high end housing surrounding the string of large lakes. The up-scale housing zones are doing fine, but Uptown has hit the skids, partly a victim of urban renewal projects which can be extremely disruptive. The bookstores and coffee shops are gone, along with the vintage movie theater, several nice restaurants, and so on.

Unfortunately, neighborhoods that are bohemian, charming, cheap, and colorful have a higher chance of sinking into a slum because it is cheaper and probably socially more tolerant than areas which have much more to lose financially.

I don't know where I would move if (when) my present neighborhood becomes unsafe. Given my age (79), I'd have to look for affordable senior housing.

I suppose there are ways to survey possibly renting in other parts of London without having to traipse through 100 miles of hallways, subway rides, and streets looking at different places? Websites? Free rental agencies? City agencies?

Moving is tough. It's hard work, it's stressful, it's risky (always a gamble on the next landlord, next neighborhood, etc.) and it can be expensive. On the other hand, living in a neighborhood becoming a high crime area is not great either.

my individual ipseity — Moliere

I was doing so well without having heard of "ipseity". Now? The future is uncertain. A new word can cause the world to veer off in unexpected directions!

Perhaps you should live someplace else? Of course, I know that circumstances may preclude just casually moving from a neighborhood with gangs to a nicer, safer neighborhood. But do what you can. We don't want to lose you to a knife-wielding thug. (In the USA they just shoot you, which is usually more lethal.).

I've lived in some seedy, dicey neighborhoods and did get threatened at knifepoint on a couple of occasion, and barely missed worse. Other than moving, can you make a change in when and where you go? Are you more at risk later at night, and can that be avoided? Can you take any self-defense moves -- mace, a whistle (I don't know what the efficacy of whistles actually is), a gun? Oh sorry, you live in the UK. Might you attend a self-defense course?

All that information is overwhelming — Athena

Sure. There is only so much one can take in and process, young or old. The good news about mentioning other depressions, aside from the great one, is that people endured the suffering and moved on--again and again.

My father's ancestors were farmers. One of the features of farming in the late 19th into the 20th century is how often farmers moved -- not for better views, but because farms failed financially fairly often. Good land but bad economies. My mother's family were not farmers, but they too experienced financial reversals. My grandfathers loss of his drugstore in the Great Depression had enduring psychological effects; my mother inherited a major share of the disappointment. My remarkably resilient. father didn't.

On your state of residence...

I've never been to Oregon. I spent a week at Holden Village -- a Lutheran camp in Washington's mountains a few years ago -- spectacular. Otherwise for the west coast, I've only been to San Francisco and surrounding territory. Oregon, and the other two west coast states, seemed to have had a history of bloodier labor strife than many places in the US (excepting Detroit, Chicago, the Appalachian coal states...).

@Athena: Oh, I just noticed from your profile that you live in Oregon. For some reason I thought you were Canadian. I pictured you living somewhere in Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

Nobody ever said I wasn't a day late and a dollar short when it comes to social interaction.

If we are going to psycoanalyze the country's mental health with respect to the Great Depression, which I enjoy doing as much as the next armchair psychiatrist, we should spread our net wider -- knowing that the consequences of mental distress (it's several causes) can be inter-generational. We elderly folk, with elderly parents, and elderly grandparents and great-grandparents are not generationally far-distant from the "Long Depression" (1873-1879), the Panic of 1893, -- never mind the the Great Depression (1929-1933), the recession of 1937-1938, and the Great Recession (2007-2009). Thank you AI for that summary. I'll add the long decline in purchasing power and wages for the working class that began in the early 1970s and continues. These periods are characterized by significant declines in economic output and increases in unemployment, varying in duration and severity.

Then there were wars -- Civil War, Spanish American War. WWI, and so on. There have been huge immigration waves which were unsettling to "native" populations - and settled previous immigrants alike. There were periods of rapid technological change, far exceeding the disruption of computers and smart phones -- think about the telephone, electrification, radio, subways, automobiles, airplanes, motion and sound film, atom bombs and television--all happening in about 60 years. Don't forget about the impact of germ theory and the discovery of viruses. Did I mention Darwin and new biblical criticism that undermined the older interpretations of the Bible?

The late 19th century and 20th century were very rocky times for anyone that preferred stability and predictability.

