This American Life really does live up to its name - its a real slice of American culture / society on any given week. I imagine its going to be a wellspring of understanding our time for future anthropologists and historians.
Well, for any future archaeologists reading this, please know that This American Life was a great show that was made for a specific audience, by a specific set of creators, and it absolutely did not represent the breadth of life in America at the turn of the 21st century. This was a common mistake: thinking a rather small niche was universal because it's what you see. It led to a lot of surprises.
I'm not on the political right, but it's plain that they don't give it equal time.
I don't expect the audience cares very much about this, though, which is sort of to OPs implied point. We've reached a place where each side of the political spectrum is not only happily ignorant of the other side's good points, but in fact, fearful of even having the discussion. If you go too far afield from the party line, you will be punished, and public radio (along with non-public radio, cable, broadcast news, and most other forms of legacy media) is a shrinking market, unwilling to alienate the core audience.
(The shorthand term for this is "audience capture", and IMO, This American Life has a death grip on a very particular sort of audience, which even if you set partisan politics aside, is representative only of itself.)
> I'm not on the political right, but it's plain that they don't give it equal time.
OP said it's a "slice", not a "statistically accurate representation". I think his intent was to say "They cover everything", not "They cover everything in due proportion".
And, BTW, I've yet to find any show (news or entertainment) that is even close to being statistically accurate representation of society. Such shows will not survive - not enough people will listen.
See my reply to the sibling comment. I don't know what a "statistically accurate representation of society" would be, nor do I hold that up as my standard here.
> Such shows will not survive - not enough people will listen.
Well yes, exactly. TAL has an editorial voice, it's clear what that voice is (even if it's difficult to describe in conventional political terms), but it's not inaccurate to say that the voice is left of center. Moreover, it must be, because that is the market for the show.
This is a good counterpoint that I hadn’t considered, honestly.
That even if a show is apolitical (or mostly apolitical like TAL), it will inherently have some political bias because the creators are inherently biased.
This will create a “niche” for the show, whether it’s intentional or not. Thanks for expanding my perspective on this.
Reminds me of a recent quote from a scientist interviewed by the NYT, who said that science is inherently political, because the system and people it’s built on are political.
Its not just about the creators bias. Any communication needs to be interpreted by sender and reciever and when that interpretation differs, communication starts to fail.
Recievers of such messages might see it as political when you speak about covid/masks, climate change, etc. no matter how hard you try to be unbiased. Unfortunately, anything can be a political symbol and you can either choose to accept their bias and avoid the symbol to stay "apolitical" or accept the "niche" you have been put into.
"99% of climatologist agree on ... yet, joining us, guru shananda, opposing it with equal air time" is a noble but net-negative attempt to address that bias.
> That even if a show is apolitical (or mostly apolitical like TAL), it will inherently have some political bias because the creators are inherently biased.
I agree, but I'd extend with one other observation: a show can be rigorously unbiased in its coverage of any particular topic, but extremely biased in the decision of what to cover. The "editorial whitespace" is almost invisible, but perhaps more important than what gets covered. If you never cover the good points of the other side, its easier to make them look like uneducated extremists.
For example, while writing one of the other comments on this thread I wondered what a "TAL for conservatives" would look like, and it started to become interesting. While I'm sure that a great many people on the right would initially react harshly to the stereotypical affectations of TAL (tinkly emo music, emotional narratives, soft speech, etc.), you could easily imagine a show where you borrowed this style, and applied it to stories about families losing their multi-generation business to overregulation, bureaucratic interactions with big government, veterans affairs, etc. It could even be quite powerful, because there's clearly a human story that drives all forms of political belief.
TAL touches on some of this, but I bet there's more than enough content to fill a TAL-sized niche on the right.
They do talk to conservatives a lot though. Many recent episodes interviewed Trump voters and sent reporters to Republican rallies to hear those "good points" from the source...
Yeah, I didn't say they never cover them. They do it -- to their credit -- and I'd even go so far as to say that they're one of the more balanced programs on public radio.
But they're still far from actually balanced. As a frequent listener, I'd characterize their overall coverage of conservatives as "a bemused, curious foreign tourist".
No, it means "balanced". You shouldn't hide the ugly parts, but you should report on the good arguments of the opposition -- as well as the ugly parts of your own team. Both the left and the right have good arguments and bad arguments, and if you don't believe that, you're misinformed.
