The only social unrest that has happened so far have been the protests about wanting to lift or ease restrictions on states, and they were widely panned as a bunch of nutjobs. I doubt there will be any "unrest" beyond the protests.
It's easy to look down on people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. They're still human beings. They've been given this raw deal: For the greater good, you will now give up your job for an indefinite period of time, with no prospect of finding like employment elsewhere. You have no choice, and if you refuse, you are a horrible person and in some cases you may face civil and criminal consequences.
Injustice isn't any less unjust, because the recipients are somehow in a group one perceives as deplorable. Principles of justice and human rights are universal. This was MLK's ideological point in the Civil Rights movement.
Adherence to this principle is how I distinguish pseudo-activists who just want power and attention from those who really have justice at heart: Are the principles applied to everyone, or just to whomever it's convenient?
The Scandinavian countries have moved to pay all payrolls to keep people paid during all this madness, instead of just bailing out large debt holders.
(That said, I think Sweden of all places in the west, have had the best, most sane reaction to the pandemic.)
They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system. If you are American, please check out some European political systems. You'll find that politics in Europe are a lot more nuanced and minorities in general are much, much better represented.
I don't know if you intended it that way, but the above feels like you're trying to put words in my mouth to that effect. No, I don't think I said that minorities are voiceless in Sweden.
They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system.
Right. Again, as Matt Easton says, "Context!" If the US were to go fully democratic, with our two parties, no electoral college, and everything done proportionally, things in the US would suck for constituencies smaller than 50%. Particularly with discourse being what it is in 2020.
However, if you know of a way to do away with the US two party system, I'm all ears.
Also, when I read your comment above, I tend to read it in my head as sounding angry and patronizing. Hopefully, you didn't mean it the way of, "What, you ignorant fool, do you not know...etc...?"
This is why being gay before 1950 was so great: because the majority of society got its way. That's why there was segregation in many places in the US back then: because the majority of society got its way. It took the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's to get the in-built principles and mechanisms which are there in the US system to protect the minority to really apply. And yes, it was in part the action of the national majority which got that to happen.
The usual reason why people say the majority should get its absolute way, is generally because they are in the group who would come out on top. That's a shortsighted view. Even the majority is human and gets it dead wrong sometimes. This is why certain human rights need to be inviolate. This is why every government needs some sort of mechanism which gives the minority out-sized power. The US just does it in this particular way.
EC and Senate are a very different arrangement - they don't protect any rights as such, they simply give some people more votes than others. Which means that not only those people can then veto majority decisions (even when they don't actually infringe on their rights) - but they can impose legislation that curtails rights of the majority.
As for it being a short-sighted view that majority should generally have its way, well, here's Federalist #22, for one:
"Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the National deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican Government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the People of America; and two thirds of the People of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on Union, ought readily to renounce a pretension, which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration."
Was Hamilton short-sighted when he wrote this criticism? You can argue that it was originally aimed at the Articles of Confederation, not EC and Senate. But it's clear that this is a rather generic criticism, and it's applicable whenever "larger States ... receiving the law from the smaller" becomes commonplace - which depends on how many states there are, and their relative sizes, which have changed a lot since the original 13 colonies. Looking at the outcomes of the presidential and parliamentary elections in the past 20 years, I'd say that this condition is already fully in force, and so is the warning.
Any of them.
Some of them, I'm in. Some of them, I'll never be in. The principle is universal: A just society protects the minority. Any of them.
That's the whole point of protecting the minority. Otherwise, if the majority always wins, and the minority has to be satisfied with the crumbs left by the majority, the minority has effectively zero power. It's like writing an API. You know you're doing it right, when things mostly work, but there's someone, somewhere sorely dissatisfied with not getting their way.
In the words of one fictional British gentleman, "You don't have it. I don't have it. That's detente, comrade!"
Of course. Rights have to be universal, even for people with such desires. Otherwise, whomever has the power to adjudge what others are "actually" thinking have the power to remove people's human rights.
The dynamics where accusation is enough, guilt is assumed, and no proof is needed are often abused to have power over others. If there was ever a time when this should be obvious, it is 2020, present day.
In fact, all of the above is the whole point of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.
This is very good on the surface, however, there is a large chunk of wealth going to the rentier class. The rentseekers were encouraged under successive Tory and New Labour governments with schemes such as 'buy to let'. Now they are the only truly protected sector of society. The rich get richer.
Yes rent seeking activities are a serious problem and I think there's a consensus forming on this, at least in the UK.
There's some truth to this, but I wouldn't say rentseekers are the only truly protected sector of society. My parents put their life savings into buying a block of flats in the 90s. They borrowed from every single person they knew and took out a mortgage against their own home and put most of their subsequent savings into paying off the mortgage sooner.
The last mortage payment is due end of this year and they were looking forward to leaving their full time jobs whilst maintaining their little property 'empire'.
So far this month they've had 3 tenants call asking for rent reductions, 1 totally unable to pay rent and another insisting on a 20% discount because their friend's landlords are offering the same.