Go back to the "pioneer days" of western settlement in the US, let's say after the War of 1812, or thereabouts. Lots of opportunity for enterprising pioneers and settlers--but man, a lot of that pioneering was hell on wheels. Ole Edvart Rølvaag's Giants in the Earth depicts the experiences of a Norwegian pioneer couple in the Dakotas:

Giants in the Earth by O.E. Rølvaag tells the story of Norwegian immigrants Per Hansa and his wife Beret as they attempt to establish a new life on the harsh Dakota prairie in the 1870s. Per embraces the land's potential and the challenges of frontier life, but Beret becomes increasingly consumed by loneliness and a deep-seated fear of the vast landscape, which she perceives as a hostile, desolate place haunted by spiritual entities. The novel explores the profound psychological and cultural struggles of immigrant homesteaders, detailing their conflicts with nature—like crippling winters and devastating grasshopper plagues—and the internal battles between preserving their Norwegian heritage and adapting to a new world. The story ultimately chronicles the hardships, isolation, and eventual tragedy that befall the settlement, highlighting the human cost of the pioneering experience. — AI SUMMARY

AI's summary is pretty much what I remember from high school.

So, adding it all up one can conclude that "a good share of the time, life is a bitch and then you die". Not to be overly pessimistic, but "upheaval" has been more the norm than settled stability for a long time. That's the challenge people overcome again and again.

America was lucky (not ordained by any means) to be the recipients of a liberal tradition developed in Europe, a super abundance of land and resources, plentiful population to work the land and add to the human capital, and a few brutal policies which made it all possible.

So here we are, more or less thriving -- just like numerous other countries that have been through the grinder of war, disaster, depression, disease, and so on. Oh, just for example, Vietnam, a small country which received as much bombing as much larger territories in earlier wars. They are flourishing, but I am sure they are also affiliated by shadows from the past.

People over come.

To have a just correction system, we need knowledge of our nature and the importance of liberal education. Understanding human nature does not come from the Bible, despite what Christians believe. — Athena

I'll say AMEN to that.

I have been reading a history of Amsterdam, a place that invented and applied the term "liberal" back in the 16th century, and which has had a continuing influence on the city. Their liberal ideals were to become a significant element in western culture.

I was a lonely, afraid and stupid kid — Nils Loc

I was certainly stupid, afraid, and lonely, and that spells trouble ahead, but people frequently survive the process of becoming less stupid. Lonely--that is harder. Afraid? Depends on the circumstances. I have to confess that stupidity lasted way beyond childhood in my case. It was the kind of stupidity that college can't cure. Some of it never did go away.

I definitely will not buy a ticket to the lottery of being born again and living another life. "It's a once around life!" according to Schlitz, the beer that made Milwaukee famous. My life wasn't all that bad this time, on balance, but the probabilities for bad, very bad, and very very bad are pretty high.

When I thought about the thread question I didn't think about the way it relates to medical ethics and the question of 'unborn child'. — Jack Cummins

Properly so, and I hope it isn't picked up on by anyone in this thread. The existential import of a decision whether to bear children or not is altogether different than considering that one's self had not existed.

It could make no difference to me, whatsoever, since, if I had not existed, I wouldn't be present to have an opinion.

Having not existed might make some difference to others that did/do exist. I accomplished some minor achievements which, if I had not existed, would not have been done. Somebody else could have, might have, or not. If NOT, then the world would lack those minor achievements, and that might matter to a few hundred people in a probably small way.

It would certainly have mattered to my parents, who would have had one less child to raise. They had to work very hard to feed, clothe, and house 7 children. It would probably have made a difference to my siblings. I was the youngest. Without me, the sister who preceded me would have been the youngest child, and might have received some advantages from that.

My boy friends and lovers would not have had the pleasure of knowing, loving, being proud of or disappointed in me, and they would not have received my love for them. Of course, there are plenty good fish in the sea, and any of them might have made better matches.

I think I have gained knowledge, understanding, maybe 'wisdom' over just about 79 years. Does the knowledge I accumulated count as a "good", an "asset" to the society at large? Don't know. The time may yet come when I will be able to explain some historical facts, for instance, to one or more people who don't have much knowledge about history. Or perhaps I will just be a knowledgeable corpse one day. That's OK. I studied because I liked study.