Partisans would much rather that they only hear about the ugly parts of the opposition, and never hear about the ugly parts of their own tribe.
Meh, what was actually missing in media was accurate representation of political right goals.
Their good points are repeated all the time and their bad ppints are sanewashed. Their really bad points are ignored and you are called names when you accursately deacribe them. Until actually get their way at which point we blame the democrats for not opposing them strongly enough or for being supposed cause of backslash.
But, media and shows are afraid to show conservatives truthfully or in truly critical way.
I think TAL is pretty good about this, particularly when it comes to showing the actual fallout from various policies being implemented. And it's not strictly partisan (one of the stories I linked to in my writeup is about sex workers who were harmed by SESTA-FOSTA, which had plenty of Democratic support) or strictly negative, but obviously a lot of... serious and controversial policies have been implemented in the past few years so those get a fair bit of airtime.
In any case I think the "going and talking to real people" storytelling method is hard to beat. Just a couple weeks ago they did some stories about the immediate impacts of USAID cuts. And their episode about the "remain in Mexico" policy for asylum-seekers won the first-ever Pulitzer prize for radio reporting!
Different program but on same network, Planet Money often covers economics from the perspective of neoliberalism or establishment in short digestible episodes.
It truly is the best radio show I've heard. I've been listening on and off for over 20 years.
If you want some good episodes (do NOT read the summary on the linked pages - some contain spoilers).
The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/352/the-ghost-of-bobby-dunb...) - about a kid in the first half of the 20th century who was abducted and then returned to his family - except to this day people debate whether the kid who was returned really was the kid who was abducted, and how his descendants have grappled with the issue.
Petty Tyrant (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/419/petty-tyrant) - how a school maintenance employee rose to power by bullying. It's not so much the facts themselves but the masterful storytelling - especially near the end.
Dr Gilmer and Mr Hyde (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/492/dr-gilmer-and-mr-hyde) - about a doctor in a small town who everyone loved. He committed a heinous crime and ended up in prison. The story involves great investigative journalism on exploring why he committed the crime, and they unearthed very relevant details that were previously unknown (even to the criminal himself).
The last two episodes above were by Sarah Koenig, who you may know as the person behind Serial.
Also Rest Stop (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/388/rest-stop), where the crew spends 2 continuous days at a rest stop on the New York State Thruway, talking to both the employees and travelers.
Amusement Park (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/443/amusement-park), where they follow a bunch of teenage labor at Worlds of Fun in Kansas City, and their only slightly older boss. (Who is possibly the best boss in the history of bossing)
Serial is the best media in the world. Shit town is the best of serial. Seriously listen to it if you haven't. I once drove two hours past my destination because I didn't want to stop listening to it.
If you enjoy Serial, I highly recommend CBC's Come By Chance. It's a wonderful tale (the less you know the better) about a family mystery among small coastal villages in Newfoundland.
It's not an NPR show, although the public radio stations that carry it usually carry NPR shows as well. It was Public Radio International, then Public Radio Exchange.
Easy mistake to make. They do indeed brand their shows very prominently, making it easy to miss the distributor for those non-NPR shows that only blurb it once at the beginning and once at the end.
It only airs at certain times depending upon your local public radio station, usually on weekends so one would have to be almost a regular radio listener to catch it by accident - if you never listened to public radio at the air times on the weekends it would have been easy to miss it during its heyday. With the advent of podcasts it became more widely available but then there is a lot of competition in that media space.
I like the show but it's mostly a slice of American upper middle class who are reasonably well and educated. I don't think the writers can connect to working class people. In a sense it's the typical democrat voter
I don’t have any empirical evidence to refute you, but it connected with me as a 17 year old kid living in a mobile home in Mississippi. Almost 25 years later, and in a much different socioeconomic state, it still does.
Stories steeped in humanity aren’t biased - less confident about you to be honest.
I described myself being poor (“working class”) and not being poor any more, whatever you’re attempting to read between the lines beyond that isn’t there.
I framed my experience in contrast to the parent’s assertion, and no, I did not make any claim about universality. Be sure that not everyone loves this or any show all you want.
You’re continuing to project some sort of nonsense gotcha logic onto a straw man that doesn’t exist.
The thing that's unique about This American Life is that the star of each episode is usually someone just doing their usual job, or going through a situation.
