Political sectarianism in America

I often am reluctant to use the word fascist because people can be pedantic about what qualifies. One might expect authoritarianism to be necessary but often societies on the precipice of embracing fascism have maintained the appearance of ordinary process but are functionally authoritarian. The focus in some definitions on corporatism or bureaucracy seems to be concerned with how such societies tend to operate rather than the core of fascist ideology.

I like Umberto Eco's list in the link posted by Filghy quite a lot. Of note, fear of modernism, obsession with a plot, contempt for the weak, selective populism, and machismo. If you break down Eco's definition of selective populism it kind of tracks with a cult of personality but explains why supporters of the cult will not view themselves as engaging in hero worship. The will of the people is created and interpreted by the person at the head of the cult. Really the head of the cult confabulates a code and the followers are left to justify it.

While Eco doesn't focus on race or nationalism they are embedded in a lot of the categories. The category of selective populism focuses only on the will of certain people and that can track race, ethnicity, and religion. I've often heard echoes of that when Republicans discuss real Americans, a category that definitely seems to focus on white people, but is a subset of white that have maintained their authenticity somehow by rejecting many modern ideas.

Part of the problem is that 'Fascist' was used as a term of abuse by the left, sometimes by others, and resonated with a generation old enough to have either fought it, or or who knew people who did. It summoned up images of Blackshirts imposing Fascist rule through violence and thuggery, a one-party state, the 'great Leader' or 'Duce' not much different from the Fuhrerprinzip that has been identified in National Socialism, and above all by war and destruction.

As the more contemporary theorists and Broncofan and filghy2 thoughts and links show, Fascism can be revived without being named as such. One key area is the Law, where the capture of legislative bodies, be it in Central/Federal or Local/State Government, can attack the 'problems' that are identified as weakening State and Society, and thus form a takeover of the political agenda not in a single 'Enabling Act' that Fascist governments have used in the past, but through numerous small amendments to the law that privilege the 'Fascist' programme, of which the multitude of laws being proposed by Republicans are a factor, and seek, primarily to take away the right to vote. This can be done by changing the rules on registration, the purging of rolls, limiting access to mail-in ballots and so on. The cumulative impact is to organize a preferential/partisan voting system in which the losers are the minority segments of society who are blamed for its decline.

The irony is not lost here -the very same procedure that the Republicans claim enabled the Democrats to 'steal the vote' is adopted by them to do the same, thus-

"According to the Brennan Center for Justice, there are currently 165 separate pieces of legislation pending in 33 states to restrict access to the ballot with stricter identification rules, limit the use of postal ballots, shorten voter registration and early voting windows, and make it easier for election officials to purge voter rolls in between elections. The three states with the most proposals on the legislative docket — Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia — were carried by Biden in 2020, but have Republican-controlled legislatures."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/republican...165007798.html

The law is also being used in states such as Hungary and Poland in an effort to re-define their countries histories, even to the point of making some claims about the past illegal, for what Fascism, or New Wave Fascism also demands is the right to own and control all the narratives of the State -nothing inside the state agains the state-. Gone is any commitment to an open democracy in which a 'market place of ideas' is an indelible part of civil society, indeed, civil society, precisely because it lies outside the control of the Governing party, is a threat to its hegemony. Thus, New Wave Fascism builds on partisan rage, resentment and grief to mount an aggressive assault on the alternatives to its agenda, branding them unpatriotic, hateful, probably 'woke', and uses the media and the law to change the narrative so that it says only one thing, where 'free speech' is only defined as speech that supports the Nationalist agenda.

The downside for them, is that they tend to be poor managers of the State -as we have seen with regard to Covid in the US- and also of the economy. For the concept of a 'Patriotic' economy sits ill at ease with reality -the US has to import a wide range of products in order for its economy to function, just as it needs access to global markets; while for all their Nationalist fervour, neither Hungary nor Poland look as if they are about to leave the EU.

There have always been Fascist or similar states around in my lifetime -when I was born, half of Europe was governed by one-party states or military governments, from Portugal in the West, to Poland in the East. That one now sees its creeping influence in the US in particular is strange in its own way, because its extremists were always relegated to the fringe of politics -and if they now occupy the centre ground, if McConnell, Cheney and other 'true Republicans' cannot see them off, it is they who will end up on the fringe.

But will the current resentment of Trump's supporters last until 2022 and be effective? Or is this a whole lot of noise that the people will eventually reject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But will the current resentment of Trump's supporters last until 2022 and be effective? Or is this a whole lot of noise that the people will eventually reject?

---

I doubt that the sense of grievance that Trump tapped into so effectively will go away. We know that Republican voters' support for Trump has been remarkably persistent since 2016. I don't think that is based on particular policy positions: it's more about his willingness to take the fight to those perceived as cultural enemies by any means necessary. Most Republicans seem to view themselves as unfairly disadvantaged and persecuted (notwithstanding that the reality is generally the opposite). A period of Democrat rule can only reinforce this perception.

Even if Trump fades from the scene for some reason, someone else will come along to tap into the same feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

In some cases, the Christian legacy is vital for Scruton, in others, such as the second of the American appraisals linked below it is downplayed. Michael Gove was a supporter of Scruton, and I believe Steve Bannon too. In Bannon's case, the New Wave Fascism he extols believes there is nothing that the USA needs that cannot be made in the USA, hence 'America First' and a belief that all the production offshored to China and the rest of the world can, indeed should be repatriated to the USA. It is summed up in the core beliefs of Italian Fascism -'Everything Within the State. Nothing Outside the State. Nothing Against the State'

---

I haven't come across Scruton before. On a quick read, his main argument seems to be that globalisation, immigration and supra-national institutions have led to a breakdown of community identity and social trust. The point that seems to be missed is that the key thing breaking down social bonds has been the turbo-charging of capitalism since the Thatcher-Reagan reforms, in which all economic relationships are reduced to financial transactions in pursuit of profit maximisation (the ultimate manifestation being the gig economy). Economic nationalism will not change this fundamentally because it does not address the market power of corporations - all that would change is that the corporations doing the exploiting would be domestically-owned.

Scruton became a well-known figure in the early 1980s when he pubished the Salisbury Review, and in particular an attack on mult-culturalism by a Bradford headmaster, Ray Honeyford. A few years later I chose to write my undegraduate thesis on liberal and conservative political theory, and think I had a good crack at it, but in the end I was felled by the contradictions in both and some personal issues I need not go into here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salisbury_Review

The point of interest is that Scruton came out of the Peterhouse set who sat in awe of Maurice Cowling to become Consevatives in the philosophical sense, and who- with some exceptions- thus opposed Margaret Thatcher's 'free market' liberalism precisely because they were not Liberals. To that end, Scruton appeared to have the rigour which, for example, Michael Portillo, also an acolyte of Cowling but an enthusiast for 'free markets', lacked, but then Portillo chose to go into politics as an MP, and the key point here is that what we have seen over many decades is one strain of thought stealing or borrowing from the other, so that the distinction between a Liberal and a Conservative is often blurred. It is particularly awkward in the US because these two terms have an American context, though even there I think the distinctions are also confused.

