
A Sick Giant - dsalzman
https://waitbutwhy.com/2020/01/sick-giant.html
======
AlphaWeaver
I've been reading Tim Urban's writing for a while. One of the most valuable
things in his writing isn't originality, but delivery.

He might not be coming up with original ideas (he regularly references the
research he consulted to form his writing) but he _does_ do a great job of
breaking down complex ideas into a form that's easily digestible.

The first several chapters of this series (worth a read, even if it's the only
thing you read this year) are devoted entirely to building the vocabulary
needed to discuss these concepts. He works hard to help build a mental model
for the reader, which makes his writing significantly more accessible to the
average human.

~~~
WillDaSilva
I think that breaking down the concepts is also helpful for Tim, as well as
anyone who's trying to wrestle with complex ideas, in addition to the
audience. Making sure your concepts are well-defined and clear is key to
building them into something greater. So many flawed ideas are flawed because
they're built off of a shaky foundation. Unfortunately analyzing those
foundational ideas critically is difficult. I've found that writing essays
helps force you into doing the hard work, but it's very time consuming.

~~~
AlphaWeaver
I agree with this! I recently had the opportunity to write an outline / script
for a TEDx talk, and I found it clarified my ideas _significantly._

------
robbrown451
He makes plenty of good points, but completely fails to make mention of how
plurality voting (also known as "first past the post") results in two dominant
parties, rather than electing people who represent the preference of the
median voter. This is known as Duverger's Law, and I would argue it is about
90% responsible for everything he speaks of.

Voting systems that don't do this exist. Approval voting is one of the better
ones (unfortunately, Ranked Choice voting doesn't do much at all to alleviate
this). Approval voting has been enacted in Fargo, ND and is being considered
for St. Louis, MO.

The charts he included show that there actually is a reasonable middle ground
and lots of voters are there. The problem is that candidates that are in the
middle can't get elected. Imagine how different things would be if our
election system tended to elect the first choice of the median voter.

~~~
rezendi
I'm a fan of single transferable voting, but the claim that FPTP is
responsible for America's politics does not seem well borne out by the
evidence. As the Wikipedia article on Duverger's Law notes: "In practice, most
countries with plurality voting have more than two parties." The USA is very
much an outlier here. Even if there remained only two _dominant_ parties, a
significant third party like the NDP in Canada, or the Liberal Democrats in
the UK, would reshape congressional politics very significantly.

~~~
unsupported
I think the reason why US has two parties is that most States apply FPTP at a
district level, but then also have a winner-takes-all at State level based on
the districts result. So one district selects one party, and then the State
gives all its N votes to the majority party among districts, selecting N
people of the same party. UK only has FPTP at constituency (district) level.
So one constituency selects one person (one MP belonging to one party).

In UK when voting you have to chose among the top two parties _in your own
constituency_ in order to have a chance to get the MP you want rather than
throwing your vote away. Votes distribution at national level doesn't really
count from the voter point of view.

In US when voting you have to chose among the top two parties _in your own
State_ because if your district picks a third party and no other district
does, your whole district vote is thrown away. Votes distribution at State
level really counts from the voter point of view.

~~~
fireflies_
It isn't thrown away, though. If your district picks a third party, you send a
third party representative to Congress. You'll have different choices in
district-specific and state-wide races but you could also have a third party
senate candidate and no realistic third party house candidates (for example
Maine in 2018, though they had ranked choice voting). I don't see how having
multiple levels of elections changes things beyond larger populations making
it harder to coordinate outside the parties.

~~~
unsupported
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing out my misunderstanding of US
elections.

So what is the main difference? size of districts (constituencies) by a factor
of ~10? Gerrymandering?

------
mntmoss
I basically disagree with this formulation on the grounds that it does not
sufficiently respect political opinions as being reflective of self-interest;
these opinions are often a result of not just consistent messaging but
tangible incentive.