If someone can't empathize with that, it says more about them than the show.
That's what the article goes on to describe, yes. Declining crime rates mean fewer new prisoners, but high recidivism rates plus long sentences means many old prisoners are still in prison. As those old prisoners die off or for whatever reason don't commit more crimes after release, the total population declines.
Mandatory minimum sentences can be 10, 15 or 20 years depending on the quantity of drug and other factors. Often just for possession. The US spent several decades filling our prisons with people using those sentences, and we still do, just not as aggressively.
Went to a smaller company for a short time, than ended up at FAANGs.
Epic had some nice features and it was really cool working directly with nurses and doctors. But it has some churn issues and the software sucks to use, especially with Epic's insistence on "all software built in house". While a good marketing ploy, it results in reinventing crappier wheels.
Back in college we'd buy various lab glassware from AS&S for, uh, collegiate uses of glass. Need to hold things in place and heat them with precision on a budget? This is your store.
One of the most shocking aspects of this era of history is the number of people who not only end up accidentally resembling or aligning with the bad guys of our satire and dystopian fiction, but how many of them seem to be actively and intentionally pursuing that path. It's the Torment Nexus all the way down.
That's because there are no consequences for bad behavior, only reward. Game theory dictates that if bad behavior is a winning strategy it will be adopted and propagate until it is the dominant strategy.
The only way it stops becoming a winning strategy is if we provide consequences, but that requires taking personal responsibility for the state of the world, which was a core American value, but doesn't seem to be anymore.
How do you reconcile the belief that personal responsibility is the solution with game theoretical analysis? It seems contradictory to me.
In order to change the game theoretic outcomes, we‘d need a systemic change that affects the rewards, not a personal attitude change that will become a losing strategy in the game.
Also, do you remember how tobacco companies were invited to the table to discuss whether smoking is bad for you? Were those the days of personal responsibility or was it even before that?
The point is, the self-policing is needed because there isn't a better policing mechanism outside of oneself for something so fundamental, so much at the frontier.
As the AI leaders themselves admit [1], they are doing what they're doing (i.e. capability-maxxing without caring deeply about actual risks this opens up for humanity) because they can and because the other guy's doing it, so why should they be left behind?
They're asking for some external force to bring the morality that they agree on paper ought to exist. There is a segment among them that are even okay with millions of people dying before the risk of AI gets taken seriously. [2]
I will dare say, it's a question of what happens to Mario's brother. Jury nullification in that is the best message that could be sent to the populace.
I'm pretty sure giving everyone the belief that they can murder with impunity as long as the victim is undesirable enough would be the absolute worst thing that could happen right now.
One of the dystopian traits I was hinting at in my original comment is the acceptance of mass murder as long as it occurs in the boardroom and nets an extra few cents for the shareholders. I won't defend or justify what "Mario's brother" supposedly did, but he has inflicted much less pain and death on the world than the man he is accused of shooting and I don't really think there is any room to debate that.
Hypothetically if laws lose their legitimacy because nobody is willing to enforce them (at least some people have that perception) and the political system is designed in such a way as to make any meaningful change near impossible what is there left to do?
And more generally the fundamental reason we agree to operate under laws is because these laws are expected to improve society as a whole. But if those laws instead start enabling and protecting bad behavior then they're doing the exact opposite.
It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand.
Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
>Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
It is funny to say this as if every other modern democracy hasn't solved the specific problem that you have given. The issue isn't democracy, it is the American democracy (or republic if you want to be pedantic).
Specifically, the combination of our expansive freedom of speech protections (which make campaign financing restrictions near impossible) and first past the post voting system make it easy for corporations and the rich to shape the government however they want.
This is mostly grass is greener thinking. Here [1] is a relevant poll across the EU, for instance. [1] 65% of people do not think high level corruption cases are sufficiently pursued and 57% do not think efforts against corruption are effective. And everywhere except Scandiland has a majority to vast majority that think corruption is widespread in their country.
The only place it seems to be really working is in Switzerland and in the Scandinavian micronations (notably Sweden is trending more towards the patterns of Europe than Scandinavia).
It is weird to claim it is simply "grass is greener thinking" and then point to opinion polls as if those polls won't suffer the same fate. But either way, that wasn't my point. The "specific problem" I was referring to was the example you gave of health insurers maximizing profit and the government's inability/unwillingness to reign that in. The way all those European countries have addressed that is via universal healthcare.
