980 replies to this topic

[Advocatus Diaboli]

 

In post #690, Hip writes:

 

" ...how you leap to conclusions, or even suspicions, without seeing any of the 

methodology and data of the study?"

 

Yawn. I didn't "leap to conclusions". You keep trying to make outrageous claims, which

have no bases in reality, about things that I write. What I wrote was: "I suspect". Get it? I suspect.

If I had wanted to draw a conclusion, I would have stated something like: "I conclude that...".

 

Also, pedantry has nothing to do with using the correct word to express a specific 

thought. It's not my fault that you, at times (i.e. mostly), are apt to fail to comprehend 

written English. And, you clearly never experience an activation of your right hemisphere's

medial aspect of the anterior part of your superior temporal gyrus.

 

Suspicion:

 

"...there was positive – if limited – evidence..."--That is a clue that all of the studies used 

in the analysis (here, I use "analysis" generically) should be rigorously examined. What 

does "positive - if limited" mean, I wonder. Getting a seemingly significant net "positive" 

effect using "limited" positive evidence, and not mentioning exactly what the "limitations" 

were, in the executive summary, as well as not mentioning the specific "combinations of NPIs"

that were used, is trash science.  

 

The transition from "positive - if limited" evidence to "net positive", when countries used 

"combinations of NPIs", constitutes a quasi reversal of conclusion. And, hence, my 

suspicion about Simpson's paradox being operant. 

 

As you may know, or not, and my guess is "not", the particular groupings of NPIs 

that were used to arrive at the "net positive" result can skew what conclusions are drawn, as 

can be demonstrated by performing factor analyses of the various NPI groupings. The executive

summary stands mute with regard to grouping information. 

 

A study claim: "Additionally, evidence showed NPIs were most effective when the intensity of 

transmission was low, supporting their use early in a pandemic and at first sign of resurgence."

 

I wonder what the effectiveness of select NPIs were, or were projected to be, when the 

intensity of transmission was high. You know, the condition that could actually gauge the 

effectiveness of an intervention, and determine whether or not it's worth it, considering 

various ramifications, to implement.

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 03 September 2023 - 07:49 AM.

[Hip]

And, you clearly never experience an activation of your right hemisphere's

medial aspect of the anterior part of your superior temporal gyrus.

 

No idea what that means, but I would suggest avoiding such phraseology next time you are chatting up a girl — as they make their excuses and beat a hasty departure!

 

 

 

As for Simpson's paradox: I am afraid I currently do not have the brainpower to follow your argument as outlined in your last post, so cannot comment on it, or assess it.

 

Unfortunately, ever since picking up COVID around a year and a half ago, my ME/CFS brain fog has considerably worsened, and in particular, I struggle now with understanding mathematical logic. Brain fog seems to inordinately affect the mathematical part of my brain, disconnecting my access to the world of forms (in Plato's philosophy).

 

I already had brain fog from my enterovirus-associated ME/CFS, but now that I have coronavirus-associated ME/CFS on top of that (ie, long COVID), it's become even worse. 

 

However, I hope to be shortly trialing an off-label antiviral that some long COVID patients reported was highly effective for their illness, name sofosbuvir, which is normally used to treat hepatitis C virus. So I may return to you post if my brain gets better.

 

Sofosbuvir distinguishes itself by being one of the most expensive antivirals ever made, costing $1000 for each pill! Fortunately much cheaper generics are now available in India.

Edited by Hip, 03 September 2023 - 10:20 PM.

[Mind]

Even after extensively documenting all of the fraud, deception, and gas-lighting that occurred during the COVID panic, I am still surprised at the level it occurred. New revelations are uncovered every single day.

 

I am uneasy about the fact that I was somewhat swayed by the media and US government early in the COVID panic. No more.

 

We had fake studies published in Lancet, lies from the CDC, fake virus origin stories, fake doctors on social media spreading fear porn, politicians engaging in mask theatre. shoddy and fraudulent "vaccine" trials, etc...

