No, America is not collapsing
noahpinion.substack.com
noahpinion.substack.com
Education in the country is a major concern and has domino effects that take decades to correct, but the more the less educated come into power, the harder it gets to revert. And we're trending in the wrong direction.
I also think the section on inequality is greatly misleading. Inequality keeps getting worse and worse by basically any measure. Picking out any data over the past two years is likely to be very, very biased, because the economy has been wildly swinging back and forth. Data can be picked to basically back up any position. The middle class is getting absolutely hammered by taxes while the rich just keep on keeping on in a tax-free world not experienced by others.
> Bloomberg reports that the world’s richest 500 people have lost a total of $1 trillion this year.
I can't view the article, but aren't those "losses" likely to be paper losses, i.e., unrealized losses? When lower and middle class people have losses, they are realized. People lose jobs, money, homes, etc. Rich people "losing" money in the various markets and their investments continue to reap dividends and other monetary gains and will eventually recuperate.
Articles like this are akin to burying one's head in the sand and consist of cherry-picked data to say everything's okay.
Abortion is a big issue that will continue to come up because one group of people view it as literally murdering a child and another group see it as a minor medical procedure. In reality the debate should just be "how many weeks into pregnancy should it be allowed?", but that's hard to sell in a campaign so politicians will go hard one way or the other.
In reality it is a matrix with time on one axis and extenuating circumstances on the other.
1. Are human beings _human beings_ beginning with conception?
2. Is it ever licit to kill an innocent human being intentionally?
W.r.t. (1), if you answer "no", then the second question is moot. It may still be the case that abortion would be morally illicit, but that would be a different question. If you answer "yes", then you must answer the second question. If you answer "yes", then you are a utilitarian/consequentialist. The conflict has largely shifted to the second question over time.
(For the sake of clarity, the word "intentionally" is important. Treating an ectopic pregnancy to save the mother by removing the affected implanted tissue will result in the death of the unborn, but this is not an intended consequence, only a tolerable side effect given what's at stake. These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate.)
They are unavoidably entangled with the abortion debate, because so many of the legislators and public are ignorant of such fine distinctions, and allowing a total abortion ban in the US _will_ result in maternal fatalities in these situations.
Many people also answer yes to #2 based on circumstances, even if this means that they are utilitarians or consequentialists.
Even the consideration of intent you mentioned adds at least one factor to the matrix.
First, most people don't have a single yes/no answer to point 1, and for better or worse they probably don't view "human being" as a binary state. Some of them believe that a fetus gradually becomes a human at some nebulous point in time, some believe that it's a "potential person", some believe that it's a person with caveats. Secondly, a decent chunk of them also believe that non-humans should have some moral right, and that there might be situations where the state has a compelling interest in preventing certain outcomes even where there is no clear individual harm (for example, a nontrivial number of people are uncomfortable with constructing high-level systems to allow abortions on the basis of neurodivergence, even if they believe that each individual abortion decision on its own is justified).
But lets say someone answers #1 with, "yes, and they should have full human rights". Then we go to point #2, and the short answer is that people who believe that it's literally never moral to intentionally kill someone are exceedingly rare (I've gotten to know maybe one person total in my entire life who I considered to be genuinely a strict deontologist). Utilitarianism is also not a binary conclusion for most people, most people believe that individual rights are worth protecting in at least some cases where they could intentionally be used to cause harm, but in other cases should be blocked because of the outcome -- and they often differ on where they draw those lines and what rights they think are most important to protect. The vast majority of people in the world tend to be somewhat utilitarian in some situations, and somewhat deontological in other situations.
So now there's question #3 which you hint at but don't actually raise -- are abortions intentional deaths or are they closer to the scenario you describe with ectopic pregnancies, where the actual goal is just the removal of the unborn and protection of the mother and as a side effect the unborn dies? This is somewhat closely related to the privacy/autonomy argument that gets brought up; that trying to save unborn lives is great and if you can keep an aborted child alive you're welcome to do so, but that concern has to be subservient to preserving bodily autonomy and preserving the patient's health -- in other words, I've heard people argue that abortion is primarily about stopping pregnancy, and that the death of the unborn is just an unfortunate side effect. And once again, a lot of people don't have binary opinions about that either; it's not uncommon for me to see people who draw lines at very different places and based on very different criteria even when they at first say something that sounds like a simple yes/no answer. Culpability for harm in general on many issues can be complicated to talk about sometimes.
And then we go on to question #4, which wasn't brought up at all: regardless of the morality, how prudent is it to legislate abortion? And once again, there are a diversity of opinions on this, not just in regards to abortion, but in regards to the fundamental question of when and how our government should legislate morality even in situations where someone with moral value is getting hurt. In fact, a large number of US debates that are separate from abortion also intersect with this question. Some people believe that the state needs to preserve absolute autonomy regardless of the morality, some people believe that it would be reasonable for the state to impose morality in some cases, but that it's likely to get it wrong or have so many unintended consequences that it should only rarely impose morality. This also intersects a little bit with the privacy arguments people raise: is the government qualified to make broad rules about very individual health/parenting decisions, especially regarding risky pregnancies -- and is it reasonable to ask people to "prove" to the government that their pregnancies are risky?
And then of course question #5, which is whether abolishing abortion is the most effective way to reduce abortion. See also drug legalization, where you'll occasionally run into strict drug critics who believe that recreational drug use is harmful and should be discouraged, that still want to see it legalized. Once again, most people don't have a binary answer to this question because there are a lot of restrictions and regulations a government can impose beyond just banning/allowing something, and even people who are primarily concerned about reducing abortion rates might disagree about which policies actually work to reduce abortion rates.
All of those questions, on their own, will get you different answers if you ask different people. The problem is that saying no/yes to each question isn't enough on its own to create a perfectly logical policy that everyone in the world will just agree with based on first principles. There are a lot of possible answers someone might give to both questions that boil down to either "sometimes...", or to "yes/no, but..."
And that's not to say that there aren't better or worse answers to those questions, it's just to say that a lot of people claim the reason conversations about abortion are stalled is because there's nothing else to talk about and everyone knows perfectly what they believe and there's no way to sway anyone, and in reality it's more that conversation is stalled because public opinion isn't perfectly resolved and many people just feel really uncomfortable and confused talking about it because it's very contentious and has a lot of stigma -- which ends up being kind of self-reinforcing because the more that people reflexively avoid the topic the less they tend to learn about it and the fewer opportunities they have to try and nail down their views.
It's why you will hear of mothers suffering and dying from sepsis due to a dead baby rotting in their wombs.
That's one reason why it's not binary.
Except they obviously don't, actually, or they wouldn't so regularly permit abortion in the case of rape or incest, nor would fertilization-preventing birth control be so often mislabeled as 'abortifacents'.
Preserving life may be the stated goal, but if you look at the actual actions taken, it's obvious that it's actually about controlling sexuality.
And they only give a shit because media has effectively manufactured outrage.
