It's the ongoing unfairness and privilege that remain today. — T Clark

I agree, but how long is "the present"? I consider at least the last 125 years to constitute our material "present". The modern age of technology, industry, science, and the arts began in the late 19th century.

For some people, the cultural and social "present" is the last 15 minutes; for others it stretches back decades or centuries. For those with a long-term present, American slavery is part of their present. The dispossession of the Western Hemisphere of the native people is a "present moment" to some.

Replacing capitalism with socialism could, might, be one way of getting at ongoing and past injustices. Setting aside what will be a small share of the total wealth of the country (whichever country/county/city is thinking about reparations) will leave the inherited system intact. The cash will not necessarily have that large a benefit. People who have their act together will benefit from a $50,000 check. People whose lives are messed up won't be able to benefit so much.

Some white people in liberal neighborhoods are quite enthusiastic about having legally invalid race covenants removed from their property titles. Big deal! It's just so much virtue signaling. The white owners have no intentions of sacrificing their home equity (which some minorities claim was earned at their expense).

If collective guilt is invalid, so is collective innocence and virtue. Sorting out the deserving and undeserving would be a classic counterproductive approach.

what time the train to Sydney leaves Southern Cross Station. — Tom Storm

Who gave you permission to go to Sydney?

the authorities are the only legitimate truth sayers — Athena

Well, yes. What's the point of being a powerful authority if you can't decide what is true? "We'll decide what the Truth is, thank you, and perhaps we will provide you with an abbreviated, sanitized version at some point in the future, depending on our estimate of what you need to know. People don't like being burdened with disturbing information. In any case, don't call us, we'll call you."

Great! My bus today passed a new Dunkin' Donuts on Snelling Avenue in St. Paul -- I was happy to see it, since they don't have a big presence here. Glam Donuts and A Baker's Wife in Minneapolis both do a fairly good job. But I used to think that DD's glazed raised were definitive. Are they, still?

Here is a sample itinerary of a workplace that fosters learning and exploration: — schopenhauer1

I had two jobs that both achieved your goals. One was in the AIDS Prevention program at the Minnesota AIDS Project starting around 1987. Our work day was loosely structured, and some of us had work which was done outside the building. We collaborated a lot, shared information, worked together on editing pamphlets, and so on. We could still smoke indoors at the time, so the smoking lounge was the place to take the pulse of the agency.

The critical piece was the sense that we were involved in a common struggle, and while there were major differences in education background, no one pulled rank. Crisis-urgency helped us, of course. Many AIDS programs around the country had similar highly successful years before AIDS became deeply established. By the time it became clear that HIV was here to stay, and then became somewhat treatable, then very treatable (but not curable) the sense of elan was gone. Then it became humdrum public health work.

The other very good job was in the media center of a college library -- early 70s. This job taught me a lot. There was no crisis here, no life or death issues. The program leader was immensely enthusiastic about all sorts of instructional technology, and engaged faculty in his projects. Possibilities were wide open and co-workers were encouraged -- more like compelled -- to try out anything that seemed like it might work. It wasn't a 3 ring circus -- this was, after all, an over-all tightly wrapped Catholic men's college, and there were people in the hierarchy who didn't hesitate to slam on the brakes if they didn't like something, We would have been successful instructional technology revolutionaries if the Internet, wide bandwidth, and more powerful desktop computers had been available to us. It's what we were reaching toward.

I won't go into the assorted crummy jobs, but they were alienating and alienated; dull; routinized; tradition bound, discouraged innovation; hierarchical, and so on.

But the donuts have to be made I get it. — schopenhauer1

No you don't get it. Your schedule indicates that the donuts aren't going to be made until 1:00 in the afternoon. The best sales period (early morning) will have been missed. Workers elsewhere will be deprived of the irreplaceable fried glazed-raised to go with their coffee. The entire city will be negatively affected. I'm calling a group criticism meeting, Herr Schopenhauer, and you will be Topic Numero Uno.

Your answer is indicative of the general trend towards radical individualism- the one that self-help books thrive on. — schopenhauer1

OUCH! That's pretty painful.

How about changes at a societal level? — schopenhauer1

a critical task of "revolutionary socialists" ought to be imagining a society operating under socialist principles. — BC

The vision of a better, more humane - human - society comes from a) criticism of the existing society, and speculation about a better society. Any meaningful change in society has to be collective rather than individual. Just because I feel better now. than I used to doesn't mean I think it is up to individuals to solve these problems alone.

