Michael

It’s not a lack of trustworthiness or sanity, but the impression of.

I disagree. The situation here in America is quite insane.

Off the top of my head: microplastics/PFAS contamination in and around our food/etc. and response has been very lackluster (and many individuals likely don’t follow best practices to avoid microplastic leaching and to avoid contaminating their food with the chemicals found in non-stick surfaces), there’s a fresh water shortage crisis that we are unprepared to deal with, there is widespread PFAS contamination and other contamination of our fresh water, contaminated biosolids are being using to fertilize crops and are causing PFAS contamination of soil, water, and agriculture, fracking has the potential to contaminate groundwater and air and the practice is supported by politicians on both sides (see the EPA’s final assessment, and look at places affected like Dimock, PA), there are many instances of toxic dumping by corporations with no response or remediation (e.g. by Tyson).

Some crises are more reported on than others, but it’s pretty clear our country’s water supply is overwhelmingly in jeopardy, with only about 100 chemicals regulated out of many thousands (e.g. see the EWG’s reporting on this issue). Our food quality is generally in the gutter and is in desperate need of regulation and we also have a topsoil crisis.

We also generally have a health care crisis, a housing/homelessness crisis, we have an economy that doesn’t work for the majority of Americans, 1/3 of Americans don’t vote in the presidential election and are disenfranchised or politically apathetic, and the list goes on.

All news organizations and the experts that are generally put forward care about is maintaining positive public perception of authority and governance - likely to maintain public order. There are plenty of experts who are sounding the alarm or are working diligently to address these issues, but these people usually aren’t the same people that are on mainstream news telling us everything is okay.

And I disagree with your assertion that American leadership, particularly the presidency, has been trustworthy or sane across the decades. There are so many points I could argue, but at this point I’ve already spent too much energy on this response and we likely just don’t see eye-to-eye on these issues - which is fine. I could elaborate further, but I feel there are many others better equipped to comprehensively critique recent presidents.

I think he’s keenly appealing to a feeling most people resonate with: distrust of politicians.

It pains me to give him any amount of credit, though. Thanks for the context.

It’s fair to point out that people lean towards emotions, but I’d argue those emotions aren’t always invalid at their root.

I think most of the issues with potentially dangerous viewpoints lie in the inherent polarization and untrustworthiness of media. Even the sources seen as most trustworthy omit key facts and relevant details.

News isn’t news. It’s become entertainment and what amounts to corporate propaganda. All of these organizations are attempting to get clicks and engagement as their primary focus. Tribalism, fear, and hate are frequently invoked, politics and bias is enmeshed with reporting, critical thinking and discernment isn’t encouraged (which is also a failing of education), and gaslighting has arguably become a profession. Critical and divergent perspectives are generally suppressed or smeared, as well.

I understand why people turn away from liberal sources. I also understand how people get stuck in conservative echo-chambers. Hate, distrust, and concern are usually the emotions at the root of one’s engagement with conservative or conspiratorial sources. These organizations and influential conservative individuals appeal to these people’s vulnerabilities and latch on. They are confident, they are emotional and passionate, and they are seen as more grounded than more reliable sources.

It’s a form of radicalization - these people may have some good reasons to not trust authorities, but it’s all effectively lost to them once they are immersed in the slop they tune into.

We need to repair trust and restore sanity to our institutions and positions of leadership. Things just aren’t working in our society. I think it’s imperative that we separate news and entertainment, improve our education system, increase accessibility of higher education, and make government more transparent.

I’d say a lottery based on merit would be appropriate to choose leadership in certain areas for a reasonable duration. Determining merit could be a sticky issue if misapplied though, and could lead to some of the issues we deal with now.

Perhaps people could vote on a pool of experts for the final decision, with each expert advertising the solutions or progress they hope to achieve during the term of their leadership. It could just amount to people voting on the methods each expert chooses to accomplish their goals, depending on how specialized the office is.

As for leading the country, I am unsure if such an office is necessary. I am personally not a fan of the centralization of power when society is this profoundly sick. We need to patch the leaks in our ship before we can worry about captaining it.