> The way all those European countries have addressed
They addressed by rationing and limiting access. Of course their systems are generally much more efficient cost wise. However Europe isn’t some Utopian wonderland.
And yet the US trails those European countries in most measures of quality of healthcare including access. It is clear the US pays more for healthcare and receives worse service. That doesn't mean anyone is calling Europe utopian, but the American approach to healthcare is worse by almost every objective measure.
I initially thought the greener grass reference was in relation to their own link. I wonder what a more objective measure of government corruption would be. I suspect it's not possible. The closest measure I could think of it was something along the lines of governmental efficiency, w which would include corruption, incompetence and dysfunction.
I wonder if someone could put together a Time series data on some benchmarks like the government cost to put up a stop sign.
There are groups that try to quantify this sort of stuff. According to one measure, the US was already behind most of Europe in 2024[1] and I would expect us to drop much further in the next iteration of this list.
This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for the executives of healthcare companies who violate such' and it's simply not going to happen. A handful of corporations' "lobbying" easily trumps the opinion of society.
And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
I dont think it is that easy to define "unjustified denials". People might agree on a vibe, but not detail. What would a bill look like?
Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy.
People hate change more than the status quo.
Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution.
An unjustified denial is obviously a denial that should not have been denied by the terms of your agreement with the insurance company. And we should also add delays and other anti-payment 'strategies' as criminal offenses as well. And as such behaviors would now be criminal in nature, exact offenses would determined by a jury of our peers.
It's obviously not people hating change. People want these things, and many others to change. It's a completely broken political system that is happy to change, but only when it benefits corporations or political, especially geopolitical, interests. Ranked choice won't do anything. Australia has one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world, and they have both universal voting, obviously 'Australian voting', and even a proportionally elected Senate.
No they couldn't. Getting ballot access is a huge ordeal, and then the media does an excellent job of divide and conquer by not even focusing on the issues, but instead focusing on hate, fear, misrepresentations, and so forth. Make people hate and fear 'the other side' enough and they won't dare "waste" their vote and will happily vote for somebody they don't even like, but dislike less than the alternative.
And obviously you're straw manning things. The reason people screw over other people is because they expect there will be no consequences. Whether this is some thug mugging a guy for $20 on the street corner, or a guy in a suit developing ever more novel strategies to ultimately refuse healthcare to people - it's the exact same issue. When there are consequences, the entire calculus changes.
You are externalizing all of the problems of the electorate and treating them as if they have no agency. As if every other part of the system is a clever actors, and voters are all mindless dolls with no choice in how they vote, what they read, or what they watch.
I agree consequences are a powerful incentive. If you reject updating the law, where does that leave you?
What exactly is your position? Should I go out and shoot people I disagree with or not? Are you going out and shooting people?
I don't think you really believe that edgelord fantasy. Was January 6th far too tame for your liking? How many police and politicians have you lynched?
If I have to read "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots" one more time I'm going to claw my eyes out. It is a rhetorical copout when faced with genuinely difficult of how to enact reform. Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war, let alone every generation. If internet posturing ever turns into reality, people will be in for a rude awakening.
I'd encourage you to read the entire letter alongside its context. The reason I link to the letter and not the quote is because the quote, relevant and insightful though it may be, is made exponentially more so by understanding the context in which it was said.
Here's a quiz for understanding: what did Jefferson think of the 'revolutionaries' of whose actions he's directly defending?
The tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants is true, that is literally spoken by a founder of the country and person who penned the country's founding document. It is a belief that you materially benefit from but deny. You have so much privilege but deny it's genesis.
You believe in the product of Locke's philosophy, but deny its requirements.
Tyranny is the result of consolidated power. Tyrants aren't going to respond to "please give up your power" or "please follow the law" peacefully. If you challenge power, power will respond. The freedom of speech exists precisely because saying something tyrants don't like will result in tyrants trying to punish you for your speech. Freedom of speech exists in order to protect speaking truth to power because power doesn't like truth spoken to it.
Freedom is solidarity. Solidarity is its price. The word solidarity itself is important to reflect on, because it is solidarity against a force that seeks to break the solidarity by harming individuals acting in solidarity. Labor rights and protection for freedoms were hard won, many individuals were harmed earning them. This country that you enjoy was the result of a revolutionary and civil war.