It's much more straightforward to view the public politics and culture as a
primarily top-down construction: "let's make these groups more upset at each
other; let's make these other groups reconcile". This decision, made for cold
reasons of accumulating power for oneself and immediate cronies by herding
public opinion, subsequently filters down through the system via funding
grants, access to information, and the occasional revolving-door or literal
kickback. It gets amplified because job holders and job seekers spot the
opportunities and threats awaiting them through a simple agreement or
disagreement: they therefore start conducting themselves accordingly in "the
way of the times", taking up the causes of the powerful with a bare minimum of
overt messaging, hoping that they have backed a winning horse. This scramble
happens across a broad range of industries, at many levels of the career
ladder, and in seeking friends and relationships. There is a lot at stake in
having "right opinions," in fact. The way in which the country seems to "come
apart" or "come together" on issues is therefore most reflective of
disagreements at the top, and produces a four-year cycle in a political-
cultural feedback loop tied to electoral results: the politics become the
culture, disseminate through media, and in turn inform the politics of the
next cycle.

The wedge that breaks the cycle, on an individual, issue-by-issue level, is
good storytelling. Stories have the power to change self-narrative towards a
direction independent of the structural narrative, and their fulfillment
generally comes with some way of overcoming structural forces.

But as for why there's the specific conflict we're experiencing today, it's
pretty simple: it's a local vs global conflict; when you globalize, there are
some "powerful losers" at the local level. And so the narrative has been a
competition of these interests, proxied through various parties and
institutions.

~~~
scythe
I don't think that most political questions pit people's _actual_ self-
interests against each other. The biggest exception of course are some
policies like affirmative action where the lines of self-interest are obvious.
But for many other issues e.g. drug policy and climate change there are a
great deal of _factual_ misconceptions driving policy by causing people to
think their self-interests lie other than where they are. Engaging the
rational mind is usually considered important in dealing with this situation
because it does better with facts.

------
bambataa
I have enjoyed WaitButWhy articles in the past but with this new series the
author seems to have spent a huge amount of time, energy and words coming up
with ideas that aren't that new. I keep skimming through them waiting to find
the big point.

~~~
capableweb
I think to gain anything from long form articles, you need to read and
consider what's being written, rather than skimming, looking for the holy
grail.

~~~
wayoutthere
What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an
overwhelming feeling of _no shit sherlock_ when reading this -- yes, it's
obvious our media is polarized, for obvious reasons.

I'm going to guess his next chapter is about how money ruined the media and
politics, which is "why you shouldn't write about these things" \-- because
the people with the loudest voice have the most to gain from the polarization
of the media. Again, this is pretty obvious. The loudest voice becomes the
only one you hear in an echo chamber.

It was insightful the first time I read it from Socrates and Aristotle. But at
this point it should be common knowledge for anyone interested in philosophy
(literally: the study of knowledge).

~~~
mistermann
> What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an
> overwhelming feeling of no shit sherlock when reading this...

As far as I can tell, other writings on the topic haven't had any noteworthy
effect in rectifying the problem.

Do have any insights on what we should do about the situation?

~~~
robbrown451
I do. Get rid of First Past the Post voting and replace it with something like
Approval voting.

As it is, candidates in the middle can't get elected. Two dominant parties is
an entirely predictable result of FPTP voting. Approval voting (or ones that
tend to elect the Condorcet winner, which also should be the first choice of
the median voter) would solve 90% of the problems cited in this article.

~~~
atq2119
I suspect that proportional representation is even more important to
establishing a multiparty system that forces cooperation rather than
polarization.

~~~
ClayShentrup
I would say almost the opposite.

[http://asitoughttobe.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/score-
voting/a...](http://asitoughttobe.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/amp/)

------
vearwhershuh
This is a long and interesting article that, because it is attempting to
preserve the system, ultimately misses the mark:

 _My obsession over the past three years has been trying to figure out how our
national immune system works, where it draws its strength from, and how we can
get it working again._

There is no national immune system because there is no nation. The US has
never been a nation. It was a loose amalgamation of many nations on a huge
continent under a commercial republic, then a warring set of nations, then an
oligarchic industrial powerhouse that finally matured into a
financial/military empire. All of the internal conflict we see benefits the
ruling class and, therefore, will continue and, in all likelihood, get worse.

~~~
jacinabox
Much to be made about Zizek's observation that there are false
characterizations of the problems of a situation emerging from those same
situations. Proposals are made to solve the problems that society faces, which
are broadly in agreement with the systems that produce the perceived problems,
so rather than retarding societies progress toward a certain predicted
endpoint, it actually gets society to where it was already going, quicker.