For instance, I welcome automation. A lot of boring tedious work really should be done by computers and robots. Coupled with automation should be a universal basic income system to avoid poverty among the displaced workers.

Of course, some people like doing routinized work -- I don't understand it, but they do.

There is the idea that people who have been relieved of boring routinized jobs can shift over to fascinating fulfilling work. Whether any such thing can, or would happen, isn't clear to me. Maybe it is a mistake to suppose that people would fill their days with fulfilling work. Maybe they would do what otherwise unoccupied people have always done: socialize, play, eat, etc. And that would be just fine.

Yes, I can se BC coming in with some joke regarding the last sentence, something about scanning groceries at the checkout line and its connection with Plato's Forms — schopenhauer1

Well! I would have made a great joke if you hadn't already told it! Thanks a lot!

meaningfulness in the mundane — schopenhauer1

Wasn't the "Protestant work ethic" an effort to make the mundane meaningful? The idea was that all work was as sacred as the labor of priests. So, scanning groceries was a service to God and Man, alike.

As far as I know, from personal experience and good authority, the Protestant Work Ethic is dead, ground up in the gears of alienating industrial labor, soulless bureaucratic paper processing, the treadmill of consumption for the sake of production, and more besides. As far as the religious interpretation goes, the religious establishment's connection to the masses, and the masses' utilization of 'mainline religious teaching' is all pretty much dying or dead.

This all didn't happen yesterday -- more like a many decades long process.

there seems to be lack of "meaningfulness in the mundane", whereby the meaningful informs the mundane — schopenhauer1

Absolutely!

Can alienated people in an alienating culture overcome their alienation? I don't know if they can or not.

In various discussions around here about the meaningless universe it has been repeatedly asserted that man can impose, import, invent, invoke, create ... meaning.

How well is that working? Reasonably well.

BUT if one feels mired in anomie, alienation, meaninglessness, soullessness, etc. it is natural to believe that everyone is in the same hopeless boat. If one is NOT mired in the dark swamp, it is difficult to understand why some people are. I have had some long episodes of feeling alienated, meaningless, soulless, etc. in the past; and I have had some long episodes of feeling connected to and part of a solid meaning system.

What made the difference, moving from one state to another. Well, I don't know, exactly. Grace is as good an explanation as I can find.

...the technocratic practicality of the Western values... is really what counts. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that's what really counts in the marketplace. The market place is very big and billions of people do their material thing there and there everything is reduced to the cash nexus. Nothing new about the, and I expect it will continue on until there is no more future.

As dominant as it is, most people are still not merely functionaries in the marketplace, and if they can be coaxed away from their smartphone tethers and social media flowage, there is still the possibility of ideas taking flight.

Ah, don't ask me how to make that happen.

So, what are the best genres in which to speculate?

Religion of an open-ended sort
Philosophy as long as we're not rehashing Plato till the cows come home
Literature is not always speculative, but it certainly can be
History requires speculation, imagination, to put flesh on the bare bones of fact
and ??? there must be more

Music? Art? Surely.

So, the art of speculative thought has NOT been lost -- it just doesn't rate mention in the Financial Times or Wall Street Journal.

Many socialists either came from the working class, as I did, or strongly identify with the class that does the work.

However, a critical task of "revolutionary socialists" ought to be imagining a society operating under socialist principles. What is "heaven on earth" going to be like? Some socialists, at least, stop before they do any speculation and say that it will be up to the existing people in the would-be revolutionary society to decide what they want. All well and good. However, I think people need a vision to inspire struggle. Maybe they need a vision just to keep on keeping on, Else, it might very well all be for naught.

Dystopias seem to be a more popular topic for speculation for some reason. It might motivate corporate leaders to try harder at achieving decarbonizing goals, if they speculated more about bad things could (and probably will) get 25 years down the line or 100 years. B. F. Skinner, the behaviorist, wrote a book--Walden Two--about a utopian society operating with behavioral psychology principles. Seemed lie a dull place to live. Brave New World, of course--but was that utopian or dystopian speculation?