Scruton to my mind is an oddity, not because he is opposed to free markets, but because his answer to the question, 'What do you wish to conserve?' must result in the change that he argues is not part of Conservative political thought and practice. Moreover, the change he wants is one that tackles the cultural consequences of immigration, because immigrants who do not 'share' the culture of the English or the British, seem doomed to wreck it, through their corrosive influence as criminals, people who don't understand what it means to be English or British, lacking a deferential attitude to authority, believing in stange gods and relgious practices that belong in the East (see the comments by Scruton and Casey in the Edgar link below).

In this way, by identifying members of society who not only 'don't belong' but are a 'threat' to 'our way of life', Scruton thus joins with the Fascist narrative in which everything inside the State would be fine if it weren't for those who are destroying it -what to do? Get rid of them.

One area where I think I have erred, is in the original support that Fascism in Italy had from those who saw themselves creating a modern world -in terms of technology -motor cars-, in terms of culture- the enthusiasm for cinema that is associated with Fascism in Italy. I am not sure Scruton is in favour of modernization in the way the original Fascists were, though there is a precise context for this in the stale and moribund climate in Italy that led Puccini to welcome Mussolini as a 'breath of fresh air' who would be a more efficient ruler than the 19th century Liberals he felt had let Italy down.

It means New Wave Fascism is itself a hybrid, if I can make that excuse. Hostile to 'foreigners' and 'immigrants', hostile to free markets and globalization, but also hostile to modernization and multi-culturalism which original Fascism was not, though that may be the Italian aspect.

Anyway, Scruton became a champion of Conservatives who loathe multi-culturalism, Marxism, Gender Studies (see Scruton's views on homosexuaity in the David Edgar link below) and all they see as a threat to the British way of life. One wonders if the Brexit he supported also has in it a form of 'economic nationalism' that is prevening the govt of Boris Johnson from being more aggressive in its attempt to solve the crisis in the fishing industry and the imminent obliteration of the entertainment industry both in the UK and through the virtual end to touring in the EU by musicians and artists of every genre. From its exciting birth in 1909 Fascism, New Wave if this is what it is, threatens to impose an age of misery upon us all, with streaming our only salvation.

Futurism and Fascism in the early 20thc here-
https://www.wired.com/story/italy-fu...chno-utopians/

David Edgar on Scruton-
https://irr.org.uk/article/the-scrut...ess-old-fogey/

I like the fact that Democrats are saying even though they won in 2020, they're asking what can they do better going forward.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats...160302933.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

I like the fact that Democrats are saying even though they won in 2020, they're asking what can they do better going forward.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats...160302933.html

---

Here's something the Democratic Party can do besides dropping its trousers to virtue-signal after 6 months of rioting and sedition: Learn how to economy.

The biggest problem with the modern Democratic Party is its non-stop pandering to the struggling masses. There's a reason those people are struggling, and it's either a failure of motivation or a failure of personal responsibility. You take any individual American citizen who is just barely scraping by, give anyone of reasonable intelligence a truthful overview of their life, and the problem will be readily apparent - the individual himself. You simply can't fix those problems by throwing money at them.

What the Democratic Party has forgotten but the Republicans never will is that most Americans are totally unqualified to vote. The average citizen's knowledge of the crucial issues is so non-existent that he actually doesn't even know what the crucial issues are. And I include most Republican voters in this group.

But the Republicans make it really simple for the slobbering proletariat - we're not going to give you shit! And we're not going to give anyone else shit either. We're going to concentrate our efforts on creating an economy in which everyone can prosper off his own efforts.

Americans are about to see for themselves the damage that a Democratic administration does to this country. The imminent expansion of Affirmative Action is going to put a lot of unqualified people into important positions in the economy as quotas are met while merit and qualifications are ignored. Unemployment and inflation are going through the roof. By 2024 we're going to be living in an economic wasteland - my prediction is 20% unemployment behind the impending $15 minimum wage. "Social Justice" is going to start looking like what it actually is - catering to the relatively worthless portion of the population that refuses to conform to reasonable standards of work/life balance.

Democrats got into power in 2020 by scaring the Christ out of America and simultaneously promising pie in the sky that they can never deliver. The nightmare is just beginning.

My suggestion to the current administration, if they don't want to ensure a single term president, is NOT to ignore the vast numbers of fiscally conservative Americans who wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of social justice, but also don't want to see American economic strength wither away. Go ahead and give away some candy, but is it really so much to ask that you don't give away the store while you're at it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Here's something the Democratic Party can do besides dropping its trousers to virtue-signal after 6 months of rioting and sedition: Learn how to economy.

The average citizen's knowledge of the crucial issues is so non-existent that he actually doesn't even know what the crucial issues are. And I include most Republican voters in this group.

Unemployment and inflation are going through the roof. By 2024 we're going to be living in an economic wasteland - my prediction is 20% unemployment behind the impending $15 minimum wage.

---

Learning to economy is good advice (even if economy is not a verb) so why don't you follow it. I love the way you say those things about your fellow citizens without a hint of irony.

Here's a little exercise for your first economics lesson. The minimum wage in Australia is equivalent to US$15.70. The current unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent, which is actually lower than the US unemployment rate. Explain to us how this is consistent with your prediction.

For your second lesson we might proceed to updating you on the past 90 years of economic thinking. Apparently you can fix a recession by throwing money at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Don't tell me you are bored with your own thread already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Learning to economy is good advice (even if economy is not a verb) so why don't you follow it. I love the way you say those things about your fellow citizens without a hint of irony.

Here's a little exercise for your first economics lesson. The minimum wage in Australia is equivalent to US$15.70. The current unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent, which is actually lower than the US unemployment rate. Explain to us how this is consistent with your prediction.

For your second lesson we might proceed to updating you on the past 90 years of economic thinking. Apparently you can fix a recession by throwing money at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Don't tell me you are bored with your own thread already.

---

Apples to oranges, Flighty. Or actually, considering there are 3 metropolitan areas in the USA with a higher population than the entire continent of Australia, I'd say more like watermelons to grapes.