 

Remember the "disinformation dozen"? It was a list basically created by one person which was used by the US government to try to censor anyone anywhere who disagreed with anything the Biden administration said about the COVID panic. Give a few of the Facebook employees credit, they pushed back against the US government because the "disinformation dozen" wasn't spreading disinfo - they had legitimate opinions based upon societal observations, data, research, etc... The Biden administration ordered to censor them anyway.

 

Most people are still in the dark about how much they were deceived during the COVID panic. I am afraid it will stay that way.

[Mind]

It is unbelievable and unnerving to look back at the awful and disastrous COVID policies and propaganda were. None of the pandemic policies did ANYTHING to stop COVID from spreading. It eventually spread like wildfire in every country of the world - no matter the restrictions or compliance of the public. African countries that had near zero NPI compliance fared the best on average.

 

Watch this video of major media outlets constantly parroting COVID policies that were an utter failure. They all sound the same because they were getting billions of dollars (literally - it's documented) to force the propaganda upon the public. Real journalists and highly published leading medical professionals who spoke out with alternative suggestions were fired, harrassed, pilloried, and labelled as anti-vax consiracy theorists.

 

In the US our medical policy is still being driven by idiots in the national media. Bureaucrats running the CDC and many state/local health agencies are not experts in virology, epidemiology, or hardly anything related to medicine. They are mostly bureaucrats who haven't seen the inside of a hospital since their last colonoscopy.

 

In addition to all the other studies and data posted in this discussion, here is another review of the COVID NPIs, clearly demonstrating they were an utter failure - yet we are on the precipice of going through the whole charade again. It is like a machine of incompetence is running the world and no one can stop it.

 

 

Edited by Mind, 02 October 2023 - 05:43 PM.

[Hip]

None of the pandemic policies did ANYTHING to stop COVID from spreading.

 

That's laughably wrong! All the communitarian countries did spectacularly well in stopping COVID and greatly reducing death numbers. Their policies worked amazing well. Surely you must know this?

 

The communitarian countries had death rates around 10 times less than the liberal Western countries. Why? Because the communitarian populace followed the government's rules and restrictions. Whereas in the the liberal Western countries, lots of people flouted the rules.  

 

So the moral of the story is that liberalism and libertarianism are the greatest enemies when fighting a pandemic. 

 

In times of a pandemic, "me, me, me" libertarianism is a nation's ticket to mass death. 

 

 

What the communitarian countries teach us is that the pandemic policies do work extremely well — provided the populace is public spirited enough to follow them. 

Edited by Hip, 02 October 2023 - 11:32 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

That's laughably wrong! All the communitarian countries did spectacularly well in stopping COVID and greatly reducing death numbers. Their policies worked amazing well. Surely you must know this?

 

The communitarian countries had death rates around 10 times less than the liberal Western countries. Why? Because the communitarian populace followed the government's rules and restrictions. Whereas in the the liberal Western countries, lots of people flouted the rules.  

 

So the moral of the story is that liberalism and libertarianism are the greatest enemies when fighting a pandemic. 

 

In times of a pandemic, "me, me, me" libertarianism is a nation's ticket to mass death. 

 

 

What the communitarian countries teach us is that the pandemic policies do work extremely well — provided the populace is public spirited enough to follow them. 

 

Don't know Hip.  Here in San Diego, we had good vaccine compliance, & were masked to the max.  Indoor and outdoor mask mandates, stay at home orders, outdoor dining & Gov Newsom recommending we wear a mask while eating and lower it just to put food in our mouths, raising it to chew & swallow.  

 

We had a guy who got arrested for taking his kayak out onto the bay all alone, in violation of stay at home (except for essential services) order.  

 

Omicron swept through like a Canadian forest fire.  It seemed everyone had it by Easter 2022.  Hard to imagine how it might have been worse.  

[Florin]

The communitarian countries had death rates around 10 times less than the liberal Western countries. Why? Because the communitarian populace followed the government's rules and restrictions. Whereas in the the liberal Western countries, lots of people flouted the rules.

 
I doubt it. As I mentioned before:
 

Australia and NZ aren't that communitarian and did just as well.
 
But a lot of these pandemic superstar countries seem to have way more cases and that might mean more long covid.