This is the language the country was literally founded on. This is where the rights you enjoy being protected come from:
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but "to bind us in all cases whatsoever" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.
> Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war
What do you think makes people fight in a war? Why are Ukrainians fighting in what, if you accept Putin's framing, is a civil war?
The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence.
You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property.
Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money.
You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law.
How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing.
Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law?
This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."
You're original false dichotomy is also condescending getting you a condescending tone. There is nobody who believes in shooting whoever you disagree with. There is nobody who supports random shootings. The post you were responding to was one almost directly laying out American founding philosophy, that we live under a consent based government.
The person you were responding to was laying down an argument that would defend the civil rights movement, that frequently acted in violation in of the law, threatened violence, and even became violent, before the descendants of people who were literally slaves (under law) were given protection by the law, protection that is still violated to this day which the black lives matter protests and contemporary driving/walking while black cases show. It took riots to see consequences for one cop extra-judicially killing a man.
Say what you want about the case in new york, but it is building consensus that we have a 2 tiered legal system that exists to protect the rich and impose order (not justice) on the poor.
Change doesn't happen only from the carrot or only from the stick, but the carrot and the stick working together. Where you are right is that destruction and being against alone will not lead to good outcomes, you have to create and be for something to have good outcomes.
If I reflect on this in relation to the national situation, you're de facto defending what is happening right now and choosing beliefs that defend this repeatedly new normal as inevitable and using magical thinking to describe how change should happen. It's magical because its easy to say what you say, but if you were to write an algorithm for what real physical humans do in real life to create change, you will quickly find out how much magic is required and how many functions you have to implement later or how many impossible things you need to be true. Russia has elections too. Believing that American elections could not be like Russian elections is pure American exceptionalism.
People with agency vote based on information, but there is an entire information economy controlled by the very rich that you deny in your other posts. Money influences votes, you have to confront the depth of what that means and you're not. You should read the dissent of citizens united.
You're right I don't know your background, but you don't seem to have internalized the founding philosophy because if you had you couldn't argue the way you argue which means either you don't have a philosophical framework to support you or you haven't really deeply thought about the things you say yourself and given them any philosophical rigor.
And yeah, I agree, there is an extremely strong analogy to the national situation, and you should reflect on which "side" you are on.
By calling the post obnoxious you haven't made me feel obnoxious, you've created the conditions to confirm my own beliefs and made yourself appear to be in denial. You haven't given me anything to critically think about my own beliefs, you've only told me that being told you're wrong and uninformed feels bad, but much like the half of America who feels condescended and chooses to be strong and wrong rather than question themselves, you will get exactly the government you deserve.
I think you see the target on your back (based on your profile) as someone who could be seen as contributing to the downfall of America and directly harming those who participate in our for profit healthcare system, and want laws to protect you while failing to realize that laws are not defending those our for profit healthcare system victimizes. Since you profit from a system that victimizes people, I can certainly see how you would see the attack as "random" since the very same logic that applied, and that some are even celebrating, could reasonably be applied to you based on your titles alone giving you a sense of insecurity that those who need healthcare feel.
I think the actor acted with conscience and since I also act in conscience I don't feel at risk. I feel more at risk from people who follow the law but don't care about justice than I do from people who care about justice but don't follow the law. America was literally built by the latter. There is no explicit relationship between justice and law other than law without justice de-legitimizes law until people reject it and choose to act on their own, meaning they choose the state of nature.
I am as white and as American as you get. I am descended from people who fought in the revolutionary war, all 16 of my great great grandparents were born here, and I would feel much much safer sitting next to the person in question than an ICE agent, and I would prefer to be in a country made of the former than the latter, and if you want to live in a free country, you should start contemplating why you must support people who hold justice in higher esteem than the law.
I am not defending the current situation, I am opposing people acting as judge jury and executioner, in the name of their own justice. Individuals going out and shooting people on the street is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society, or one that seeks to prevent sliding deeper into dysfunction. What I reject is the idea that anyone who doesn't accept your definition of justice should have a target on their back. That is not a power I will grant, even under veiled threats of death and national destruction.
I have never voted republican in my life, am appalled by the current lawlessness, and generally support healthcare reform. We should be allies with many mutual interests, but here you are making an enemy.
> Individuals going out and shooting people on the street is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society
I absolutely 100% completely agree, however you added "in a functional society" which is why that statement is true. We are not in a functional society, we are in a rapidly deteriorating one.
