2020 US Election

I don't know, the US always had a strong counter culture

lol you spelled cunty wrong

  On 4/17/2020 at 9:29 PM, darreichungsform said:

I don't know, the US always had a strong counter culture

it's splintered as fuck now though.  anti vaxxer essential oils moms, anarchists, antifa, hippies, hippy capitalists, festival culture.. in some way it's all a myriad of pyramid schemes or something weird. not gonna write a PHD on it or anything but i'll be surprised if a progerssive movement that's also counter culture becomes mature and doesn't PC itself to death. there's so much handholding that is required of some people. like wtf these are facts.. we're not trying to hurt your feelings. grow up and be pragmatic and let's get some shit done. "BUT MY FEELINGS!!!!"

Yes, I think you put your finger on the main problem the left has these days: Identity politics obscuring the real dividing lines. But don't dismiss political correctness, it definitely has its place. Millennials are sometimes called "the empathetic generation", which actually sounds more like the cure than the disease. They are more whiney and sensitive, but also more media savvy and educated. Prone to a different kind of delusion than the former generations I guess. Growing up with alternative media and a much stronger cultural exchange than it was normal years ago they might actually be the factor that could prevent the indoctrinated American public to go full retard, at least in the usual American militarist way.

  On 4/17/2020 at 2:58 PM, caze said:

there are only two non-commie/authoritarian countries in the world with fully public health care systems, the UK and Norway (Sweden/Denmark also have publicly health care provision, but with more private insurance). Australia has a mixed system (both in terms of provision and insurance), very different to what Bernie was proposing. More countries have single-payer systems, with either mixed or private provision set ups, but M4A was significantly more radical than any of those as well (it's very rare to attempt to ban virtually all private insurance, rare and also a terrible idea). fully public health care is a recipe for disaster, it's very expensive, tends to be badly managed and has poorer outcomes than mixed systems, which is probably why 'centrists' are no longer keen on the idea, if something has proven to be a bad idea, don't do it!

Aren't there way more countries with near-universal health care?

Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Japan, Spain,...

Most of Europe seems to have near-universal health care.

Finland has (almost) free public healthcare. That being said I've had to use it very little in the past 20 years because it's mandatory for the employers to provide health services for employees and when I was studying at the uni the student council provided the healthcare which cost something like 70e/year for the students.

So in the past 20 years I've had to call myself an ambulance from the public healthcare which ended up costing nothing because the paramedics could help me already and they didn't have to take me to a hospital. And I had to go to ER about a year ago to get stitched up which cost me maybe around 30e or something I guess.

  On 4/18/2020 at 12:50 AM, zkom said:

Finland has (almost) free public healthcare.

Our son was born eight weeks ago here in Helsinki, Finland; the public healthcare delivery with all the bells and whistles, including two days in a private room in the maternity ward, four meals a day for both parents, 24/7 on-call nurses and doctors and anything else we needed cost us about 200 € (billed afterwards) - that's about $215 - no insurance needed (or required); this is what gets labeled as "socialism" in the US, where the starting price for just the delivery is upwards from $10000. And don't get me started on the paternity and maternity leave, I've already had four weeks, fully paid, and with this social distancing thing and working remotely I've been able to be with my son almost 24/7 since his birth with zero financial impact, and I still have 36 optional-use paternity days left where I'll be paid about 60 % of my monthly salary. In addition I have the Finnish standard five fully paid vacation weeks - per year. There's a reason why Finland's been ranked the happiest country in the world for three successive years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/opinion/health-care-germany.html

  On 4/18/2020 at 12:31 AM, MaartenVC said:

Aren't there way more countries with near-universal health care?

Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Japan, Spain,...

Most of Europe seems to have near-universal health care.

I think there's a bit of confusion between "universal healthcare" and "single payer". Universal healthcare basically means everyone is covered. (there's a bit of detail here, because not all "care" would be covered. usually there's a basic set of care that is considered covered under the system. a pornstar needing breast implants and botox lips wouldn't be covered under any healthcare system, for instance)

Universal healthcare doesn't exclude having to buy coverage through a private health-insurer though. Like in the Netherlands. The Netherlands doesn't have a single payer system. The insurers play an important part of paying for most of the basic healthcare costs. Not all of it. But pretty much most of it. 