The closing of borders is a better explanation than compliance.

[Hip]

 I doubt it. As I mentioned before:

 

Actually, the Australian population was pretty cooperative and compliant with their government's pandemic restrictions and regulations, following rules such as mask wearing and lockdowns without question, as this article details. Whereas many in the US and Europe took a rebellious libertarian approach, blatantly flouting the rules. 

Edited by Hip, 03 October 2023 - 04:01 AM.

[Florin]

Actually, the Australian population was pretty cooperative and compliant with their government's pandemic restrictions and regulations, following rules such as mask wearing and lockdowns without question, as this article details. Whereas many in the US and Europe took a rebellious libertarian approach, blatantly flouting the rules. 

 

Not as compliant (except with a little more work-from-home) as Spain's population. And look what happened to Spain.

 

Again, what probably mattered the most was the early and complete border closure (and the quarantines that went along with it). And when the quarantine sometimes failed, track and trace. But without closing the border, you'd get Spain. All of this was top-down policy and had little to do with the compliance or communitarianism of the population.

 

https://today.yougov...-avoid-covid-19
https://ourworldinda...mobility-trends

Edited by Florin, 03 October 2023 - 07:24 AM.

[Mind]

Not as compliant (except with a little more work-from-home) as Spain's population. And look what happened to Spain.

 

Again, what probably mattered the most was the early and complete border closure (and the quarantines that went along with it). And when the quarantine sometimes failed, track and trace. But without closing the border, you'd get Spain. All of this was top-down policy and had little to do with the compliance or communitarianism of the population.

 

https://today.yougov...-avoid-covid-19
https://ourworldinda...mobility-trends

 

 

This is obvious. You will see from the data that island nations like New Zealand (and other Pacific islands), that could easily keep people out and close the border, were able to stave off the initial waves of COVID. Eventually, they opened up and COVID spread, just like everywhere else in the world. NPIs didn't do anything.

 

China claimed to keep COVID at bay, however, they were constantly (every week or so) locking down a different city where COVID was detected. When NPI tyranny swept through Shanghai, people finally said enough and were calling for the ouster of dictator Xi, the "zero COVID" policy ended the very next day, as if nothing had happened.

 

New Zealand wouldn't even allow their citizens trapped abroad to travel back home. How many years do you think they could close their people off from the world and separate families?

 

In addition, the difference in COVID rates/cases/fatalities can easily be explained through other factors like health status. The US is the most sedentary obese nation on earth and it has been proven through multiple peer-reviewed studies that obese and unhealthy people suffered worse from COVID. If you look at state by state stats in the US you will also find that the most obese states had worse COVID outcomes.

 

South Korea had one of the highest NPI compliance rates in the world yet they also have the highest percentage of their population infected with COVID in the developed world.

 

If the NPIs were a huge success (they were an utter failure), health bureaucrats would be touting their success. Instead, in country after country, politicians and health bureaucrats are denying that they ever forced people to follow NPIs. They are lying to the public in order to not get the blame for the disaster that was the response to the COVID panic. Seeing so many leaders deny their role in the NPI disaster should be a huge clue that the NPIs didn't work.

[Hip]

You will see from the data that island nations like New Zealand (and other Pacific islands), that could easily keep people out and close the border, were able to stave off the initial waves of COVID. 

 

Certainly it helps if you are an island nation and are willing to control your borders, as New Zealand was; this may give you an advantage in reducing COVID deaths. 

 

However, some of the communitarian countries are island nations, whereas others are not. Non-island communitarian countries include Hong Kong, Singapore, China and South Korea. These all had far lower COVID deaths per capita, even though they are not islands. 

 

Also nations like Malaysia and Vietnam are fairly communitarian, and all did a lot better than the West in terms of total deaths per capita, even though they are not island nations.

 

And note that being an island nation did not help the UK, which had COVID death rates similar to the US. The UK of course is a highly liberal and individualist nation, just like the US. European countries such as France and Germany, which are more communitarian than the UK, all faired better during the pandemic, even though they are not islands. Italy did just as badly as the UK, and Italy is a pretty individualist nation too. 