Fox News, CNN, msnbc, all have one goal and it's to push discussions from a class war (loaded term, I know) to a culture war.
As a male, I also care because the issue directly impacts people in my life that I care about. The pro-life side of the aisle is directly and viciously assaulting their bodily sovereignty and potentially their health and life.
The pro-lifers might be fighting for some nebulous "unborn" who they will likely never know and never have any real obligation to, but I'm fighting for my partner, my daughters, my sisters, my friends. And I'll be damned before I let some disgusting religious extremists create a system that enslaves them.
Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.
This clearly does not hold up for children after birth. I can't deposit my infant in the desert and withdraw my consent to provide for it. This would be murder.
It is only in the privilege of modern society where we have such an abundance of resources that we have collectively consented to allocate a percentage of our commonwealth to the care of unwanted infants and children through orphanages and foster care, that we can treat infanticide as barbaric murder. You can sever your responsibility to you child by surrendering them to the state, so severing your responsibility by leaving them to die of exposure is indeed unnecessary and barbaric.
I personally believe that in the future, when we develop artificial wombs, we may revisit the question of abortion and require that women "abort" by having the fetus extracted alive and transplanted into an artificial womb. Preemie care is effectively the state of the art for "artificial wombs" and the current record survival is 21 weeks of age, which is just shy of the third trimester. This would also then require us to collectively allocate money and resources to caring for and raising these unwanted infants in an expensive medical setting.
However, I suspect we'll develop near perfect, side effect free, and reversible birth control before this happens, so the issue of abortion may mostly resolve itself on its own. That is, unless the religious extremists get their way and ban birth control too, which the current leaked court decision seems like it's paving the way for.
Until then, keep your moral outrage out of people's bodies.
From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents.
Unless of course you’re arguing from a eugenics point of view, but I doubt that’s the angle you’re coming from. The two major exceptions I see are:
1) medical experts determine the life of the mother is in danger, such that the child will kill the mother.
2) scientific, repeatable evidence shows the fetus is non viable
Why would this situation differ from requiring people donate kidneys or a living liver donation when another humans life is at stake? Why don't I have a right to your kidney if you can go on living just fine after the procedure?
A much better analogy might be where you have a special blood type, and there's a person somewhere who needs regular transfusions of your blood in particular to continue living. No other blood will do, only yours.
In this analogy, we can first agree that the healthy person has no obligation to begin donating to the sick person, and this is strongly supported by legal precedent in the US at least. If there exists a frozen embryo, it is not legally justifiable to force some healthy woman to have it implanted.
We could also probably agree that if the healthy person is kidnapped and their blood taken against their will, they have no obligation to continue. This would give us an abortion exception for the cases rape and incest.
But the open question might be, if the healthy person consents to start donating, do they have the right to rescind their consent at anytime, say after 3 months of consistently donating blood? Do they have the right if they learn that donating blood so regularly is rapidly destroying their own health and is putting their own life at risk? Do they have the right revoke consent if the doctors are quite certain that the sick person will die in 3 months? Do they have a right to revoke consent just because they don't want to do it anymore, even though the sick person will die?
From the book description...
> Most arguments for or against abortion focus on one question: is the fetus a person? In this provocative and important book, David Boonin defends the claim that even if the fetus is a person with the same right to life you and I have, abortion should still be legal, and most current restrictions on abortion should be abolished. Beyond Roe points to a key legal precedent: McFall v. Shimp. In 1978, an ailing Robert McFall sued his cousin, David Shimp, asking the court to order Shimp to provide McFall with the bone marrow he needed. The court ruled in Shimp's favor and McFall soon died. Boonin extracts a compelling lesson from the case of McFall v. Shimp--that having a right to life does not give a person the right to use another person's body even if they need to use that person's body to go on living-and he uses this principle to support his claim that abortion should be legal and far less restricted than it currently is, regardless of whether the fetus is a person.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Roe-Abortion-Should-Legal-Even...
So, the ethical and legal question of abortion is not just one of if or when the fetus is a full human deserving of equal protection under the law, but one of when it is legally permissible to coerce a person into having their body used to preserve the life of another. Answering that question the wrong way is a potential legal slippery slope for all people, not just fertile females.
As a person who was raised fiercely pro-life, these are the kinds of ethical, philosophical, and legal considerations that I was never taught. All you ever hear in that world is "It's a baby! Murderers!"
I am now fiercely pro-choice, but I still consider the question of abortion to be a difficult one with no easy answer. However, I fundamentally believe that one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone, so even if you could prove to me that the fetus is conscious at the moment of conception, I would still never surrender a woman's right to sovereignty over her body.
The question is when it is permissible to sever or alter these relationships. Catholics might say that divorce is impermissible because the husband/wife relations is sanctified by god and is permanent. They might say that god never makes mistakes mismatching the soul (self) with the body. They might say that god blessed the woman with a relation with her fetus.
For those living back here in reality, there is no god setting up these relationships with a grand plan. We are the collective authors of our future, and it's up to us through conversation and education to decided what kind of world we want to build. Maybe we'll decide that the old ways are good, and maybe we'll decide that they're not.
Ultimately, the choice is up to us.
https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...
Ex: "Women's rights" disguised as "the right to have sex without consequences" regardless of gender?
> the right to have sex without consequences
Men effectively have this right. Why shouldn't women? We already do a lot to make this a viable lifestyle for everybody (namely, treating STDs inexpensively), why not make it equally available to all?
Uh, what? Men with guns will come to your house and take you to jail to enforce “consequences”.
Men aren't free from at least financial responsibility for their biological offspring. Some people actually make the argument that since women have the right to abort, men should have the right to their own "financial/legal abortion" of their parental rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to keep the baby against his consent.
Up until what point—until the baby is born? Or in Texas, would they have to decide in the first 6 weeks? Or are you arguing that the man should have the right to do this when the child is 1, or 5, or 10 years old?
Ex: "Right to life" disguised as "the obligation of people to live the lifestyle we want to force them to live"?
Fundamentally, the pro-choice side of the aisle is the side of individual sovereignty and freedom. That includes preserving your right to live a more traditional, conservative life if that's what you so choose. I'm personally of the opinion that many, if not most, women when given sufficient information and life experience, would choose the more traditional, motherhood/housewife lifestyle.
Conversely, the pro-life side of the aisle is one of coercion and slavery. It's the side that attempts to force people (specifically women in this case) to serve the role that the conservative elite want them to serve, regardless of whether or not they consent to it.
In my opinion, the pro-life/anti-abortion ideology is fundamentally un-American, undemocratic, and has no place in a free and open society that values individual sovereignty.
The expansion of individual choice and sovereignty is one of the key outcomes of progress in civilization and society. Everything we've been doing for the past 12,000 years has been driven by the desire to be free to consume more, work less, and have more freedom to explore our selves and existence. Never before have there been so many people with the freedom to live such an intense variety of lifestyles.
Collectivist responsibility still exists, e.g. taxes, public health, rules of the road, because we will always live in resource constrained world where people necessarily must interact with each other. But more and more, we are able to carve out larger pockets of individual freedom.