We know for a fact that through various technologies of birth control, millions of babies have not been conceived and delivered. Missing babies is a significant thing. Ask Japan, which has a growing deficit of children to replace the generation who might have borne them. You can also ask China, Germany, Italy, Korea, and a number of other places about the coming demographic problem of too few children.

Let's not blame birth control, however. A lot of people apparently wish never to change a stinky diaper.

I am not sure whether the existing liberal center should be likened too an avocado (no), a peach (maybe), or several little apple seeds (I hope we're better than that). A really big solid avocado core would be nice. A peach pit might be all we can get in the near future. Or, maybe we are stuck with little apple seeds?

We need more energetic and articulate people like Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders may consider himself a Democratic Socialist, but he is also energetic and articulate (but aging). I don't want to see Harris or a Clinton or the like taking the lead.

I have a history of further-to-the-left-than-Democratic-Socialist, and I know from experience that it is very difficult to arrest the attention of the ordinary man in the street, let alone build their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment into action (like voting). "Liberal democracy" should be a significantly easier sell than socialism. After all, liberal democracy, free enterprise, and all that are not asking anyone to lay their life on the line, give up their career, sell their property, or forgo a new iPhone. Nobody is even asking gun owners to repent and turn in their guns.

I mean, the core values of liberal democracy are not strange:

The core values of liberalism are individualism, liberty, equality, and the rule of law, emphasizing the rights of the individual and the consent of the governed. Other essential principles include private property, freedom of speech and religion, and a representative democracy supported by a mixed or market economy. I would add "the truth of science", given Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy, Jr. shitting on the truth of medical science and the administration's denial of climate warming.

Einstein also said the Fourth World War would be fought with rocks, there being nothing else left to fight with after the Third World War.

2) My claim is this should not be interpreted as backsliding but rather as an overestimation of the percentage of the world population who embraced liberalism to begin with. — Joshs

I don't know much about the over-estimation of the world's liberalism, but that is certainly the case for the United States.

It might seem like liberals had super-majorities in congress during the Roosevelt administrations, and in some other decades, but only if one mistakenly equates "Democrat" with "Liberal". Democratic majorities were possible because the illiberal solid-south Democrats had pretty much complete control over southern state politics. It became more difficult for Democrats to control congress after the illiberal Democrats switched and became illiberal Republicans. That's one thing.

States in the midwest and west coast have always held strong conservative constituencies along side liberal districts (usually urban). Minnesota illustrates this well, sending a mixed conservative and liberal representation to Congress. Minnesota was a consistently religious place, with strong "family values". It less religious now, less traditionally family oriented, but still has about the same mix of conservative and liberal. California, the home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan et al, has had some remarkably illiberal episodes.

If you take a random sample of Americans, I would expect the majority to express a mix of values which can't be taken as resoundingly Liberal. That doesn't mean that the majority are on the edge of fascism, but far right leanings make up substantial group (the "MAGA base").

Pundits are saying the Democrats don't know what to do to win elections. I don't think that is true -- they know how as well as the Republicans. The problem with the presumably liberal Democrats is that their liberalism isn't deep or strong enough to motivate them, to the same extent that the far right Republicans are motivated. They seem to be having difficulty clearly articulating the liberal cause.

The failure to articulate and hold the liberal center allows for growing encroachment on the political center by far right wing thinking and 'left of liberal' thinking on the left side. MAGA and some of the so-called Democratic Socialists both pose problems for central liberalism, whether rounding up 10 million illegal immigrants or abolishing the police.

It will eventually, but probably not in our lifetime. — frank

I'm not confident that I will be dead before things spiral out of control, and I'm an old man.

Of course you didn't invent it. I'm familiar with the principle even if I don't like the application.

For me personally, it was a big disappointment — Astorre

You can imagine, then, how much bigger a disappointment it is for Americans who didn't vote for Trump and altogether disapprove of him and his policies.

Trump did not win the popular vote by a wide margin; it was Trump 49.8% and Harris 48.3%. The large margin was in the electoral college, which I don't want to discuss here.

The Senate and the House are both controlled by Republican majorities--not huge margins, but still a majority. This might change in the 2026 election, or maybe not. We'll see. Trump had the unfortunate opportunity to name 3 justices to the Supreme Court, tipping the balance strongly toward the conservative judicial view. With both legislative houses, the court, and the presidency all controlled by the same party, the republicans can expect to have many policy wins.

