4 ms·

> To state that the world in fact has gotten much better is not a "worldview". Not when you're viewing at it from a psychological perspective. For several deca

> To state that the world in fact has gotten much better is not a "worldview". Not when you're viewing at it from a psychological perspective. For several decades after WWII, you had a reasonable expectation that you would make a decent living, and that you'd be reasonably employed. These days, everything is in flux, and life expectancies in the United States actually decreased in 2015 (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/50466760...). > I acknowledge the problem, and I want a change. But not a change backwards. That's the sort of mind set I'm talking about. Increasingly, the opponents of globalism have been attacked as backwards thinking, short sighted, uneducated, and even racist. Fortunately or unfortunately, we live in a democracy, where demonizing members of the electorate doesn't help your cause.

imartin2k 10y ago
"These days, everything is in flux, and life expectancies in the United States actually decreased in 2015" Indeed. Which is why my last comment clearly states that I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. But there is plenty of empirical evidence of that nationalism and isolationism increases chances for violent conflicts in between countries (informative book about it, you might know it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...). If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? Hating the label does not mean it is wrong. That being said, it gets obvious that your response is not to me specifically but rather to who you think I represent. Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. You are apparently quite fed up and you probably have your reasons. It's my failure then that you got the impression that I belong to the "opposite" group. I don't, I try to not see things black and white. But I don't see the same from you.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth right now. One of the paths that brought us a lot of success is globalism and economic free trade. Maybe it's time for that to end. > If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? That's another example of what I'm talking about before. Maybe in previous history, that's what caused violent conflicts. But with things in a state of flux, maybe nationalism and isolationism is the answer these days. > Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. I never said you were. I did say that people who argue for more globalization and free trade do talk about the same talking points you do, about society as a whole and "the world getting better". I'm not fed up with things, I'm just wondering who you're writing to. By simply labeling thoughts and ideas as "shorted sighted backwards thinking", it makes it very easy to dismiss ideas out of hand. > But I don't see the same from you. That is simply not true. Pointing out the fact that globalism actually does cause the quality of life (in the short term and sometimes long term) of certain demographics to suffer is a true statement.
  - imartin2k 10y ago
    "You're talking out of both sides of your mouth right now." This is true. Is that a problem? Is it necessary to resort to binary thinking, which always means buying a whole package of ideologies at once just because you agree with one aspect of it? I won't do that. I actually think this is a source of a lot of evil. "That is simply not true. Pointing out the fact that globalism actually does cause the quality of life (in the short term and sometimes long term) of certain demographics to suffer is a true statement." My issue is that I agree with you on this. So I am not even sure what we are arguing about. I actually thought this got clear even in my post. But acknowledging the downside of globalization does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the way to fix the problems is to go back where we came from. Or does it for you?

imartin2k 10y ago

"These days, everything is in flux, and life expectancies in the United States actually decreased in 2015" Indeed. Which is why my last comment clearly states that I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. But there is plenty of empirical evidence of that nationalism and isolationism increases chances for violent conflicts in between countries (informative book about it, you might know it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...). If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? Hating the label does not mean it is wrong. That being said, it gets obvious that your response is not to me specifically but rather to who you think I represent. Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. You are apparently quite fed up and you probably have your reasons. It's my failure then that you got the impression that I belong to the "opposite" group. I don't, I try to not see things black and white. But I don't see the same from you.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth right now. One of the paths that brought us a lot of success is globalism and economic free trade. Maybe it's time for that to end. > If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? That's another example of what I'm talking about before. Maybe in previous history, that's what caused violent conflicts. But with things in a state of flux, maybe nationalism and isolationism is the answer these days. > Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. I never said you were. I did say that people who argue for more globalization and free trade do talk about the same talking points you do, about society as a whole and "the world getting better". I'm not fed up with things, I'm just wondering who you're writing to. By simply labeling thoughts and ideas as "shorted sighted backwards thinking", it makes it very easy to dismiss ideas out of hand. > But I don't see the same from you. That is simply not true. Pointing out the fact that globalism actually does cause the quality of life (in the short term and sometimes long term) of certain demographics to suffer is a true statement.
- imartin2k 10y ago
  "You're talking out of both sides of your mouth right now." This is true. Is that a problem? Is it necessary to resort to binary thinking, which always means buying a whole package of ideologies at once just because you agree with one aspect of it? I won't do that. I actually think this is a source of a lot of evil. "That is simply not true. Pointing out the fact that globalism actually does cause the quality of life (in the short term and sometimes long term) of certain demographics to suffer is a true statement." My issue is that I agree with you on this. So I am not even sure what we are arguing about. I actually thought this got clear even in my post. But acknowledging the downside of globalization does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the way to fix the problems is to go back where we came from. Or does it for you?