It would be incredible to live in a world were we had such control over the spread of disease, that vaccination mandates becomes unnecessary. It would be incredible to live in a world where forced military drafts are long gone. Just like it is equally incredible that we now get to live in a country that doesn't allow chattel slavery.
I fail to see a legitimate reason as to why we must socially regress and revoke a woman's choice over the sanctity of her body.
Assuming everyone's consenting and taking care about diseases, why is this a bad thing? Outside the strictures of religious morality?
Just to continue the discussion, in the case where the fetus is the product of a consensual sexual relationship (not rape), morally does that make a difference? In that case are you now ethically required to save the fetus's life?
The fetus would not exist had it not been for your actions and perhaps should not have to suffer pain and death (depending on how long the pregnancy is).
Not arguing for or against, im of the opinion that its very personal and complex.
It partially comes down to the question of whether the act of consenting to sex necessarily implies consent to carry a baby to term. It's not clear that that's true. It's not even clear that if you did consent to get pregnant, that you have a continuous obligation to take the baby to term.
To build an imperfect analogy, consider a case where you have been asked to start donating blood every week because you have a rare blood type, and there is a sick person who will die if you don't donate. Let's assume you consent and begin donating. Do you have a right to revoke consent and stop donating at any time? What if the blood donation is taking an unexpected, significant toll on your health? What if the doctors determine that despite the donation, the receiver isn't getting better and will definitely die in a matter of months? What if you changed you mind and you just don't want to anymore? Do we really want to live in a society where once you've given consent to have your body used, you can't revoke it afterwards?
To build another analogy, let's say you behave recklessly and drive drunk getting into a car wreck with your friend and they get seriously injured and hospitalized. It's so bad that they need an organ donation and you're a match. Are you legally obligated to surrender your bodily autonomy and give up an organ to save your friend's life? We might say that's the ethical thing to do, but can we say that we want that to be a legal obligation and you will be coerced by the violence of the state into doing it?
The relationship between a mother and her child during a pregnancy is not an artificial construct: it's not created by legal obligations, not by societal norms. It's a basic reality that all just laws and mores simply have to recognize. Similar to how gravity is simply a physical reality: any rational understanding of the natural world just has to recognize that massive objects exert force on other massive objects.
The relationship between McFall and Shimp, on the other hand, was predicated on legal and social conventions. Bone marrow donation is not a normal, naturally occurring process. Shimp did not have a natural obligation to donate bone marrow to his cousin, though it would have been an extraordinary gesture of charity towards McFall.
The error of the abortion argument here is in asserting that the natural relationship between mother and child is the same as any other sort of contractual relationship between consenting adults in the modern world. This is simply false. Mothers do have a moral obligation to their unborn children. Their bodily autonomy is not absolute, and they do not have the right to abort their child in the same way that Shimp had the right to refuse to donate bone marrow.
> so even if you could prove to me that the fetus is conscious at the moment of conception
Based on _this_ assumption, then I would add the following:
Rights are not absolute. Yes, the woman has the right to bodily autonomy, but it can't infringe on the baby's basic right to living. Similar to how you have the right to bear arms, but that right can be limited or forfeited if you start to threaten to shoot random people. That's why we say both matter.
Fundamentally this means you are fine with children giving birth to children. Today, usually when an 11 or 12 year old girl is raped by her relative or authority figure, the pregnancy is aborted and that little girl is allowed to move on with their life. After this decision comes down, abortion will be criminalized to the point of charging it as homicide. Young girls will be forced into social isolation at a young age to bear children that may in fact be their siblings. That, or they will undergo illegal and dangerous abortions which will end up killing them or putting them in jail for 30 years. Either way, the "Save The Children" crowd think they won one for babies, but the horror stories are just beginning.
That just seems like pragmatism. An unqualified ban would be voted down or struck down by a court. They might just be crafting legislation they feel they can pass.
Have you actually talked to anyone on the other side of this issue? Most are consistent on not allowing it- even when the rapist is a skin color you think they hate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americans-vi...
Even among the most extremist group, white evangelicals, a larger percentage favor legal abortion in the case of rape than a blanket ban.
But as someone who was myself raised in these extremist groups, I fully echo your perception that most vocal pro-lifers wouldn't be willing to carve out a rape exception. But this does seem to be a case of the screaming minority drowning out the silent majority.
The link I provided clearly shows that of white Evangelicals when asked specifically about the question of abortion in cases of rape, 40% said it should be legal, 34% said it should be illegal, and 24% said it depends. Are you referring to something else?
Also, white Evangelicals are VERY far from the majority, which means over 50%. They are at best the purality, with evangelical protestants of all races making up 25% of the US population. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu...
In fact, it looks like religious "nones" are growing so fast that the previous link is already out of date and they have already surpassed evangelicals to become the largest "religious" category (when you break down the larger Christian category). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-...
You're right about the true nature of the debate: it's really at which point during the pregnancy is the unborn child to be considered a full human whose right to life it is imperative to respect?
There is an extremely negative consequence if you try to regulate a person who is a grown persons body.
I would only buy the argument of respecting a life if we also extend this to way beyond a child in the womb, and to everyone living. Until we do that, there's no excuse to control a person's body.
The right to dispose of any unwanted child the mother cannot or will not care for herself is one that, like in vivo abortion, women will exercise irrespective of whether the law permits it. Poor indigenous women in Brazil allow their sickly babies to starve all the time.
Conclusion: any society that does not allow humane infanticide within the first year is literally Handmaid's Tale.
You don't want to, no one is forcing you to abort.
The discussion here is "who is forced to do something". This child in the womb would not be able to live without the life of the mother. Therefore their "choice", if you can even call it that, is irrelevant.
(I honestly don’t have a strong stance, but both sides have equivalent arguments and what bothers me is people refusing to acknowledge that)
When someone brings out the "her own body" line, they're begging the question about the fetus. It's a dishonest rhetorical device. We aren't going to solve this by yelling dishonest rhetoric at each other; that hasn't worked for 50 years. We have to actually address the real question.
Not considering the woman's point of view is treating her as if she's nothing more than an incubator, which comes back to "enslaving or murdering women".
And flushing her body of a fetus (or an embryo) is absolutely an action a woman may take upon her own body.
Compromise is made harder by three things, one is the parasitical relationship that only disadvantages a woman (who doesn’t want a child), the second is that a woman’s body flushing a fetus is a natural occurrence, and third is that occasionally the removal of the fetus, dead or alive, is medically required for the woman to survive.
The bans on abortions being proposed are not compromises.
Women aren’t brood mares at the beck and call of others. There is no right to inflict one’s progeny on another.
And, if the unborn are so vital, then they should be protected before and after birth, possibly until they’re an adult. Don’t see anybody saying that they have to provide medical care to the mother and unborn child. Or, are others allowed to kill the child (pr permanently cripple it) just not the mother?
skizm>Abortion is a big issue ... because one group of people view it as literally murdering a child and another group see it as a minor medical procedure...<"
That is, it is a religious dispute and religious disputes are impossible to settle by negotiation or compromise.
