21 ms·

Everything is not falling apart, though certain institutions may be falling apart. In America, there's definitely been a breakdown of belief in its own institu

Everything is not falling apart, though certain institutions may be falling apart. In America, there's definitely been a breakdown of belief in its own institutions. Far more people are skeptical of things like journalism and Silicon Valley; it really wasn't that long ago that the former was constantly salivating over the latter, but now it's more of an openly vulture-carrion relationship because that caters to public sentiment. People who I would consider "normies" even don't trust law enforcement and the FBI anymore (not that they ever should have). Even the education system from K12 to college is increasingly being seen as a joke and an outright racket. We also went from the President being a more respected position to one deserving of relentless tabloid gossip. Even if one's "guy" is in office, I don't think we feel the same about it the way we did even as recent as Obama, and his administration was when we really began to see the social cracks forming. Civilization ebbs and flows, but I think the current sentiment is unprecedented in my lifetime. This is not a high point by any stretch of the imagination, and while I see "everything is collapsing" to be hyperbolic, it seems inevitable that many things we thought were rock solid are in a transition period where either they will reform or one day be replaced with force of some kind.

jahewson 5y ago
> but now it's more of an openly vulture-carrion relationship because that caters to public sentiment. No it’s because it caters to the employees and owners of traditional journalism who have been dethroned by Silicon Valley.
mrits 5y ago
I have a much different experience. I have a dozen family members that were part of the auto industry in Michigan. They were on top of the world for decades. It ended with most of them thinking society has collapsed in the 80s and doubting they'd actually get their pension. My grandfather spent the last 30 years of his life in retirement collecting a pay check that he thought might be his last.
- RivieraKid 5y ago
  Why did he think the paychecks would stop coming?
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Not all pensions are well managed; some have needed bailing out from public coffers. Other companies have shuttered completely, and the lack of incoming money to the pension funds made them insolvent (again, not especially well managed).
    - guessbest 5y ago
      Its doesn't have to be public bailouts. There is something for Americans where the pension funds have been seized by the federal government to be managed. I worked for a company where the executives were using pension funds to give themselves annual bonuses until the federal government stepped in around 2009. There wasn't much money left over, so I'll be receiving very little, but at least the executives could raid the funds anymore. > Welcome to PBGC! Since 1974, we’ve protected retirement security and the retirement incomes of over 33 million American workers, retirees, and their families in private sector defined benefit pension plans. https://www.pbgc.gov/ https://www.pbgc.gov/
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        It's a shame that you got screwed out of what you'd been promised. I'm guessing yours wasn't in the $86 billion bailout (maybe because it only went to multi-employer union plans?) > https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-relief-bill-gives-86-billion-bailout-to-failing-union-pension-plans.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-relief-bill-gives-86-b... Unfortunately, it's not just the private sector pensions that have been mismanaged (or raided, as you pointed out) which are in dire straits. California, in particular, has a lot of public pension headaches that will be coming to a head (and in some cases already have): https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-deal/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/19/why-california-is-in-trouble--340000-public-employees-with-100000-paychecks-cost-taxpayers-45-billion/?sh=2c8d73825fb8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/19/why...
NationalPark 5y ago
We have some relatively recent public polling data on this phenomenon: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/20/republicans-increasingly-critical-of-several-major-u-s-institutions-including-big-corporations-and-banks/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/20/republicans... For what it's worth, the decline of trust in institutions is primarily among "Republican/lean Republican" respondents, who are a minority of American voters and likely a minority of American non-voters as well.
- Geonode 5y ago
  Polls are good measures of the kind of people who willingly talk to pollsters.
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    If you're willing to dismiss polling out of hand for selection bias reasons, then why would you put any more weight onto intuitive arguments that rely on an even smaller and less systematic sampling?
    - Geonode 5y ago
      Why would I trust reason over a process that collects a series of anecdotes from the most bat-shit members of society willing to talk politics with a stranger on the phone and then tries to correct their data through mumbo jumbo fake math?
- andrewclunn 5y ago
  Are they still a minority? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-bidens-approval-rating-falls-further-as-gop-opens-up-huge-lead-poll/ar-AAWJmrl https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-bidens-approval-... Yes, there is a clear political tribal alignment between the current "out-group" and skepticism of institutions, but the rise of that iconoclasm on the right seems to be correlating with its growth as a whole.
  - 5y ago
paulpauper 5y ago
Old institutions cannot compete with Elon Musk, YouTube, podcasts such as Rogan, and the dopamine of social media. The CDC changing minds on masks hurt confidence, for example. Someone like Musk is viewed as decisive .
- dangerlibrary 5y ago
  While Musk is certainly more entertaining - which coincides with your point about dopamine - I would not call him more decisive. The argument that the "CDC flipflops but Musk does not" doesn't really hold water. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776
- stirfish 5y ago
  I think I get what you're trying to say - that we haven't yet found a way to put our important ideas into a medium that's entertaining for us to understand, so we fall back on simpler things like sound bites and internet memes. Like, virology is hard and confusing and scary, but Elon Musk smoked weed once on camera so we'll pay attention to that instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#Hot_and_cool_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#Hot_and_cool_...
time_to_smile 5y ago
We're in the last 50 years of industrial civilization. Anyone who spends enough time with systems thinking and looking at the big picture of industrial society inevitably comes to the same conclusion. I was a "doomer" back when everything seemed fine. Nothing since 2019 has surprised me at all. Things will continue to break down at a faster rate and more severely. However, one of my earliest realizations upon waking up to this was that as things become more obvious, people's denial will be not chipped away but rather strengthened. The collapse of industrial civilization (and the non-zero possibility of species extinction) isn't just scary for most people, it deeply cuts into existential crisis territory. The vast majority of our strategies of copping with existence and our deep rooted fear of our inevitable death is a system of meaning largely created around our hopes in the future of society. As society collapse we are forced to start confronting things that terrify us, and the natural psychological reaction is often to just double down on not seeing it. There are already so many things that we've normalized that would be shocking to someone from 2012: Global pandemic, land war with Russia, lake Mead on track to stop water flowing through the Hoover dam in 10 years, crop failures, supply chain crises, etc. In a very literal sense "everything is falling apart". We have destroyed vast portions of the biosphere, we're seriously looking at ecosystem devastating ocean acidification, most of us will live to see a blue ocean event. But people will be unlikely to ever recognize this, rather they will continue to double down on "this is fine" and the associates madness and extreme cognitive dissonance required to maintain this illusion.
- xen2xen1 5y ago