What caze was trying to argue - and correct me if im wrong - is that there are very few countries with a full on single payer system. Most countries, with universal healthcare, have a mix where parts are single payer and parts are organised differently. Like having insurers playing the role of payer.

At the end of the day there is no single system which works best in all circumstances. It's always a trade-off between zillions of options and interests.

The ACA was in ways an attempt to create a similar system to that in the Netherlands. Insurers would play the role of payer. But with strict regulations such that profits would be restricted and pre-existing conditions would be covered, for example. One of the ideas being that the competition between the different insurers would drive down the costs and improve the quality of the system. Which would be a consequence of the free choice of people. Choosing the cheapest and best insurance policies. At least, that's the idea on paper. Whether that would work for the US, I guess we'll never know. But it seemed like the most feasible option when compared to system that was in place before the ACA. Or in other words: the least amount of changes with the potentially biggest positive impact.

  On 4/18/2020 at 2:07 AM, dcom said:

Our son was born eight weeks ago here in Helsinki, Finland; the public healthcare delivery with all the bells and whistles, including two days in a private room in the maternity ward, four meals a day for both parents, 24/7 on-call nurses and doctors and anything else we needed cost us about 200 € (billed afterwards) - that's about $215 - no insurance needed (or required); this is what gets labeled as "socialism" in the US, where the starting price for just the delivery is upwards from $10000. And don't get me started on the paternity and maternity leave, I've already had four weeks, fully paid, and with this social distancing thing and working remotely I've been able to be with my son almost 24/7 since his birth with zero financial impact, and I still have 36 optional-use paternity days left where I'll be paid about 60 % of my monthly salary. In addition I have the Finnish standard five fully paid vacation weeks - per year. There's a reason why Finland's been ranked the happiest country in the world for three successive years.

Expand  

I just recently learned that you have to pay to deliver a baby in a hospital in US and was actually shocked..

  On 4/18/2020 at 11:04 AM, zkom said:

I just recently learned that you have to pay to deliver a baby in a hospital in US and was actually shocked..

You have to pay for everything, a couple of ibuprofen pills might cost $200 because of the completely insane health insurance system, privatized health care etc. There was an instance where a mother was billed $40 for holding her newborn baby. Imagine that if you got COVID-19, you could go bankrupt because of the medical bills - and a lot of people will. A lot of people will die in the US because they don't have insurance.

Yeah, it's not a first world country

  On 4/17/2020 at 2:32 PM, caze said:

Universal health care just means everyone has guaranteed access to health care, which his plan would provide, it doesn't mean single-payer (which very few countries implement to the degree Bernie was proposing, countries with the best health care results tend to have mixed public/private systems). 

you mean where there's a shitty public option which conservatives can de-fund when they want to because their rich constituents all have private healthcare already? yeah seems great lmao

explain how its worth it to have two systems, one for poor people and one for rich people, and how the public one won't be shit

  On 4/17/2020 at 5:09 AM, goDel said:

Read some research about psychological disorders being more prevalent in people at the political extremes. One of the key features in extremist psychology is rigidity and the inability to look at things from a different perspective. 

So, in others words, it's not just about what you believe, it's also - or rather more - about how you believe.

why are you being ableist and able-normative?  ever considered that some psychological "disorders" are manifestations of behavior that in some scenarios is superior and beneficial?

how can it be that people who look at things from a different perspective from the norm are, according to you, unable to look at things from a different perspective? lmao

  On 4/17/2020 at 5:09 AM, goDel said:

Read some research about psychological disorders being more prevalent in people at the political extremes. One of the key features in extremist psychology is rigidity and the inability to look at things from a different perspective. 