Another way in which speculation takes on more importance is that AI and automation stand a good chance at taking over activities that we find challenging and/or satisfying. If they take over speculation as well, then we're totally screwed, like the sorcerer's apprentice who knew enough magic to start the broom working on its own, but not enough magic to stop it.

Unfortunately, speculation about the nature of existence and metaphysics, which once held great appeal, has declined in popularity and remains a niche pursuit. — schopenhauer1

Wait a minute. When did "speculation about the nature of existence and metaphysics" have great appeal? What exactly are you referencing here? Literature? Philosophy? Film? Beer hall conversation?

You might be right, but I'm not sure what you are claiming.

My reading of history and literature leads me to think that "speculation about the nature of existence and metaphysics" has always been a niche activity.

the pleasure of hard tasks is rooted in the accomplishment of a specific, concrete goal — schopenhauer1

Indeed, and that pleasure has been enjoyed for quite a long time -- especially by the people supervising or profiting from the hard work of accomplishment. Not sure how much the grunts working away in the pits felt about it.

get to know them first — RBS

I've always preferred the "sex first, lengthy conversation later" approach. Unless a really good conversation came first. Then I'd skip over the sex part and stick with friendship.

(Romantic) lovers can become friends, but friends don't become (romantic) lovers, which is OK because friendship lasts longer than (romantic) love.

At least, in my experience.

And lovers do well to become friends, because then their relationship has a much longer future.

Romantic relationships which end abruptly do not become friendships. Kicking somebody out of bed usually means The End. Move on.

Why can't friendships turn into (romantic) love? Carnality. Friends are not judged as potential sex partners. Potential sex partners aren't judged on the longer-term potentials of friendship. The attempt to shift friendship into romantic love is likely to lead to conflict.

to a person who needs a cure? — Moliere

More like a society that needs a cure.

Sorry to hear that you are anomic; it's probably not a great place to be.

Absurdism, nihilism, existentialism, postmodernism and critical theory are anomic and appeal to anomics. — introbert

From my perspective, anomie isn't something one would opt for; rather, it is something that happens to an individual and to groups of people. Once there is a "breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community", then I suppose nihilism and absurdism, postmodernism, and so on would settle in.

One is where one is, and if it's in anomie, then that's that, at least for the time being.

How old are you? I'm way over the hill myself, and it seems like anomie is more likely to be a condition of younger people (like 20s, 30s). Bug or feature? It seems like anomie is less a 'bug' of younger people and more a 'feature'. When I was in my 20s, 30s, I found the kind of stuff that you are talking about much more attractive. It isn't a sign of 'immaturity'; it's more like having 'not that much to lose'. As people get older, they have more to lose. I'm not thinking of property here; their social connections and commitments weigh more.

there seems to be a lot less weird philosophical types than there was in the mid-twentieth century — introbert

I'd be very surprised if there were fewer weird philosophical (or any other weird) types around now than there were mid-twentieth century. And is that a good thing or a bad thing, from your perspective? I'm sorry if my efforts at weirdness have not been altogether convincing,

My own experience with living in an increasingly rationalized society, is that a person who is inclined to thinking over practice (work), subjectivism over objectivity, irrationalism over rationalism, disobediance over obedience, critical thought over conformity, individual over communitarian, free over totalitarian and various other things that are easily rationalized, will struggle mentally in an environment where there is prevailing psychiatry that features all of these things. — introbert

Of course. Anyone who pursues a full-court press of subjectivism, irrationalism, disobedience, nonconformism, individualism, and various other things is going to run into strong resistance because this approach will either strongly resemble--or will in effect be --antisocial. This person is going to be a voice howling in the wilderness. Pariah or prophet?

BTW, why do you place critical thinking in opposition to conformity? Do you suppose that only rebels employ critical thinking? Conformists do too,

Humans employ moderate amounts of rationality and irrationality or obedience and disobedienc--some of each in all the paired terms you employ.

The early sociological theory on 'anomie', which features elements of mental disorder, should be looked at as a starting point for anyone critical of the healing of the soul of the body of the individual, by a communitarian, totalitarian, objective, professional, and obedient social institution of influence. — introbert

Anomie: In sociology, anomie is a social condition defined by an uprooting or breakdown of any moral values, standards or guidance for individuals to follow. Anomie is believed to possibly evolve from conflict of belief systems and causes breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community...

Are you for or against anomie? Can't tell from what you said.