Or we could just talk about eggs. I.E., the fact that a dozen of them will cost you around $5 USD in Australia. (I just bought a dozen 2 days ago for $1.18.) Australian inflation is legendary. Of course, when you have a state-owned central bank, you can keep inflation and wages aligned almost perfectly, even if your economy is constantly at the mercy of the larger economies on which it relies for imports.

So despite the lavish Australian prosperity of which you speak, the vast majority of Australians live below what we in the USA consider the poverty line.

I was never bored with my own thread, Flighty. Unfortunately no one wants to play with me anymore. Stavros has disowned me for failing to respect his towering intellect. Bronco is too smart to engage me in a real argument. And the last thing I got from you in that thread was a Dennis Leary video, which doesn't really require a response, neh?

If you want to see me bite, Flighty, you're going to have to yank my chain a little harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Apples to oranges, Flighty. Or actually, considering there are 3 metropolitan areas in the USA with a higher population than the entire continent of Australia, I'd say more like watermelons to grapes.

---

I'm a bit rushed here but Australia has a population of 25 million people. So you'll say you're exaggerating or include a metro area that is really in three states, but you're wrong. Also, Sydney has a population of 5 million people. It's a fairly large city. I live in a mid-size city and trust me Sydney is like any big city...high rents, people living close together, public transport...it's cleaner than our big cities and is beautiful to the north with the Harbour and the opera house. I'm not here to defend the reputation of Australia but you don't really know what you're talking about.

The statement about the poverty line is obviously not true also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm a bit rushed here but Australia has a population of 25 million people. So you'll say you're exaggerating or include a metro area that is really in three states, but you're wrong. Also, Sydney has a population of 5 million people. It's a fairly large city. I live in a mid-size city and trust me Sydney is like any big city...high rents, people living close together, public transport...it's cleaner than our big cities and is beautiful to the north with the Harbour and the opera house. I'm not here to defend the reputation of Australia but you don't really know what you're talking about.

The statement about the poverty line is obviously not true also.

---

Don't confuse my argument by throwing a bunch of facts at me, Bronco. I'll be honest, I didn't know Australia had 25 million people, I thought it was 10-15 million for some reason, which would put NYC, LA, and the Chicago metropolitan areas above it. Still, I can say confidently, armed with all the facts, that New York City, in any case, has about the same population as all of Australia. So my watermelon-to-grape argument stands, just slighty deflated - we'll say canteloupe-to-grape.

Far as your unfortunate state of mass poverty, Bronco, I stand by my statement. The average monthly income in Australia is $3780, and in the USA it is $3258, which is a difference of 16%. But the cost-of-living in Australia is...well, let's take a look shall we - https://www.nationmaster.com/country...Cost-of-living - (BTW I make no statements about the reliability of this source but hey it's a source).

I suppose, depending on your lifestyle, you could live in Australia for a mere 50% more than it costs to live in the USA. On the other hand, if you're a smoking renter who eats eggs and cares about fashion, it would cost you at least twice as much to live in Australia.

Basically you can add $10,000 to the poverty level in the USA, since one of our government's favorite games is constantly lowering the poverty level to make it seem like we have fewer poor people. To give you some math on that, the poverty level from 40 years ago in the USA is only about $3000 lower than it is now, whereas the cost-of-living over those 40 years has more than doubled.

A realistic poverty level in the USA is around $30,000. If you're making $30k/yr, you can rent a small place, have a few things, feed yourself on low-quality food, drive a piece-of-shit car, and usually have money to put gas in it, but probably not always. That's what we call poverty.

My understanding of the average wage in Australia is that it is debatable. The news exaggerates it, the government exaggerates it, but according to a study by your own Grattan Institute, the median tax-filer income in Australia is just under $45,000.

If we say on average it costs a person 75% more to live in Australia than to live in the USA, that puts your comparative average income at around $33,000. I'll be the first to admit that doesn't constitute "the vast majority of Australians living in poverty." Though you are definitely poor. But as you already know about me, Bronco, I write for effect, and sometimes I exaggerate to make a point.

My point in this case is that Flighty's comparison of the USA to Australia - with the obvious undertone of "Look what Australia has accomplished economically and yet the USA still sucks balls!" - is a horseshit comparison that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/cost...ates/australia

I also don't vouch for the accuracy of this site but the numbers make more sense to me. This shows a difference in cost of living of about 17.5% which is more consistent with my intuition and is not much different from the 16% difference in average income.

Also consider that in the breakdown of costs Australians pay about 10% less for housing. For people making below median income by far housing is the most important expense.

His point had less to do with overall prosperity and more to do with equity. Maybe things do cost a bit more when workers are paid more but worker satisfaction is greater.

In the two links below, the poverty rate in Australia is listed as 13.3% and in the U.S. is listed as 14.8%. I am also curious about definitions. For instance, what is the average out of pocket expense for healthcare in Australia v. the U.S.? To me a greater measure of poverty is not whether you can get the exact kind of food you want but whether you can afford housing, medical care, and enough food.

His point was about the feasibility of a living wage. He was merely pointing out that a higher minimum wage doesn't drive unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povert...in_U.S._states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povert...0in%20poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

His point was about the feasibility of a living wage. He was merely pointing out that a higher minimum wage doesn't drive unemployment.

---

Bronco, I'm fine with conceding everything about Australia to your intuition, because even though we don't agree politically I do perceive that you are not a dipshit. I would like to point out that the figures on the site I linked don't agree with your "10% less for housing" statement. The numbers here - https://www.nationmaster.com/country...Cost-of-living - say that real estate is 57% higher in Australia than the USA and renting is 65% more expensive. If you say that isn't true and in fact the opposite is true, then I'll just take your word for it, I'm merely a citizen of the internet and I've never actually been to Australia.

HOWEVER, what I'm not prepared to concede is that a minimum wage increase isn't going to result in a shit-ton of unemployment.

The first thing I'd say, which is actually a point against my argument but I'll go ahead and get it out of the way, is that very, very few people in the USA work for minimum wage, which is what, $7-something/hr? Even fast-food jobs I see advertised every day offer $10/hr. In cities with a particularly high cost-of-living, those same fast-food jobs are already paying $15/hr.

So a federal $15/hr minimum wage doesn't seem like a big deal taken in that context. But what we're talking about, Bronco, is a FEDERAL minimum wage. A McDonald's in Manhattan can undoubtedly afford to pay $15/hr or even more, but the exact same operation in Bodunk, Arkansas absolutely cannot. If they have to pay all their employees $15/hr, they will cease to make a profit and be forced to close. But not before firing half their employees and trying to convince the remainder to do twice the work.

