4 ms·

Name a better decade. Seriously. Starting from 1900, every one up to the '40s is out because two world wars, then all of the ones until the '90s is out because

Name a better decade. Seriously. Starting from 1900, every one up to the '40s is out because two world wars, then all of the ones until the '90s is out because we were literally a paranoid mid-ranking officer away from global thermonuclear destruction, giving us the '90s, the '00s, and the '10s to work with. So we seem quite unarguably in the top 25% of the past 12 decades, so "not even close" is rather unfair. I will not argue the relative rankings of the past three decades except to state that it is not obvious what they should be. I am not disputing that our world is on a knife edge. I am saying that it has always been like this, or worse.

crazygringo 7y ago
You literally just answered your own question -- the other decades since the cold war, meaning the 90's and 00's were obviously far, far better politically. But I'd argue that what's particularly scary is the fact that things have gotten worse politically. It's not that the 10's were improving less fast -- it's that long-trusted political institutions are falling apart, and nobody knows how much further they have to go, or if they'll be able to be put back together.
- cabaalis 7y ago
  > it's that long-trusted political institutions are falling apart This isn't the first time that's happened, you know. And the institutions that replace them will also fall apart and be replaced. And those as well. You should stop worrying about governing body A or B and start hoping that the next group who seizes power respects inalienable rights as much as the ones who created your current situation.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    I'm well aware of history. But constitutional checks and balances falling apart, or NATO losing credibility, or Britain retreating, are not things to "stop worrying about". To the contrary, they're everything to worry about. You're implying that it's more important who rules ("the next group") rather than which institutions constrain them. I would suggest that this is deeply misguided. Institutions are what we have to protect us. Worrying about them is incredibly important, because they're what determines who the next group will be.
- UncleEntity 7y ago
  > it's that long-trusted political institutions are falling apart, and nobody knows how much further they have to go, or if they'll be able to be put back together. Or... we're witnessing a rebalancing of power where an executive branch will no longer have carte blanche and there will once again be a balance of power between the three branches of government (in the US at least, can't speak to how other countries do their politics). One can hope at least.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    Except we're not witnessing that rebalancing of power. I don't know where you would even get that hope from. There are literally zero signs of any rebalancing currently. The Senate claiming to conduct a sham trial is a new low, not a pendulum swinging back.
PeterisP 7y ago
Politically, 1990s were a big bunch of positive (or at least positive-seeming) political changes, the world had moved away from totalitarianism and it seemed that there was a momentum for improvement - while this decade has shown lots and lots of regression. IMHO there is an obvious difference between these past three decades, and the political climate was obviously better in 2000 than in 2019. Currently there's so much tension and public support for authoritarian leadership and us-vs-them policies that it reminds me very much of the global mindset during late 1920s or 1930s, and we all know the outcome of that - even without a particular mustachioed guy or two, that world situation would have resulted in some horrible violence.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Consider though, much of this sentiment has been present but unseen, or new, often as a result of being "left behind" by globalism. I don't think it's safe to assume that visible racist sentiments are as simple as they seem, but rather, people are mad, for a wide variety of reasons, and taking it out on out-groups is how this manifests. Intellectuals and progressives are very guilty of similar behavior, it's just that their out-groups are not delineated by skin color, so no one notices it.

crazygringo 7y ago

You literally just answered your own question -- the other decades since the cold war, meaning the 90's and 00's were obviously far, far better politically. But I'd argue that what's particularly scary is the fact that things have gotten worse politically. It's not that the 10's were improving less fast -- it's that long-trusted political institutions are falling apart, and nobody knows how much further they have to go, or if they'll be able to be put back together.

cabaalis 7y ago
> it's that long-trusted political institutions are falling apart This isn't the first time that's happened, you know. And the institutions that replace them will also fall apart and be replaced. And those as well. You should stop worrying about governing body A or B and start hoping that the next group who seizes power respects inalienable rights as much as the ones who created your current situation.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  I'm well aware of history. But constitutional checks and balances falling apart, or NATO losing credibility, or Britain retreating, are not things to "stop worrying about". To the contrary, they're everything to worry about. You're implying that it's more important who rules ("the next group") rather than which institutions constrain them. I would suggest that this is deeply misguided. Institutions are what we have to protect us. Worrying about them is incredibly important, because they're what determines who the next group will be.
UncleEntity 7y ago
> it's that long-trusted political institutions are falling apart, and nobody knows how much further they have to go, or if they'll be able to be put back together. Or... we're witnessing a rebalancing of power where an executive branch will no longer have carte blanche and there will once again be a balance of power between the three branches of government (in the US at least, can't speak to how other countries do their politics). One can hope at least.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  Except we're not witnessing that rebalancing of power. I don't know where you would even get that hope from. There are literally zero signs of any rebalancing currently. The Senate claiming to conduct a sham trial is a new low, not a pendulum swinging back.

PeterisP 7y ago

Politically, 1990s were a big bunch of positive (or at least positive-seeming) political changes, the world had moved away from totalitarianism and it seemed that there was a momentum for improvement - while this decade has shown lots and lots of regression. IMHO there is an obvious difference between these past three decades, and the political climate was obviously better in 2000 than in 2019. Currently there's so much tension and public support for authoritarian leadership and us-vs-them policies that it reminds me very much of the global mindset during late 1920s or 1930s, and we all know the outcome of that - even without a particular mustachioed guy or two, that world situation would have resulted in some horrible violence.

mistermann 7y ago
Consider though, much of this sentiment has been present but unseen, or new, often as a result of being "left behind" by globalism. I don't think it's safe to assume that visible racist sentiments are as simple as they seem, but rather, people are mad, for a wide variety of reasons, and taking it out on out-groups is how this manifests. Intellectuals and progressives are very guilty of similar behavior, it's just that their out-groups are not delineated by skin color, so no one notices it.