People employ all sorts of policing to manage society besides formal police and agents with policing authority like psychiatrists. Some of it is formal, and a lot of it is informal. Sharp eyed old ladies in apartment buildings, for instance.

Sometimes we rub up against too many abrasive social surfaces and become raw and irritated all over. Then it is time to withdraw to one's room to sooth the sores and develop a little thicker skin. I spend a lot of time by myself. It helps.

Moral, ethical, practical, political... -- all kinds of questions arise from what happens in laboratories and factories Some of what has been done has proved to be very beneficial, some of it has proved to be very harmful. Generate your own positive and negative list.

There is an unfortunate reason why we do not put a stop to potentially dangerous activities (like modifying the human genome, like burning mega billions of tons of fossil fuel):

The time frame in which we can think and act meaningfully about risk is short. This is the case whether it involves our personal behavior or the activities of large institutions. We just didn't evolve the capacity to act upon consequences that are only 50 years away from fulfillment. And that is under the best of circumstances.

Global heating was a problem about which we had time to do something 50 years ago. Unfortunately, we just couldn't react in a meaningful way to the heat forecasts of the (then, next; now, this) century. The mid-century mark is only 27 years away.

So, thinking about potentials for harm from genetic research fits right in here. Genetic alterations will have long-term consequences -- perhaps very beneficial, perhaps not. If the negative consequences show up in the first 3 to 5 years, perhaps the brakes can be applied. If the bad consequences won't materialize for perhaps 3 human generations out -- roughly 100 years -- then we will worry about it later. Maybe in 50 years -- by which time it will be too late.

Throw in financial incentives for doing risky research... it's likely to be a done deal.

The guy does have a radio-voice. Pretty good.

"If the ends do not justify the means, what in god's name does?" V. Lenin

A nuanced range of responses is required, But in the end, affordable, secure housing, better jobs and incomes, access to education and health services are critical elements. — Tom Storm

Your long experience gives you good insight.

Prior to "urban renewal", Minneapolis had a large population of older men who had been part of the heavy industry of mining and lumber. They were and were not homeless. They had housing -- flop houses providing rock bottom shelter. There were a couple of charities providing some food, and there were a lot of small cheap cafes (and liquor stores, of course). The flop houses were warehouses that had been divided up into boxes, each box having a lockable door. Wire fencing covered the open top. The spaces were not well ventilated or heated and sanitation facilities were minimal.

Starting in the 1950s, Minneapolis decided to scrape off the dilapidated blocks and build new. I've never seen any documentation about whaat happened to the several hundred old guys who had been living there. They just sort of disappeared (which, is what the city fathers hoped would happen). It took around 30-50 years for the rebuilding to occur, and there are still some empty lots.

Minneapolis didn't have a significant visible homeless problem until 2020 in the form of large encampments in public parks. Minneapolis likes its parks, and it wasn't long before the people in these camps were cleared out by park police. Efforts were made by social services to respond to this outbreak of homelessness, and for the most part, they are not visible again. I was downtown yesterday and there were a few panhandlers on the main street. This was during a brief warm day between very cold weather. One of them was 'sunning' on the cold wet sidewalk. I've seen him around downtown before. He's part of the "tolerable level" of rock bottom poverty. (He's inside somewhere -- he wasn't dressed to survive the winter outside.).

The city and and developers--sources of money--do not want to build housing for the explicitly homeless. (Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities have built a little, and the Ojibwa Tribe of Minnesota has several buildings for homeless tribal members.). Where to put it and how to run it seem to be insurmountable difficulties. Having formerly homeless people next door is about as popular as having a group home for serial rapists in the neighborhood. Not going to happen.

The magic formula seems to be to find some unattractive land or build in a rougher neighborhood and do so 'quietly'. Homeless housing with services does work reasonably well.

Gracias.

So, the question then is, what can we, and what should we do about it? Various approaches have been tried; some working better than others. I'm not an expert on this, and what may seem like obvious solutions may not produce the desired results

Just building housing may not be enough. A program in Minneapolis houses "public inebriates" -- chronic alcoholics. Residents get a room with a bath (and some services). They do not have to stop drinking, but they can only drink in their rooms -- not the hallways or common areas. This follows the Housing First approach.