------
Nition
> I recently engaged in a fun, joint Psych Spectrum roller coaster with a
> stranger on an airplane. We were on the runway, getting ready to take off,
> and I was doing my typical “I know the flight attendant said to turn all
> phones onto airplane mode but the whole policy is really quite inane so I’m
> just gonna keep texting until we take off and I lose service” thing, and a
> woman next to me decided I was an asshole and loudly told on me to the
> flight attendant, who was busy and didn’t hear her. So I did the only
> reasonable thing—I stealthily turned my phone onto airplane mode, re-opened
> my texts, and very out in the open, started typing a long text. The woman—my
> new eternal arch-nemesis—took the bait. She saw me texting and again got the
> flight attendant’s attention, saying, “Excuse me but he’s still texting.”
> When the flight attendant asked me to turn airplane mode on, I showed her my
> phone and calmly explained that airplane mode has been on this whole time
> and I just like to get some texting out of the way during flights—texts that
> don’t send until I land and re-connect to the internet. The flight attendant
> said, “Oh then that’s totally fine—my apologies.” I replied, “that’s okay,”
> and did a little “it’s amazing how awful people can be right?” sigh. Satan
> watched the whole thing and then just sat there silently, hopefully very
> embarrassed. It was an unbelievably satisfying, triumphant moment.

Not the main point of the article obviously but man, the writer makes himself
sound like a bit of an asshole with this story. Didn't encourage me to listen
to his other opinions.

Edit: I kinda regret making this comment since I think it detracts from
discussion of the article itself, which is very thorough and thoughtful in
general. Maybe this is a meta Psych Spectrum commentary.

~~~
qub1t
Literally the next paragraph he writes:

“But that’s not what happened, because her aggressive tattletale move
immediately threw my Primitive Mind into a rage, plummeting me down the Psych
Spectrum. This banished my Higher Mind to the closet of my subconscious,
allowing my Primitive Mind to come up with a genius-yet-psychotic plan for
revenge. Which worked, and made my Primitive Mind feel deeply satisfied in a
very not-grown-up way.”

His entire point is that the average person acts like an asshole some of the
time and like a kind person some of the time, and that it is incredibly easy
to cherry-pick examples to paint someone in a bad (or good) light.

Which is exactly what you have done here, proving his point!

~~~
Nition
I'd like to think most people would act more civilized initially in that
situation. In fact the most civilized thing to do would have been to simply
follow the rules in the first place, knowing that most passengers will believe
they must be important.

~~~
Ygg2
Why? The rule is absolutely stupid, and pointless. It's about as meaningful to
airplane security as TSA. In other words, none at all.

I mean if rules say you need to report your fellow Uighurs, you should follow
them because other will?

~~~
Nition
Because it's likely to cause discomfort and negative attention from the other
passengers who will worry it could jeopardize their flight, and not using your
phone for a little while isn't a big deal. It's not so much about following a
rule or not, as just being socially responsible.

~~~
darkerside
Pantomiming the lie isn't being socially responsible

------
cjslep
There's a branch of analyzing US politics through the lens of "primitive" and
"civilized" brains that stems from Haidt's old ideas ("elephant and the
rider"), which I still to this day do not find compelling.

If part of my culture's routine every day is kicking a kitten and my society
near-violently disagrees whether it should be 2 kittens per day or just 1, and
instead of comparing cultural notes with the 10k+ other cultures of the world
(to realize this isn't normal) I spend time talking about human brain hacks
which preserves the hideous self-righteousness of my ego and my culture of
kicking kittens, then I've effectively absolved myself from personal
responsibility like a good Kantian ethicist and can keep kicking kittens
without remorse (and, _not hold anyone else accountable for kicking kittens_ )
because "My selfish lack of critical thought is forgiven because my brain is
just wired to be hacked that way, same for my peers and their brains".

Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what you expose it to, and
do the same to your peers. You are so much more than just a brain being hacked
upon.

------
ken
I skimmed this, and there's some good and interesting data and analysis here.
The one aspect that seems to be missing, by its own admission, is how this
fits in with the rest of the world. This is looking at the USA in a vacuum,
which is not without merit, but countries no longer exist in a vacuum,
especially the USA.

As mentioned in one of the last "Fun and Procrastinatey" footnotes:

> The U.S. Left has moved enough that it now matches Europe’s leftness. The
> U.S. right remains further right of most of the European Right.

Viewed globally, according to this link, the US Democratic Party only crossed
to the Left of the median party in the past 5 years. There are very few
parties in the world as far Right as the US Republican Party.

This article sounds like it's trying very hard to stay neutral and simply
point out the increased polarization. Left and Right are Blue and Red, and are
only compared to each other. It neglects to show full context: that US Left is
actually Middle, and US Right is actually Far Right.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It neglects to show full context: that US Left is actually Middle

The US Left is Left, but the US has three big factions: a very large Right
faction and smaller Center and Left factions, and he Democratic Party is an
uneasy Center-and-Left coalition, where the Center faction has been dominant
for the last couple decades but has lost some ground in the last few years to
the resurgent Left.