 

 

There is a definite correlation between lower deaths per capita, and nations whose populace cooperated with the pandemic restrictions imposed by their governments. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 03 October 2023 - 08:05 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The communitarian countries had death rates around 10 times less than the liberal Western countries. Why? Because the communitarian populace followed the government's rules and restrictions. Whereas in the the liberal Western countries, lots of people flouted the rules.  

 

What did the people in the communitarian countries do that was responsible for this?

 

Wear masks? We now know that the sort of masks that people were actually wearing were doing about as close to nothing as possible.

 

Everything else - mainly locks downs and the canceling of all public gatherings were not done because people had such a civic minded communitarian attitude. Not at all. They were done under the threat of legal consequences. Did people stay locked in their dwellings because they had such warm communitarian feelings towards their fellow citizens, or because they'd be locked up in the hoosegow (that's prison for all you non-Americans  ) if they ventured outside? 

 

So, was it the more communitarians countries or was it the more draconian countries? There certainly may be arguments for both interpretations.

 

In any case, as others have pointed out a lot of those successful "communitarian countries" also happened to be the countries closed their borders very early and enforced extensive contact tracing and testing. Was it their "one for all and all for one" attitudes of their populations, or was it the very stern measures (which someone like myself would call a significant curtailing of civil liberties) that some of those government took?

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 03 October 2023 - 09:12 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

However, some of the communitarian countries are island nations, whereas others are not. Non-island communitarian countries include Hong Kong, Singapore, China and South Korea. These all had far lower COVID deaths per capita, even though they are not islands. 

 

 

 

China?

 

Does anyone believe the infection and death numbers out of China? I don't. I remember watching the death toll rise to about 80k very early in the pandemic and then absolutely flatlining.  That. Did. Not. Happen.

 

China routinely puts out false numbers on all sorts of metrics, and the covid epidemic was no exception. 

 

Here's a hint:

 

Q: How do you tell when a Chinese Communist Party official is lying? 

A: His mouth is moving.

[Hip]

So, was it the more communitarians countries or was it the more draconian countries? There certainly may be arguments for both interpretations.

 

That's irrelevant to the argument here. The communitarian countries are strict, and punitive against citizens who flout social norms. That's how you achieve good behaviour, by being strict. 

 

Singapore for example has strict laws on littering, and fines for littering are $1000 for the first offence, and then increase further. (I wish we had such strict litter laws in the UK, because the filth on the streets on my part of town is outrageous, and it is depressing to see so much litter). Chewing gum is illegal in Singapore, because spent gum on th ground makes the pavements look horribly dirty, making a permanent black patch on the paving stones. 

 

So in communitarian countries where people are culturally expected to do the right thing, we find that COVID deaths per capita are 10 times less than in super liberal Western countries where people have the freedom to do whatever they want. 

 

 

Remember, the argument here is whether policy measures to fight COVID work. And we clearly see these measures do work extremely well in countries where people actually strictly follow those measures. Whereas they don't work so well in loutish nations like the UK and US, where a lot of the populace are too uncivilised to do the right thing.

Edited by Hip, 03 October 2023 - 11:40 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

That's irrelevant to the argument here. The communitarian countries are strict, and punitive against citizens who flout social norms. That's how you achieve good behaviour, by being strict. 

 

Singapore for example has strict laws on littering, and fines for littering are $1000 for the first offence, and then increase further. (I wish we had such strict litter laws in the UK, because the filth on the streets on my part of town is outrageous, and it is depressing to see so much litter). Chewing gum is illegal in Singapore, because spent gum on th ground makes the pavements look horribly dirty, making a permanent black patch on the paving stones. 

 

So in communitarian countries where people are culturally expected to do the right thing, we find that COVID deaths per capita are 10 times less than in super liberal Western countries where people have the freedom to do whatever they want. 

 

 

Remember, the argument here is whether policy measures to fight COVID work. And we clearly see these measures do work extremely well in countries where people actually strictly follow those measures. Whereas they don't work so well in loutish nations like the UK and US, where a lot of the populace are too uncivilised to do the right thing.