Maintaining that block of 10 flats is no picnic. It means you're on call to unblock toilets on bank holidays or clean, paint, draft tenancy agreements and file paperwork on your evenings and weekends.
Of course - owning an appreciating asset means you're better off than someone who doesn't but you're not quite sitting pretty.
For the latter, you can get pretty close with this algorithm:
WillHelpRichBuddies() {
return true
}Tone deafness in the media and the social and governmental leadership of any country is a key reason why demagogues and sociopaths get into power. This has been the case across time and cultures.
The Scandinavian countries have moved to pay all payrolls to keep people paid during all this madness, instead of just bailing out large debt holders.
Watch Louis Rossman's YouTube coverage of the US programs as a potential recipient/applicant. As a small business owner, he has a front seat to the incompetence of US lawmakers. It's the same kind of thing which smells like grandstanding incompetence, which also afflicted the "banking reforms" post 2008. The laws aren't written by and for people who actually know how things work.
Lots of these people (and a lot of the trumpy, NRA class at large) are bourgeoise, fwiw
Well, for one thing, in that subset there are still people getting a raw deal.
For another thing, it's a generally bad thing when people start formulating their political equations or thoughts of who's worthy to be listened to based on group stereotypes. "People like that," is just another form of, "those people," or "them."
I've been on the receiving end of stuff like that all my life, as being one of a few classes of minorities, some of it from people who might be characterized as "the trumpy, NRA class at large."
Ultimately, we're all individuals, and we're all human beings. Beware of people who rail against a group, then have you identify them by outward signs. Be especially wary, when those people start claiming to know the presence of bad thoughts in others, such that they "don't deserve" this or that. Be especially wary when the "don't deserve" starts extending to basic human rights.
In 2020, be triply wary if you are, in effect, being asked to think badly of and ignore the human rights of one particular group -- in the name of justice and human rights.
That's not who's protesting with assault rifles demanding that their hairdresser show up to work.
People who are "lower on the socioeconomic ladder" are the ones going on strike for PPE, hazard pay and sick leave that the media are dutifully ignoring.
Again, it's easy to paint a group as a "type" to justify disregarding their viewpoint. There are opportunists at any large protest. Ultimately, the protest is a collection of individuals, each with their own story.
People who are "lower on the socioeconomic ladder" are the ones going on strike for PPE, hazard pay and sick leave that the media are dutifully ignoring.
Noted!
So its unevenly applied (not in every state). That's an issue to bring up with your state representative.
The man in front of the protest to ease restrictions in my mid-sized city was a wealthy local real estate magnate.
That still doesn't change the equation for those who aren't real estate magnates and were living paycheck to paycheck before the crisis.
You either listen to all people and meet them where they're at, or you give fuel to demagogues. (Who might be rich magnates.)
If people who shouldn't have political power gain it by listening to the neglected, the proper course of action isn't to denigrate the people. Take back that power by listening.
He didn't get it by listening to the neglected. He got it by spending money. The protests in my city, like in most places, were primarily people saying "I want people to work for me!" and not "I want to work!". Also had some confederate flags thrown in, because why not.
> Take back that power by listening.
If I were to listen, I would hear that people don't want to be forced to choose between survival and health.
If you were to listen.
I would hear that people don't want to be forced to choose between survival and health.
Losing your home, losing the ability to pay for healthcare, perhaps losing custody of your children or losing your already strained marriage -- these are all serious issues which may greatly impact the survival and health of many people.
One thing which tone-deafness is often a symptom of, is that one has lost a bit of the capacity to think of certain others as full, equal in worth, human beings. I know this from first hand experience.
Absolutely. And nobody wants to be forced to pick between that, and the very real possibility of getting sick. But if the states just open up, that's the position that they will be in—work and maybe get sick, or not work, and lose your home, the ability to pay for healthcare, perhaps losing custody of your children or losing your already strained marriage.
Keeping the states closed is a popular position.
> One thing which tone-deafness is often a symptom of, is that one has lost a bit of the capacity to think of certain others as full, equal in worth, human beings. I know this from first hand experience.
It's an honest shame that people with your attitude weren't the ones running the protests, instead of people flying the confederate flag and wanting to get their hair done.
For a lot of people, this is a choice they make every day, even predating the pandemic.
It's an honest shame that people with your attitude weren't the ones running the protests, instead of people flying the confederate flag and wanting to get their hair done.
It's an honest shame, that politics in 2020 is often about group stereotypes, not fundamental economic reality.
It is, but I'm not sure where you're going with this—are you implying that the pandemic hasn't drastically affected that decision? Otherwise: what are you saying?
We're all human beings, regardless of "tribe."
There is no reason to bring that reference in an otherwise non-political discussion.
It's hard to separate socioeconomic differentials from politics. And I specifically use deplorable to call out the political excesses of my own accustomed "tribe."
And, either purposely or naively, you're misconstruing the context and scope of a single quote as if you were a part of the other "tribe."