Housing First's main priority is providing shelter; once shelter is in place, additional services aimed at dealing with their other problems comes into play. Opposite this approach is Treatment First. Addicts (drugs, alcohol) first go to treatment. If they are successful, then other services follow, such as housing. Neither approach is magic and there is a failure rate--not sure what it is. The traits that lead to and maintain addiction do not result in highly responsible behavior.

Criminalization is another approach. Drug and alcohol addicts are jailed. This might serve as both treatment and housing, but such a happy combination doesn't generally happen in prison. Plus, prisons are not drug proof, and they are hardly healthy environments.

Neglect is a time honored method. Let them rot. If they become too much of a nuisance (like collecting into large encampments in downtown or neighborhood areas), chase them out and burn everything. This approach will satisfy the affected property owners as long as the homeless don't return.

Neglect is the cheapest approach for a city and county -- the levels of government generally dealing with the homeless. The expenditures for housing units and treatment may not yield a monetary return, either for the city or for the GDP. A chronic addict may never become productive. Wait, aren't people more important than money? Well, for budgetary purposes, no. There is only so much tax income to go around and cities and counties--even wealthy ones--generally don't have cash laying around.

Prevention. Great idea. How do we go about that? A lot of homelessness is the result of chronic alcohol and drug abuse. So far we haven't found a very good way to prevent people from becoming alcoholics and drug addicts. [Most adults who use drugs and/or alcohol won't become alcoholics OR drug addicts. But some will--millions of them.]

Would fewer people become addicts if society were better, nicer, more humane, more ... all sorts of things? Maybe. But, cocaine, heroin, meth, alcohol -- even tobacco -- are highly addicting. I was addicted to tobacco. I started smoking way after it was well known that smoking causes cancer, lung, and heart disease. I quit on my own, as most people who quit tobacco do. Some hard drug addicts are able to quit on their own too, and for others, treatment is quite successful.

What will work? I don't know.

Good point! "Poor" and "poverty" do indeed have gradations quite apart from "relative poverty" (feeling poor because your friends have more money than you do).

First, class. The middle (entrepreneurial or professional) and upper 'kept' classes are not 'poor'. The working class can be divided up into four parts of various population size

Upper Working Class - steady employment, wages sufficient to avoid the stresses of poverty, but are not "comfortable"; they usually have minimal or no savings.

Middle Working Class - intermittent employment and wages insufficient to avoid periodic periods of economic distress (poverty).

Lower Working Class - intermittent and low wages which entail the continual stress of poverty.

Lumpenproletariat - destitute; not employed; may subsist on low government payments; immiserated; living outside of most social networks; homeless; unhoused (living on the street); unable to overcome their circumstances.

Add mental illness and drug addiction to anyone in the Working Class, and they may plunge into the abyss of destitution at the bottom, below the lowest rung of the ladder of success.

Over the last 40 to 50 years, long-term economic policies have reduced the wealth that was held by the working class. Job losses, stagnant wage growth, and steady inflation are to blame. The wealth drain has pushed millions of workers downward toward the middle and lower levels of the working class. Those who were formerly lower working class have been sunk into the abyss.

So, poverty exists on a gradient and is dynamic -- who is poor, and how poor they are changes over time.

I predict that the AI machines will turn out to be another bunch of ungrateful bastards.

It may be that, as Jesus said, that "The poor you will always have with you" but the circumstances of being poor, poorer, poorest, homeless, starving, and then dead vary from place to place. There is one set of causes for being poor in very remote areas. There's another set of causes for displaced people and refugees. And so on.

Capitalism is another cause of poverty, expanding and contracting the unemployed -- and thus potentially impoverished -- as it needs. Liberal social policies tend to provide more substantial support, and reduce the frequency of extreme poverty (and homelessness). Neoliberal social policies are much harsher, placing the responsibility for survival largely on the victims of the system.

Drugs -- meth, opiates, cocaine, alcohol -- facilitate the plunge into the abyss of homeless encampments. It is very difficult for anyone to get back onto the lowest rung of the ladder once one has fallen off. Drugs pretty much guarantee one will not get back on the ladder. And who profits from the illicit drug industry?

It takes time to become homeless in industrialized countries. It's like a shakedown racket, gradually sifting down misfortune all the way to the bottom. This may take decades. It may happen much faster.

