This dystopian nightmare is brought to you by some assholes from Austria and Chicago, who apparently thought economies work best when a few Machiavellian psychos own everything. Thanks, assholes.
In it, the president-elect responded to the New Orleans attack in characteristically less-than emollient style. “The USA is breaking down,” he posted. “A violent erosion of Safety, National Security, and Democracy is taking place all across our Nation. Only strength and powerful leadership will stop it.”
He's right about the first part, the US is breaking down. He's wrong about why it's happening and how to fix it.
I think that's true of a lot of Americans. They intuitively know something's really wrong, but they don't know what. That doesn't stop them from speculating, however, nor from jumping to conclusions and convincing themselves that they have the answers. Then they find like minded communities, often online, where their false beliefs are reinforced. I expect we will see more and more of this.
The fact is, no one really knows exactly what's wrong, or how to fix it. Modern society is just so incredibly complex, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to understand all of its minutia and nuance. But, some have a better understanding of what's happening than most. Unfortunately, those people are rarely listened to.
She said he didn’t have particularly strong political views
How do you know he voted for billionaires? How do you know he was a "dumb racist?" His ex-girlfriend said he was a "super smart guy." Sounds like he had head injuries that caused him headaches and made it difficult for him to concentrate.
I think 45 to 65 is the sweet spot, for most people. Old enough to have good experience and wisdom, but young enough to still have enough energy and sharpness.
They had their underwriters run the numbers and they determined it's more profitable to continue business as usual and just invest in private security for executives.
The tragedy of the commons is a concept which states that when many people have unrestricted access to a resource, they will tend to overuse the resource eventually leading to its destruction or depletion. It's a tragedy because even those who are concerned with sustainability, and who would choose conservation and restraint, are compelled to continue also overusing the resource because they fear that if they don't they will be put in a position of strategic disadvantage relative to those who have no such concerns.
The psychopaths don't care about the environment. They don't care about a rapidly changing climate, environmental degradation, the depletion of nonrenewable resources, loss of biodiversity, etc. They just don't care. And because they don't care, we can't either, because we are afraid that if we restrain ourselves in the pursuit of sustainable living, we will be putting ourselves in a position of disadvantage relative to the psychopaths. We have to become more like them to defend ourselves from them, and thus, tragedy.
A combination of cold weather, short daylight hours and weak wind speeds in November – known in German as dunkelflaute – has already pushed Europe to use up more of its winter gas supplies than normal for this time of year as homes fire up their heating and power grids seek to replace wind power with electricity from gas generators.
I should start out by saying that I wholeheartedly agree that it is a very good thing that women now have the right to vote, go to school, have a bank account, etc. I think those are unequivocally good things, and I am not advocating for a reactionary return to a time before liberal feminism did successfully liberate women in many very important ways. I should have expressed that, that was my oversight and I can certainly see how my comment made my position on that unclear.
Honestly, that's a problem for those men to deal with
Well, that's the thing, I don't think it is just their problem, I think it's our problem.
This is really my issue with liberalism, it's inherently antisocial and hyper individualist, and thus fails to account for the ways in which we are interdependent. In fact, the power dynamics that you allude to in this statement...:
This is an easy thing to say when the only people you've ever been dependent on were benevolent.
...only exist because of liberalism. It was supposedly the right of husbands to have authority over, and, yes, even ownership of their wives and children, which is an antisocial concept. Some of those husbands were more benevolent than others, just as I'm sure some slave owners were more benevolent than others, but ultimately both power dynamics existed because of the supposed individual "rights" granted to those men by god or nature. Using liberalism to liberate women from institutions that liberalism helped create, isn't ever going to work.
Like I mentioned before, to be a wholly independent person is going to live a brutally difficult life of isolation. There's a reason we evolved to live in communities, because it aided our survival, both as individuals and as a species. We benefit from living in healthy, stable, high functioning communities, and so we should each be interested in the well being of everyone in our community, even the lonely, isolated, hapless young men. Not by returning to a time when they would be given ownership and authority over women, but by helping them understand that they are a part of a community, that they benefit from being a part of the community, but that being in the community comes with certain responsibilities and obligations.
The norm across the vast majority of working- and professional-class people I've encountered is for both partners to be working
I'm sure that's true, but I was thinking specifically about single, working mothers. You're right, though, it's not only single mothers, these realities affect women who are in relationships as well.
Another moral victory for Democrats. If only such victories mattered.