People just aren’t buying appeals to authority anymore. They are demanding more.

In the US, people just don’t seem to trust the status quo. The government is very, very corrupt and has been for a long time. Corporations are shady and many have been implicated in some pretty damning controversies that have affected our health with relatively little consequence. Regulation essentially doesn’t exist.

If experts explained why certain “controversial” things are safe and laid out the science and reasoning, a lot of these concerns would likely vanish.

But, we generally don’t address concerns, even concerns that seem fairly legitimate to the people that hold them. We attack these people, calling them names - effectively pushing them further down their rabbit holes. Plenty stand to profit off of their fears and encourage their (potentially dangerous) perspectives.

And we definitely don’t address legitimate concerns properly (from experts or otherwise), which adds fuel to the fire (and adds legitimacy to these bad actors who are quick to point out these issues) and more trustworthy sources are silent.

This is all a failure of media, government, leadership, and education. I reason that distrust in experts is a symptom of those failures.

This is obvious bait, but I’ll bite a little.

The real experts, that sound the alarm and call us to action, are largely silenced or ignored. These people are not in leadership or positions that hold any meaningful power or influence. Our actual leadership is mostly unqualified and playing team politics and tug of war while nothing gets done and the plane crashes.

Can you blame people for raising their hands and suggesting that the pilots, who are crashing the plane through their apathy and inaction, be removed?

Direct democracy would be a wonderful concept for humanity to explore. And the experts who are on the side of progress should be allowed to spearhead initiatives to solve the various crises our species and planet faces.

Whether they use them intentionally or not, we need voting reform. In the 2024 election, third-parties barely made a dent — they weren’t a spoiler.

FPTP is exactly why third-parties can be a “spoiler”. There are plenty of valid alternative voting systems to explore that are way more fair and democratic.

And it doesn’t sound very democratic of the Democratic Party to repeatedly and systematically restrict ballot access through lawsuits. Ballot access is hard enough for third-parties to achieve in most states.

Maybe there would be more than Side A and Side B if we had voting reform and Democrats didn’t systematically sue third-parties off the ballot.

People (not just authoritarians) criticize Side A because they have way more tallies than most have been led to believe. Everybody who pays any amount of attention knows that Side B has a lot of tallies. What good comes out of specifically pointing out the tallies of Side B when literally everybody on non-conservative social media is blasted with the knowledge of those tallies? If you want somebody to preach to the choir or inform you about Side B’s tallies, just ask. If you think people paying attention to or being informed about Side A’s tallies is dangerous and harmful, just say so.

Side A tolerates third-world exploitation (labor, resources, goods) that the US economy still relies on, they tolerate the US economy still relying on slavery and child slavery, they tolerate or support US imperialism and regime change, they refuse to address or come up with solutions for the fresh water crisis (by 2030, demand will exceed supply by 40%), they refuse to properly address many issues that the US people face (the economy, the housing crisis, the health care crisis, etc.), they support harmful policies like fracking, they have allowed corporations/et. al to go out of control under their power, and they generally have not advocated for strong regulation and protections for the American people. Yes, Side B is undesirable, but Side A is insufficient.

If Side A’s hands are always tied in a two-party system, then they should impeach the bad actor, push voting/election reform and term limits, and hold fair and democratic primaries and elections. Side A not propping up extreme right-wing candidates (like Trump) and telling the media to take them seriously would be nice, too.

1/3 of Americans don’t vote and plenty of people only voted Kamala because they didn’t want Trump (and there are other factors than Gaza, misogyny, and Jill Stein voters at play to explain why people didn’t come out to vote for her). Plenty of people probably don’t want Trump (or anybody like him) if they’ve been paying any attention and didn’t fall for the propaganda.

Side A would get bonus points for not alienating progressives, for supporting the loosening of requirements for ballot access (and stop engaging in lawfare to restrict ballot access), and for supporting fair and inclusive debates on public property where they would have to address perspectives and topics that are potentially uncomfortable or inconvenient for them.