  If you think pandemics, crop failures, "land wars with Russia" are new, you are very much not paying attention. People lump normal history in with ecological problems all the time for a better sense of doom and gloom.
  - notpachet 5y ago
    The current level of environmental degradation is unprecedented in history.
- rabuse 5y ago
  This coincides will my belief is the rise of self-degrading memes running rampant on every social platform I use. Every "funny" slogan, has a negative connotation, or self-degrading message attached to it. "When you only have $4.20 in your bank account", "How I look in the mirror vs tagged photo", etc.
throw__away7391 5y ago
I mean the default assumption/mode of thought of the average uninformed person today seems to be a cynical one, at least judging from friends/family and top ranked posts from random people on the Internet. Given a situation in which they have zero knowledge, they will assume a conspiracy, cheating, corruption, malice, or some kind of deliberate inequality or unfairness in which they are the disadvantaged party. Usually the way these assertions are frame leaves anyone who disagrees in the position of having to prove the negative. Lack of evidence is no mater because "we know", while any trivial facts, even completely circumstantial ones, are held as proof. For example, I spent many too many hours arguing with my partner that Epstein wasn't "certainly murdered", that not having camera footage wasn't proof. While possible, we simply didn't have evidence, and suicide was hardly inconceivable given the circumstances. Yet seemingly everyone I know seems to not merely believe that this happened, but that they know this for certain and that there is a mass conspiracy to cover this up. There's a belief that a) you have to take an absolute position of fact on unknowns and b) the case that attributes the most malice to the greatest number of the highest status people is always the correct one. The result is kind of interesting to me, because you end up where a majority of "regular people" end up sharing a common view of the world, even without any coordination and often when their ideologies are polar opposite each other.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Maybe this has something to do with the declining belief in god and religion that another poster mentioned. Things that the average Joe used to simply blame on god are now being blamed on the "Shadowy Elite" boogeymen, who are purportedly always conspiring against the public.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    Ascendant nationalist populist movements blaming the world's ills on a "Shadowy Elite" isn't new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
- pubby 5y ago
  > Given a situation in which they have zero knowledge, they will assume a conspiracy, cheating, corruption, malice, or some kind of deliberate inequality or unfairness in which they are the disadvantaged party. That's baloney. People have knowledge of Epstein. They see strong evidence he trafficked children (police findings), and strong good evidence he hung around rich and powerful people (photographs). The can see he was under trial for conspiracy, and that his two prison guards were convicted for conspiracy, and that his partner, Maxwell, was convicted of conspiracy. You'd have to be cynical to assume people put no thought into their beliefs.
ozzythecat 5y ago
I think there’s something more fundamental going on in the US. First, I’d want to say that we as humans love to simplify complex things. There are large macroeconomic trends at play that are boring or hard to explain, and it’s easier to blame immigrants, social media, or blame <X> because that gives us an outlet to make sense out of complexity. For politicians, depending on their political leanings, it gives them a way to avoid any form of accountability or responsibility. Regardless of party affiliations, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi - some of the leaders across both parties have been in power longer than I’ve been alive. They can blame Facebook or Twitter for what’s happening in the country, but in my mind, these “excuses” are an indictment of out of touch, entitled “leadership”. America is facing a reality where the rest of the world is catching up. In chase of endless profits, we stopped producing things at home. And frankly, our standards of living or at least the expectations have risen - everyone wants <Y> now, without patience, and they need it delivered now or within two days. They want a standard of living that requires competitiveness globally, but in this country, we no longer want to work for it. On one hand, we have homelessness, housing shortages, issues with getting access to healthcare. On the other hand, we’ve sold the promise of America and glamorized it so strongly that so many people want to come here, when we cannot even take care of folks that are already here. We’re getting lazier, more entitled, and under delusions of a God complex. In every Hollywood film, we continue to be the good guys that save the world. On one hand, we have zero trust in our politicians. On the other hand, the notion that perhaps we’re not really “good” guys in some international conflict - that it’s not so black and white - is simply incomprehensible. The last part of my rant is on the rising intolerance. There is now only one opinion, it is the truth, and anyone willing to step outside this narrow circle is a racist, bigot, etc. Worst of all, the people pushing this narrative are the loudest voices in the room, and our corporate interests are happy to assist and provide these people the megaphones they need, on their quest for endless profits and infinite growth.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  > They want a standard of living that requires competitiveness globally, but in this country, we no longer want to work for it. That’s not what I see at all. Most working people in the current generation are working more hours, at more skilled jobs, with more education than their parents, and yet the lifestyle they can afford (aside from tech gadgets) is worse and less secure than their parents. I’m pessimistic about more young people studying subjects that are not useful, but I think in general this generation has gotten a bad (financial) deal in comparison.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I think of it as a forest. In constant growth and decay.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  That is a good way to think about a lot of aspects of society. For the forest to remain healthy old trees need to die to make room for the new trees just waiting for enough sun to sprout from seed. After a tree falls, the patch of new trees compete to be the next old tree to fill the space. As the years go on hundreds of saplings become dozens and eventually one as the slow growers get shaded out.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Exactly. A forest is always growing and dying simultaneously. On average a healthy forest will grow more than die or be in equilibrium. A forest in decline will die more than it grows. There is also the cleansing effect of fire from time to time. It's a good analogy
oicU00 5y ago
Oh yeah no doubt; I collate trends into reports for rich investors. Lately they have been focused on youth trends, and some numbers are wacky. <50% believe in God/higher being, down from 80%+ in early 00s. 40% point drop in 16 year olds getting a license since the 80s as urbanization puts people closer to stuff and ride share appeared. Youth participation in sports, especially full contact sports, had been going down since before covid which just accelerated it, leading to forecasts of a major contraction in commercial sports. “Essential workers” are pretty fucking pissed millions sat on their ass with no clue how to feed or care for themselves, while being paid minimum wage. They are not showing the same allegiance to shit jobs and moving on. We engineered away stability for JIT, covid came along and proved to many we live in a Banana Republic exporting memes of exceptionalism, while most people can’t grow a potato for themselves. Given sentiment nurses, teachers, “essential” workers just experienced from their neighbors during covid, why not tell the so called gritty masses who melted down over hair cuts to find new solutions. People who are not alive yet have no obligation to carry our sensibilities forward after we die.
- Tepix 5y ago
  > ...and some numbers are wacky. > <50% believe in God/higher being, down from 80%+ in early 00s. I guess teaching kids to trust in science and not in imaginary friends is slowly paying off.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    OP didn't say kids trust science though. It could be they reject everything. :-(