I've read the problem there was actually Roe v. Wade itself. The Supreme Court took it upon itself to prematurely decide the issue, which twisted the politics around it into a question of "how to control the Supreme Court" that is resistant to nuance (because the court is so insulated from normal politics).
Without Roe v. Wade, the debate would have probably eventually settled on the question you proposed in nearly all jurisdictions, though with some setting a number that Roe or Casey forbade.
The idea of restoring voting rights was wildly popular (65% in favor) yet it didn't actually happen.
So no matter what side you're on it doesn't seem like it's about to be diffused. It seems like without federal law one way or the other states are going to be fighting each other. It sounds like chaos.
Edit: Also, although it's tempting to think of "red" and "blue" states, the minority party in each state is humongous. Almost 40% of New York state voted for Trump in 2020 [3]. Desantis in Florida only won his election by 49% [4]! And a higher minority percentage in Mississippi voted for Biden in 2020 than minority in New York voted for Trump [5]. As much as it is easy to think of there being separate political halves of the US it's just not the case. There is huge Democrat and Republican presence in every state.
[0] https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-natio...
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-republicans-ro...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/nyregion/connecticut-texa...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_gubernatorial_ele...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
In any case, I hope you are right friend!
If this is what you hope I don't think you've been paying attention. They're gutting the right to privacy with Roe, so they're coming after gay marriage and contraception next; their legality is predicated on exactly the right to privacy that the supreme court is about to gut. Religious conservatives are salivating at the thought of making Plan B and IUDs illegal. There's no diffusion going on; they lit a match next to a powder keg. Roe is just the beginning.
And if you think this is going to be left up to the states, Republicans are already talking about a nationwide ban on abortion. This has never been about leaving it up to the states, when one side believes they are fighting for the rights of unborn defenseless babies in the name of God.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was intepreteted in Roe to mean abortion bans are OK in the 1st trimester, conditional in the 2nd, and prohibited in the 3rd trimester.
Loving took this and said that means interracial couples and gays get equal legal protection and treatment to everyone else.
On a practical level, I also think there is public support for gay an interracial marriage today in a way that there never was for Roe and later Casey. Most Americans cant even articulate what the abortion standards are.
48% support abortion under certain circumstances, 32% for any circumstance. so ~80% support allowing abortion. [1]
94% support interracial marriage. [2]
70% support same-sex marriage. [3]
seems to follow the age of the legal decision. Loving was in 1967, Roe was in 1973, Obergefell in 2015.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-mar...
[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...
The idea that the conservative supreme court is about to overturn Loving is absurd. 94% of the population supports it and Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage himself for heavens sake.
Time since decision is a factor as you mention, but the rates of change are an order of magnitude different. Support for gay marriage has increased about 40% in 20 years. Interracial marriage increased 90%! in 70 years. For abortion, "legal under any circumstances" has seen the biggest change and increased ~10% in 50 years. The pro-live/pro-choice chart is even more telling showing stagnation for the last 20 years.
Abortion is a complex decision tree with 100s of options and 71% of people fall between the extremes of no-exception legal or illegal [1], and dissatisfaction with current laws is at an all time high [2]. I just don't see the same motivation to overturn Loving and Obergefell which are binary issues the overwhelming majority are happy with.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americans-vi...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/283916/dissatisfaction-abortion...
That is obvious and absolute nonsense. The only thing it does is make the issue worse.
> At least theoretically, having the decision state by state means more people can agree with their local legislation
Not only will you always have people which do not agree with their legislation (even more so when that legislation is in no way representative thanks to voter suppression and gerrymandering), the GOP is already pivoting to trying for federal bans.
And that's ignoring the regressive states also already looking to push things further. Contraceptive bans are already coming up more and more as well.
Because the GOP found that by making it a wedge issue they could have a reliable lock on the religious right.
It makes it incredibly difficult to talk to many pro-life people about abortion in any context, because there's a huge effort happening to convince Evangelical voters that:
A) literally any sympathy for the parent, nuance, or lack of ferver is the same as wanting the unborn to die.
B) it's a primarily religious issue and that being an Evangelical means voting a certain way and aligning with a set of political issues, and that conversations about abortion must be approached through a religious lens.
C) that because it's a religious issue, there is one singular "correct" way to focus on reducing abortion, and any deviation from that specific strategy is literally a religious failing.
I see people just shut down during conversations about abortion, like even talking about it is itself a sin.
----
There is still a lot of nuance; I'm not trying to lump an entire group together or demonize people or say that Evangelical conservatives all collectively hate women. But there is (to me) a very obvious intentional push coming from some parts of the political spectrum and from some Church leaders to eliminate any nuance or openness that those people have -- to get people to approach abortion though a very specific lens and to only ever acknowledge or think about that specific lens, because those leaders/politicians see it as a really convenient way to create an identity that requires people to vote/associate in a certain way, to demonize people who those leaders/politicians would like them to demonize, and to go even further and tie that political identity to people's religious security in a way that is inherently dangerous for them to question or examine.
As a result, it then becomes easier for people to tie that religious identity to other political topics as well; the more that pro-life becomes shorthand for Christian, and the more that Christian becomes shorthand for "votes Republican", the easier it is to pick out other social/political issues (wealth inequality, LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, even entirely amoral, purely practical questions about things like economic policy), and to say that deviation from the expected party position is literally a sin and that non-party positions are guilty by association with the enemy.
And again, definitely not all Evangelicals and absolutely not all Christians. I grew up in white Evangelical communities; I see their flaws and their occasional strengths. And regardless of the flaws I still care about people in that community. But it is a very concerning problem that the Church needs to grapple with; at some point something needs to break and white Evangelicals need to decide whether their primary identity is Christian or Republican.
It is too valuable to Left to fix, though the Right seems perfectly content to go forward and act. The Right isn't merely agitating, they're trying for policy. The Left aims for outrage and political energy.
"Clearly we have to pack the court!" No. Clearly you have to pass a law. Understandably, that's much harder, because you must actually engage the electorate and build consensus instead of passing the buck to judges to "detect" what the people want, or slant things in your favor by ignoring (or selectively upholding) the Constitution.
The reason people are suggesting packing the court is because there is a belief that a 6/3 SCOTUS can simply undo any laws you put in place. The irony here is that Roe v Wade is a perfect example of the court doing just that.
The way we have 9 rulers who are picked by whatever party happened to be lucky enough to have someone die is an absolutely stupid system. I hope every majority congress packs until the court is thousands of justices.
If it were a law, it'd never get to the courts in the first place.
It absolutely would go to the courts. In the same way Obamacare went to the courts.
SCOTUS makes rulings on the constitutionality of laws written by both state and federal governments. If SCOTUS, for example, wants to argue a person is a fetus therefore deserves all the protections and rights ingrained in the constitution, they could easily dismiss a federal bill on abortion.