The market has to determine the wage. A job is worth what it's worth. I employ two people, a mechanic and a bookkeeper/receptionist. I like them both and I want them to stay around forever so I pay them well - better than the market demands for their skillsets. It's worth it to me because I know them and trust them. But if I was mandated to pay them more - MUCH more - than I'm currently paying them, I'd have to let them go and find other solutions. I'm already paying them the most it makes financial sense to pay them. And good for them, I don't begrudge a penny of it, but that's my ceiling, we're already there.

Most of these liberal politicians are based in high-income, high cost-of-living areas. Nancy Pelosi's out of San Francisco. Kamala Harris had a privileged upbringing in the Bay Area as well. Joe Biden's been a D.C. insider for nearly 50 years, and Chuck Schumer is straight out of the 212. They are completely out of touch with Middle America and the paycheck-to-paycheck economy that most people live in. And it's painfully obvious that they are clueless about what is required to run a low-profit, high-volume business in Shitberg Ohio.

But we'll see, Bronco, we'll see. I think you can do things at the federal level in Australia that you simply can't do in the USA. Each state has a different economy, within those states are other tiers, and even within single cities there are multiple economic zones. I'm in Nashville right now visiting family. Gas up the street is at $2.23 but if I drive across town to my sister's house it's $2.68.

The $15/hr minimum wage is definitely going to happen. For all their talk of bi-partisanship, the Democrats are going to do what they always do whenever they get the opportunity - ram their agenda down Republican throats. The minimum wage increase is a big part of the agenda they promised to poor, stupid Americans in order to garner some of the Type 2 Republican vote.

We'll see, for sure. My prediction is 20% unemployment by 2024, and not strictly due to the minimum wage hike but in conjunction with other known Democratic business policies like increased regulation and licensing. I guess yours and Flighty's prediction is "No impact at all." So we'll see.

I'd like to read more about this but I can think of a couple reasons why this wouldn't lead to the unemployment you envision. One reason is that the largest employers probably are national franchises and corporations that can afford to pay this much. The other reason is that businesses that fail or on the cusp of failing probably don't fail because of payroll costs. I will read about it but compared to the cost of insurance, rent, accounting, inventory, and any loans for equipment I imagine payroll is less of a stress point. Yes paying a worker 2400 a month is worse than paying 1200 a month but some of that is wiped away with expense deduction. I'll read and get back to you.

I agree the cost of living in Aus. v U.S. was not what we're talking about. We both found sources that said different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'd like to read more about this but I can think of a couple reasons why this wouldn't lead to the unemployment you envision.

---

This article provides a good discussion of the employment impacts, and probably reflects where the balance of economic opinion is at nowadays.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...5-minimum-wage

To be clear, I'm not saying the effect will be zero, though it probably won't be significant enough to be noticeable amongst everything else. But the 20% unemployment rate claim is clearly ludicrous given that would be about twice as high as its ever been since the Great Depression.

I'm wondering what ND thinks caused the Great depression. Increased regulation perhaps? Too bad it started 3 years before FDR came into office. Or did one-quarter of the workforce suddenly get lazy and decide not to work any more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Apples to oranges, Flighty. Or actually, considering there are 3 metropolitan areas in the USA with a higher population than the entire continent of Australia, I'd say more like watermelons to grapes.

Or we could just talk about eggs. I.E., the fact that a dozen of them will cost you around $5 USD in Australia. (I just bought a dozen 2 days ago for $1.18.) Australian inflation is legendary. Of course, when you have a state-owned central bank, you can keep inflation and wages aligned almost perfectly, even if your economy is constantly at the mercy of the larger economies on which it relies for imports.

So despite the lavish Australian prosperity of which you speak, the vast majority of Australians live below what we in the USA consider the poverty line.

---

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

Just to save you and bronco the trouble of relying on random websites that may or may not be accurate, some bright sparks at the OECD have already calculated minimum wages adjusted for the cost of living. The Australian minimum hourly wage is equivalent to US$12.14, which is 67% higher than the current US federal minimum, with no apparent effect on unemployment. https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...age-by-country

It also looks like median income adjusted for the cost of living in Australia and the US is actually pretty similar, so if you were thinking of sending a food parcel you needn't bother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

---

I deserve the wooden spoon award for my efforts at economics. The only other phrases I've retained are "spit the dummy", "pull your head in mate", and people telling me "onya" which I assumed meant I was kicking some ass. The above is a good one in that you can figure its meaning without having heard it but I'm not sure about the use of cobber. Went out generations ago....Nick is gonna look like a real asshole when he calls an Australian "cobber" while telling them he's surprised no six year olds at Newtown were clinging to life after being shot with a Bushmaster xm-15.

Anyhow, at the risk of taking this thread in too many other directions, thanks for the links. That's very helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

Just to save you and bronco the trouble of relying on random websites that may or may not be accurate, some bright sparks at the OECD have already calculated minimum wages adjusted for the cost of living. The Australian minimum hourly wage is equivalent to US$12.14, which is 67% higher than the current US federal minimum, with no apparent effect on unemployment. https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...age-by-country

It also looks like median income adjusted for the cost of living in Australia and the US is actually pretty similar, so if you were thinking of sending a food parcel you needn't bother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

---

I knew there was a reason I fucked with you, Flighty. Every now and then you surprise me with that sparkly sense of humor you keep so well-hidden most of the time. I LOL'd at your post though I did have to google "cobber."

So, $12.14/hr. That's not very high. In fact, I'd say that's pretty close to what any unskilled worker in the USA who isn't a zit-faced zoomer would actually accept as a low-end wage. It's really not that close to $15/hr, a $2.86/hr difference is pretty large on that tier of the economy.

But Bronco and I have agreed, and hopefully you will too, that we will simply accept that Australila is indeed a first-world country in need of no care packages, with PERHAPS a slightly lower standard of living than the USA but it really doesn't matter.

Fact is, Flighty, that we can't take our economic cues from Australia. They have completely different needs and problems. They aren't a big manufacturing country, for example, so most of their machinery is imported, most of their vehicles are imported, most of their electronics are imported. They export a lot of beef whereas the USA eats most of what it kills. They've got their own stock market. They export most of their oil. They've got pretty much the same history of slavery as the USA (replace "Africans" with "Pacific Islanders") but they don't have to answer for it because, I suppose, they aren't the USA. They aren't nearly as diverse as the USA, and in fact until 1973, only white Europeans were allowed to immigrate. That's not racist, BTW, only the USA is racist.

I think the USA is a unique economy (just like most economies are but the USA is always MORESO), and we'll have to wait to be certain about the impact of the $15 minimum wage. We can predict and pontificate but we won't know until we walk a mile in those $15 shoes. I've made my prediction.