I realize there are plenty of unserious actors who run for president (like Kayne West) who would try their best to poison open debates and abuse expanded ballot access, but there has to be some fair mechanism to filter (openly racist and insane) people like him out. Perhaps a competency test of sorts with independent observation would be appropriate.

And I realize a lot of people find Jill Stein to be harmful (and individuals like her), but maybe we shouldn’t arrest her (or any other presidential candidate) and put her in a black site, shackling her to a chair for 8 hours, because she wanted to be present at the presidential debate?

This is an unprecedented time for the American people, with human rights and due process in jeopardy. We are facing multiple serious crises with no solutions or progress in sight - voting and election reform, in addition to term limits, are all urgent and necessary.

I don’t care if you want to vote for Side A no matter what — we can only suppress criticism and stay in denial of major issues for so long before (e.g.) the fresh water crisis hits us and humanity is completely and utterly unprepared.

We don’t have a hate boner. We see “decentralized” being thrown around like a buzzword and we know that it really doesn’t apply to their platform.

It’s like the Libertarian Party taking the word “libertarian” and flipping the meaning to describe their ideology.

It’s a distortion of the spirit of the word and actual libertarians obviously want to clear up the misunderstandings that result from being introduced to the concept of libertarianism through such a group.

Northern Illinois leaders consider reinstating grocery sales tax at local level

Seems like it’s going to affect more than DeKalb, see the article title.

Regardless, I lived in a rural university town myself in the past - much more rural than DeKalb. There were plenty of rich people tucked away in their massive homes. At least enough to raise their taxes just a bit to generate 800k of revenue.

Tax literally anything instead of food, I say - groceries are high enough and not everybody struggling qualifies for food stamps.

How about taxing the wealthy instead of food? Taxing cars is nice too.

Me: What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?

In your eyes, what protests or events in the civil rights movement (that generally threatened violence or resulted in violence) led to a significant shift or significant movement?

I was expecting you to fill the gap in my American public school education. You can also direct me to a book or any resources that help me to understand your perspective better, particularly from a historical standpoint.

What is your perspective worth?

My perspective is worth just as much as anybody else’s. Everybody who cares about the present and future likely wants solutions and change in some form or another. Some people think violence is necessary, some people don’t.

MLK did his best to be the change he wanted to see. Not everybody listened and he isn’t responsible for everyone’s actions. There is no mistaking that many in power found MLK to be a threat… why was he seen as dangerous though? Why was he targeted so viciously if he only championed nonviolence and civil disobedience?

The rich and powerful do not want people who bridge gaps and advocate joining hands in solidarity, that’s why. We are far easier to control and lord over when we are fighting each other, especially over differences and inconsequential things.

Everybody is free to express themselves however they wish. I’m merely pointing out why people are calling the poster I was responding to AI or reducing their arguments down to “not containing any rational thought”. Their comment speaks to people who are already radicalized, people who already know the Democrats are playing everybody - it doesn’t speak to the people deeply entrenched in the propaganda and tribalism that the Democrats invoke.

Here’s some unsolicited advice: you’d probably get your point across better if you found a way of expressing yourself with less perceived hate, less name-calling, and less labeling - don’t dilute your passion, but speak to the reality and to the solutions that aren’t being put on the table. Speak to people’s silent struggle and find a way to not be polarizing.

Instead of calling out the US as being imperialistic, shed light to the real effects of US imperialism (e.g. US reliance on supply chains that revolve around slavery or child slavery, third-world exploitation, effects of US regime change etc.) and complicity on both sides.

Instead of calling Democrats fascists, explain that they don’t have any power or energy to fight fascism, authoritarianism, oligarchy, imperialism (effectively making them complicit). They have no plan and no solutions.

Instead of calling elections bourgeois, explain that political teams and this tug of war game is a pointless exercise and gets literally nothing done — e.g. speak to election/voting reform, the dissolution of team politics and political parties that take money from non-small donors, term limits, and speak to concepts like direct democracy. Bernie Sanders and AOC aren’t socialist or anything close to it in practice, but they also aren’t necessarily operating in complete bad faith.