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      Rejecting organized religion for any reason is a step in the right direction.
      - mistermann 5y ago
        Careful...delusion comes in many forms.
usrn 5y ago
This describes how I feel about it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlqnfU2U4Gk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlqnfU2U4Gk
shadowgovt 5y ago
One of the disadvantages to democracy that Thomas Paine actually highlighted in "Common Sense" is that when things are off the rails in a monarchy, the cause (and remedy) are obvious. In a democracy, far less so. When Americans elect bad leadership, they ultimately have nobody to blame but themselves, and that damages the public attitude; I suspect one of the reasons "stolen election" conspiracy theories are so popular right now is that the alternative is one must simply be skeptical of the good judgment of one's neighbors, and people don't want to live like that. This, too, is a pattern we've seen before. The several Presidents elected prior to Lincoln were known as the "Bumbling Generation." When America gets scared of its own shadow, it tends to elect ineffectual leaders because neither side actually wants an empowered Presidency, lest it reward their opponents. (One major difference between the antebellum period and now is it's a little harder to see precisely what the cleave-line is that has America's hands around its own throat. In hindsight, slavery was obvious. But the battle lines here are not so brightly drawn... Class? Faith-based conservatism vs. modern cosmopolitanism? Tech savviness vs. technophobia? Possibly enough of all three to make a crisis).
- diputsmonro 5y ago
  >> the alternative is one must simply be skeptical of the good judgment of one's neighbors, and people don't want to live like that. People love being skeptical of their neighbors' judgement, what they're afraid of is being skeptical of their own. They can't handle backing the wrong horse, so instead they declare that the system is wrong
  - mym1990 5y ago
    Was just going to say this. We have gotten away from any kind of accountability as a standard, and some of that is driven by the fact that our leadership(no one specific, talking about the state of global leadership currently) shows no accountability either.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      The system is wrong. It already has been corrupted to a very large degree, because, surprise, people who gained power, like to retain it and an average power broker is as willing to let go of it as an average mollusc attached to a rock. The problem is that workable solution within the confines of the system requires somewhat educated populace. Or maybe not educated given the state of education in US. I do see signs of hope in the form of push to 'return to office' mandates ( I just threw a middle finger to HR for denying my remote myself simply refusing to come back ). People seem to rediscover that the rules are really 'by the consent of the governed' and there is strength in numbers.
RubberMullet 5y ago
What concerns me more than the collapse of many of our intuitions is the fact that the Neocons have emerged from the rubble. Regardless of party or political leanings there was a time when Neocons were universally reviled. Watching people like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and The Lincoln Project get so much press and attention makes my blood boil. Heck, they even brought out Dick Cheney(!!!) for the J6 anniversary.
- Clubber 5y ago
  I would guess it's because both parties are neoliberals since Reagan, and the D or the R is just culture war distraction. Sadly, the economic policy is all the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
- lampshades 5y ago
  I don't think the neocons will survive. It really feels like a last ditch effort to me. I'd say upwards of 90% of Republicans have turned on neoconservativism and the remaining 10% are more likely to vote Democrat where neocons are only welcomed as cheerleaders. I think regardless of if he gets elected again, even if he only even serves one term, 50 years from now Trump's name is going to be plastered in more history books than any modern President before him (and possibly after). He truly did radically alter the party to an amount that will define different eras in political history.
dpweb 5y ago
I do think we are stuck in this cycle, where our government/politicians appeal to our basest impulses and urges. Outrage, sympathy, jingoism. This is rewarded with political support, viewers, clicks on the headline. Even this article “Is everything falling apart”. Alarmist clickbait. So if you’re society consists of too many people who simply act on impulse, instead of thoughtful consideration, how do you deal with that? I’d argue less vitriol would help, but you’re incentivized in the opposite direction. Both the person who feels helpless expressing your outrage in the comments, or the media outlet trying to get viewers and clicks.
dv_dt 5y ago
If you look at life expectancy in the America, it has been flat to reversing. Understandably with added pressure from Covid, but at a rate higher even with Covid higher than all other well resourced major nations. This not because we are unable, but because those with the power are unwilling to engage fundamental issues. Covid is not the only issue for which this is the case - it was happening before covid. Multiple major issues with scientific and economic root causes are simply being ignored as stability and promises of improved prosperity provided by civilization is going backwards. This is meets my definition of falling apart.
- basisword 5y ago
  >> If you look at life expectancy in the America, it has been flat to reversing. >> Multiple major issues with scientific and economic root causes are simply being ignored as stability and promises of improved prosperity provided by civilization is going backwards. How much of this can be explained by the fact that one third of adults in the US are obese as opposed to major scientific and economic issues?
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    IMHO, falling life expectancy is a macro measure of multiple failing institutions, not a singular cause. Obesity is driven by systemic commercialization and sugaring of our food supply, combined with inequality of too low a pay, too many hours, to little vacation. Even funding of highway and road infrastructure over other areas is a contributor here. Another large part of it is because we elect to keep both private health insurance policy which ends up being racially and economically biased, and what little social safety we provide is riddled with self-imposed rules of means testing and other red tape cutting the effectiveness of even the meager allocation of resources. Many very easily and economically preventable illnesses and deaths keep happening and that is a decline to me. e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/black-diabetics-lose-limbs-at-triple-the-rate-of-others-heres-how-health-care-leaders-are-starting-to-act https://www.propublica.org/article/black-diabetics-lose-limb...
    - somenameforme 5y ago
AviationAtom 5y ago
I'd argue the cracks really formed in the Bush era, but began to rise during the Obama era, and skyrocketed in the Trump era (Though I am a Millennial, so perhaps that biases my recollection of timeline). What's interesting is each reader of the above comment will take something different away from it, based upon their political alignment. What is interesting is that society hangs on by a thinner thread than we imagine. Chaos lurks just beyond a corner. Preventing it is much easier when in union.
- c-smile 5y ago
  TL;DR if you wish: World now is transitioning from G7 (which is G1 really) to real G20. Globalization caused rise of powers: China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. I think that world will be in better shape after that - concurrency and need for consensus among more than one player.
fullshark 5y ago
Ultimately I think it's gonna be a good thing, as a lot of public naivety re: its institutions is destroyed and things will be rebuilt on a newly defined "social contract." The transition may take generations or a new threat comparable to global warfare for it to happen though.
- tejohnso 5y ago
  I think the climate emergency[1] compares and is only going to get worse. Also, it is already partially responsible for warfare[2] (though not global, yet). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_emergency_declarationl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_emergency_declarationl [2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-sy...
throwaway6734 5y ago
