End of USA republic imminent?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

On a related (?) note, Bret Weinstein suggested before Biden got the nomination that American needed a Black woman as its head of state, in that they're uniquely positioned to speak 'truth to power' in this era. I wonder if he was picking up on the universal ohm because.. how could Biden not nominate a Black woman right now? I think it'd be a HUGE bump to Trump's campaign if Biden picks Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren as his running mate.

- Doc

[_RockSlider]

Rock, I'm curious where you come down on the topics that get brought up starting at minute 12 in the Rogan/Weinstein discussion?

I'm sad to say my life has found me on the better side of the opportunity/wealth distribution in america and I have remained focuses on maintaining that with little interest in politics (software engineering). Thus I was unaware of/if that shift that was mentioned was accurate. Sure we had moaned and groaned over politics all these years, but decade after decade things basically remained the same. This podcast has captured my attention in wondering if a revolution is indeed on the horizon.

At 1 hr 36 minutes I am convinced that there is no answer/solution forthcoming from either the democrats or the republicans and unfortunately it's likely too late for 2020 and without something like that we are screwed for the next 4 fours at least.

[Guest]

ah, here is a evergreen tie to anti-science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIKJCKWla4 a good listen in and of itself

[_honorentheos]

My take is he is doing what he says Rogan and everyone else is doing: grasping for an explanatory narrative and finding it in his own prior views written over the current turmoil.

the underlying issue he seems to have is with student movements on Universities that have been at the center of much of the modern culture wars. He has prior history with that issue. He pulls unorganized, authoritarian anarchist University students in as the central villain in a narrative he initially built on a case against economic inequality and rising broad concern over a system that no longer represents or is concerned with the average person.

He took a hashtag around an event calling for the sciences and academia to pause and consider ways to break down barriers to STEM careers and academic career paths that aren't built in quotas but rather real, systemic change and described it as an anti-science movement. That was an easy Google search to do in order to see he jumped to a bad conclusion there for no reason.

I don't think his initial assessment of what is feeding the moment is off. Of course, I am grabbing onto that because it reflects some of my own previously held views. I don't disagree with some of his concerns regarding the rise in authoritarian instincts among younger people who seem less tolerant of other views and more inclined to see society enforce norms and values I personally think are opposed to the values underlying Western Liberal Democracies that mirrors the populist right.

I think the portions of the discussion around the moment representing an anti-science bent isn't well founded and looks like an attempt to show horn in a threat to academia poses by activist student bodies onto the social unrest over police brutality and the need for social reform. I'd just suggest being skeptical and looking for what he is relying on a gullible audience to endorse rather than strongly support.

There a good reason you are having a difficult time finding easy references that clarify his comments.

[Guest]

Rock, I'm curious where you come down on the topics that get brought up starting at minute 12 in the Rogan/Weinstein discussion?

I'm sad to say my life has found me on the better side of the opportunity/wealth distribution in america and I have remained focuses on maintaining that with little interest in politics (software engineering). Thus I was unaware of/if that shift that was mentioned was accurate. Sure we had moaned and groaned over politics all these years, but decade after decade things basically remained the same. This podcast has captured my attention in wondering if a revolution is indeed on the horizon.

At 1 hr 36 minutes I am convinced that there is no answer/solution forthcoming from either the democrats or the republicans and unfortunately it's likely too late for 2020 and without something like that we are ____ for the next 4 fours at least.

I think he's right but his timeline starts on a minor milestone rather than major one.

The shift that has resulted in wealth accruing to fewer and fewer people starts with the end of the second world war, goes through Bretton Woods, the invention of eurobonds and global tax Haven's, the Reagan tax cuts, Third Way Democrats that he mentions and includes Obama as well as Biden, and more recently with the Trump tax cuts that furthered this wealth redistribution even more into large corps and the 0.1%, on to the big questions around the CARES act and what we don't know yet about how all of those dollars - an insane amount of tax dollars - was distributed during a time of real need.

I agree wholeheartedly that the modern moment is most deeply rooted in issues around inequality. And change is needed. I guess I come down on the side of it not needing to take the form of violent revolution or uprisings. But it takes being honest about what is going on, why, and how it affects people in ways that aren't due to their being some how at fault for their circumstances. There are issues in how all sides see this and interpret it that make it worse. The rights include the false argument that anyone can make it with hard work and willingness to take risks. If bad things happen to someone, they must have caused it or contributed to it somehow. The left is prone to blame the opposite side for elbowing others out. It's not seen by both sides as outside of this partisan paradigm which is what I think he really got right. It's about a weak conservatism that resists change. Why? Because change could make things worse for the people who have power and therefore work the system to maintain the course as best we can.