I can’t find the quote, but someone said something like “democracy is the system of government where the stupid lead society” (implying that the majority of people are stupid, so rule by majority is rule by the stupid). I tend to agree a little, but every other system seems so much more dangerous (including trying to only let “smart people” make decisions).
Define middle class. If you make >$250k but <$2M - you're probably getting hammered. But I don't think many people consider that "middle class". The ones with the highest tax rates by far make around $400-$600k. You don't have enough income for it to make sense to spend a lot of money to avoid taxes (accountants, tax lawyers, shielding income through corporations, etc) - and most of your income is "earned" from an employer - so you don't have many strategies to avoid taxes realistically anyway. You're pretty much stuck with a relatively high tax rate. But this is the top 1% - that doesn't seem middle class to me.
If you make ~$100k - you're still in the top 15% - but your tax rate is really not THAT high. Middle class should probably center on FAMILIES earning between ~$40k and ~$100k. By no means are these FAMILIES being hammered with taxes - on the low end, you're looking at hardly any federal or state tax beside payroll (your pension).
Anyway - there's a lot of minimum wage workers who make below $40k - probably the majority make less than half that - many minimum wage workers do not work full-time.
And, yes, considering how many single-parent HHs there are, and how many HHs with only 1 person on a small SS check - two working adults making minimum wage would be considered close to low end for middle class.
Median HH income is $67k - meaning only 50% of HH make more than that. So the bar for middle class is obviously going to be lower than that. It's subjective - maybe your bar is at $50k? The tax rate is still quite low at that point (~14% with ~7% of that being your pension - SS & Medicare - even lower if this is a family instead of a single person - which, statistically, is likely).
If this is considered hammered - I don't know how low people expect taxes should be, yet we still have a functioning society.
And, regardless, you're getting significantly more hammered the more income you make until you're deep into the 1% and can afford to avoid taxes. The top 10% are not skimping out on taxes. People making >$5M are.
Of course we also had the idea that "middle class" was more of an aspirational lifestyle goal and not a moving target. I guess if we just define it accurately as the median of real incomes we can see this range drop alarmingly. Thanks for the perspective.
That was top-end middle class, absolute minimum.
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1982/demographi...
I'd argue median income is irrelevant when it comes to assessing whether or not someone is living a middle class lifestyle.
NYC and The Bay area have always been expensive. But the difference 40-years ago was nowhere near as drastic as it is today.
The largest state minimum wage can be found in New York and Washington, DC, at $15. That is $30,000 annually.
> I can't view the article, but aren't those "losses" likely to be paper losses, i.e., unrealized losses?
Yup, these kind of articles are just padding. They're very cheap to write, and there's almost always "news" since stock prices always move. Most of the richest people (that we know of) hold the vast majority of their wealth in shares of public companies, so the richest got X-trillion richer/poorer in the past months/years is pretty much synonymous with the stock market went up/down by Y-%.
You can probably write a script that fetches stock returns and autogenerates the article. Heck, someone at Bloomberg probably already did.
RvW was a compromise that made both sides feel shafted, like most good compromises. The rise in extremism on both sides is fueling this, not religious fundamentalism. For states like Texas, where most people still hold to vaguely Christian values and new life is valued over choice, they feel like they are forced to allow murder. For other places like California who have a more secular egalitarian leaning, and value choice over life, they feel as though being limited to before viability is too much restriction.
RvW was always on shaky ground legally and morally speaking [1]. Making it a federal issue was always going to lead to this. States are different, some so different they might as well be separate countries. California, for example has already toyed with the idea of making abortion part of their state constitution. With Roe gone, it's much easier to do that, not harder.
Acting like this was done out of a lack of education is reductive and pointless. The justices know what they are doing and what it means. Just because you happen to be against this particular decision does not make it wrong. Abortion rights are not going away, they are being given back to the states where they belonged in the first place. Activists on both sides will just have to deal with the fact that they can no longer dictate how the entire country lives, just because their local bubble agrees with them.
[1]https://www.liveaction.org/news/roe-v-wade-exploitation-mcco... [2]https://apnews.com/article/california-reproductive-rights-st...
Abortion rights are going away in some states.
> In Texas, last time I looked, anybody can initiate a lawsuit against a doctor on abortion related issues, making doctors frozen due to legal worries and even reverting to communicating on paper notes that they then throw away. It's insane. We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated.
.. as you've pointed out yourself.
> The rise in extremism on both sides is fueling this,
There is no pro-abortion "extremism". There never has been anything comparable to the anti-abortion bombings.
> For states like Texas, where most people still hold to vaguely Christian values and new life is valued over choice, they feel like they are forced to allow murder.
Texas has the death penalty to show how much they value life.
>Abortion rights are going away in some states. And getting stronger in others. Which is my point.
When you see a system that fails through four levels of safeties, and is stopped by a fifth, do you see that as "good the system is working" or "we need to re-examine the first set of safeties"?
In 2020, stolen meant conspiracy theories about people cheating at the polls with absolutely zero evidence that anything untoward had happened.
In both cases, "stolen" is the wrong word, but to casually lump them together is also incorrect.
The USA has low election participation, generally, inadequate polling locations in populous areas, the design of their senate is straight up stupid, and the electoral college should have been abolished a century ago. But the actual elections themselves are as secure as they can be.
These are some of the bad practices that are generally rejected by countries that present themselves as democratic.
Edit: also, how is it "their senate" this time, but "our democracy" in one of your previous comments?
Have you lost your US citizenship in the last 2 hours?
There are roughly 1 to 2 credible allegations of in person voting fraud per year. [1] Meanwhile, over ten percent of the country doesn't have a photo id. To date, there has been zero credible evidence that voter ID laws prevent meaningful fraud, and zero credible evidence that the fraud you are describing occurs.
Mail in ballots, likewise, have no credible evidence of being used to commit fraud. They are widely used in North America and Europe, with forty countries allowing vote by mail. [2] It's perhaps slightly more likely batches of ballots could go missing, but the mail in systems allow you to validate that your ballot has been received.
And counting locations is perhaps the most absurd concern. Ballot counting takes time and space and dedicated staff. Should the voting shut down libraries, schools, and all the distributed places where people vote for potentially weeks? The ballots are locked and transported securely and there's tons of oversight on them.
Nothing about those is considered "bad practice" or unusual.
[1] https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajna...
[2] https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi...
There is complaint that people don't trust the elections, but there are common sense methods to improve said trust that don't involve following links to .edu websites. You know that a lot of people don't trust scientists.
I am not saying there is fraud. (I do say however that the candidates of the two partes and the results would be quite different if above changes were introduced.)
They didn’t say anything about voting taking weeks, they were talking about counting. Counting the votes alone takes weeks. Cyber Ninjas took over 3 months to re-count votes from a single county in Arizona. What’s your proposal there?