So, in others words, it's not just about what you believe, it's also - or rather more - about how you believe.

this is an extremely strange take.

for one thing, psychological diagnostics is a field that is full of all kinds of genuinely problematic results. just take a gander at the long history of the diagnosis of practically the entire gamut of women's behavior or the medical condemnation of masturbation or homosexuality or whatever. the point being that what the profession diagnoses is not in itself a useful metric, there is copious evidence that completely normal behavior is considered a "disorder" when it is out of line with cultural conventions and there is a consistent tendency of mistreatment along with misdiagnosis here.

second, even if you could establish a basically neutral and "objective" diagnosis, this puts the onus on an individual in a way that is not helpful in understanding the political situation they live in. the most obvious example here would be arendt's book on eichmann - the "banality of evil" requires no introduction here i presume. eichmann behaved completely normally, living a normal life. so in that context one could easily object to political dissent in the same way you are doing here -- to take an extreme position against the norm is indicative of a "disorder," so be like more like eichmann than jagerstatter or whatever. bit of a slippery slope!

imo i just don't think this is a useful argument. i do, however, agree that there are plenty of "nut jobs" occupying the fringes (we are seeing them in the protests to "open up the economy" for instance). but i think there are perfectly sound minds and souls who take hard left and right* positions out of moral convictions and sound, critical reasoning. they are outsiders by definition and will be regarded as such by any establishment that fundamentally upholds the norms of that society, of which i would definitely include the mental health industry as a whole. and there are plenty of people who occupy a safe middle ground who do so out of blind obedience without any critical engagement with the world in which they live and i would say there is probably a psychologically identifiable behavior at work when it comes to kowtowing to the savagery of your government just bc that's what comfortable for you. there are plenty of people who bend over backwards in order to avoid the many troubling things their worldview may entail - is this a "psychological disorder?" again, doesn't seem particularly useful here.

there are many completely reasonable thinkers who have made compelling inquiries into the "insanity" of the norms of the western world in any case. if arendt is not to your liking might i suggest the ever reasonable polanyi on the market society. or fromm. or any one who is not out of their mf mind lol

tldr; sick times

*hmm

being content with how things are is the mental disorder

  On 4/19/2020 at 10:41 PM, Zeffolia said:

explain how its worth it to have two systems, one for poor people and one for rich people, and how the public one won't be shit

Here (Germany) we have this. Both systems aren't that different when it comes to treatment, however the privately insured have fancier hospital rooms and get a bit more acceptable food  I preferred working on private insured ward because they usually tipped very generously, sometimes €50. But public option also consists of private insurers, however the taxation for them is collected centrally and then distributed to the public private insurers based on need through the government (which is the socialist part). I linked a NYT article the page before where someone makes the point that such a system would be easier to implement in the US right now than M4A. However I like the idea of M4A and see the advantages it might have

  On 4/19/2020 at 10:41 PM, Zeffolia said:

why are you being ableist and able-normative?  ever considered that some psychological "disorders" are manifestations of behavior that in some scenarios is superior and beneficial?

how can it be that people who look at things from a different perspective from the norm are, according to you, unable to look at things from a different perspective? lmao

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190829081401.htm

  Quote

The findings suggest that the basic mental processes governing our ability to switch between different concepts and tasks are linked to the intensity with which we attach ourselves to political doctrines -- regardless of the ideology.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418817755

  Quote

In this article, we examine psychological features of extreme political ideologies. In what ways are political left- and right-wing extremists similar to one another and different from moderates? We propose and review four interrelated propositions that explain adherence to extreme political ideologies from a psychological perspective. We argue that (a) psychological distress stimulates adopting an extreme ideological outlook; (b) extreme ideologies are characterized by a relatively simplistic, black-and-white perception of the social world; (c) because of such mental simplicity, political extremists are overconfident in their judgments; and (d) political extremists are less tolerant of different groups and opinions than political moderates. In closing, we discuss how these psychological features of political extremists increase the likelihood of conflict among groups in society.

Expand  

  On 4/20/2020 at 1:17 AM, Zeffolia said:

being content with how things are is the mental disorder

See, there's a difference between not being a political extremist and being content with how things are. It's just not the same. And certainly not some justification for being on a political extreme.