The BIG thing about Trump is that he is willing to flout legal precedent and ignore laws (and the constitution) which place limitations on his some of his overt policies and actions, and his party approves -- so far, anyway. From what source would powerful opposition come? Not from the House; not from the Senate; not from the Court. "We the people" won't have a chance to vote for House members and 1/3 of the Senate for 14 more months, and if an overwhelming majority of liberals were elected, they still wouldn't take office until 16 months (roughly) from now. That gives Trump a long time to continue on his rampage, and possibly abort an election where he would lose power.

We are in uncharted territory with a president who doesn't care what the court rules. The courts do not have an army to force him to do anything. The uncomfortable fact is this: You can't do business unless people are honest, and you can't have an effective law-abiding government if people (particularly in government) don't care about the law, facts, and reality.

An American has to be something of a rebel, a dissident, to perceive how propaganda and soft power operate on the home front -- never mind in countries where we don't travel a lot. Most Americans are not dissidents, not given to reading Marx or other socialists (real socialists, not the Democratic Socialists). Certainly the recipients of propaganda, soft power, and sometimes hard power have no difficulty seeing American foreign policy at work.

A previous administration used to conduct "secret wars". The New York Times reported on these "secret wars". Noam Chomsky, in blasting the NYT, asked "To whom are these wars secret? Certainly not the people who are being bombed! It's Americans from whom the wars are kept secret."

I'm a gay man, but I can understand how the western 'gay movement' does not translate well to some other societies. Health workers in Uganda, for instance, don't think that they need to worry about gay transmission of HIV because "there are no homosexuals in Uganda" -- or that was the view 25 years ago. Uganda is apparently virulently homophobic at this time--not a good time to start a gay liberation movement. I'm not sure which countries are open to some of the esoteric gender issues which we have been dealing with. "Gay liberation" can only happen in societies that are ready and willing.

That is your pov.

Western foreign policy is increasingly criticized as hypocritical — Astorre

Hypocrisy is a universal trait (even if it is undesirable) among all humans and all human institutions. It's just easier to see in other people, other nations.

The U.S. dollar was seen as unshakable. Western democracy was often cited as the highest political ideal. Western consumer goods were considered objectively superior. And the broader cultural narrative—academic, technological, even moral—was clearly West-centric. — Astorre

a) Is an 'unshakable dollar' a measure of the western ideal?
b) Why wouldn't 'western democracy' remain the highest IDEAL, even if, in reality, it is less than ideal?
c) Are objectively superior consumer goods, nice as they are, a measure of western ideals?
d) The 'broader cultural narrative' isn't accepted by all western academics.

Many Americans (liberals in the best meaning of liberal) find unsatisfactory a good deal of what is going on in the US, the west in general, and the east in general. So, it's not surprising that people elsewhere -- seeing anti-liberal trends in US political behavior -- would have doubts. However, IF liberal values were good 10 or 15 years ago, they ought to still be good.

Are we truly entering an era of multipolarity? If so, what are the philosophical consequences of a world without a dominant cultural “center”? — Astorre

Within the last 125 years, various regimes have arisen whose focus was decidedly unliberal and unwestern. One of them, the PRC, remains. It's been a going concern since October 1, 1949. It has not been without some really major difficulties (famine, cultural revolutions, glorious rich-getting, etc.) There is a large batch of smaller illiberal and/or un-western regimes which have come to the fore locally. Just to name a few, Saudi Arabia; Iran; Spain; South Africa; Serbia; Cuba; Argentina; Chile; and quite a few others. Some of these regimes, like Fascist Spain, have reformed. Argentina and Chile eventually got rid of their generals.

The US has had better and worse period of western democratic performance, and is currently in one of its worst-performing periods, with Trump at the helm. The big question for me is how long this dispiriting episode will last.

By "state" I mean either a federal state (US GOV) or a subunit (Florida, North Dakota). I live in a state, Minnesota, that abandoned the death penalty in 1911. Apparently there had been a badly botched execution which resulted in a voter demand to drop the death penalty. Botched execution have become a thing, again, evidently.

But to say that capital punishment shouldn't be part of the system because the justice system is not perfect... — L'éléphant

I am not holding out for "perfection". What I say is that the justice system (particularly on the state level in certain states) is bad enough that irrevocable sentences (execution) should not be ordered. Evidently, some states are much worse than others when it comes to police and prosecutorial misbehavior and incompetence. Exoneration can only benefit the living.