> There is complaint that people don't trust the elections, but there are common sense methods to improve said trust
Far and away the biggest common sense thing that could be done to improve trust in elections is for the loser of the last election to stop saying he actually won but for the fraud can’t produce.
> I am not saying there is fraud.
Then why are all the measures you propose designed to stop fraudulent activity? If you don’t think there’s fraud then why the need for anti fraud provisions? If there’s no fraud how would the results be changed with anti fraud measures that don’t prevent any fraud (because it doesn’t exist in the first place)?
And if there’s no fraud, what plans do you have to make sure your anti fraud proposals (that do nothing about fraud) don’t actually end up disenfranchising American citizens and deprive them of their rights? Because you had better go to the ends of the earth to prevent that if your changes are to just make you personally feel better about the process rather than fix any concrete and identifiable problem.
The purpose of the election is to 1 .: measure public support of candidates. 2.: convince the population that it has been fairly measured.
It is quite clear that some of the last two elections failed at the convincing part.
Give everyone mandatory 3 hours off on election day(which would be saturday so most people dont work anyway) and you are fine. Noone is "disenfranchised". This appears an excuse not a serious issue and just about every country managed to solve it.
just to reiterate. Dont just focus on candidates lieing about fraud. They do it. Also focus on independent verifiability of the fairness of the process where the USA is severely lacking.
First, most countries don't have elections as large as the US presidential election, which is the third largest in the world only behind India and China. Counting to 160 million is a lot harder than counting to 10 or even 50 million.
Secondly, if you really want to count in 24 hours you'll need a lot more trust. For example, my polling location was my neighbor's garage. My neighbor ran that polling location, so if you want to count at the polling location you'll just have to trust my neighbor opening up all the ballots and believe whatever he says.
If you don't want to trust him, you'll have to transport the ballots to some other location and count them with more process, and now you have to invent a system you can trust for transporting ballots. So why not just use that and not have my neighbor open up all the ballots?
Besides, no matter what you're going to want to audit the results, and you'll have to transport the ballots at that time for the audit. Yes it's true that transportation creates a vulnerability but at the same time it's not a really good one (as shown by the fact it hasn't been exploited as you imagine). So I feel like continually pointing it out just because it makes you "feel" like the system can't be trusted (although you can't really specify why, just that it doesn't have some features you like), is getting old at this point.
Yes it's not 100% secure in some way you imagine it can be penetrated. No, that doesn't mean we should put in place systems that do nothing to shore up the vote, but actually make it harder for everyone to access. Now that is a way to make people lose trust in a system. That's called "security theatre" - when you implement a pointless security regime for no other purpose than to make some people "feel" better.
> Give everyone mandatory 3 hours off on election day(which would be saturday so most people dont work anyway) and you are fine. Noone is "disenfranchised". This appears an excuse not a serious issue and just about every country managed to solve it.
When you hear people complain about disenfranchisement, this is never an option on the table. Of all the voting laws passed by Republicans since 2020, none of them include a voting holiday, let alone a mandatory one.
Compare that with the 2020 election, where the loser is still going on national tours saying how the election was stolen and rigged after trying to get the result overturned, and many in his party believe him, and worse, many leaders in his party privately comment that this is all bullshit but publicly are silent or support his narrative.
It seems like a majority of people (or close) are vehemently opposed to free & fair elections - thinking the only votes that should count are they votes they agree with.
And it seems like the VAST majority of people in this country would be willing to steal an election if it went in their favor.
In this landscape - I'm not sure how it doesn't eventually happen. And once the genie is out of the bottle, I don't think it ever goes back in.
When we live in a world where hardly anyone respects the opinions of others - it's hard to think a democracy is even what people want.
In Canada (unrelated to article, but similar.) I'd need a 16% raise to keep pace with inflation. Since 52% tax bracket.
Meanwhile homeowners do nothing and have tax-free returns. Yearly returns larger than my net salary.
Collapse is a matter of perspective. Being in the working class sucks and everyone knows it.
This is a much better article:
Collapse Won’t Reset Society https://palladiummag.com/2022/04/11/collapse-wont-reset-soci...
What do you mean, their theoretical home value going up? What good is that until or if they sell, better home equity loans?
I had a peer and we both made 120k with 35% taxes. In the last 10 years he made 2.5 million trading up houses tax free. Roughly 2x our salary per year tax free.
A lot of jealousy going around. I try to say good for him, but a lot of people have more trouble with that.
Your real tax rate is likely close to 50%. You’re almost certainly not including payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes in that number at that income level.
I also excluded registration and Licensing fees, and capital gains.
It will take time, but I'm confident things will change.
Round number example: $150k gross, $100k net and $100k of expenses. Expenses go up to $108k. If your top marginal tax rate is 50%, you need a $16k raise to match it. 10.6% raise (not 16% though).
The sum of these things indicates that absent major structural reforms in how apportionment occurs indicates that a breakup is a realistic outcome.
As a gun owner, we've been dealing with this for a long time.
But the equating of inconvenience and capital punishment is illustrative, isn't it?
Maybe you should verify the information you consume before repeating it as fact.
[0]: https://www.google.com/maps/search/gun+store/@34.0212335,-11...
Why is this an issue?
> random arbitrary features on rifles
Why do you need: 1) pistol grip 2) bayonet lug 3) telescoping or folding stock 4) flash suppressor 5) threaded barrel 6) grenade launcher 7) muzzle brake 8) muzzle compensator 9) thumbhole stock 10) foregrip (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Overview)
I live in NYC and none of the above bans are an issue for home defense or hunting. When I asked my green beret friend what to buy for in-home defense he simply replied "A mossberg or benelli pump action and a box of bird and a box of buck shot. Load up two rounds of bird and the rest buck. If the first two shots doesn't stop or scare em off, the buck will."
Most people I know who complain loudly about these bans are the types who like cosplaying gi joe and tell me things like "holding a gun makes me feel powerful." This is why I support theses kinds of bans, to keep high capacity killing weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Cool story but no gun person would actually give that advice. The shotgun part, yes, because you will not get overpenetration in a flimsy apartment building. But not the loading non-lethal rounds first part.
2) safer than trying to fight with a knife directly.
3) More convenient storage, support for differently sized people to safely use a firearm.
4) Prevent blinding flashes of light.
5) allow a suppressor to be attached which prevents hearing loss.
6) launching flares for locating without direct LOS.
7) reduced recoil for better accuracy or smaller/weaker people to safely use a gun.
8) Similar to 7.
9) similar to 1.
10) safety, accessibility, increased accuracy
These bans tend to only ever make guns more dangerous or less accessible. The fact some people may be able to also buy a gun that looks (not works) like some military forearm is irrelevant.
States will pass death penalties for abortion, and at least one person will be executed.
It was one such case that got the constitutional ban on abortion in Ireland repealed.
See Paul Kennedy “decline and fall of the great powers”.
All that to say, this was a good read - so thank you for posting.
This article claims it's not endorsing passivity but it is. It is reassuring you that doing nothing is the correct course, and that you are noble for having the detachment and self-knowledge to choose not to act.