;D

  On 4/20/2020 at 3:25 AM, goDel said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190829081401.htm

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418817755

what are political extremes? as far as I'm concerned liberalism is an extreme.  an extreme deficiency and hatred for workers.  socialism is not only a necessary step of liberation for workers, but communism is a strong requirement for humanity to advance past its current infantile stage.  this isn't extreme.

  On 4/20/2020 at 7:00 PM, Zeffolia said:

what are political extremes? as far as I'm concerned liberalism is an extreme.  an extreme deficiency and hatred for workers.  socialism is not only a necessary step of liberation for workers, but communism is a strong requirement for humanity to advance past its current infantile stage.  this isn't extreme.

those studies do not have to do with "psychological disorders" so glad we cleared that up.

this particular trajectory is a bit of a retreat into personal mental hygiene now tho.

  On 4/20/2020 at 7:00 PM, Zeffolia said:

what are political extremes? as far as I'm concerned liberalism is an extreme.  an extreme deficiency and hatred for workers.  socialism is not only a necessary step of liberation for workers, but communism is a strong requirement for humanity to advance past its current infantile stage.  this isn't extreme.

it's not about "what" you believe. it's more a case of "how" you believe, i'd argue.

alco mentioned

  On 4/19/2020 at 11:26 PM, Alcofribas said:

many completely reasonable thinkers

for instance. Which is perfectly fine and all. And the thing which would make them reasonable, i would argue, is not necessarily the content, but more the how. What makes them reasonable for one thing, is the way they took (and take) part in political (scientific/philosophical) discourse. Being reasonable implies not putting people in some box just because they happen to disagree.

About the link between mental disorders and extremism, btw

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c700673ed915d4a3e8266e7/476_Violent_Extremism_and_Mental_Disorders.pdf

  Quote

Key findings are as follows:

•   Higher exposure to trauma leads to a greater likelihood of developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which is associated with increased anger and hostility and greater urge for revenge versus reconciliation and thus increasing the likelihood of supporting violent extremism.

•   Higher exposure to trauma, as well as weaker social bonds, makes an individual more likely to engage in violent extremism.

•   A number of studies support that the number of risk factors (such as abuse, neglect, etc.) experienced during childhood, rather than any particular combination, are associated with childhood misconduct and potential later violence.

•   Traumatic experiences during childhood can lead to an increased need for identity, which can be fulfilled by extremist causes.

•   The research linking depression to violent extremism is fairly inconclusive, however there is an argument that joining violent extremist groups actually can prevent the rise of depression as it gives a sense of belonging.

•   Much of the research points to a strong link between mental disorders and lone-actor violent extremists rather than group actors.

• ...(there's more)

Expand  

Still, let's not forget that psychology has always been abused as an instrument of power. Emotional manipulation has turned out to be cheaper than more direct forms of violence as a method to bring people in line with the ideology of the authorities and to ultimately make them work in the service of power. "Softpowers" have saved the elites lots of money so far

  On 4/20/2020 at 8:08 PM, goDel said:

it's not about "what" you believe. it's more a case of "how" you believe, i'd argue.

alco mentioned

for instance. Which is perfectly fine and all. And the thing which would make them reasonable, i would argue, is not necessarily the content, but more the how. What makes them reasonable for one thing, is the way they took (and take) part in political (scientific/philosophical) discourse. Being reasonable implies not putting people in some box just because they happen to disagree.

About the link between mental disorders and extremism, btw

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c700673ed915d4a3e8266e7/476_Violent_Extremism_and_Mental_Disorders.pdf

 

Expand  

So people who exist closer to the fringes of society than the typical individual tend to have less mainstream viewpoints.  Not really a surprise.  And the "how" vs "what" isn't a great distinction.  Acknowledgement of particular "whats" results in a "how" in any person sufficiently empathetic and engaged with the topic.  This entire topic is meaningless

if you aren't "extremely" black and white against Nazism and are instead calm and collected about it then that's the disorder, no matter what labels industrial cogmakers decide to put onto people who have unconventional thinking and behavioral patterns for the purposes of medicating them into compliance with the goals of capitalists.