It's interesting to me that you want to talk about the Great Depression as if it can't happen again. It actually has happened again. We've hit 10% unemployment twice since the Great Depression, in 1982 and again in 2009. We're just better at bouncing back now than we were in 1929, and we've become MUCH better at hiding poverty from public view. There are bubbles in the market, Flighty. Big, ugly, unstable bubbles. Our fiat economy is like a balloon resting on a bed of nails. Put a little pressure on it and it will probably stay inflated. Put a lot of pressure on it and you'll be left with a small piece of wet rubber and a bleeding hand.

This Democratic administration intends to put a LOT of pressure on that balloon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

So, $12.14/hr. That's not very high. In fact, I'd say that's pretty close to what any unskilled worker in the USA who isn't a zit-faced zoomer would actually accept as a low-end wage. It's really not that close to $15/hr, a $2.86/hr difference is pretty large on that tier of the economy.

---

What's the difference between 12.14 an hour and 7.25? Quick math! He did all that work for the both of us so please don't tell me you missed his point entirely. It's already been adjusted for cost of living. So if American minimum wage workers make 7.25 an hour and it purchases 7 dollars and 25 cents of stuff and Australians make a wage per hour that purchases the equivalent of $12.14 who would you rather be?

In conclusion, pull your fuckin' head in cobber. Filghy is a strong debater generally but economics is his wheelhouse. I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch

---

Budweiser, Broncofan? Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

What's the difference between 12.14 an hour and 7.25? Quick math! He did all that work for the both of us so please don't tell me you missed his point entirely. It's already been adjusted for cost of living. So if American minimum wage workers make 7.25 an hour and it purchases 7 dollars and 25 cents of stuff and Australians make a wage per hour that purchases the equivalent of $12.14 who would you rather be?

In conclusion, pull your fuckin' head in cobber. Filghy is a strong debater generally but economics is his wheelhouse. I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch;

---

I think you missed something, Bronco - my math was subtracting 12.14 from 15.00, not 7.25 from 12.14. It would be very, very difficult to find anyone in the USA actually working for $7.25/hr. I don't know anyone personally who does, no surprise there, but I do know people with teenage offspring, and even those kids don't work for $7.25. In fact, the point I was trying to make is that most unskilled workers here already get paid the Australian minimum wage. I just passed an Arby's today offering $11.50 to start, slinging roast beef and potato cakes one would assume.

When I started working, the minimum wage was $3.15/hr. The next year it went up to $3.35. And that's what you made if you were a teenager. But it just ain't like that anymore.

I think there is this mass delusion that we have a class of people in the USA who are actually working for minimum wage. EVEN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITH NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS MAKE MORE THAN THAT.

Also, if economics was in Flighty's wheelhouse he'd be a Republican.

Edit: And let me just add this - there's a reason the minimum wage has been stagnant for so long. Remember I said when I started working, it was $3.15, then $3.35. Not long after that it went up again, ever so slightly, and again, every couple years IIRC. It was an issue, a talking point, BECAUSE BACK THEN, PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORKED FOR MINIMUM WAGE.

If people were still working for minimum wage we'd have confronted the ridiculousness of it long ago - of course $7.25 is way too low. But it hasn't been problematic because it's no longer used as a frame of reference, EVERYBODY makes more than that now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Fact is, Flighty, that we can't take our economic cues from Australia. They have completely different needs and problems. They aren't a big manufacturing country, for example, so most of their machinery is imported, most of their vehicles are imported, most of their electronics are imported. They export a lot of beef whereas the USA eats most of what it kills. They've got their own stock market. They export most of their oil. They've got pretty much the same history of slavery as the USA (replace "Africans" with "Pacific Islanders") but they don't have to answer for it because, I suppose, they aren't the USA. They aren't nearly as diverse as the USA, and in fact until 1973, only white Europeans were allowed to immigrate. That's not racist, BTW, only the USA is racist.

I think the USA is a unique economy (just like most economies are but the USA is always MORESO), and we'll have to wait to be certain about the impact of the $15 minimum wage. We can predict and pontificate but we won't know until we walk a mile in those $15 shoes. I've made my prediction.

---

It seems you must have got most of your ideas about Australia from about 1973, including your earlier population figures. It's actually one of the world's most multicultural countries nowadays - 30% of the population are immigrants and another 20% are children of immigrants. That's a much higher share than in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

What you appear to be arguing on the minimum wage is that even the most unskilled worker can currently earn around $12/hr but if it increases to $15/hr they are all going to lose their jobs.

https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It seems you must have got most of your ideas about Australia from about 1973, including your earlier population figures. It's actually one of the world's most multicultural countries nowadays - 30% of the population are immigrants and another 20% are children of immigrants. That's a much higher share than in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

What you appear to be arguing on the minimum wage is that even the most unskilled worker can currently earn around $12/hr but if it increases to $15/hr they are all going to lose their jobs.

---

Garbage, Flighty. You can try spinning the numbers for other people but don't even try that shit on me. The fact that 30% of the population are immigrants does not indicate racial diversity. The vast majority of those immigrants are white Europeans (primarily British) - perfectly in line with the immigration policies of the not-so-distant past.

I'm looking at numbers here - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...stralians.html - which say that 86.4% of the Australian population are white Europeans and 13.6% are a combination of Aboriginals, Chinese, Indian, and Other.

All these websites can't be full of shit, Flighty, but you most certainly can.

Regarding the minimum wage, my point is that the employers of the USA are already in a market in which they are paying wages higher than the minimum. Whether that figure is $12/hr or $9/hr or whatever - that part depends primarily on the real estate surrounding the business - it's higher than what they are REQUIRED to pay.

A lot of businesses are very low-margin businesses. Restaurants are notoriously so, but it might also surprise you to know that most brick-and-mortar retail stores are also low-margin businesses that rely on high volume to make a profit.

I've got a childhood friend who manages a small chain of restaurants. We've had conversations about that business, we're both businessmen, and he's always told me that there are two keys to producing a profit with a restaurant - tips and food cost. If the tips are good the employees will stay, if the food cost is kept to a minimum the restaurant will make a modest but consistent profit. He usually finishes that by referring back to a long-standing joke between the two of us that I'll let you ponder on your own - "Also, Nick, clean as you go." (hard stare followed by intentionally insincere smile)

My business is different. I'm a low-volume, high-profit business. My business relies much more on how many people I can get in the door than it does on how much I'm paying my people. But I've pretty much plateaued on that and am doing fine. A $15 minimum wage isn't going to affect me at all except to the extent it affects the entire economy.