Does being upset indicate something is wrong and out of alignment. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, it could. But being upset when things are out of alignment is a sign that you are normal.
Many people were upset by the 2020 US election results. From the perspective of both right and left, something seemed to be (nay, was) very out of alignment. Some people are still torqued out about it. In the world there are many purveyors of falsehoods, misrepresentations, errors, and the like. People lie. They fail to see things clearly. Lots of people are befuddled. None of us are ever at peak performance all the time.

Another reason for being upset is that we often extend our emotional tentacles out to where they can be easily stepped on. They do get stepped on and we get upset. Pull those pain sensors back in a ways.

Also, at various times in life we may be emotionally fragile. We are an open sore into which every possible irritant will find a way. The more this happens, the more reactive we get. Before long, we're angry, agitated, and anxious all the time. People start avoiding us.

None of this is about you specifically -- it's more about my own unpleasant states of mind and the states I have seen other people in.

I don't feel 'that way' any more, for which I am thankful. How did I bring it about? I can't claim credit. I was in a bad way, life changed, and I have been much better for the last 12 years.

I do think a change of life circumstances is sometimes the answer. The Radical Therapist motto was "Therapy means change, not adjustment." The problem is perceiving the necessary changes and then engineering them.

If you can eliminate a major source of personal abrasion, that might help.

If you can alter your mindset about something very irritating, that might help.

If you can find a way to accept the world as a very fucked up place, that might help.

If you can't, maybe you can find a good drug that will help you get along with less turmoil. (Psychoactive drugs can help, but they don't usually solve problems, alas.)

Holy men used to talk about "being in the world but not of it". Is that just more crazy talk? Well, not entirely. The world is an unsatisfactory place from many perspectives, and we're stuck here. IF, and it's a big IF, we can find a way to distance ourselves from all the crap we might be able to cope with it better. To some extent, acceptance of what is is the key. It helps us stop expecting the world to be very different. It helps us maintain psychological distance. It helps us lower our expectations of others to a more reasonable level.

Sadly, all this is easier to do if one has already started to feel better. Otherwise, it's just more irritating salt.

Often what's upsetting is the suppressed possibility that the other might be right. — Baden

No; that couldn't possibly be the case, he said... sarcastically? Ironically? Paradoxically?

Are you wondering whether colors have inherent meaning? They might.

The Lüscher color test is a psychological test invented by Max Lüscher in Basel, Switzerland. Max Lüscher believed that sensory perception of color is objective and universally shared by all, but that color preferences are subjective, and that this distinction allows subjective states to be objectively measured by using test colors. Lüscher believed that because the color selections are guided in an unconscious manner, they reveal the person as they really are, not as they perceive themselves or would like to be perceived. — Wikipedia

The book was published in 1969; I used the test more as a parlor game, and as such it produced results that the subjects found interesting. Validity? Reliability? Probably zip, but the idea is interesting.

A second interesting title is Painting By Numbers by Komar and Melamid, two Russian-born conceptual artists (now in their 80s). Their works tend to be provocations, but this particular book is a serious examination of what kinds of art are the most popular, and among popular types, what are the most desired colors. Results vary across cultures. Orange or pink, for example, are not highly sought after. Pink is a very rare flag color.



The two books support the idea that colors have at least some inherent meaning to humans. This seems like a reasonable idea to me, as long as we keep the word "some" in mind. Colors may carry a 'code' but we don't want to get carried away interpreting it.

Is this anywhere close to what you are thinking about?

\ I collected a few sex hygiene manuals published around 1900. They weren't so much for young men and boys as they were for their parents. pastors, and advisors. There was very little lewd lasciviousness and a lot of preachy verbiage.

Did anyone benefit from the cleanliness lectures? Precautions again self abuse (masturbation)? Did anyone come away any wiser about their burning desires? Most likely not. These books were, after all, written for the comfort of the advice giving past-their-prime elders, not for the needs of the actual subjects of the books.

The advice boiled down to exercise, fresh air, "cleanliness", avoiding any kind of temptation or unwholesome stimulation (like rubbing cloth), and getting married ASAP. What were girls advised to do? Practice chastity protection by gripping thin coins between their knees, I suppose. They developed powerful abductor muscles.

In our efforts to do effective HIV/AIDS prevention work in the gay population, we put together sexually explicit messages and handed them out in the baths, bars, adult bookstores, and so on. Quite reliably, some kid would find one of these messages on the sidewalk (or in whatever back alley they were poking around in) and bring home the prize. Mother then would call the Health Department to complain about the fascinating obscene, perverse, and extremely well-designed objects their children had found so interesting.