>Civilization ebbs and flows, but I think the current sentiment is unprecedented in my lifetime I generally agree that anti-instutional sentiment is at short term highs, but from what I've read it doesn't seem remotely as bad is it was in the 60s. >People who I would consider "normies" even don't trust law enforcement and the FBI anymor Ehh I think this is mostly short term partisan politiking
shrimpx 5y ago
I always thought that the open ability to perform damaging speech against institutions and public figures in the west was “cool” — a major distinguishing factor between free countries and non-free ones. But I was also always a little skeptical of that ability. It seemed ok in small doses, just to prove we can do it. Now we’re grappling with the full import of nonstop destructive speech coming from all sides and being amplified and mass-distributed. Nonstop shit talking and denigrating of our systems is what’s causing this drastic loss of confidence in them. Any imperfection will be amplified to where it looks like a total failure.
- I-M-S 5y ago
  It not the small doses that makes it ok, it's the fact the speaker is small. If however, the speaker gains a following and the systems starts to perceive it as a threat rather than a nuisance, the reaction is much different.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- heurist 5y ago
  I think it's a temporary phase introduced by the hyper-reflective nature of the internet. Younger generations will handle it better because they grew up in the new environment. Older generations are struggling to adapt.
  - shrimpx 5y ago
    I am hopeful, too.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    I don't know. The older conservative generations not only seem to have adapted overnight, they have weaponized what we gave them.
danjac 5y ago
Empires can suffer military defeats, economic collapses, even civil wars (they were pretty much a national sport for the Romans) but what kills them off for good are crises of legitimacy. When people no longer believe in the unifying ethos of the empire, it's game over. For example, when people stopped believing in Communism and the institutions of the Party, the USSR was done. All the nuclear weapons and KGB goons couldn't keep it together. When Roman citizens figured out that the legions would no longer protect them and they were better off paying tithes to a local feudal lord rather than taxes to Rome, the Roman Empire was done. And in the US, if nobody believes in the democratic system of government and the only way to keep their party in power is through insurrection or voter suppression, then the US as we know it will be over as well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pojzon 5y ago
Tbh last 50 years is a constant journey towards the bottom. Institutions that were supposed to lead us - failed us. Earth might be uninhabitable in quite a few places in next 30-50 years. We will have climate refugees everywhere. Civil war in developed countries is something to worry about. Our leaders cannot even agree on basic things to save the planet we live on. We are in deep shit IMHO. I dont worry for myself, I worry for my children. My parents and grandparents most likely are responsible for the hell my kids will have to live in. If scientists dont see anything positive in next years, why should lay ppl be happy.
c-smile 5y ago
> Far more people are skeptical of things like journalism... And mass media in general... Most of people I know lost any confidence in reliability of CNN, CBC, BBS, etc. Like report on Russian shelling shows video of results of Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk. I understand that they simply use better (in the sense of more horrible for westerners) picture but that is not a journalism anymore, really.
rmbyrro 5y ago
Perhaps journalists think everything is falling apart because journalism is falling apart. Journalism is everything to these journalists. It shouldn't, but it seems it does. Hence, these journalists think everything is falling apart. But our everything is much greater. And it's not falling apart.
pianoben 5y ago
> Even if one's "guy" is in office, I don't think we feel the same about it the way we did even as recent as Obama, and his administration was when we really began to see the social cracks forming. I really don't see it that way - this isn't at all a new phenomenon. What feels different to me is the intensity and pervasiveness of division, but then again that could be attributed to being more generally aware of things thanks to the Internet. I'm 39 and have lived in America all my life. In my childhood, I dimly recall bitter rows over whatever Regan was doing - my parents lost friends over their opposition to him. In the 90s, Clinton scandals were all people could talk about for a good while. George W, of course, took social division to new heights - or, at least, I was finally old enough to appreciate just how far-ranging the dividing effects of ideology can be. I remember in my first job in the mid-2000s, my team was already socially-clustered based on political/religious identity - "Libs" weren't invited to some parties, and vice-versa. Of course, Obama's election really triggered a certain section of society, there's no denying that, but all that is to say that none of this is really new. In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps, and the different geographic targets of migration from different parts of England and Europe. (I highly recommend the book Albion's Seed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed), which explores the influence of regional cultures of 18th-century Britain on American cultures).
- imapeopleperson 5y ago
  > In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps Fact: George Floyd wouldn’t have died if he didn’t resist arrest. I’m certainly not pro-slavery, and agree people can be racist, but there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored.
  - pianoben 5y ago
    I'm not certain how that bears on what I wrote, and won't comment on it except to say that the American "pro-slavery camp" is not merely a synonym for "racially bigoted" - there's a whole world-view there in which groups of humans are inherently and fundamentally unequal, and in which might makes right, to a certain degree. On your topic of "taboo truths", personally I agree that we ought to be able to discuss things with civility and assuming good faith. It's not always or even often possible these days.
sammalloy 5y ago
> Far more people are skeptical of things like journalism I’ve spent a lot of time looking into that kind of skepticism. It turns out, the vast majority of people who say they are "skeptical" of journalism adhere to far right, conspiracy-laden fringe news sites that create fake news and cast doubt on science. It’s safe to say that the entire "skeptical of journalism" meme can be traced to a handful of billionaires who have used dark money networks to go after journalists who have dared to investigate and publicize their malfeasance. These billionaires use the far right blogosphere and fringe news sites to encourage public mistrust of journalists for this reason. Sites known to do this include the Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, OANN, Breitbart, Fox, and most notably, the NaturalNews disinformation and propaganda network run by Mike Adams.
- godshatter 5y ago
  All it takes to be skeptical of journalism is to see how they handle a topic you personally know a lot about. No far right conspiracies required.
  - sammalloy 5y ago
    That’s quite a broad brushed, generalization don’t you think? Also, it’s expecting journalism to be a perfect discipline run by imperfect humans. Skepticism is needed in just about every field; journalism is no exception or special case. In any case, intellectual honesty is needed here. The case against journalism comes primarily from those on the far right, from people who peddle pseudoscience, and from the rich and powerful. They don’t want to be held accountable, and they don’t want the public to know what they are doing. Anyone who has spent an hour looking into this issue knows this is true. Billionaires like the Kochs and Mercers (and many others) have people on their staff ready to do a hit job on any journalist or media organization who dares to shine the light on their behavior. Going after journalists is what all good authoritarians have on their wish list. Anyone who sides with this kind of bad behavior and has been taken in by these anti-democratic impulses is part of the problem.
haihaibye 5y ago
> journalism and Silicon Valley Facebook, Google and others are in the advertising business, competing with newspapers who have seen 2/3 of their revenue lost since 2000 It is not surprising journalists hate "tech-bros"