~~~
ken
If that’s so, it’s an even bigger USA-specific fact that was completely
omitted from this analysis.

------
fallingfrog
Very well written piece, lots of supporting data. However- it bears pointing
out the focusing on norms and compromise and mutual understanding is a
squarely _liberal_ stance. Remember the John Stewart “Rally to Restore Sanity”
which basically made the same points as the article. And unfortunately, Obama
discovered that the political right was decidedly unwilling to reciprocate any
sort of offers to compromise. So it seems that unless both sides are ready to
back down, we are stuck where we are.

------
xal
everyone on HN should read the entire series.

It's a commitment, but there is no better writing happening right now.

------
RivieraKid
I haven't read the series but it seems that political polarization is the
topic.

This is perhaps the biggest mystery I'm aware of in the world today,
especially because it's not specific to America, I'm seeing the same trends in
my country as well:

\- Extreme polarization along similar axes (conservative/liberal, urban/rural,
age, ...).

\- Outright hatred of traditional political parties.

\- Rise of populist and non-traditional politicans.

\- Distrust of traditional media, rise of low quality media (fake news in the
extreme).

There's surprisingly little discussion and research about the cause of this.
One interesting theory I recently came across is that the driver is the
process of people moving from rural to urban areas. People who make such move
are demographically distinct - more liberal for example. So over time this has
cumulative effect and leads to increasingly distinct demographies.

~~~
Enginerrrd
>(can I say more intelligent and ambitious?)

Seriously? As someone in a rural area who is not particularly deficient in
intelligence, who regularly keeps up with research and innovations in a
variety of industries, who bootstrapped my own consulting business & hired two
more employees this year, and who regularly deals with the mess created by a
regulatory situation where policy makers and voters in CA forget there are a
lot of very rural areas in this state and that a one-size-fits all approach is
actually crippling to people outside of the bay area and LA: NO. You cannot
say that.

And even being so willing to jokingly suggest it is an enormous part of the
rural/urban political divide. I'm frankly pretty incredulous to see you do
that in a post noting this very issue. The reality is, and I understand that
this seems like a hard pill to swallow for the urban elite, different people
in different places have different needs and issues.

That said, prior to your dig on rural people, I agree with everything else you
said, and I find the trend deeply troubling.

~~~
solveit
> Seriously? As someone in a rural area who is [...] NO. You cannot say that.

Sure but you're just one person out of millions. We're trying to compare
populations. And obviously the prior poster didn't mean that every rural
person who moves to a city is more intelligent/ambitious than every person who
stays, but you knew that already (note how you didn't object to more liberal,
presumably because it doesn't carry a value judgment with it and also because
it's clearly _true_ in an important sense).

I haven't seen any studies, but it is very plausible to me that people who up
and leave tend to be more intelligent and ambitious, if only because it's a
costly thing to do and income/wealth correlates with everything good.

~~~
wayoutthere
I think the definition of "intelligent" and "ambitious" will differ based on
who you ask. A lot of folks in rural areas think taking out debt to go to
school is not a very intelligent thing to do. Likewise a lot of urban dwellers
would likely say that going to college is the intelligent and ambitious thing
to do.

It really depends on your previously-held beliefs, which are only reinforced
by the echo chambers we live in.

~~~
solveit
My argument that leaving your home town is costly stands regardless of what
your definitions are. For a similar example, tall people tend to both be more
intelligent and to come from richer families because malnutrition as a child
negatively effects both height and intelligence.

You may ask if I'm not using a pedantic, irrelevant definition of correlation
that captures even tiny correlations we don't care about, but when we're
talking about politics (where swings of a few percent can reliably flip
elections), and polarisation (which is pretty much defined to be the
amplifying of small differences), I think this is very relevant.

------
neogodless
These are very long articles, and this is long chapter number ten out of
twelve. So it's hard to TL;DR with any respect to a series of articles that's
trying to TL;DR sociology, politics and polarization over the last half
century.