It's no different and no better than the appeals to emotion that you believe you're above.
That was definitely not my take. It is reassuring me that things will be ok, and that definitely doesn’t mean I should be doing nothing. Quite the opposite actually - I should vote, organize and protest - do things that are in my control. It is moot to worry about things that may happen in the future, which is what doomerism tends to be.
Some like to think that history repeats itself. That human history is just a demonstration of invariable principles of human nature in different guises. This is an antiquated view, given man's newfound ability to change himself and his environment.
Some people have also said that we're reaching the end of history. That the systems of the world will become so stable, owing to the apocalyptic prospect of war with modern technology, that everyone will basically become a moronic beurocrat in it and there will be no more wars. Humanity will be benevolently managed a la brave new world. Social stability will become the only goal of the human race because every other aim leads to war, and war will become suicide for humanity.
I'm also skeptical of this idea as well. The will to power that breeds war will adapt. We won't fight wars with guns and nukes, but with words and culture. The new wars are psychological. And these wars are constant and just as destructive as real wars.
More Americans die from complications associated with being overweight than from fighting in foreign wars. French fries are the new bullets in modern wars. If you look at Mexico and see the alarming rise of diabetes, this can be traced back to U.S. corporations pushing unhealthy sugar drinks on their population. Pepsi is just as dangerous to these people as the cartels.
I believe we're in the midst of a war we can't recognize because it isn't fought with conventional weapons. Birth rates crashing, social blight everywhere, insane wealth inequality, families unable to stay together, cultural chaos, etc. Lives are being destoroyed, casualties are mounting, but they aren't seen as such. It's "just the way things are."
My friend, I hate to rain on your parade but my ultimate prediction is this: the psychological warfare will get so bad that people will believe things are the best they've ever been as they are being destroyed. People will be conditioned to yearn for their own destruction and will see all healthy things, all things that could save them, as bad things. Death will become the ultimate good. And when everyone is dying, the world will be seen as a paradise.
In America, there have already been mini-apocolypses all over the country. Great cities like Detroit rose and fell. Where there was once prosperity, there is now poverty, misery, and crime.
The world, as people knew it, has already ended many times before. Empires rise and fall. Peoples conquer and perish. All things in this world are transitory.
I'm not prophesying that it will be the end of time for everyone, but for many people it will be. And this complacent attitude, which lulls us to sleep with happy thoughts and a magical reading of history that seems to predict a bright future, can surely be counted as one of the contributing factors to the immanent end of the world as we know it.
Completely off-topic but watching car accidents video on Youtube clearly made me way more prudent. As long as you have not seen accidents, you feel that you have a way better control of your vehicle that you actually have.
Watching accident video should be a mandatory part of driving training.
Example: Russia expected a quick victory because it did well the last few times it tried to run over a smaller country. They didn't anticipate Ukraine taking those years Russia waited after the last one to prepare while training people up in the ongoing fights in the east.
They should have watched more Russian dashcam videos.
That what they were also saying about the USSR and look how it went.
To be clear, I don't think the USA will collapse soon because I do not have the necessary skills to assess a claim like that. The one thing I think everyone gives too much credit to is our own ability to foresee events such as a country collapsing.
How human crowds behave is notoriously very hard to predict, and people have a tendency to retcon their historical perception of events in order to justify what has just happened. Just look at the USSR, where the majority of experts in Russology scoffed at the idea that the Soviet regime was going to collapse, yet it did and afterwards everyone was like "well, that's obvious!". If the USA were to collapse tomorrow, future historians would probably point at things such as the current Supreme Court composition and the divide between political lines as the inevitable, unstoppable factors behind it.
IMHO except the fact that every Empire some day inevitably falls, how and when countries implode is often too complex to predict, so most of these discussions about the impending (or lack of) doom of a polity basically boil down to white noise or fiction.
Again, this was the first time for me reading in a MSM entity that a decision/action that would de facto mean the (at least) partial dissolution of the idea of the United States would not mean the end of the world.
Dark times ahead.
(if it matters I'm not from the US nor have I set foot in there, but I do love the country and I have been trying to read the most that I could find when it came to its history and its institutions).
Just because you feel satiated does not mean the end of RvW won’t spark a sudden social meltdown. We could be one stupid political decision away.
We’re not property of the elites. None of the bank tellers by me own the banks. Mortgage strikes, wfh worker strikes could follow further erosion of human rights. Good luck going door to door, Jamie Dimon and co.
There’s a broader distribution of possible triggers than the ones in this post. People still need to eat so certain behavior will look the same. That doesn’t mean they aren’t ready to eat the rich.
Russia exports way more resources and has decrepit living conditions.
LNG will not make up for a fall in GDP due to supply chain, monetary or political issues.
The risks are piling up for a black swan, but it's not a collapse. Western Civilization is far from collapse, but it might be entering its long decay. That's difficult to quantify.
And by 1946 the US was moving to the apogee of its power.
I think the popularity of the collapse narrative over the past 10 years or so speaks more to the emotional salience of the topic and the ability of the web to supercharge emotionally potent topics than to the likelihood of any sort of collapse of the American state.
> No, America is not collapsing
A collapse is different than a protracted decline and fall.
Historians could make a lot of similar points about Rome still being a successful superpower in the 3rd, 4th or even 5th century AD.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pub...
- Rasmussen isn't a pollster so much as a right-wing polling window shifter (we sample the "real" America). They're consistently tilted to the right, on purpose.
- Sampling "likely" voters also biases heavily toward the right (something between 4-9 points). Sampling "registered" voters has a similar leftward bias, which is why pollsters have to control for it, or sample Americans and not simply "voters" (when doing election polling you want voters, when doing opinion polling you want Americans, if you're doing voters for opinion polling you're gaming the results).
Gallup's poll is a much better resource on this [0], specifically 58% oppose "the Supreme Court overturn[ing] its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision".
I don't recall saying this. This is getting complex, so let's recap:
GGP: "No, American is not collapsing"
GP: "There are people who believe that America is collapsing if Roe v Wade isn’t overturned."
There are multiple ways to interpret this, and I've been referring to it in the sense of, "for them, overturning Roe vs Wade means America isn't collapsing."
P: "A quite small minority".
Meaning, if I've used the correct interpretation, "quite a small minority think America will collapse if Roe vs Wade isn't overturned."
You could say that both camps who believe America is collapsing is "quite a small minority" of Americans. However, I was interpreting the statement in the sense of, "quite a small minority of the set of people who believe America is collapsing."
From the most recent Gallup poll, a third of people wanted the court to overturn Roe vs Wade. My point was that if the subset of those who believe America is collapsing is politically divided in a similar ratio as the superset (those polled about wanting/not wanting Roe vs Wade overturned), then we wouldn't expect either to be a very small minority, since 30% isn't close to a very small minority.
Agreed. Just because someone strongly disagrees or agrees with Roe doesn't mean they must believe that America is collapsing with or without it.