 

I think something you don't get Hip is that some of us don't want to live in a country ruled by the Iron Fist that you seem to prefer, even if that country is seemingly more safe and secure.

 

I know I don't.

 

 

[Hip]

In addition, the difference in COVID rates/cases/fatalities can easily be explained through other factors like health status. The US is the most sedentary obese nation on earth and it has been proven through multiple peer-reviewed studies that obese and unhealthy people suffered worse from COVID. If you look at state by state stats in the US you will also find that the most obese states had worse COVID outcomes.

 

Obesity rates could be an important factor in the amount of COVID deaths.

 

In the US 36% of people are obese, whereas in Japan on 5% are obese. Ref: here. 

 

Japan of course famously made obesity illegal, which helps keep their obesity levels low. 

[Hip]

I think something you don't get Hip is that some of us don't want to live in a country ruled by the Iron Fist that you seem to prefer, even if that country is seemingly more safe and secure.

 

Well that is a different issue. Many people get used to their particular way of life, especially once they get older, and may not want to change it for something different and unfamiliar.

 

In the UK and US, there is a strong culture of individual freedom and right to self determination, and once you are brought up with such freedoms, you may not want to give them up, even if offered a place to live with much higher levels social order, harmony and low crime.

 

Conversely, people from communitarian countries who are used to social order, community harmony and low crime rates might find it disconcerting to move to a country rife with crime and social strife.

 

I admit I like the personal freedoms afforded to me by virtue of living in the UK. However, I also find it depressing to see so many social problems in Britain — problems which arise from those very freedoms. 

 

 

I am sure you know the wise philosophical school of thought which states that true freedom actually comes from being disciplined and subscribing to a set of guiding rules, rather than being self indulgent and disinhibited. I see the West's increasingly liberal self-indulgent individualism as a form of imprisonment, rather than the freedom it purports to give. I think the West has gone too far towards self-indulgent individualism, and as a result, we are all becoming lesser characters, less human, and with less freedom of spirit than previous generations who were more disciplined.

Edited by Hip, 04 October 2023 - 01:36 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

I am sure you know the wise philosophical school of thought which states that true freedom actually comes from being disciplined and subscribing to a set of guiding rules, rather than being self indulgent and disinhibited. I see the West's increasingly liberal self-indulgent individualism as a form of imprisonment, rather than the freedom it purports to give. I think the West has gone too far towards self-indulgent individualism, and as a result, we are all becoming lesser characters, less human, and with less freedom of spirit than previous generations who were more disciplined.

 

I think you have a misunderstanding of this line of philosophical thought. The idea is that true freedom comes from self discipline and self denial, not having discipline or denial imposed on a person externally, particularly via some generally capricious and arbitrary government. That is not the route to true freedom.

 

I don't mean this as a insult, merely an observation - but you really do seem to have a fondness for the totalitarian impulse. I see it show up time after time in your postings. You really think that "the masses" need to know their place and follow the dictates of "their betters".  I think you envision some sort of society composed mainly of compliant "worker bees". 

 

I think that would be an intolerable state of being if "their betters" really were that much better. But they are so often either just flat out wrong or driven by their own self interest that I find the whole idea to be ludicrous. 

 

Yes, it would be great if more people in the West practiced self discipline - but the paradox is you can only try to inculcate that into the culture, you can't force people to have self discipline. The idea that society should inculcate self discipline in the culture has in fact been actively discouraged for generations now. Most of the cultural institutions that used to try to infuse these values have been eviscerated over the last 40 or 50 years. You can't actually have the government impose self discipline on the population. The government can only cower the people into compliance. Which is in fact the opposite of freedom.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 October 2023 - 03:52 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

BTW - for what it's worth Hip I can tell you from personal experience, over 50 years of iron fisted rule by the communist in Mainland China did not infuse self discipline into the Chinese people. It is very much "every man and woman for themselves" there. In fact, it more or less did the opposite of creating a "communitarian spirit".