The gist is that we have internal struggles between survival through power
compared to thriving through critical thinking. This struggle is affected by
the people around us; amplified because being part of a group pulls us in some
ways towards survival instincts, and if we're lucky also pulls us towards
critical thinking. As groups, we kind of have the same collective struggles as
well.

The latest article uses ideas and terminology from the previous nine articles
that I've attempted to summarize in a tiny paragraph above. It goes into some
depth explaining how our country has slid, politically, from critical thinking
and having opinions slightly one way or the other off from center (a center
that has shifted over time) to having opinions grouped much further apart. Aka
polarization.

And I'm not even done reading it. I enjoy it, and I'm optimistic models like
this can help us, but I know that some people believe the models cut too many
things out. I think that's problematic, because it is a very complex issue
with a multitude of variables, and I think simplified models (and terminology)
are necessary to explore the ultimate problem and potential solutions.

------
jpm_sd
TL;DR: political polarization in the USA has measurably increased, and this is
bad for the country and its citizens.

However, some data suggest that that two-thirds of Americans fall into what
they call the "Exhausted Majority", people who are fed up with both major
parties, and politics in general.

~~~
snarf21
Especially since we live in an oligarchy but everyone still thinks in terms of
red vs blue or us vs them. It is quite the trick to misdirect blame to people
who are just like you.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I find it ironic that you respond to a comment about political polarization
increasing with a polarizing extreme of a comment...

~~~
jessaustin
There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy. It is a
prominent feature of contemporary life.

[I was tempted to respond with something _actually_ "polarizing extreme" and
thus actually "ironic", but I've been warned...]

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy.

See, you and snarf21 keep _assuming_ that we live in an oligarchy (perhaps
snarf21 more strongly than you). You keep _assuming_ that everyone can see
that. Not only can't I see it, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And I suspect
that, if you polled HN, you'd find that about 80% of people believe that we do
_not_ actually live in an oligarchy (all numbers made up on the spot with zero
statistical evidence). I refuse to allow you to just assume oligarchy as
"everyone knows, everyone can see". You don't get to assume it; you have to
prove it.

The reason I said snarf21's remark was polarizing is because, in terms of
conventional left-right divisions, the claim that we live in an oligarchy is
almost exclusively a claim of the far left.

(Disclaimer: When I claim that we do not, in fact, live in an oligarchy, I am
_not_ claiming that the rich don't have too much influence - just that they
don't have enough power to qualify as an actual oligarchy.)

~~~
jessaustin
Which is it? Do the bastards "have too much influence" or don't they? Not all
elections are decided by massive campaign contributions from the wealthy, but
lots of them are. We haven't bombed or sanctioned every nation populated by
brown people, but we've bombed or sanctioned lots of them. Real wages haven't
been stagnant forever, but they have been stagnant since 1973.

If you want to draw a line just this side of "oligarchy" and say we aren't
there yet, you can, but you've got to admit that trends are pointing in that
direction...

Let's ignore all that. ISTM you've made a basic logical error. The topic ITT
is "polarization", which is considered a bad thing. GP suggested a way to
reduce polarization, by realizing our true interests. How could it be
polarizing to suggest a way to reduce polarization?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The definition of oligarchy (I looked it up) is "rule by the few". Not "the
rich", but "the few". So: Are we ruled by the few? Not "do they have outsized
influence", but "are we _ruled_ " by the few?

I would say no.

If you think we are, then do you think that Warren's tax on the rich is just a
smokescreen that those in control are putting forth to hide that they are in
control? Or do you think that Warren will not be allowed to win? Or do you
think that, if she wins, she will never actually do what she says she's going
to do? Or do you think that the tax on the rich is really what the few want to
do? (At that point, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, because anything that
happens is what the few wanted to happen.)

~~~
jessaustin
Any analysis that relies on Warren will be "unfalsifiable". We don't have to
watch the news much to realize that they're not afraid of Warren. Is that
because they think she's fibbing about how she's going to crack down on the
1%? Maybe that's part of it, but the bigger factor is that they know Trump
won't lose to "Pocahontas". The coverage she gets is very different than what
e.g. Sanders or Gabbard get, because they're real in a way that neither Trump
nor any opponent he has faced has been.

(Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the
point about oligarchy.)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves
> the point about oligarchy.)