You want to do good among your conservative friends? Help them understand the system is stacked against people such that those who are born into opportunity are likely to have even more of it while those who aren't, wont get as many while having significant roadblocks thrown up in front of them. Poor people have more in common than rich and poor white people have in common. There just happen to be additional roadblocks that are tied to the color of a person's skin. Or their accent. Or how they dress. Who their parents are or what the neighborhood looks like they grew up in. Or if they are unattractive. Or...

And help your liberal friends understand that gaining power isn't the solution needed. Yeah, it's better to be throwing more elbows than taking elbows. But the elbowing is a front. The power to really change things isn't to be found in becoming the one throwing elbows. It's in recognizing the need is to create opportunity equality and change the game. Complaining about life being a big game of king of the mountain and then pursuing goals of getting to the top of the mountain while yelling those on too kicking down need to be pulled down because others would be better suited for being on top is rightly understood as a power move rather than sincere call for getting rid of the game entirely to create a better one that doesn't involve as many teeth getting knocked out.

[_huckelberry]

Huck,

Lots of political ideologies have little nuggets of wisdom here and there. Just because the Green party wants clean air and water doesn’t mean the rest of their platform is totes amazing. I mean, NatSocs share similar views of the family unit with Confucianism, but they’re very different philosophies, as you know.

- Doc

Doc,
I think you have presented this observation in a way which makes a valuable cautionary note. I am pretty sure it is in agreement with my comment though I left the cautionary point implied but unstated.

[_honorentheos]

Earlier this year I picked up the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy written by Chinese science fiction author Liu Cixin. The first book, in it's English translation, begins during the cultural revolution that took place under Mao in China. It plays a role in defining the motives and context that drive the story. I was unfamiliar with the details so I ended up downloading an audiobook on the subject (Frank Dikötter's The Cultural Revolution) which was enlightening. I'm glad I took the time as I've since seen it referenced numerous times with varying degrees of explaination or attempts at accuracy. There are times when I think of The Great Leap Forward when I hear Trump talk thanks to that book.

Bret Weinstein refers to the Cultural Revolution in the podcast. He makes the claim that there are activities taking place on campuses today that reflect the same bottom-up enforcement and public confession of orthodoxy and loyalty like the struggle sessions (minus the violence I assume) on campuses and schools where much of the CR took off.

In a sense I think there is a concern here that is valid. But the claim itself is also concerning as it enforces the narrative of leftism gaining momentum as the threat we need to be resisting that is not accurate in my opinion. Rather I think he was closest to the truth when it stripped the ideology away and noted early on that both the left and right in the US have developed authoritarian orthodoxies that demand their values be enforces through public shaming and shouting people down. Both are far from traditional American values yet claiming to be virtuous through some association with core values derived from mythologies of the cultural variety.

[Guest]

Thank you honor. The public shaming and shouting people down at evergreen was combined with a refusal to dialog and yet they dominated the milk toast President.

If a small group of educated, opportunity/wealth rich students at a nice private college can totally turn off logic and reason, refusing to analyze the true depth and root of the problem, instead turning to a base tribal mentally, what is the possibility of a whole nation of uneducated non opportunity/wealth population capable of?

With the milk toast preemptive actions like removing Aunt Jemiman, Uncle Ben and the lawn jockeys to avoid having the crowds finger of scorn being pointed at them. With other long established institutions jumping on the bandwagon (the mention stem situation).

I say milk toast as a weak alternative, a simple submission to a leaderless, uninformed group verses somehow breaking their refusal to dialog down and bring reason, like you suggest above to the situation.

[_honorentheos]

Capacity isn't destiny.

I think there is a need to stop and listen on all sides. Take two of the examples you point out above: Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's.

There's a fair amount of shouting down rather than dialoguing around this issue coming from those who don't think the names matter so renaming is just one more example of the world falling apart.

Yet it isn't clear why the change offends..so, I'm curious why you brought them up?

[_RockSlider]

Did you watch that last video I posted of Bret in the congressional meeting? The video had video of the Evergreens President, somewhat kidnapped and giving in to the demands of the protestors. It's not that I'm opposed to the changes per-say, perhaps they are wise in the long run, however they are long held/old traditions/institutions which have positive black culture messages (first millionaire black woman, underground slave railroad etc).

What I'm opposed to is the damage done by a McCarthyism like fear of being branded a racist where the judge and jury of the accused is an irrational out of control crowd. Bret was innocent and yet lynched, with the president providing the rope.

Perhaps Capitalism is it's own worst enemy, where the power is not in the leaderless irrational crowd but in the institutions that fear them.