jahewson 5y ago

> but now it's more of an openly vulture-carrion relationship because that caters to public sentiment. No it’s because it caters to the employees and owners of traditional journalism who have been dethroned by Silicon Valley.

mrits 5y ago

I have a much different experience. I have a dozen family members that were part of the auto industry in Michigan. They were on top of the world for decades. It ended with most of them thinking society has collapsed in the 80s and doubting they'd actually get their pension. My grandfather spent the last 30 years of his life in retirement collecting a pay check that he thought might be his last.

RivieraKid 5y ago
Why did he think the paychecks would stop coming?
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Not all pensions are well managed; some have needed bailing out from public coffers. Other companies have shuttered completely, and the lack of incoming money to the pension funds made them insolvent (again, not especially well managed).
  - guessbest 5y ago
    Its doesn't have to be public bailouts. There is something for Americans where the pension funds have been seized by the federal government to be managed. I worked for a company where the executives were using pension funds to give themselves annual bonuses until the federal government stepped in around 2009. There wasn't much money left over, so I'll be receiving very little, but at least the executives could raid the funds anymore. > Welcome to PBGC! Since 1974, we’ve protected retirement security and the retirement incomes of over 33 million American workers, retirees, and their families in private sector defined benefit pension plans. https://www.pbgc.gov/ https://www.pbgc.gov/
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      It's a shame that you got screwed out of what you'd been promised. I'm guessing yours wasn't in the $86 billion bailout (maybe because it only went to multi-employer union plans?) > https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-relief-bill-gives-86-billion-bailout-to-failing-union-pension-plans.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-relief-bill-gives-86-b... Unfortunately, it's not just the private sector pensions that have been mismanaged (or raided, as you pointed out) which are in dire straits. California, in particular, has a lot of public pension headaches that will be coming to a head (and in some cases already have): https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-deal/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/19/why-california-is-in-trouble--340000-public-employees-with-100000-paychecks-cost-taxpayers-45-billion/?sh=2c8d73825fb8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/19/why...

NationalPark 5y ago

We have some relatively recent public polling data on this phenomenon: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/20/republicans-increasingly-critical-of-several-major-u-s-institutions-including-big-corporations-and-banks/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/20/republicans... For what it's worth, the decline of trust in institutions is primarily among "Republican/lean Republican" respondents, who are a minority of American voters and likely a minority of American non-voters as well.

Geonode 5y ago
Polls are good measures of the kind of people who willingly talk to pollsters.
- NationalPark 5y ago
  If you're willing to dismiss polling out of hand for selection bias reasons, then why would you put any more weight onto intuitive arguments that rely on an even smaller and less systematic sampling?
  - Geonode 5y ago
    Why would I trust reason over a process that collects a series of anecdotes from the most bat-shit members of society willing to talk politics with a stranger on the phone and then tries to correct their data through mumbo jumbo fake math?
andrewclunn 5y ago
Are they still a minority? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-bidens-approval-rating-falls-further-as-gop-opens-up-huge-lead-poll/ar-AAWJmrl https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-bidens-approval-... Yes, there is a clear political tribal alignment between the current "out-group" and skepticism of institutions, but the rise of that iconoclasm on the right seems to be correlating with its growth as a whole.
- 5y ago

paulpauper 5y ago

Old institutions cannot compete with Elon Musk, YouTube, podcasts such as Rogan, and the dopamine of social media. The CDC changing minds on masks hurt confidence, for example. Someone like Musk is viewed as decisive .

dangerlibrary 5y ago
While Musk is certainly more entertaining - which coincides with your point about dopamine - I would not call him more decisive. The argument that the "CDC flipflops but Musk does not" doesn't really hold water. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776
stirfish 5y ago
I think I get what you're trying to say - that we haven't yet found a way to put our important ideas into a medium that's entertaining for us to understand, so we fall back on simpler things like sound bites and internet memes. Like, virology is hard and confusing and scary, but Elon Musk smoked weed once on camera so we'll pay attention to that instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#Hot_and_cool_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#Hot_and_cool_...

time_to_smile 5y ago

We're in the last 50 years of industrial civilization. Anyone who spends enough time with systems thinking and looking at the big picture of industrial society inevitably comes to the same conclusion. I was a "doomer" back when everything seemed fine. Nothing since 2019 has surprised me at all. Things will continue to break down at a faster rate and more severely. However, one of my earliest realizations upon waking up to this was that as things become more obvious, people's denial will be not chipped away but rather strengthened. The collapse of industrial civilization (and the non-zero possibility of species extinction) isn't just scary for most people, it deeply cuts into existential crisis territory. The vast majority of our strategies of copping with existence and our deep rooted fear of our inevitable death is a system of meaning largely created around our hopes in the future of society. As society collapse we are forced to start confronting things that terrify us, and the natural psychological reaction is often to just double down on not seeing it. There are already so many things that we've normalized that would be shocking to someone from 2012: Global pandemic, land war with Russia, lake Mead on track to stop water flowing through the Hoover dam in 10 years, crop failures, supply chain crises, etc. In a very literal sense "everything is falling apart". We have destroyed vast portions of the biosphere, we're seriously looking at ecosystem devastating ocean acidification, most of us will live to see a blue ocean event. But people will be unlikely to ever recognize this, rather they will continue to double down on "this is fine" and the associates madness and extreme cognitive dissonance required to maintain this illusion.

xen2xen1 5y ago
If you think pandemics, crop failures, "land wars with Russia" are new, you are very much not paying attention. People lump normal history in with ecological problems all the time for a better sense of doom and gloom.
- notpachet 5y ago
  The current level of environmental degradation is unprecedented in history.
rabuse 5y ago
This coincides will my belief is the rise of self-degrading memes running rampant on every social platform I use. Every "funny" slogan, has a negative connotation, or self-degrading message attached to it. "When you only have $4.20 in your bank account", "How I look in the mirror vs tagged photo", etc.