 

 

[Hip]

I think you have a misunderstanding of this line of philosophical thought. The idea is that true freedom comes from self discipline and self denial, not having discipline or denial imposed on a person externally, particularly via some generally capricious and arbitrary government. That is not the route to true freedom.

 
I understand it very well. The discipline imposed is always by an external source. The self discipline comes from your agreement to follow that that external source. For example, there is a mental and physical discipline involved in the martial arts, which is a set of dictates from an external source. By adopting that discipline, you find freedom within the framework the discipline provides. Same can be said of people adopting the discipline and rules of a given religion. 
 
 
 

but you really do seem to have a fondness for the totalitarian impulse. I see it show up time after time in your postings. You really think that "the masses" need to know their place and follow the dictates of "their betters".  I think you envision some sort of society composed mainly of compliant "worker bees". 

 

I am just the messenger, a messenger who is perhaps ahead of the curve (or so I like to believe). More authoritarianism is the way the world is currently headed. 

 

In case you have not noticed, there is a whole grass roots groundswell movement towards more authoritarianism. The populace is voting people in who promise to bring more authority. Yes, the liberals are fighting against this groundswell movement, but we see throughout the West that the public is voting for more muscular authoritarianism (especially the ordinary man and women; which is in contrast to the liberal intellectual elite, who abhor any imposed rules or authority that hinder personal choice and freedom).

 

I like to think that there is a a universal unconscious that permeates society (as Carl Jung postulated), and within our collective psyches, we desire more authority and discipline. I think this universal unconscious of mankind is self regulating, and when our culture moves too far into one direction (in this case extreme liberal personal freedom and individualism), the universal unconscious comes up with a counter balance, in the form of a grass roots movement which spontaneously organises. 

 

Ever since the liberal revolution of the 1960s, society has been swinging towards more and more personal freedom and individualism. I think what we are seeing now in the world is the beginning of the swing back to more conservative authoritarianism. 

 

As I say, I am picking up on this movement, and just articulating it. But it is not my idea: the idea comes from the collective pyche of all humanity, the universal unconscious.

 

So in the US you have Trump (with all his many faults), you have the repealing of the Roe vs Wade abortion laws. These are signs of the tide changing. In Europe you have the Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, who is working effectively to bring back conservative values. In France you have Le Pen waiting in the wings. In the UK we had Brexit.

 

And all these people or events are voted in, so this is not a conservative authoritarianism imposed from above, but one clearly desired by the people. It's the universal unconscious re-ordering our society.

 

Edited by Hip, 04 October 2023 - 05:15 PM.

[Hip]

BTW - for what it's worth Hip I can tell you from personal experience, over 50 years of iron fisted rule by the communist in Mainland China did not infuse self discipline into the Chinese people. It is very much "every man and woman for themselves" there. In fact, it more or less did the opposite of creating a "communitarian spirit".

 

You are taking things to extremes. In the West thankfully we have democracy, which allows society to self regulate in an effective manner. Democracy is really a mechanism which places the universal unconscious of humanity in command. 

Edited by Hip, 04 October 2023 - 05:19 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

You are taking things to extremes. In the West thankfully we have democracy, which allows society to self regulate in an effective manner. Democracy is really a mechanism which places the universal unconscious of humanity in command. 

 

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. "Authoritarianism is the wave of the future" and "thankfully we have democracy".

 

You'll have to trust me on this - but those are mutually exclusive.

[Hip]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. "Authoritarianism is the wave of the future" and "thankfully we have democracy".

 

You'll have to trust me on this - but those are mutually exclusive.

 

No they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Just go back to the 1950s in the West, where there were more rigid social structures, more authoritarian governments, and moral authoritarian moral and religious frameworks. But we still had democracy then. 

[Daniel Cooper]

No they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Just go back to the 1950s in the West, where there were more rigid social structures, more authoritarian governments, and moral authoritarian moral and religious frameworks. But we still had democracy then. 

 

This is simply wrong, at least in the US.

 

People were more civic minded in the 1950s. Were the social structures more rigid? Certainly in the UK but in the US there was more economic and social mobility than exists today.