Even if the Justice system were to be perfect, I am still against capital punishment. I do not believe it has the power to dissuade someone from committing a capital crime, because #1 murders are often committed in the heat of the moment when regard to consequences is low. #2 reason is that in our system, for better or worse, execution often occurs long after sentence is passed. This greatly dilutes any theoretical benefit of prevention.

"The State" of course is an abstraction and can't execute a fly. Executions are carried out by individuals working for the state. It is unseemly for the state to ask employees to carry out what are cold blooded murders. The employees may feel OK about it -- I don't actually know -- but the execution is definitely cold-blooded murder, by definition.

Minnesota has had several exoneration cases, recently, which freed men who had been in jail for up to 20 years. There is a tipping point -- varying by individual -- when the last exoneration becomes too many to put up with. I have not reached that point for imprisonment.

I don't think I am being sentimental about capital punishment. People die every day in unwholesome, perverse situations, killed by -- for lack of a better term -- deluded self-centered assholes. It makes me angry that these kinds of death occur, but society seems to be OK with it, as long as it isn't in their part of town. So far, in 78 years, I haven't personally known anyone shot down on the street.

I don't approve of capital punishment, along with an assortment of other things. I have no plans to personally do anything radical to stop it, like self-immolation on the steps of the prison.

Why should I act this way and not otherwise? — Astorre

Isn't this where reward and punishment play a major role? From an early age on we are offered rewards for acting the way an agency prefers -- that agency being anything from parent to a government. And the opposite, of course: punishment of some sort from an early age on. At an early age, punishment installs guilt, a powerful guide and something to avoid by behaving 'correctly' whatever that is.

I like your statement, "What is the price of my action? Am I ready to bear it as part of myself?" This is a critical issue where we decide to deviate from the dominant rules and regs. An example is the decision of a gay boy, man, to announce that he is gay, even though this act of existential truth may bring immediate negative consequences. 75 years ago, being a communist in the United States was that sort of existential issue. (There are always these existential issues -- different times and places, different existential issues.)

Is there any way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong? — Truth Seeker

First, people are born into societies with a standing system of values (reflected in law, religion, manners, and so forth). So from the start, that is one source of certainty.

Once one is old enough to think for one's self, one can revise and edit the received rules. There are limits on how far one can go: Even if you have decided it is OK to steal, most of society thinks it is wrong and if you steal, you may be caught and punished. There are usually core values and rules which you had best abide by, like it or not. There are often quite peripheral rules which can safely be ignored. But sometimes peripheral rules, like fashion, are almost as critical as core rules.



So, if your Home Owners Assn. says that your lawn must be weed free and no longer than 3 inches, then you had better hop to it. Or else!

I don't think WS was arguing for completely subjective morality. I take what he said to mean that we can 'think' our way from one position to another, from an act being bad to that act being good. There are plenty of historical examples of thinking our way from bad to good, good to bad.

Most people make up their minds about what is good and bad based on their society, on very strong influences, and on one's own thinking. There is usually some wiggle room in the morals of the 8 billion + people on earth, but not too much. That's one reason why most of us get along with each other reasonably well most of the time.

What brings major trouble is when a political leader (Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Trump, Ayatollah Khomeini. the Taliban lunatics, the Sudan warlords, etc.) decide to impose a moral scheme at considerable variance from the people's generally practiced moral system. Trump isn't in the same league as Hitler (yet, anyway) but his shredding of USAID, Voice Of America, the Department of Education, the CDC. his nonsensical policy on science and vaccination, and other actions undermines what people thought good, true, and right about government. The consequences will be less health around the world, less health at home, less reliable information around the world, less education, and so on. Not good!

Punish only up to the extent of the law. Anything beyond that is vindictiveness. Vindictiveness and wisdom cannot co-exist in you simultaneously. — L'éléphant

Thanks for calling me out on that.

Sadly, "the extent of the law" may include capital punishment. I am against capital punishment for two reasons: #1, in the United States, at least, justice has been perverted in a significant number of convictions, including those of capital cases. The wrongfully convicted are sometimes exonerated by the hard work of a few justice groups. It's bad enough if someone spends 20 years in prison for a wrongful conviction. A wrongful execution is beyond appeal.