throw__away7391 5y ago

I mean the default assumption/mode of thought of the average uninformed person today seems to be a cynical one, at least judging from friends/family and top ranked posts from random people on the Internet. Given a situation in which they have zero knowledge, they will assume a conspiracy, cheating, corruption, malice, or some kind of deliberate inequality or unfairness in which they are the disadvantaged party. Usually the way these assertions are frame leaves anyone who disagrees in the position of having to prove the negative. Lack of evidence is no mater because "we know", while any trivial facts, even completely circumstantial ones, are held as proof. For example, I spent many too many hours arguing with my partner that Epstein wasn't "certainly murdered", that not having camera footage wasn't proof. While possible, we simply didn't have evidence, and suicide was hardly inconceivable given the circumstances. Yet seemingly everyone I know seems to not merely believe that this happened, but that they know this for certain and that there is a mass conspiracy to cover this up. There's a belief that a) you have to take an absolute position of fact on unknowns and b) the case that attributes the most malice to the greatest number of the highest status people is always the correct one. The result is kind of interesting to me, because you end up where a majority of "regular people" end up sharing a common view of the world, even without any coordination and often when their ideologies are polar opposite each other.

ryandrake 5y ago
Maybe this has something to do with the declining belief in god and religion that another poster mentioned. Things that the average Joe used to simply blame on god are now being blamed on the "Shadowy Elite" boogeymen, who are purportedly always conspiring against the public.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  Ascendant nationalist populist movements blaming the world's ills on a "Shadowy Elite" isn't new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
pubby 5y ago
> Given a situation in which they have zero knowledge, they will assume a conspiracy, cheating, corruption, malice, or some kind of deliberate inequality or unfairness in which they are the disadvantaged party. That's baloney. People have knowledge of Epstein. They see strong evidence he trafficked children (police findings), and strong good evidence he hung around rich and powerful people (photographs). The can see he was under trial for conspiracy, and that his two prison guards were convicted for conspiracy, and that his partner, Maxwell, was convicted of conspiracy. You'd have to be cynical to assume people put no thought into their beliefs.

ozzythecat 5y ago

I think there’s something more fundamental going on in the US. First, I’d want to say that we as humans love to simplify complex things. There are large macroeconomic trends at play that are boring or hard to explain, and it’s easier to blame immigrants, social media, or blame <X> because that gives us an outlet to make sense out of complexity. For politicians, depending on their political leanings, it gives them a way to avoid any form of accountability or responsibility. Regardless of party affiliations, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi - some of the leaders across both parties have been in power longer than I’ve been alive. They can blame Facebook or Twitter for what’s happening in the country, but in my mind, these “excuses” are an indictment of out of touch, entitled “leadership”. America is facing a reality where the rest of the world is catching up. In chase of endless profits, we stopped producing things at home. And frankly, our standards of living or at least the expectations have risen - everyone wants <Y> now, without patience, and they need it delivered now or within two days. They want a standard of living that requires competitiveness globally, but in this country, we no longer want to work for it. On one hand, we have homelessness, housing shortages, issues with getting access to healthcare. On the other hand, we’ve sold the promise of America and glamorized it so strongly that so many people want to come here, when we cannot even take care of folks that are already here. We’re getting lazier, more entitled, and under delusions of a God complex. In every Hollywood film, we continue to be the good guys that save the world. On one hand, we have zero trust in our politicians. On the other hand, the notion that perhaps we’re not really “good” guys in some international conflict - that it’s not so black and white - is simply incomprehensible. The last part of my rant is on the rising intolerance. There is now only one opinion, it is the truth, and anyone willing to step outside this narrow circle is a racist, bigot, etc. Worst of all, the people pushing this narrative are the loudest voices in the room, and our corporate interests are happy to assist and provide these people the megaphones they need, on their quest for endless profits and infinite growth.

epicureanideal 5y ago
> They want a standard of living that requires competitiveness globally, but in this country, we no longer want to work for it. That’s not what I see at all. Most working people in the current generation are working more hours, at more skilled jobs, with more education than their parents, and yet the lifestyle they can afford (aside from tech gadgets) is worse and less secure than their parents. I’m pessimistic about more young people studying subjects that are not useful, but I think in general this generation has gotten a bad (financial) deal in comparison.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I think of it as a forest. In constant growth and decay.

tastyfreeze 5y ago
That is a good way to think about a lot of aspects of society. For the forest to remain healthy old trees need to die to make room for the new trees just waiting for enough sun to sprout from seed. After a tree falls, the patch of new trees compete to be the next old tree to fill the space. As the years go on hundreds of saplings become dozens and eventually one as the slow growers get shaded out.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Exactly. A forest is always growing and dying simultaneously. On average a healthy forest will grow more than die or be in equilibrium. A forest in decline will die more than it grows. There is also the cleansing effect of fire from time to time. It's a good analogy

oicU00 5y ago

Oh yeah no doubt; I collate trends into reports for rich investors. Lately they have been focused on youth trends, and some numbers are wacky. <50% believe in God/higher being, down from 80%+ in early 00s. 40% point drop in 16 year olds getting a license since the 80s as urbanization puts people closer to stuff and ride share appeared. Youth participation in sports, especially full contact sports, had been going down since before covid which just accelerated it, leading to forecasts of a major contraction in commercial sports. “Essential workers” are pretty fucking pissed millions sat on their ass with no clue how to feed or care for themselves, while being paid minimum wage. They are not showing the same allegiance to shit jobs and moving on. We engineered away stability for JIT, covid came along and proved to many we live in a Banana Republic exporting memes of exceptionalism, while most people can’t grow a potato for themselves. Given sentiment nurses, teachers, “essential” workers just experienced from their neighbors during covid, why not tell the so called gritty masses who melted down over hair cuts to find new solutions. People who are not alive yet have no obligation to carry our sensibilities forward after we die.