I don’t disagree with your general sentiment, but your points can be more eloquently expressed. Reduce the terminology, Democrats are powerless even if they shift their tune, they are always going to answer to capital, they aren’t interested in addressing critical problems (e.g. modern slavery, the fresh water crisis, the housing crisis, the health care crisis, the economy, deregulation of corporations etc.), and they aren’t interested in solutions. They have no power, even when they have had power (e.g. under Obama).

He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a “reality check”, not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, though.

I suppose we disagree on organized violence being a necessity. Spreading fear is also something I don’t advocate for. I advocate for spreading courage or fearlessness, helping others to realize their power and to stand in it. Getting people scared and moving them towards violence will not create anything besides martyrs and a cycle of hatred on all sides.

20th century ideas on revolution are simply outdated. The times are different.

We have eliminated language barriers, we are vastly interconnected, and we have the means to organize digitally. We can get the facts easily and cut through propaganda. We can spread awareness and build consciousness without really taking any of the steps we once had to. We have AI technologies that we can leverage, as well.

I feel that encouraging scared innocents to threaten violence and potentially kill other scared and confused people to achieve a violent takeover of public institutions isn’t going to turn out the way you hope.

I respect your resolute spirit, your fight, your passion, but I feel there are significant levers we can pull that won’t unleash a cycle of violence, chaos, and uncertainty. I’m not suggesting inaction or apathy or action that effectively amounts to inaction.

I would more quickly see the merits of your viewpoint if you could guarantee that such a cycle wouldn’t be created or would be limited in scope — I may be naive, but I am not so naive to believe you without some pretty weighty reasoning.

Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence, threatened violence, or encouraged threats to achieve meaningful progress? What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?

Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.

I am not saying compete. I am suggesting that this movement radicalizes the major arms of propaganda from within.

Not everybody is an evil villain in these organizations. There are likely many who are operating in good faith despite the reporting they do and the echo chamber they are apart of.

Popping their bubble sounds about as hard to do as convincing enough people to go die or face imprisonment to capture xyz institution with arms.

Listen, I am definitely not going to tell you to back down, to consent, to give up, and to be domesticated or be treated as cattle. Not at all. We don’t have to agree on the means of revolution, but we both likely agree on the immediate necessity of change.

What if a nonviolent movement included radicalizing the tools of propaganda and the people behind these apparatuses as one of its primary focuses?

From my perspective, the only way to convince them to not kill us all is if we promise we won’t put them on the chopping block.

Am I working against anyone? No, but I really don’t want to see this planet turn into a giant bloodbath. I think nonviolence, positive action, and a laser focus on solutions is the only way to move forward — and yes, I have wrestled with the viewpoint you are representing for many years.

I definitely don’t approve of an armed rebellion because I know how quickly things can turn to real violence when people are primed for it. The mainstream media is prepared to stir the pot and create a perception of chaos or push whatever narrative that serves capital — and as you pointed out; plenty of people are willing to accept money and play agent provocateur.

Just as our country created an excuse to use atomic bombs on Japan, I’d reason that if violence escalated to a degree that physically threatened the powerful, they would likely find excuses to use whatever else they’ve cooked up to maintain order against an armed rebellion. It probably wouldn’t be too dastardly, but it’d be easy to explain away to those who are not radicalized (and many likely wouldn’t participate in an armed rebellion). And how long would it take to raid their bunkers and defuse the threat that the most powerful pose? Decades?

I’d argue that if there is a very large, coherent, organized, and nonviolent movement - there would be no sense of normalcy anywhere if it was systematically disrupted violently. They can try all they want to make normal people look like terrorists and extremists, but the propaganda would likely be ineffective.

Like it or not, the rich still rely on us and they aren’t all entirely self-sufficient yet. They still want to be able to effortlessly reap all the abundance on this planet and they still need us to achieve that goal.

We just need to convince them that we the people can collectively be the best stewards of the planet, and that we don’t need their systems anymore to enable the best outcome for everyone to manifest. Maybe I’m naive too, but there has to be a way that doesn’t require us to resort to barbarism to achieve our goals.