#2, execution is an unseemly activity for the state to engage in. Prison is punishment enough -- for life if need be, but in most cases, not that long. Now, I don't like the way states run their prisons either. People can become better in prison, no worse, but that takes a commitment to betterment. We don't have that, by and large. I don't like states running gambling operations, either, or if they so chose, any of the traditional rackets.

So, "they can hang twice" is a rhetorical flourish, not an action plan. Besides, I probably won't be around in 10 years, never mind 100. There is some comfort in getting closer to the end.

I'm not worried about you plagiarizing anything! I think we are both in the same age group--aged and high functioning. We are in a position for a late harvest of a lifetime of thinking, doing, living. A few weeks ago one of my sisters (more aged than I and not doing quite so well) were discussing the 20th century history of Israel. I was reciting the history of the pre-and-post WWI changes in the Middle East, the Balfour declaration, and so on. She accused me of reading this off the computer. No, it's something that I had finally learned well enough to draw from memory.

You have batches of material like that too, material you have learned well and can spool off in a post. It's a great thing to have, a working memory that is full. (I'm not bragging -- I can't remember what the weather was like here last month. Did I take my pills this morning? What did I spend the 20 bucks on that was in my wallet? Etc.). I wish I had learned more in college Geology 101; we had a wonderful teacher. The one thing I remember vividly is his description of plate tectonics which was still a relatively new discovery. I remember some stories in the 6th grade Weekly Reader about the International Geophysical Year, 1956. One of the stories was about the sea floor spreading out from big cracks--a key piece of continental drift. As for the different types of rocks we were taught, not much remains. Plagioclase feldspar? the name stuck but the description didn't.

Wisdom tells me that the second hanging is a formality, since the hangees will no longer be 'present'.

On the other hand, I'll own up to a certain amount of vindictiveness toward responsible agents who wrecked the climate and caused billions of deaths.

you can take me out and shoot me, but I have to use AI to make this post much richer than what I can do without it — Athena

Which AI are you using? Are you using the summary labeled as AI which Google provides to a query? For quick checks, it generally delivers acceptable answers--at least, they are as good as Google query results, which are sometimes not good, but usually are at least acceptable.

I generally don't use CHATGPT, or other AIs--not for any great reason; I just don't find it that entertaining.

AI is a tool; so is Google. Of course it's there to make money, now or in the near future, but that's no surprise. I think the problem the Management here has with AI is people substituting AI output for their own thinking, their own composition. I'm against people doing that because it's only by actually doing their own thinking and their own research and their own writing that they will get better at it.

You are not substituting AI output for your own thinking, which you have clearly been doing for a long time. So pick up the tools that help you gather information. Any tool, be it a pencil and note cards or Ai.

We need honesty and we need to act on what we know. We must not let the discussion stop at ignoring the problem because change would hurt. — Athena

HEAR! HEAR!

What if all this crashes in only 100 years? Will our young be prepared to figure out how to survive? — Athena

"All this" will crash. The young of 2125 won't be grappling with an oil shortage. In 100 years heat will be the biggest problem -- heat; previously unseen climate and weather patterns; drinking water shortages; insufficient food production; maintenance of critical aging infrastructure. In 100 years it is likely that intolerable heat will prevail in many parts of the world, including parts the United States. Specifically, it will be too hot and too humid to carry out agricultural labor. Disease pattern changes are already under way. We can expect that malaria, West Nile virus, chikungunya. Lyme disease, zika virus, and more will become endemic in much of the US (because of heat and the spread of ticks and mosquitos and the diseases they carry).

End of the world? Not quite. But it is likely to be a world with fewer people, fewer resources, fewer comforts, and very big problems. Let us hope that there we don't have nuclear warfare to add to the future's problems.

People who can will adapt and life will go on.

People who could not adapt through no fault of their own will have departed this world.

I am selfishly glad that I am an old man in 2025, and will have departed this world long before things get much worse. Who is to blame? Let's keep it simple and just blame everybody since the Industrial Revolution. Our generation's government and corporate leaders are doubly culpable for knowing that coal, oil, and natural gas cause climate change and not doing something about it. Let them be hanged twice.

The next several generations will join the class of climate criminals if they do not act. The Angry Children of 2125 will have no shortage of responsible and guilty parties at which to shake their fists!