They would call us and warn us to be more careful. Well sure, we are careful, we'd plead. The guys in the bars, though, who take this filth from our hands, tend to be reckless, sex-positive militants. What are we to do?

I can find deteriorating neighborhoods in Minneapolis; you can probably find them in your city, too. But in a healthy city, deteriorating neighborhoods are the exception, not the rule.

Where the core city (Flynt, for example) is the core of the region, and the core is rotting, there can't be much hope. The whole economic landscape is gradually sinking, and a revitalization is extraordinarily unlikely. The long manufacturing boom which began 100 years ago isn't likely to be remotely approximated again.

Thus, those on the bottom in places like this have no prospects. Is it a surprise that physical and existential pain-reducing drugs are epidemic?

I don't like it, but it seems reasonable that when the "opiate of the masses" no longer works, real opiates will be sought after.

There's an interesting Frank Lloyd Wright church in Oconomowoc, Greek Orthodox. The sanctuary is bowl shaped, I believe -- based on the post card. The day we arrived the staff was too annoyed by previous unscheduled visitors to show the place. Understandable.

Lake Michigan is something — Wayfarer

This is extremely true. Lake Michigan is... something.

Do your relatives live in or near Madison? The capital of Wisconsin is unlike the rest of the state so it is more interesting. I haven't been there recently, but it used to be a sort of east coast outpost on the prairies.

Do they involve cheese? — frank

Well, yes, I suppose. Cheese is important. Do you have something against cheese? Who doesn't want to visit an ice castle made out of cheese curds? Kohler, WI is famous for making toilets and Green Bay is the toilet paper capital of the world. That's where "splinter-free toilet paper" was introduced in 1935. Then there is bratwurst and beer. Milwaukee has Pabst, Miller, Schlitz, and Blatz breweries.

In Wittenberg, WI, you could buy some really fine apple wood smoked liver paté, bacon, ham, or wieners at the Nuesky plant.

What more do you want?

Hey, let's not be denigrating the upper midwest. Wisconsin has several points of interest.

The 50 states are not allowed to print money or to operate at a deficit. This can produce happy outcomes. Minnesota (my state) has collected $17 billion dollars more than it spent. To governor and legislature are busy arguing about what to do with it. We have a rainy-day fund of a few billion, which is drawn on when tax collections come up short. Some of the surplus will go into that. Some will go into education. Some will probably be rebated.

A surplus this big is unprecedentedly large. Minnesota is a high-tax state. Consequently, we have better schools, better health, and better social services than many states. Our roads aren't good, but that's the fault of cold winters and hot summers.

A share of federal spending is good, of course. If the feds collected all the taxes that are due, if they spent less subsidizing industries that would still do just fine without it, and similar measures, the federal budget could come closer to being at least balanced on a year to year basis.

Our state Republicans are currently outnumbered in the legislature and the governor is a Democrat. It's the way things ought to be.

I'm a thrifty individual, and I would prefer the government have exercised thrift more often than it has. 32 trillion dollars is a hell of a lot of debt. On the other hand, only a mad man would think it should be dealt with in one fell swoop. Entitlements (like Social Security) and interest on the debt are not deferrable (unless you are a crazy nihilist). So, in order to pay down the debt we would need to reduce military expenditures and quite a bit of civilian discretionary expending, It would be pretty painful.

Will the government become thrifty? I doubt it very much.

Will Congress eventually raise the debt ceiling? Oh, probably -- at the last possible minute.

The debt ceiling was created by the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. The law was not intended as a means to paralyze the government. Rather, it established the plan whereby the government could undertake new borrowing to cover expenses. Yes, it could have been done differently, but it wasn't.

The national debt stands at what? 31 or 32 trillion dollars. A large hunk of that was accumulated during the governments support of the economy during the 2010 crash and then during the Covid 19 pandemic. In 2010 the national debt was at 13+ trillion dollars.

The GDP is currently -2022- around 20 trillion dollars.

Democrat and Republican congresses have both raised the debt limit. This year it will probably be a prolonged battle because some members of the far-right are what David Brooks calls 'nihilists'. They seem to be prepared to see the government burn down. There are not enough Nihilists in the House to definitely block a higher debt ceiling. There are enough, that they could force the government to default IF the rest of the republicans fail to vote for override.