So why did you add in a functional society? Is it true in a non functioning society? How should people act in a non functioning society? What determines whether a society is functioning or not? Who gets to make that choice whether society is functioning or not? Was the confederacy a functioning society? Was it a functioning society for chattel slaves? Would they have been justified in using "sticks"? Are Ukrainians justified in using sticks? Why or why not?
> is not an appropriate "stick" in a functional society
> am appalled by the current lawlessness
Don't you see your own denial even a little, or how someone in good faith could interpret it that way?
> We should be allies with many mutual interests, but here you are making an enemy.
I could accuse you of the same, but I don't think you're an enemy at all, I think you're ignorant, privileged, and haven't really given your own point of view a thorough shakedown. I am not angry at you, nor do I see you as an enemy. If I did, I would treat you like rayiner, I might accidentally respond, but otherwise I would downvote flag and move on. I am sad that you are too scared to accept what is true because it makes you personally responsible for participating in building a future we want to be a part of and nobody wants to be told they are responsible especially when that message comes with personal cost. Anger is a result of feeling threatened, but sadness is a result of understanding, and I am deeply sad about the current state of things and people who should be ideological allies choosing comfort over truth.
Everyone wants a functioning government, but "nobody" wants to pay taxes or take a pay cut do be a part of it. Everyone wants labor rights and higher wages, but nobody wants to risk their job, their pay, or their "permanent record." Everyone wants to sit in the shade of the tree of liberty, but nobody wants to water it. You'll only want to fight for liberty once it's gone and by then the fight will be much much harder.
I asked so many questions and almost none of them are rhetorical. I think if you took the time to answer any of them, you would quickly run into trouble maintaining internal consistency, and I think the core of it is that you have no conception of what it takes to go from the state of nature to a consensus based lawful government because you think Locke and Jefferson were "edgelords".
The fact that such behavior might become acceptable (at least amongst a significant section of society) indicates a systemic failure in the socio-economic system. IMHO its more a of symptom. Like labor and anarchist related political violence back in the first Gilded Age back in the late 1800s.
Massively increasing inequality and giving too much political power to corporate robber barons has its costs. If nobody is willing to keep them in check the appearance of some sort of “vigilantism” seems hard to avoid. Not implying that its a good thing or that political violence really ever led to positive change historically..
We can already murder with impunity. Just get a few people together, form a company, and you can do whatever. Even crimes against humanity won’t get you in prison, probably. At worst you’ll lose some cash and be demoted to “normal person”.
How many people has UHC killed? I don’t know, it’s really hard to measure. Besides the people killed because they didn’t receive funding for care, there’s also the plethora of practices insurers enforce. Some, maybe most, of those practices are non-optimal, so some subset of people are dying that shouldn’t. Oh well.
That belief is already commonplace, and has been vigorously tested among the sex worker, queer, Black and Native communities and proven correct. I don't see why we should be any more concerned about adding "rich white men" to the pile than we are about any of the other disposable demographics in our society.
The fact that rich engineers on hacker news would be flirting with bolshevism as their ideology is just endlessly funny to me. I know it’s just people parroting the emotional “vibe” of their political tribe on any given day, but it’s so ironic.
Beyond the obvious moral decay of cheering on murder at all, and the fact you’re in the privileged class of the richest nation on earth, the idea of targeting the replaceable middle managers of said system is so silly. As if committing random acts of terrorism will somehow force Americans to democratically design a better system? Fear is just another recipe for more ballooning costs (see the TSA).
I guess I find this so amusing because leftists love to fetishize European healthcare without understanding in European countries the government is much more aggressive about denying care than any US insurer. They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
> I guess I find this so amusing because leftists love to fetishize European healthcare without understanding in European countries the government is much more aggressive about denying care than any US insurer. They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
All economic systems must contend with resource scarcity. Part of dealing with that is rationing resources which can take the form of higher prices, longer waiting lines, by need, countless other metrics, or some combination of metrics. While the current healthcare system in the US is a byzantine disaster that only a bureaucrat could love, I think far too many think there is a "solution" that somehow leads to a system without resource constraints. This imagined system isn't an economic system though, it's just a utopia.