But MANY businesses in the USA are of the former variety. Retail, printing, grocery, and clothing come to mind. So let's just say that most of the employees of those businesses are making $12/hr. Then suddenly you have to pay them all $15/hr. That's a sudden 25% increase in payroll ACROSS THE BOARD. For businesses that are already paying their employees more than they have to pay them while also barely pushing up enough profit to keep the investors happy.

I'll tell you right now, Flighty, I don't think most unskilled workers deserve $15/hr, even as little as that is. I think if you live in a capitalist economy, you get yourself some goddamn job skills or you pay the price for it. A responsible and productive life is not rocket science. If we could get half of these people off their asses and motivated to add some personal value to the economy, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

But they're going to get their $15/hr so fine. It's going to be at the expense of the investors and job creators who have made this nation the greatest and wealthiest empire in the history of the planet. And in conjunction with all the environmental clampdowns, over-regulation, hiring quotas, union promotion, benefit requirements, and every other meddlesome method the Democratic brain-trust can come up with to redistribute this country's wealth, it's going to crash the economy. We're ripe for it. That's my opinion. Time will tell. Four years of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

But they're going to get their $15/hr so fine. It's going to be at the expense of the investors and job creators who have made this nation the greatest and wealthiest empire in the history of the planet. And in conjunction with all the environmental clampdowns, over-regulation, hiring quotas, union promotion, benefit requirements, and every other meddlesome method the Democratic brain-trust can come up with to redistribute this country's wealth, it's going to crash the economy. We're ripe for it. That's my opinion. Time will tell. Four years of time.

---

I'm sure you said much the same at the start of every previous Democrat administration. The economy didn't crash under Clinton or Obama. There was not even a recession in these periods, let alone the second Great Depression you have predicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I'm sure you said much the same at the start of every previous Democrat administration. The economy didn't crash under Clinton or Obama. There was not even a recession in these periods, let alone the second Great Depression you have predicted.

---

That's actually not true. I think I've told you before that I'm just fine with the back and forth between the two parties. We get Republican administrations to fix our economy, and Democratic administrations to change our diapers. In the end there's a balance that works.

But this time is different. The Democratic Party has never been this progressive before. They feel they have a public mandate because they managed to get nearly every drug addict, petty criminal, and all-knowing teenager in the country out in the streets threatening to burn the whole thing down if they don't get their way. They have co-opted the media to an extent never before seen. There was more media dissent against the NatSocs in pre-WWII Germany than there is against the new progressive agenda in the USA today.

"Progressive" is merely Orwellian doublespeak of course.

Then there's the pandemic. We're weak. My business is suffering. What about yours, Flighty? You thriving right now? If you are you must be selling masks, hand sanitizer, or guns.

Like I said, we're ripe for a killing blow. And the Democrats are holding an axe, in the form of the White House and control of Congress. God help us if the Supreme Court falls weak.

I guess it's appropriate that this exchange is in the political sectarianism thread because my post you quoted when you first decided to venture to the politics forum was about whether Republicans can go back to being principled conservatives.

You say the Democratic Party is far left but I see Biden as mostly a moderate. I will agree that nobody should ever acquiesce to vandalism or violence in protests but I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating the degree of complicity for Democrats. The issue of police brutality is a real one and the need to protest unlawful force is important. The need for the protests to be non-violent is essential but I'm not really sure I want to get into a back and forth again about Republican v. Democratic complicity in this country's institutional breakdown.

During a pandemic there is no way for things to magically go back to status quo ante. You can minimize the medical and economic pain through diligence. Instead of asking how Filghy is doing personally, how about asking how Australia is doing? Have they benefitted from being vigilant about the spread of the virus? Have their public health measures cost them economically as much as our uncontrolled viral spread has cost us? They have suffered 35 deaths per million people. We've lost 1,561 people per million. Quick math that looks like they have 2% of the number of deaths per capita.

If you want there to be more media dissent, offer viewpoints in which reasonable people can disagree. If you have a President who tells people covid will magically disappear, that vaccines will take three months from March 2020 to be available, that doctors are fabricating death numbers then you will have a unanimous opposition in the media against this fictional worldview. If you have a President who says there was election fraud, who accuses every city with a large Black population of fraud, and makes outrageous and incendiary charges about shredded ballots and manipulated machinery, you will have a wall of opposition among educated people.

Biden is not far left. Merrick Garland is not far left. I have seen people on twitter with large followings who were literally involved in the alt-right say that Garland and Biden are extremists. This departure from reality will have consequences for all of us. We've already felt some of them. Come back to planet earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I guess it's appropriate that this exchange is in the political sectarianism thread because my post you quoted when you first decided to venture to the politics forum was about whether Republicans can go back to being principled conservatives.

You say the Democratic Party is far left but I see Biden as mostly a moderate. I will agree that nobody should ever acquiesce to vandalism or violence in protests but I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating the degree of complicity for Democrats. The issue of police brutality is a real one and the need to protest unlawful force is important. The need for the protests to be non-violent is essential but I'm not really sure I want to get into a back and forth again about Republican v. Democratic complicity in this country's institutional breakdown.

During a pandemic there is no way for things to magically go back to status quo ante. You can minimize the medical and economic pain through diligence. Instead of asking how Filghy is doing personally, how about asking how Australia is doing? Have they benefitted from being vigilant about the spread of the virus? Have their public health measures cost them economically as much as our uncontrolled viral spread has cost us? They have suffered 35 deaths per million people. We've lost 1,561 people per million. Quick math that looks like they have 2% of the number of deaths per capita.

If you want there to be more media dissent, offer viewpoints in which reasonable people can disagree. If you have a President who tells people covid will magically disappear, that vaccines will take three months from March 2020 to be available, that doctors are fabricating death numbers then you will have a unanimous opposition in the media against this fictional worldview. If you have a President who says there was election fraud, who accuses every city with a large Black population of fraud, and makes outrageous and incendiary charges about shredded ballots and manipulated machinery, you will have a wall of opposition among educated people.

Biden is not far left. Merrick Garland is not far left. I have seen people on twitter with large followings who were literally involved in the alt-right say that Garland and Biden are extremists. This departure from reality will have consequences for all of us. We've already felt some of them. Come back to planet earth.

---

Biden is a rubber-stamp career politician, with a media-suppressed history of voting along white supremacist lines, who is currently barely aware of his surroundings. He's one year older than my father and I know for a fact that my father is losing it upstairs. Whether Biden is a true progressive or not isn't relevant, he's as much a figurehead at this point as the Queen of England. I think he has "handlers."

If he dies, and he very well might, we'll have Kamala Harris, a slightly-unhinged, hypocritical sociopath with a long (and again, media-suppressed) history of supporting aggressive and heavy-handed law enforcement against the working class while protecting elites from prosecution.