I don't think that it proves any such thing, except apparently in your mind.
Nor do I think that I was going "back and forth" between "the few" and "some".
The 1%, perhaps, if you accept Warren's plan as targeting them.

By the way, this oligarchy that you think rule - are they more or fewer than
the 1%?

I think that your point about Sanders is rather a large concession on your
part. You seem to be saying that "the oligarchy" are concerned that Sanders
might win, and therefore are orchestrating press coverage against him. But if
they are concerned that he might win, then they clearly don't _rule_.
Otherwise, they would have no such concern.

~~~
jessaustin
Well, they haven't assassinated him yet... you seem sort of eager to shit on
my hope. The last three presidents ran for office promising no more stupid
foreign wars. Are you trying to force me to admit that democracy in USA is a
sham?

[EDIT:] Sorry, it's clear to me now that this is what you intended with your
whole "how few is few?" routine. Clearly you _don 't_ consider it "oligarchy"
when 51% of votes are used as toilet paper.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. Please stop misrepresenting my
position and my words, trying to make it sound like they support your ideas.
They don't.

------
magwa101
Urbanization of america, that's the trend. Stick figures make it all so simple
and palatable :-/

------
jessaustin
One imagines wise boomers carefully examining the intricately arranged series
of "Media Matrices" and sagely nodding at the subtle points illuminated in
each. "Yes, I've heard of this 'Onion'; really not a very useful source of
news!" "I wonder why they didn't draw the firm who employ my favorite news
personalities here in this 'North Star' area?"

Do we really think the main problem in USA is that not enough people consume
median journalism? This veers dangerously close to an assumption that our only
real problem is that the "Fairness Doctrine" no longer protects us from
Badthink. I'd propose a different idea. _If_ there are actual problems of long
standing, e.g. myriad interminable wars or shocking incarceration rates, they
might owe their durability to the fact that few people really oppose them as
hard as some other aspects of modern life are opposed. What sort of coverage
would we predict of these problems from "the North Star"? Might that segment
of the "matrix" elide such coverage altogether? When we do hear opposition to
or even coverage of morewaralwaysmorewar or similar issues, and it comes from
kooks like TheNation or ZeroHedge, does that reinforce the marginal importance
of these issues, or perhaps does it call into question this matrix picture
altogether? What was the point of the internet, if we all ought to watch the
same news?

------
purplezooey
I quit reading this dude when his stuff got too long. Paragraphs and
paragraphs of rambling.

------
tehjoker
The liberal worldview thinks that everything is basically ok and that the
problem is that "norms" are being violated and bad information leads to
pointless conflict.

Liberals are wrong. There are fundemental structural problems with this
country and the current psychosis is the result of neither political party
addressing them while going war and profit crazy on the backs of the working
people that slave and die without improving their position.

~~~
tyri_kai_psomi
The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it
anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about
here much, for obvious reasons.

The problem is going to escape many on the left, including most people here as
well, as many people here are mostly agnostic/atheistic/anti-faith and believe
having faith is somehow anti-intellectual. The reality of the situation is the
US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of
morality, and the nuclear family and it is undeniable the evidence to support
this in our laws and constitution.

We have seen more upheaval and social change in the last 10-15 years than the
previous 50 all in the name of "progress" (never mind it is those very people
who subscribe to that "progress" that are leading the way in unhappiness,
depression, low marriage rate, low birth rate, and suicide).

There are positions now being held by major political frontrunners that are
simply not compatible with any person of faith, or any sort of compromise with
the opposite political party. There is simply no compromise to be had. The
biggest elephant in the room is abortion. My two favorite writers on this
subject are Caitlin Flanagan for a left-side perspective, and Alexandra
Descantis for a right-side perspective. Both write very thoughtfully on this
issue: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-
purged-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-purged-safe-
legal-rare-from-the-
party/2019/11/15/369af73c-01a4-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html)
[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/11/16/an_honest_abort...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/11/16/an_honest_abortion_debate_response_to_caitlin_flanagan_492615.html)

Many people call America a Christian nation. I know this will get downvoted to
hell here. I consider myself a well traveled man, and I will quote one famous
professor I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture of that rings
especially true to me: "The only country in the world that doesn't know
America is a Christian nation is America."

~~~
orf
The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright
slaughter of native Americans. By people who went to church.

This dark legacy stretches into today - the last lynching was in 1981, and
white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white
European looking Jesus, presented by millionaire preachers in mega churches
who say “just give me some money and you too can be redeemed”.

And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably espouses
the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex with a
pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and has never
read the Bible.

I’d appreciate knowing how you can reconcile thinking what you commented with
what actually happened, and how you can view a system of oppression, control
and political propaganda (USA’s brand of “Christianity”) as anything but that.