“The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.” -- Thomas Sowell
I work in software in the US, but I am not rich, nor would I consider myself close to "the privileged class" at all. Yes, I do better than a lot of the people I know. However, this is more that they are in a poor situation. Despite being somewhat frugal and not spending (I've never been on a vacation, I cook at home, I rarely do anything that requires money), I don't have a huge disposable income. If I lost my job, I'd be on the street in less than a year.
The privileged class is significantly higher up than this. I've clawed every bit of everything I have from this world despite many efforts to keep me down.
I don't find your comment genuine at all. You're just trying to be dismissive.
> They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
That is also the case for US insurers. The only difference is if the government denies life saving treatments, people protest. If private insurers do so, people have no recourse.
In both situations you have zero recourse. In fact the US Government is less responsive to protest than US businesses are.
US healthcare is one of the most complicated systems of adverse incentives and tangled byzantine public/private spiderwebs ever created. To kill random people involved at 15 layers of abstraction away from the actual root causes thinking that will somehow make it better is probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
It's not bolshevism, it's jeffersonianism/locke-ianism and this administration is ticking away the grievances in the declaration of independence like it's a recipe.
We have a consent based government, that's plainly stated in the founding document. Now this government is doing things no person of good conscience can consent to, such as talking about wars of aggression against Greenland, Panama, and Canada, denying due process in clear violation of the constitution we were taught in school regardless of what any judge rules (and they are ruling it is a constitutional violation), and sending people to death camps in foreign countries. The leader said "I wish I had Hitler's generals".
I am being ordered to deny the evidence of my eyes and ears daily.
Unfortunately there aren't very many lessons about what withdrawing consent for a consent based government looks like.
Calling us rich benefactors is accusing us of not having morals, values, or red lines we hold in higher esteem than money. If our values are violated but we can't be bribed by our privileged position in a corrupt society then that's Bolshevism? It's having a conscience. It's having integrity. We are getting the society we deserve right now, one where money is the only thing that matters, one where integrity is punished and even judged as "endlessly funny".
There was nothing random at all about the actions being referenced, that's why you find so much support online and even more support with virtually every city dwelling person who is not a boomer in person.
I don't think it's the best way to promote change, but he did start a conversation about justice and its relationship to the judicial system that needs to be had.
The only way out is to hold executives personally responsible for the actions of their companies, and politicians for the results of their policy.
Sam Altman should receive the same treatment as Aaron Swartz. Actually, he should be punished much more severely since the scope of his copyright infringement makes Aaron's seem like child's play.
"Smaht"[1] people learn to game the system and scam others for momentary benefit.
The worse side that is that we're all guilty of that system, to some degree, even if only by enabling it.
I'm also 100% sure that this is what drives civilizations to the ground.
1. Smaht is a term I use to describe people who think they're smart but they're actually extremely stupid. A lot of smaht people have degrees and diplomas which further fuels their delusion of intelligence.
Sci-Fi Author: Inspired by human atrocities, I present to you my new novel: God Emperor of Dune.
Tech adjacent blogger: Hey guys here me out I love that we're building "starships" but it would also be spiffy if we end democracy and appoint a God Emperor!
I really wish I could know if they are earnestly cosplaying Lex Luther or if they are just deluded. Of course a good Lex Luther cosplay would involve misdirection so it’s basically impossible to know. It doesn’t really matter which one it is because the outcome is similar but it would be very gratifying to know.
As opposed to those "unaligned" communist open-source models. As a proud freedom-loving citizen of the West you wouldn't want to support those now would you?
100%, though I still feel as though open training data will eventually become a thing. It'll have to be mostly new data, synthetic data, or meticulously curated from public domain / open data.
Synthetic training data sets, even robotically-acquired real world "synthetic" data, can rapidly create training sets. It's just a matter of coordinating these efforts and building high quality data.
I've made a few data sets using Unreal Engine, and I've been wanting to put various objects on turn tables and go out on backpack 3D scan adventures.
I just finished reading "Careless People" and the tone is shockingly similar to the one Zuckerberg loved to use. It reminds me of that Silicon Valley scene where every startup wants to "make the world a better place".
As someone who is both expected to keep creating information to train AI while being stripped from the fruit of my labour by it, I find it sickening.
I first heard it on the All-In podcast, but I do see many articles/blogs about it as well. Quick note though, I mistyped CPU (and rapidly caught and fixed, but not fast enough!) when I meant GPU.
reply