Tepix 5y ago
> ...and some numbers are wacky. > <50% believe in God/higher being, down from 80%+ in early 00s. I guess teaching kids to trust in science and not in imaginary friends is slowly paying off.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  OP didn't say kids trust science though. It could be they reject everything. :-(
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Rejecting organized religion for any reason is a step in the right direction.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      Careful...delusion comes in many forms.

usrn 5y ago

This describes how I feel about it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlqnfU2U4Gk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlqnfU2U4Gk

shadowgovt 5y ago

One of the disadvantages to democracy that Thomas Paine actually highlighted in "Common Sense" is that when things are off the rails in a monarchy, the cause (and remedy) are obvious. In a democracy, far less so. When Americans elect bad leadership, they ultimately have nobody to blame but themselves, and that damages the public attitude; I suspect one of the reasons "stolen election" conspiracy theories are so popular right now is that the alternative is one must simply be skeptical of the good judgment of one's neighbors, and people don't want to live like that. This, too, is a pattern we've seen before. The several Presidents elected prior to Lincoln were known as the "Bumbling Generation." When America gets scared of its own shadow, it tends to elect ineffectual leaders because neither side actually wants an empowered Presidency, lest it reward their opponents. (One major difference between the antebellum period and now is it's a little harder to see precisely what the cleave-line is that has America's hands around its own throat. In hindsight, slavery was obvious. But the battle lines here are not so brightly drawn... Class? Faith-based conservatism vs. modern cosmopolitanism? Tech savviness vs. technophobia? Possibly enough of all three to make a crisis).

diputsmonro 5y ago
>> the alternative is one must simply be skeptical of the good judgment of one's neighbors, and people don't want to live like that. People love being skeptical of their neighbors' judgement, what they're afraid of is being skeptical of their own. They can't handle backing the wrong horse, so instead they declare that the system is wrong
- mym1990 5y ago
  Was just going to say this. We have gotten away from any kind of accountability as a standard, and some of that is driven by the fact that our leadership(no one specific, talking about the state of global leadership currently) shows no accountability either.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    The system is wrong. It already has been corrupted to a very large degree, because, surprise, people who gained power, like to retain it and an average power broker is as willing to let go of it as an average mollusc attached to a rock. The problem is that workable solution within the confines of the system requires somewhat educated populace. Or maybe not educated given the state of education in US. I do see signs of hope in the form of push to 'return to office' mandates ( I just threw a middle finger to HR for denying my remote myself simply refusing to come back ). People seem to rediscover that the rules are really 'by the consent of the governed' and there is strength in numbers.

RubberMullet 5y ago

What concerns me more than the collapse of many of our intuitions is the fact that the Neocons have emerged from the rubble. Regardless of party or political leanings there was a time when Neocons were universally reviled. Watching people like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and The Lincoln Project get so much press and attention makes my blood boil. Heck, they even brought out Dick Cheney(!!!) for the J6 anniversary.

Clubber 5y ago
I would guess it's because both parties are neoliberals since Reagan, and the D or the R is just culture war distraction. Sadly, the economic policy is all the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
lampshades 5y ago
I don't think the neocons will survive. It really feels like a last ditch effort to me. I'd say upwards of 90% of Republicans have turned on neoconservativism and the remaining 10% are more likely to vote Democrat where neocons are only welcomed as cheerleaders. I think regardless of if he gets elected again, even if he only even serves one term, 50 years from now Trump's name is going to be plastered in more history books than any modern President before him (and possibly after). He truly did radically alter the party to an amount that will define different eras in political history.

dpweb 5y ago

I do think we are stuck in this cycle, where our government/politicians appeal to our basest impulses and urges. Outrage, sympathy, jingoism. This is rewarded with political support, viewers, clicks on the headline. Even this article “Is everything falling apart”. Alarmist clickbait. So if you’re society consists of too many people who simply act on impulse, instead of thoughtful consideration, how do you deal with that? I’d argue less vitriol would help, but you’re incentivized in the opposite direction. Both the person who feels helpless expressing your outrage in the comments, or the media outlet trying to get viewers and clicks.

dv_dt 5y ago

If you look at life expectancy in the America, it has been flat to reversing. Understandably with added pressure from Covid, but at a rate higher even with Covid higher than all other well resourced major nations. This not because we are unable, but because those with the power are unwilling to engage fundamental issues. Covid is not the only issue for which this is the case - it was happening before covid. Multiple major issues with scientific and economic root causes are simply being ignored as stability and promises of improved prosperity provided by civilization is going backwards. This is meets my definition of falling apart.

basisword 5y ago
>> If you look at life expectancy in the America, it has been flat to reversing. >> Multiple major issues with scientific and economic root causes are simply being ignored as stability and promises of improved prosperity provided by civilization is going backwards. How much of this can be explained by the fact that one third of adults in the US are obese as opposed to major scientific and economic issues?
- dv_dt 5y ago
  IMHO, falling life expectancy is a macro measure of multiple failing institutions, not a singular cause. Obesity is driven by systemic commercialization and sugaring of our food supply, combined with inequality of too low a pay, too many hours, to little vacation. Even funding of highway and road infrastructure over other areas is a contributor here. Another large part of it is because we elect to keep both private health insurance policy which ends up being racially and economically biased, and what little social safety we provide is riddled with self-imposed rules of means testing and other red tape cutting the effectiveness of even the meager allocation of resources. Many very easily and economically preventable illnesses and deaths keep happening and that is a decline to me. e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/black-diabetics-lose-limbs-at-triple-the-rate-of-others-heres-how-health-care-leaders-are-starting-to-act https://www.propublica.org/article/black-diabetics-lose-limb...
  - somenameforme 5y ago

AviationAtom 5y ago

I'd argue the cracks really formed in the Bush era, but began to rise during the Obama era, and skyrocketed in the Trump era (Though I am a Millennial, so perhaps that biases my recollection of timeline). What's interesting is each reader of the above comment will take something different away from it, based upon their political alignment. What is interesting is that society hangs on by a thinner thread than we imagine. Chaos lurks just beyond a corner. Preventing it is much easier when in union.

c-smile 5y ago
TL;DR if you wish: World now is transitioning from G7 (which is G1 really) to real G20. Globalization caused rise of powers: China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. I think that world will be in better shape after that - concurrency and need for consensus among more than one player.

fullshark 5y ago

Ultimately I think it's gonna be a good thing, as a lot of public naivety re: its institutions is destroyed and things will be rebuilt on a newly defined "social contract." The transition may take generations or a new threat comparable to global warfare for it to happen though.

tejohnso 5y ago
I think the climate emergency[1] compares and is only going to get worse. Also, it is already partially responsible for warfare[2] (though not global, yet). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_emergency_declarationl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_emergency_declarationl [2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-sy...

throwaway6734 5y ago

>Civilization ebbs and flows, but I think the current sentiment is unprecedented in my lifetime I generally agree that anti-instutional sentiment is at short term highs, but from what I've read it doesn't seem remotely as bad is it was in the 60s. >People who I would consider "normies" even don't trust law enforcement and the FBI anymor Ehh I think this is mostly short term partisan politiking

shrimpx 5y ago

I always thought that the open ability to perform damaging speech against institutions and public figures in the west was “cool” — a major distinguishing factor between free countries and non-free ones. But I was also always a little skeptical of that ability. It seemed ok in small doses, just to prove we can do it. Now we’re grappling with the full import of nonstop destructive speech coming from all sides and being amplified and mass-distributed. Nonstop shit talking and denigrating of our systems is what’s causing this drastic loss of confidence in them. Any imperfection will be amplified to where it looks like a total failure.