~~~
waterheater
> The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright
> slaughter of native Americans.

Actually, most founding states sought to abolish slavery when the Constitution
was being drafted. The Southern States were vehemently opposed to such action
to the point that they would not ratify the Constitution. As a compromise,
slavery was allowed, and no law could be made restricting the importation of
slaves until 1808.

Consider, though, that the importation of slaves was banned on the first day
which was legally allowed.

I think your problem is that what you refer to as "the USA" is really "the
South." The South fought hard for slavery because of economics; slaves were
cheap, and plantation owners were powerful. My view is that the powerful
Southerners who benefited from slavery created a cult which poisoned the minds
of other Southerners into believing that slaves were necessary. It takes a
long time to erase all that.

> the last lynching was in 1981

And a school district in Alabama was ordered to desegregate less than ten
years ago. What's your point? These are outliers. They don't represent the
majority view. You're cherrypicking to make things seem worse, which is
exactly what the post discusses.

> white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white
> European looking Jesus

Consider that the book (and movie) "The Shack" portrays the three parts of God
as an African-American woman, a Middle-Eastern carpenter, and an Asian woman
as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively. "White Christian America"
still ate it up. But, according to your logic, they never could have because
Jesus wasn't presented as white. Perhaps your viewpoint isn't actually correct
here.

> And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably
> espouses the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex
> with a pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and
> has never read the Bible.

Should a Muslim hate Trump? Should a Jew? Should he only be loved by athiests?
What are you saying? People are far more than their religions.

I am close to someone who does things I could and will not do in my regular
course of life. I see their lifestyle as degenerative and a coping mechanism,
and that's my damn right. Yet, I still bought them a book on their least-
harmful hobby.

People can still care and want to see others do well for themselves while
recognizing the limits of their ability to affect change. Should we hope that
Trump is a failure? That's like hoping for the bus driver you hate to crash
into a tree; if that happens, you're gonna get hurt as well.

Maybe those people just see the world from a different perspective than you.
It sounds like you're pretty "woke," but have you ever had a kind, thoughtful
conversation to genuinely understand their point of view? By mocking them in
this way, you're invalidating their opinion. But wait, isn't the left
tolerant...

~~~
orf
> Consider, though, that the importation of slaves was banned on the first day
> which was legally allowed.

None of this counters my original point. Cotton was an utterly crucial crop in
the USA's development, and the total value of all slaves was 48 times the
expenditure of the federal government, and 7 times the total value of _all_
the currency in circulation at the time (1860). I'd call that a pretty
important backbone, even if it was localized to mainly the south.

> And a school district in Alabama was ordered to desegregate less than ten
> years ago. What's your point?

My point is that the last lynching was in 1981. That's utterly ridiculous. It
only trailed off in the 1950's. Also here's a map of the lynchings[1], see a
pattern? Maybe if you overlay a map of the bible belt[2] it becomes clearer.
Love thy neighbour, right?

> Consider that the book (and movie) "The Shack" portrays the three parts of
> God as an African-American woman, a Middle-Eastern carpenter, and an Asian
> woman as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively. "White Christian
> America" still ate it up.

To quote you: What's your point? These are outliers. They don't represent the
majority view. Maybe they ate it up because it was "wacky" to see a brown
Jesus on screen. Only on screen mind you, I don't expect many of them would
want that imagery taught in churches! God forbid.

> Maybe those people just see the world from a different perspective than you.

Yeah, I expect their tax-excempt churches had a pretty fair and balanced
discussion about both sides. No wait, riling people up about abortion then
using that as a device to get people to vote your party into power, so you and
your tax-excempt gravy train can continue to benefit is far too much of a good
thing to risk. Especially by discussing how we can adapt society for the
future rather than harking back to the good, clean family-friendly past
(lynchings or not).

Everything is about control. Some people form opinions from TV, some from
church. Just because a man stands at a pulpit doesn't make his words any
different from a news anchor behind a desk. It's just unfortunate for their
followers that they support such a regressive party. And as certain segments
of the population age out and Christianity continues to shrink you'll see them
ratchet up the furor to stay in control. Control people like you.

But hey, hold your nose and vote for the candidate that was sent from god[3],
right?

1\. [https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/lynching-memorial-graphic-
ap...](https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/lynching-memorial-graphic-ap-
ps-180425_hpEmbed_7x4_992.jpg)

2\.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/BibleBel...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/BibleBelt.png)

3\. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/trump-
florid...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/trump-florida-
evangelical-rally-king-jesus)

~~~
waterheater
> I'd call [slavery] a pretty important backbone, even if it was localized to
> mainly the south.