You agree that there exists Americans who believe that America's collapsing, right? As the article's author said, there have always been people who believe this ("doomers"). He quoted some from Twitter.
Assuming you agree that there is some population of doomers, within that set there must exist those who think upholding/removing Roe contributes to America's collapse. Why wouldn't that subset of people be divided in a similar ratio as the population at large is divided on whether or not they think the courts should uphold Roe?
It might be; it might not be. There's no way to know from the survey you linked.
A) Those who think overturning Roe has to do with the collapse are a great majority and those who think upholding it has to do with the collapse is a great minority, or vice versa.
B) The ratio from both camps is not that one sided, and neither could be described "a great minority."
You're saying that we can't know anything about whether 'B' is more likely than 'A' based on what the Gallup poll you linked that questions the population on whether they want Roe upheld or not.
I disagree. I believe it gives us a bayesian prior for the distribution of the population's attitudes. I think it's reasonable to expect that someone who thinks America is collapsing partly due to Roe being issue will likely think it's due to upholding it if they also believe they think Roe should be upheld. Why would a person think America is collapsing if Roe is upheld also believe Roe should be overturned? That wouldn't make sense.
Since the population we're focusing on is a subset of that distribution, and since no other evidence has been given for why this distribution should differ, then case 'B' seems more likely.
Sorry, I know I'm being obnoxious. The reason I'm really sticking on the survey point is that people are very hard to survey. They have a lot of contradictory opinions ("I support banning preexisting conditions, banning lifetime caps on care, and banning junk insurance plans, even if it means I have to get insurance, like it says in the ACA, but I super hate Obamacare"), and are deeply, deeply ignorant. Here's a poll from 2010 where 41% of respondents couldn't name Joe Biden as VP in an open ended question [0], coincidentally also the poll that destroyed my faith in an informed citizenry.
Tons and tons of thought goes into the way questions are phrased, because it has huge effects on outcomes, and if you want any kind of longitudinality you can never, ever change it (which is why we still have right direction vs wrong track despite its asymmetry).
So if that's where we're starting, to pile on with a junk pollster asking an irrelevant question is like, I don't know, turning a hose on a drowning dog. Public opinion is very, very hard to discern, you certainly can't make blasé claims, no matter how much you really want to believe they obey Bayes' theorems (they definitely don't, see every election poll ever taken).
[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2010/09/28/u-s-religiou...
Climate change is a substantial omission here: forest fires and droughts in the west, heat waves/cold snaps in the south, increasing floods and hurricanes in the south east. Those are drastically changing the population landscape of the country.
Then there's the whole change with SALT deductions. This was a lot more insidious than a lot of people credit it with being. The long-term effects are hard to predict.
We are going to see a repeat of 2020 in 2024. Except this time, it will probably be successful. Will the next president continue trade wars against allies? Successfully withdraw from NATO? Again make military aid contingent upon corruption? Actively target "left wing" people with laws that allow them to be arrested, robbed, and have their children taken away?
I think this article undersells how incredibly precarious our democracy is right now. I genuinely feel like I'll see the end of the USA in my lifetime. I just hope it is a peaceful dissolution.
But this recent video by Ray Dalio made me think a lot, and led me to his books: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8
Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order
He did a bunch of quantitative research and came up with a model for the prosperity of countries, and "the world order".
In the model, there were 4 world leaders at various points: Dutch, British, Americans, and Chinese. The basic pattern is that they were productive and industrious, gained military power, and grew to hold the world's reserve concurrency.
After they hold the world's reserve concurrency, they stop being as productive. The rich parents can bend the rules and corrupt society for their kids.
And there is more internal conflict about how to divvy up a fixed or declining pie. There can be more external conflict once rivals see weakness. In Dalio's view, China is obviously on the rise economically, and you also see signs of their increased military power.
There is more to it than that -- see the video and books, but that's my short summary.
-----
It sounds a little too "clean", but after some reflection, a lot of it is hard to argue with. (I'd definitely be interested in criticisms -- this presentation / framing is pretty new.)
This doesn't mean America is "collapsing". But I would now say it's clearly "declining". Our energies are directed more at fighting amongst ourselves than producing things.
It always boggled my mind that everything we buy is made in China -- how could that not have an effect? Well it does appear that having the world's reserve concurrency is a huge advantage. That was established long ago, before we were born, and now we're coasting off of it.
But then again, Britain and the Netherlands "declined" and they seem to be doing OK. They lost their empires, but they recovered to some degree of civilized society and prosperity.
And I'm pretty sure I would not want to live in China right now, e.g. especially with what I hear about the COVID lockdowns. (even though I'm ethnically Chinese)
But yeah I think I need to take the idea of decline a lot more seriously. I think the blog post is also "overcorrecting" from the screeching. I think what decline looks like is a bunch of little collapses in all areas of life, and people endlessly arguing about it, while doing little to correct it.
https://bigthink.com/the-present/5-reasons-why-america-will-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/america-falling-a...
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/four-s...
The contemporary assertion that america is collapsing is well established by the entire political spectrum as well as objective observers internationally.
>I realize that to a large extent, “doomerism”, as the kids call it, is just self-expression. We just went through a massive pandemic that killed a million of us, we had an era of riots and coup attempts and random acts of terrorism, crime is high, inflation is eating away at people’s paychecks and savings, and there are rumblings of major war from overseas.
That is the collapse... you just proved it's happening. There has been 2 years of racial unrest and so far minor insurrections.
>Nor do I want to deny that the country faces real risks. If WW3 starts, that’ll be a calamity. We could also have a civil war in 2024-5 over a disputed presidential election result. It’s even possible that inflation could spiral out of control and turn us into Venezuela.
Midterms are this year and we are going into another summer of racial unrest. It's inevitable another black person is killed by police brutality who doesnt get punished because of immunity. If the food shortages happen you're going to have riots which are hungry. BLM is only popular during elections and midterms are this year.
>The economy is not collapsing
Your first graph shows no peak since 2000? How terrible. Prime age working and there hasnt been a peak since 2000?
>Once we control for the Baby Boomer retirement by looking only at the “prime age” population between 25 and 54,
Because why? What does the boomer graph look like? Really bad eh? I know you looked and chose not to include.
Wage growth tracker also peaked around 2000. 2 decades of failure?
>Yes, we had some huge protests and riots in 2020. Yes, crime is way up. We even had a (shambolic, ridiculous, halfhearted) coup attempt. Yes, there’s even a slight danger that a disputed 2024 election could lead to civil war. I do not deny any of these things.
Is this post meant to be sarcastic and it doesn't read like it? I assume your 'coup' attempt was Jan 6... the weaponless trespassing for a couple hours? Not a very good coup is it. Or are you referring the multiple insurrection autonomous zones that existed for days to weeks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
This roe vs wade thing is because of #metoo. It's only vaguely part of the collapse. Men vs women(and however incels fit in) isn't majorly part of the polarization and collapse.
Next thing you know, they will find a new villain of the month to screech at and cause outrage towards.