I-M-S 5y ago
It not the small doses that makes it ok, it's the fact the speaker is small. If however, the speaker gains a following and the systems starts to perceive it as a threat rather than a nuisance, the reaction is much different.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
heurist 5y ago
I think it's a temporary phase introduced by the hyper-reflective nature of the internet. Younger generations will handle it better because they grew up in the new environment. Older generations are struggling to adapt.
- shrimpx 5y ago
  I am hopeful, too.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  I don't know. The older conservative generations not only seem to have adapted overnight, they have weaponized what we gave them.

danjac 5y ago

Empires can suffer military defeats, economic collapses, even civil wars (they were pretty much a national sport for the Romans) but what kills them off for good are crises of legitimacy. When people no longer believe in the unifying ethos of the empire, it's game over. For example, when people stopped believing in Communism and the institutions of the Party, the USSR was done. All the nuclear weapons and KGB goons couldn't keep it together. When Roman citizens figured out that the legions would no longer protect them and they were better off paying tithes to a local feudal lord rather than taxes to Rome, the Roman Empire was done. And in the US, if nobody believes in the democratic system of government and the only way to keep their party in power is through insurrection or voter suppression, then the US as we know it will be over as well.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pojzon 5y ago

Tbh last 50 years is a constant journey towards the bottom. Institutions that were supposed to lead us - failed us. Earth might be uninhabitable in quite a few places in next 30-50 years. We will have climate refugees everywhere. Civil war in developed countries is something to worry about. Our leaders cannot even agree on basic things to save the planet we live on. We are in deep shit IMHO. I dont worry for myself, I worry for my children. My parents and grandparents most likely are responsible for the hell my kids will have to live in. If scientists dont see anything positive in next years, why should lay ppl be happy.

c-smile 5y ago

> Far more people are skeptical of things like journalism... And mass media in general... Most of people I know lost any confidence in reliability of CNN, CBC, BBS, etc. Like report on Russian shelling shows video of results of Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk. I understand that they simply use better (in the sense of more horrible for westerners) picture but that is not a journalism anymore, really.

rmbyrro 5y ago

Perhaps journalists think everything is falling apart because journalism is falling apart. Journalism is everything to these journalists. It shouldn't, but it seems it does. Hence, these journalists think everything is falling apart. But our everything is much greater. And it's not falling apart.

pianoben 5y ago

> Even if one's "guy" is in office, I don't think we feel the same about it the way we did even as recent as Obama, and his administration was when we really began to see the social cracks forming. I really don't see it that way - this isn't at all a new phenomenon. What feels different to me is the intensity and pervasiveness of division, but then again that could be attributed to being more generally aware of things thanks to the Internet. I'm 39 and have lived in America all my life. In my childhood, I dimly recall bitter rows over whatever Regan was doing - my parents lost friends over their opposition to him. In the 90s, Clinton scandals were all people could talk about for a good while. George W, of course, took social division to new heights - or, at least, I was finally old enough to appreciate just how far-ranging the dividing effects of ideology can be. I remember in my first job in the mid-2000s, my team was already socially-clustered based on political/religious identity - "Libs" weren't invited to some parties, and vice-versa. Of course, Obama's election really triggered a certain section of society, there's no denying that, but all that is to say that none of this is really new. In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps, and the different geographic targets of migration from different parts of England and Europe. (I highly recommend the book Albion's Seed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed), which explores the influence of regional cultures of 18th-century Britain on American cultures).

imapeopleperson 5y ago
> In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps Fact: George Floyd wouldn’t have died if he didn’t resist arrest. I’m certainly not pro-slavery, and agree people can be racist, but there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored.
- pianoben 5y ago
  I'm not certain how that bears on what I wrote, and won't comment on it except to say that the American "pro-slavery camp" is not merely a synonym for "racially bigoted" - there's a whole world-view there in which groups of humans are inherently and fundamentally unequal, and in which might makes right, to a certain degree. On your topic of "taboo truths", personally I agree that we ought to be able to discuss things with civility and assuming good faith. It's not always or even often possible these days.

sammalloy 5y ago

> Far more people are skeptical of things like journalism I’ve spent a lot of time looking into that kind of skepticism. It turns out, the vast majority of people who say they are "skeptical" of journalism adhere to far right, conspiracy-laden fringe news sites that create fake news and cast doubt on science. It’s safe to say that the entire "skeptical of journalism" meme can be traced to a handful of billionaires who have used dark money networks to go after journalists who have dared to investigate and publicize their malfeasance. These billionaires use the far right blogosphere and fringe news sites to encourage public mistrust of journalists for this reason. Sites known to do this include the Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, OANN, Breitbart, Fox, and most notably, the NaturalNews disinformation and propaganda network run by Mike Adams.

godshatter 5y ago
All it takes to be skeptical of journalism is to see how they handle a topic you personally know a lot about. No far right conspiracies required.
- sammalloy 5y ago
  That’s quite a broad brushed, generalization don’t you think? Also, it’s expecting journalism to be a perfect discipline run by imperfect humans. Skepticism is needed in just about every field; journalism is no exception or special case. In any case, intellectual honesty is needed here. The case against journalism comes primarily from those on the far right, from people who peddle pseudoscience, and from the rich and powerful. They don’t want to be held accountable, and they don’t want the public to know what they are doing. Anyone who has spent an hour looking into this issue knows this is true. Billionaires like the Kochs and Mercers (and many others) have people on their staff ready to do a hit job on any journalist or media organization who dares to shine the light on their behavior. Going after journalists is what all good authoritarians have on their wish list. Anyone who sides with this kind of bad behavior and has been taken in by these anti-democratic impulses is part of the problem.

haihaibye 5y ago

> journalism and Silicon Valley Facebook, Google and others are in the advertising business, competing with newspapers who have seen 2/3 of their revenue lost since 2000 It is not surprising journalists hate "tech-bros"