The "basket of deplorables" comment is widely and incorrectly assumed to be an expression of elitist disdain by "the left" for all rural white males, all Trump supporters, or everyone of lower socioeconomic class, when it rather explicitly referred to the - and I'm paraphrasing almost directly from the quote here - "racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes" who took over Trump's base and steered it in an extremist direction. In other words, people who should be considered deplorable.
It may not have been a precisely worded criticism but it was an accurate one.
The "basket of deplorables" comment is widely and incorrectly assumed to be an expression of elitist disdain by "the left" for all rural white males, all Trump supporters, or everyone of lower socioeconomic class, when it rather explicitly referred to the - and I'm paraphrasing almost directly from the quote here - "racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes" who took over Trump's base and steered it in an extremist direction. In other words, people who should be considered deplorable.
It may not have been a precisely worded criticism but it was an accurate one.
Thanks. I have absolutely no reason to reply to any of that.
I know the following from personal experience as a person of color, as a not completely hetero-normative person, and as someone who lived in the on-campus house of an organization that had non-gender specific bathrooms in the 1980's. As I mentioned elsewhere, tone-deafness and lack of self-awareness are often symptoms of someone having lost the ability to view others -- all others -- as fully equal in basic human being status.
Left as an exercise to the reader: Who exactly am I calling out here?
Lastly, at least some of the protests were funded by the DeVos family [1].
[0] https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=3659
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/26/devos-family...
How about breaking down by religion or something else that at least points to what kind of media/message the group is more exposed to? or something that hints at extraneous interests, like homeowners or not. There are so much better ways to break down this data.
I'm an American that fits into neither of these groups but nearly everyone I know does, so from my third party perspective I think you might be underestimating how different the sources, messaging, and conversations are between white and black Americans on average. That being said, I think it is still vastly overused in polls, and is perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy to some degree.
I would have preferred to see a poll based on income, but race is still a decent proxy for that.
* Coronavirus is a hoax!
* Fake nurses!
* 5G cellphones cause coronavirus!
* Impeach Bill Gates!
* Vaccines are poison!
* Social Distancing is Communism!
* Freedom!!
There are reasonable arguments against the temporary shutdown, but the protesters are not part of that reasonable conversation.
Ask yourself this: Why is the media playing up those fringer crazies, and not covering the very poignant, socially relevant, and human angle of "I need to work to feed my family"? Then go and look up Manufacturing Consent. Here's how propaganda often happens in the West: Emotional manipulation is better than outright ham-handed Pravda-esque censorship.
BTW, you seem to have watched the same "All Gas No Brakes" YouTube video of the Sacramento protests I did. You name the very same nutcase signs as appeared in the video. There's part of your answer right there: If it bleeds it leads. Nutcase signs are easy to get viral sharing out of. They tick the humor and outrage buttons all at the same time.
Freedom!!
This is a good thing. If someone tries to associate freedom with bad people, it's because they want all the power for their own tribe.
Note this quote from a cousin comment: "People who are 'lower on the socioeconomic ladder' are the ones going on strike for PPE, hazard pay and sick leave that the media are dutifully ignoring." Please, ask yourself why the media are dutifully ignoring certain things.
All of the media coverage I've seen and read played up those protesters as valiant, the suffering workers of the world uniting to stop the government from destroying their career.
Your argument that this is the result of a unified media doesn't exactly work, unless you're referring specifically to media you disagree with.
Well, of course not. That's the classic trope of putting the predicate calculus version of "All" into another's mouth. However, depending on where you look, such an approach is quite predominant in the "mainstream." I don't have time to review all media myself, personally.
"Freedom"
Every protest in the USA, no matter where it sits on the moral or political spectrums, tries to hitch its wagon to "Freedom" in some way. It's become a word you just paint on a sign when you can't think of something to actually be complaining about.
> No school means poor kids roam the street like packs of feral dogs asking for money for food around here.
What was that quote about society being three meals away from anarchy?
Unemployment rate is underreported because states can't bring applicants onto their rolls fast enough for demand (if the state even accepts the applicant).
Rent payments, Mortgages, credit cards defaults are all growing. Once people exhaust their stopgap measures, the pressure for civil unrest grows quicker.
Keyword being "so far". In Italy, where people have been out of work for months, things are starting to get dicey. Here are some links:
- [Sky News: Coronavirus: Italy becoming impatient with lockdown - and social unrest is brewing](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impati...) - [The Guardian: Singing stops in Italy as fear and social unrest mount ](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/singing-stops-...)
There's more but I won't flood you. The point I'm trying to make is that things _so far_ are okay, but will get increasingly dicey if people don't have access to food and the necessities for living.
P.S: I live in Rome and here people are still singing. P.P.S: "Novella 2000" is the unquestionable italian king of trash gossip magazines.
...in the corporate news media. They have never had the full story, and they have less and less of it recently. This knob has been turned too far; it's broken now. TPTB will remember they have other knobs (every other OECD nation is directly supporting citizens' incomes, for example) or the whole machine will catch fire.
How about some activism, social representation..? We don't really do that in the US these days.
Just go figure the only widely covered protests are the right wing astroturfed ones...