 

Religion was certainly a much bigger part of life in the US at that time, and did contribute to the teaching of self discipline, self sacrifice, and more social order. But of course, religion was not compulsory. That is btw one of the institutions that has been significantly degraded that did contribute social order, civic mindedness, and even your "communitarianism" that you're so fond of.

 

But, the government in that era was *not* more authoritarian in general. The average American had little interaction with his government and generally went about his life with far less interference from it than we have today.

 

You simply can not have an authoritarian government and democracy at the same time. You will have one or the other. If the people democratically vote to do something against the wishes of the authoritarian government - one will win and the other will lose. Then you'll find out which you have.

[Hip]

You simply can not have an authoritarian government and democracy at the same time.  

 

By the definition of the word authoritarian, you cannot have an authoritarian government and democracy at the same time. Sure.

 

However, I used the phrase "more authoritarian" rather than the absolute term authoritarian. Things are not black and white, and there is a spectrum of government and societal strictness which runs from authoritarian on the one side, to liberal or libertarian on the other. 

 

What I am saying is that in the world at the moment, the tide is changing, and we are beginning to shift towards more authoritarian. Just how far we go towards authoritarianism remains to be seen. It's conceivable that as the tide picks up speed in the coming decades, some Western countries will even see a breakdown of democracy, and enter into true single party authoritarianism. This has happened before, for example in Franco's Spain.

 

Other Western countries may retain their democracy, but society and government will become stricter. 

 

 

 

There are all sorts of indications that we are headed for a stricter climate. For example, the MeToo movement. Some people think MeToo is about feminism, and others feel MeToo sometimes has an anti-man vibe. However, I see MeToo differently: I think MeToo is the beginning of a new phase of sexual puritanism. The 1960s ushered in the sexual revolution, contrasting sharply to the sexual constraints and puritanism of the 1950s. I think MeToo is part of the thin edge of the wedge which may move us back to more sexual constraint. 

 

The one thing history tells you is that values come and go in cycles. For example, sometimes we live in sexually promiscuous eras (1920s, 1960s), other times we live in more sexually puritanical eras (Victorian times, 1950s). And this applies to all values. So we live in very liberal and free times at present, but it is looking like we are going to oscillate back to stricter times. 

Edited by Hip, 04 October 2023 - 07:53 PM.

[Hip]

But, the government in that era was *not* more authoritarian in general. The average American had little interaction with his government and generally went about his life with far less interference from it than we have today.

 

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". 

 

You cannot get a more communitarian dictum than that. 

[Daniel Cooper]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". 

 

You cannot get a more communitarian dictum than that. 

 

That was what we call over here (and maybe over there) "a bromide". And that was an invocation - it wasn't actually backed up by any force of law.

 

We now live in a world where the government is attempting to control which pronouns you use. A state in the US (California) is in the process of passing (or has already passed) a law of taking away custody of your child if they declare themselves transgendered and you don't consent to gender affirming care (puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, "top" surgery, etc). Even if they are quite young, like one case with an 8 year old.

 

I'd say that's a bit more authoritarian than a simple slogan from what amounted to a campaign speech.

 

And here's a long time observation of mine - There exists a certain type of person that sits in the comfort of a relatively free and open Western society that pines for the authoritarian control and decision making they see in other countries. "Why look at those people, they know how to get things done!". 

 

And yet, they choose to continue to live in their relatively open and free Western societies and never move to those countries.

 

Just a passing observation.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 October 2023 - 02:57 AM.

[Hip]

We now live in a world where the government is attempting to control which pronouns you use.

 

Thanks for bringing up the crazy world of transgender issues. In doing this, you are arguing my points for me. 

 

The reason we currently live with the crazy transgender ideas that are propagated by aggressive trans activists is precisely because we live in society where there is no authoritative backbone. We presently live in an authority vacuum. When authoritative Christian values ruled out society back in the 1950s, you would not have had people going around making ludicrous and unscientific claims that "trans women are women". 

 

But because we presently live in a world with very little backbone of authority, nowadays anything goes. Once you create a vacuum of authority, it invites people to make up and promote any old shit. 

 

So thanks for arguing for my point of view. 