That's my opinion of the USA's current executive branch. So now that we've got that out of the way...

Let's take a hard look at the comparison you're making between Australia and the USA regarding their handling of the pandemic. I'll grant you the numbers without even looking them up, we'll go ahead and accept that Australia has suffered many fewer deaths per capita than the USA, I'm sure that's true.

So you can say, "See, this proves that they handled the pandemic much better from a policy perspective," or you COULD say, "Makes perfect sense considering Australia is a completely isolated country with one of the world's most restrictive entry policies."

And why does no one ever want to talk about the cost of the lockdown? Suicides are at an all-time high. Depression is at an all-time high. Crime statistics are through the roof. The economy is suffering badly. We're now raising an entire generation of children who have lost a full year of education and social development; who can even calculate what the final cost of that will be? All this to save the lives of a relative handful of old people and lungers. Trump is not a genius - well, maybe an accidental one sometimes - but he's no dipshit either. He knew immediately that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Loss of life is not a be-all end-all. We're all going to die. Quality of life matters at least as much. We, humans, still settle our petty political differences by sending our best and brightest to fight each other to the death by the millions, but we haven't outlawed war. Japan lost 20,000 people in the 2011 tsunami, and it's definitely going to happen again. So why aren't they vacating the country, moving inland? Because 20,000 people is a sacrifice they are (and should be) willing to make in order to maintain their society and culture. The USA loses 35,000 people a year to auto accidents, yet we have never even considered the idea of outlawing cars.

We're never going to agree about this, Bronco, and I'm fine with that. But your attempt to de-legitimize my view with a statement like "Come back to planet earth" is mere hyperbole. The pandemic lockdown question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

I'll respond to this later. I've read it and appreciate some of your points. Notably, yes quality of life is important and I'm not saying that only the policies that save every life imaginable at any cost are worth pursuing. I'm saying the costs in terms of isolation are real, but that there are ways to mitigate suicide and drug deaths without giving up completely on public health. Also, lockdowns are only ever a decent idea when things have gotten out of control by certain metrics. They should be used very sparingly and only when hospital capacity is low.

Australia is not the only country that has fewer deaths per capita. There are 183 out of 193. But you know what? Other economies have also taken less of a hit than ours. I want to emphasize that. Some economic harm is inevitable, and having uncontrolled viral spread is worse for the economy than moderate public health policies.

Here's another comparison: Canada has one third the number of deaths per capita as the U.S. They are in colder climate, they have tons of large cities with most of their country on our northern border. They have no intrinsic advantage.

If we were as successful as Canada, we would have 333,000 fewer deaths! Think about that. Are suicides up by 333,000 because of lockdowns? I'm not even sure Canada has had many more lockdowns. Maybe they promoted mask compliance. Maybe they didn't promote huge maskless rallies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'll respond to this later. I've read it and appreciate some of your points. Notably, yes quality of life is important and I'm not saying that only the policies that save every life imaginable at any cost are worth pursuing. I'm saying the costs in terms of isolation are real, but that there are ways to mitigate suicide and drug deaths without giving up completely on public health. Also, lockdowns are only ever a decent idea when things have gotten out of control by certain metrics. They should be used very sparingly and only when hospital capacity is low.

Australia is not the only country that has fewer deaths per capita. There are 183 out of 193. But you know what? Other economies have also taken less of a hit than ours. I want to emphasize that. Some economic harm is inevitable, and having uncontrolled viral spread is worse for the economy than moderate public health policies.

Here's another comparison: Canada has one third the number of deaths per capita as the U.S. They are in colder climate, they have tons of large cities with most of their country on our northern border. They have no intrinsic advantage.

If we were as successful as Canada, we would have 333,000 fewer deaths! Think about that. Are suicides up by 333,000 because of lockdowns? I'm not even sure Canada has had many more lockdowns. Maybe they promoted mask compliance. Maybe they didn't promote huge maskless rallies.

---

I think I ranted about this once before and got a little carried away, to the point that I surprised even myself with my callous indifference about these people's lives. But I don't feel any differently now that I'm about to rant about it again.

Because who are we talking about here, Bronco? The elderly. The congenitally unhealthy. The weak. People who already had low quality of life and were going to die soon enough anyway. I knew Joe Diffie, the country singer, and I remember calling a mutual acquaintance when I heard he'd died of the covid. Turns out both of us had the exact same thought when we got the news - "Really, not the pills and booze?"

We're trading a lot for these people's lives, Bronco. And we could have just left it up to them. I think I ran down my Can't-Miss Covid-19 Prevention Technique For The Chronically Vulnerable before - isolate YOURSELF.

I've said pretty much all I have to say about the covid. I get your point of view, Bronco - all human life is precious. A lot of people feel that way. It's not. We throw it away all the time. Every time they build a skyscraper over 15 stories in New York City, there are going to be 5 deaths. But they build them anyway, because human life has a dollar value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

And why does no one ever want to talk about the cost of the lockdown? Suicides are at an all-time high. Depression is at an all-time high. Crime statistics are through the roof.

---

I'm wondering how you know this given suicide data for 2020 don't appear to be available yet. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Do you have any source, or did you just make shit up again? There were about 47,500 suicides in 2018 so it's pretty unlikely additional suicides would be anywhere near the number of Covid deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I'm wondering how you know this given suicide data for 2020 don't appear to be available yet. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Do you have any source, or did you just make shit up again? There were about 47,500 suicides in 2018 so it's pretty unlikely additional suicides would be anywhere near the number of Covid deaths.

---

Is that the criteria we need to look at, Flighty, is that where humanity is at on this thing? Do we need the number of suicides to exceed the number of covid deaths before we can start going to the fucking movies again? Because that's pretty goddamn dystopian, Flighty, pretty goddamn callous.

On the other hand, I do know a couple of people who are very depressed right now. I could do my part to accelerate the end of this thing by gifting them a Dostoevsky book or something.

If more people were committing suicide would we know whether they were committing suicide because of quarantine measures or because they lost a loved one to covid? It seems pretty plausible to me that someone could watch their spouse die after a thirty day fight on a ventilator and commit suicide. Some people might also be depressed if others choose to quarantine but they are allowed out. We can't force everyone to pretend there isn't a deadly virus out there. The response to mental health problems should be increased access to care.

The fact is, the world is different. Shouldn't we make sure people with mental health problems have health insurance and support services?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Some people might also be depressed if others choose to quarantine but they are allowed out.