Default would be bad for government employees, Social Security and Medicare recipients, Disability program recipients, military employees, suppliers, and all the US bond holders around the world (like China) who might want to cash a few million of the bonds in. A default would seriously damage the US Government's credit rating.

If they block raising the debt ceiling, then we might hope that the congressional nihilists will all have some kind of an unfortunate accident. It's not that many, maybe... 15.

The possession of physical beauty is a real advantage, along with height. I wouldn't know from personal experience, but my guess is that IF the beautiful and the tall feel entitled, it is because many other people have treated them as 'special', desired.

Option a) above is in real situations, repellant.

How porn sites stack up against other sites

I'm surprised that Amazon's retail site doesn't attract more visits, and that Yahoo attracted so many.

@wayfarer; Over the last 150 years, give or take a few, huge changes have occurred in society. Electricity, telephone, radio, automobiles, film, and television. The society has been becoming increasingly liberalized in many areas of 'private life'. Among others, contraception; birth control pills; the sexual revolution; women's lib; gay lib; black lib; etc. Abortion became legal. The society continued to be mobile in a variety of ways, some good, some bad. There were two world wars, and several local wars. There were significant changes in class structure. The economy has changed drastically.

So, into the last 150 years of change and shifting values, pornography developed from a tiny industry, producing images on glass photo plates; to paper photographs; to silent film; to sound film; to video; to the Internet. It began, and remained, in the cultural margins until changes in the law during the 1960s lifted the bans on distribution (in the US). Just a few years later, the industry had thousands of outlets across the country. At some point in the 1990s, the internet widened the channels of distribution. New gadgets--cheaper computers, tablets, and smart phones finally allowed pornography to become ubiquitous.

An assertion: the vast changes that occurred in society during the previous century and a half are far more significant than any one particular development over this time. Television was / is significant, but it is just one of many disruptive influences. Sexually explicit material was / is significant, but it is just one of many disruptive influences.

Society was already quite disrupted (compared to 1923 or 1953, say) by the time it became available across the internet. "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold." Yeats said. If we look for ultimate causes, we will only find one contributing factor after another. Society may seem to have become one big pile of manure. If that is so, it took many loads from many places to achieve the present state of dysfunction.

O

for whatever reason these places exist on the margins. Never in the center — 0 thru 9

There are reasons.

1) Low overhead is one of the hard-core values of marginal businesses. It wouldn't pay to have a store in between Macy's and Neiman Marcus. The rent would be too high.

2) Urban renewal is a factor. Locate your porn shop in an area that is likely to be bought up and bulldozed, and you can probably get a pretty good price on your property by refusing to sell, unless the price exceeds the market rate.

3) The Law, in many cases, requires that porn stores be located a certain distance from desirable or sensitive locations. That forces them into marginal territory.

4) The margin isn't a disadvantage. Customers often prefer to patronize dive bars and porn shops that are in out of the way places, so that they will not be seen coming and going by 'respectable' people.

5). Porn is profitable, and so is tax evasion. Better to run a down at the heels operation that doesn't look like it is successful, then to have a fine store that requires high profit to maintain. At least in the good old days, porn stores operated on a cash basis--no credit cards, no checks. Easier to hide profits that way,

6) Mobility. An operator wants to be able to shut down an unprofitable operation without losing much on the closed up property.

With all due respect, BC, your opinion is essentially meaningless here. — Noble Dust

Now, now; let's not be dismissive.

If my personal taste in porn hasn't changed much in in 50 years, that doesn't mean I haven't observed any developments in the products available outside my own interests.

Yes, I am aware of extreme presentations of torture (real or faux), assault and rape; cheating; incest; animated porn; faux-or-not teen age porn--even bestiality. I've observed extreme behaviors in bathhouses and sex clubs, and I've heard reports from participants in various 'scenes'. I've also read a few reports.

↪BC Your posts crack me up. — Tzeentch

Make 'em laugh.

I do like to get a laugh, and there are a number of topics, like porn which are serious enough, but not so serious that humor must be avoided. the 7-11 victims murders in California this past weekend (Lunar New Year) are not appropriate topics for humor.

Sex is clearly an impossible topic if one must be 100% serious.