Edited by Hip, 05 October 2023 - 04:04 AM.

[Hip]

That was what we call over here (and maybe over there) "a bromide". And that was an invocation - it wasn't actually backed up by any force of law.

 

I would have to disagree there. Society was run very differently in the time of JFK, and back then, people did act more for the greater good.

 

For example, President Kennedy had a whole string of extra-marital affairs, which all the Whitehouse journalists knew about, but these salacious stories were NEVER once printed in the press; they were not even hinted at in the newspapers.

 

Why was that? Why did those journalists keep Kennedy's affairs quiet?

 

Because those journalists considered it more important to maintain the moral decorum of the nation than to print salacious articles about JFK's many lovers. 

 

That would never happen today. Journalists today would not give a damn about the negative impact their articles might cause. Just look at what happened to Clinton in the case of the Monica Lewinsky affair. 

 

But back in JFK's time, journalists, politicians and everyone else were all in cahoots to maintain the appearance of moral standards (even if the reality behind the scenes was different). 

 

So this shows that there was a strong overarching authority to governance in the time of JFK, with everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, journalists and politicians alike, all working with a common goal. 

Edited by Hip, 05 October 2023 - 04:26 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I would have to disagree there. Society was run very differently in the time of JFK, and back then, people did act more for the greater good.

 

For example, President Kennedy had a whole string of extra-marital affairs, which all the Whitehouse journalists knew about, but these salacious stories were NEVER once printed in the press; they were not even hinted at in the newspapers.

 

Why was that? Why did those journalists keep Kennedy's affairs quiet?

 

Because those journalists considered it more important to maintain the moral decorum of the nation than to print salacious articles about JFK's many lovers. 

 

That would never happen today. Journalists today would not give a damn about the negative impact their articles might cause. Just look at what happened to Clinton in the case of the Monica Lewinsky affair. 

 

But back in JFK's time, journalists, politicians and everyone else were all in cahoots to maintain the appearance of moral standards (even if the reality behind the scenes was different). 

 

So this shows that there was a strong overarching authority to governance in the time of JFK, with everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, journalists and politicians alike, all working with a common goal. 

 

The thing you're not getting here is that yes - people had different attitudes and different actions 60 years ago.

 

But to the extent people acted for "the greater good" they did so because they wanted to. They were not compelled to do so by one of these authoritarian (or authoritarian "lite") governments you're so fond of.

 

Why were they more civic minded? Why did they want to act for the greater good?

 

Because they lived in a society that they believed to be good and worthy of being promoted. To be worth the effort. They believed that because every major institution they interacted with as they grew up told them so. The schools. Civic organizations like the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. And the Churches.

 

This has not been the case in the West for generations now. In fact, the exact opposite has been taught. Commonly in the West, certainly in the US, kids in school are taught that Western civilization is particularly evil. Unusually evil. More evil than the norm in the world.

 

So who on earth would want to act "for the greater good" of a society and a culture that they have been taught since kindergarten is horrible and evil? Is it any surprise that few are interested in being civic minded in a society that they believe to be thoroughly corrupt?

 

So you want more "communitarianism" in the West? You want more acting for the greater good? More civic mindedness? You don't need an authoritarian government. All you need to do is tell children that they live in a society that on the whole compared to the vast sweep of history is "good", is worth preserving, and is worth promoting. Or at least, stop telling them the exact opposite.

 

Maybe there is one aspect of authoritarian governments that gives them the leg up here - every authoritarian government that has ever existed has told it's citizens that their culture, their society is the best that has ever existed. The Chinese CCP certainly does not wring it's hands and endlessly regurgitate the sins of their own people (which I might add are many). They are not indoctrinating their children with how they should be ashamed of their people and their history.

 

In none of the Asian countries - even the ones that aren't particularly authoritarian - is it the case that in government run institutions like their schools are they telling their children how horrible their country is and what a shameful history they have.  The South Koreans don't do that. The Taiwanese don't do that. The Japanese don't do that. No, this fetish for running down one's own country is particular to the West and has only occurred in the last couple of generations.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 October 2023 - 12:43 PM.