The localization of the issue to the South is incredibly important to
consider, though. They actually seceded and became a different country for
around four years because they felt slavery was that important to their
economy. And, as another poster mentioned, the South (primarily agrarian) was
much poorer than the North (manufacturing and agrarian) and had staggering
levels of inequality compared to the North.

You say it's a "dark legacy," but what do you want to do about it? Crap all
over the country for something which was last actively practiced 150 years
ago? My ancestors were still poor farmers in Hungary at that point; they
didn't have anything to do with slavery in the US. Slavery is awful and
unjust, but don't expect me to hate others today for the injustices of the
past.

> My point is that the last lynching was in 1981. That's utterly ridiculous.
> It only trailed off in the 1950's.

Racism is learned and taught. During the Reconstruction, the South reinvented
their economy and culture, since slavery was dead and the white Southerners
had to live near the newly-freed black Southerners. Unfortunately, that
reinvention of culture included the significant perpetuation of racism.

It takes a long time to erase all that. Unless they're willing to sit and
reason, there's nothing you can do. We can, however, raise our kids right so,
with time, the racists will die off.

> Only on screen mind you, I don't expect many of them would want that imagery
> taught in churches!

Have you ever been to a majority-white Christian church in America? What about
a majority-black Christian church in America? They all sing, pray, and listen.
There's no discussion of Jesus' skin color, because that's not why they go to
church. They go because they want salvation.

> riling people up about abortion then using that as a device to get people to
> vote your party into power

> you and your tax-excempt gravy train

> good, clean family-friendly past (lynchings or not)

Ok, it's clear you're hateful toward Christians. But are you really hateful
toward all of them?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America#Beliefs)

Yes, it's possible for a liberal Lutheran to exist. Do you still hate them?
Would they hate you?

You lump white Christians together as some massive homogeneous blob, but you
just can't do that because it's not fair. Also, do you think all sermons are
just political rants? I can tell you they absolutely aren't. In fact, many
people will go to church to get away from politics.

------
alexfromapex
Very impressive research

~~~
alexfromapex
To whomever downvoted me, sorry for giving a compliment.

------
analognoise
This comes across as meandering and juvenile.

------
0x8BADF00D
This article was highly disappointing to read. No mention of how Conservatism
is effectively dead in the US (Donald “Bibi” Trump is basically a Democrat).
No discussion of Federal Reserve and how it’s contributing to inflation. The
author also seems to be a textbook narcissist given his overreaction to being
told to shut his phone off on a plane. The only thing “Giant” about this
article is this dude’s ego.

------
aazaa
Had a quick look, and can't figure out what this post is about.

The cartoon at the beginning makes it appear this is about the decline of the
US.

Then there's a bunch of meta background I don't care about.

Then this:

> 1) Seeing in 2D. Getting to know what I see as the core human struggle: the
> tension between our genes’ will to survive—a primal flame that burns
> brightly in everyone—and the human capacity to override that flame when it
> makes sense to do so, with rationality, self-awareness, and wisdom. ...

Huh? Is this written by an AI? It's an honest question.

I kept scanning looking for something - anything - concrete. Nothing.

Apparently, the author has a following, but I can't understand why.

I shouldn't need to read the last 8 chapters to figure this out. It's not my
responsibility as a reader. It's the responsibility of the writer to ensure
that when a reader jumps into a chapter, there's enough context and substance
to figure out if it's worth reading.

~~~
rictic
> I shouldn't need to read the last 8 chapters to figure this out. It's not my
> responsibility as a reader. It's the responsibility of the writer to ensure
> that when a reader jumps into a chapter, there's enough context and
> substance to figure out if it's worth reading.

What an absurd thing to say. Would you say this about jumping into chapter 9
of a book? What about part 9 of a guide to learning a new programming
language?