---

What I mean is that during a pandemic a lot of people are going to voluntarily modify their behavior. Even depressives might isolate themselves because they are afraid of getting a virus. It's not easy to know whether it's government measures that increases isolation or lots of people making choices. The world is not conducive to the kind of socialization we're used to. Some people are especially vulnerable because of that. Shouldn't we be concerned about providing support services? Health insurance plans that include behavioral health benefits?

Or is this posturing? Early in the pandemic a Republican told me they were concerned that our preoccupation with Covid meant there would be less vaccination for measles in Africa. I'm not joking, they sent me an article telling me they thought we shouldn't be concerned about covid because it would prevent people from paying attention to other infectious diseases. They didn't send me any articles when the U.S. pulled out of the WHO though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

If more people were committing suicide would we know whether they were committing suicide because of quarantine measures or because they lost a loved one to covid?

---

I'm not the one to speculate on people's reasons for suicide. I've met some real low-life sacks of shit in this life with nothing whatsoever to live for who slogged through it all to a ripe old age, but I also had a close friend - good-looking guy, California surfer dude with an unusually sharp intellect, great sense of humor, the world was his oyster - hang himself with his own belt off the top of a fence in Santa Cruz back in the 90's. Guy was 31 years old.

But I'll link the article about what has me reflecting on the increased suicides at the moment, and I think it's safe to say that this one can be attributed directly to the quarantine itself - https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/pole-d...ring-lockdown/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Shouldn't we be concerned about providing support services? Health insurance plans that include behavioral health benefits?

---

If you're testing me to find out exactly how much of an asshole I am, I think you're about to find out, Bronco.

I have very, very little sympathy for people's mental health problems. What some people call "ADHD" I call "stupid." What some people call "clinical depression" I call "living wrong." When a court rules that a defendant isn't responsible for his actions because he's criminally insane, I mutter to myself, "Oh, well I guess nobody's responsible then." I believe that all a marriage counselor can accomplish is teach a couple how to lie to each other with more enthusiasm, and I don't believe there's any such thing as autism.

I'm remembering right now a Louis CK routine where he's going through a series of examples of something he calls "Of course...but maybe..." He's talking about kids with peanut allergies. "Of course, children with nut allergies need to be protected. Of course! We need to segregate their food from nuts, have their medication available at all times, and anyone who manufactures or serves food needs to be aware of deadly nut allergies. Of course! But maybe...maybe...if touching a nut kills you, you're supposed to die."

That's kinda how I feel about most people's "Woe is me" problems. Of course we should be concerned about providing mental health support services and health insurance that includes behavioral health benefits. Of course! But maybe...maybe...maybe if you're suicidal, you're better off dead. Maybe if you're depressed, you're the weak link. Maybe if you can't hack it, that's your fucking problem, we've all got our ration of shit to deal with out here, pal.

I don't want to be too over-the-top here, I'm exaggerating a LITTLE, I am peripherally aware that there do exist legitimate mental health problems. But I think most of those people are just whiners.

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEb5a-I0kyg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

That's kinda how I feel about most people's "Woe is me" problems. Of course we should be concerned about providing mental health support services and health insurance that includes behavioral health benefits. Of course! But maybe...maybe...maybe if you're suicidal, you're better off dead. Maybe if you're depressed, you're the weak link. Maybe if you can't hack it, that's your fucking problem, we've all got our ration of shit to deal with out here, pal.

---

So after telling us that we should worry less about Covid and more about suicides and depression you now tell us that we shouldn't worry so much about these things either because it's probably their own fault?

I take it you have no source on your claim that suicides are at an all-time high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

So after telling us that we should worry less about Covid and more about suicides and depression you now tell us that we shouldn't worry so much about these things either because it's probably their own fault?

I take it you have no source on your claim that suicides are at an all-time high.

---

I couldn't sleep because I realized I had forgotten to give you a source, Flighty.

Here's one - https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352 - stating that "widely reported studies modeling the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on suicide rates" indicate an increase of 1% to 145%. So it's an assumption. Based on studies. But it's a damn good assumption considering it makes perfect sense.

Also, I'm not telling you it's the victims' fault, I'm telling you it's your fault. For being foolish enough not to see the oh-so-simple solution to the whole problem, short-sighted enough not to realize that there are some people who are literally going to promote this lockdown (and therefore their own place in the international spotlight) FOREVER if we let them (Fauci's already setting us up into 2022), and for being panicky enough to accept any "solution" that's offered, no matter how fucked it leaves us in the end. Because you don't want to be sick. What a bunch of fucking cowards and babies.

CPAC will be in the news over the next few days, and not because of the 'Graven Image' of Trump that has been set up to the greater glory of himself, but because if this is what the speakers are like, how does one define American Conservatism? Sounds to me like a conference of Neo-Nazis, Fascists and anti-American Insurgents...

"Arizona Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, both of whom helped organize the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, are CPAC panelists this year.

Gosar has ties to the far-right militia Oath Keepers, whose members were deeply involved in the storming of the Capitol. The leader of an Arizona chapter recently claimed Gosar once told Oath Keepers that America was already in a civil war. “We just haven’t started shooting yet,” Gosar allegedly said. (The congressman has yet to respond to this claim.)
Gosar’s extremist resume is long. He once traveled to London to speak at a rally in support of a jailed anti-Muslim activist; he went to Nevada to support far-right militiamen in an armed standoff with federal authorities; and he’s posed for a photo with a member of the neo-fascist Proud Boys, another group with a large presence at the insurrection. Gosar will be speaking on a CPAC panel Saturday called “Sell Outs: The Devaluing of American Citizenship.”

Biggs, the other Arizona congressman, has spoken at events hosted by multiple extremist groups, including a 2015 gathering of the Oath Keepers where a member called for hanging the late Sen. John McCain. Biggs will speak on a panel Friday about the Second Amendment.
Joining him on that panel is Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), the pistol-carrying freshman lawmaker with a history of associating with far-right militia groups, including the Three Percenters, another organization implicated in the insurrection. (“I am the militia,” Boebert tweeted last year.) Boebert also supports the QAnon conspiracy movement, which believes there’s a globalist cabal of pedophiles, many of them Democrats, waging war against Trump. Many QAnon faithful participated in the insurrection on Jan. 6.

“Today is 1776,” Boebert tweeted that morning before the storming of the Capitol, a reference to the Revolutionary War. "
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/cpac-2021-...104500816.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

So after telling us that we should worry less about Covid and more about suicides and depression you now tell us that we shouldn't worry so much about these things either because it's probably their own fault?

---

I read his concern about mental health problems with the same skepticism as I do when a Republican expresses concern about infectious disease in developing countries. You know it's a form of whataboutism and not actually a way to address other humanitarian issues.