The Retarded State of Public Debate

[Telarus]

(This comes via our good friend "37").


The Retarded State of Public Debate, by Jim Goad

As the international embarrassment known as the American debt-ceiling debate winds down and Congress decides on how much more they should rob unborn Peters to cover for deadbeat Pauls, I feel like wiping the shit off my eyeballs after witnessing this endlessly infantile blame game. It's a repulsive Punch and Judy show of exculpating and implicating, finger-pointing and blame-shifting, of mutual obstruction and, ultimately, of mutually assured destruction.

Since there will be no happy ending, this weeks-long "debate" boiled down to a drunken saloon argument over whether we drive into a brick wall at 85MPH or 95MPH. This country's financial wad is red, white, and blown. Neither side wanted to admit that the nation's financial condition is way beyond redemption. All they did was argue over an acceptable size for the tumor and tried to place blame for who caused it. Neither side is willing to admit that it's terminal cancer.

That should be expected of politicians, especially in the all-or-nothing Manichean climate engendered by a two-party system. It should also be expected of anyone gullible enough to believe that either party represents their interests. To watch this sordid puppet show's left and right fists sparring on public forums was to wish one could stuff them all in a cage and drown them down a well like unwanted puppies. I've never heard the sound of one hand clapping, but now I know what 307 million retards barking at each other sounds like.

Has anyone else noticed a disturbingly rapid ossification of American political divisions over the past couple years? All grey areas have been obliterated in a collective ingroup/outgroup psychosis that dictates if you disagree with one team on a single, microscopic ideological trifle, you are entirely bought and sold by the enemy team. I'm sorry—did you just whisper something bad about Muslims? Well, the only conceivable explanation is because you're slavishly beholden to your Zionist masters. Excuse me—did you just mutter something not entirely positive about the left? The only reason you could have done that is because you've been brainwashed by the right.

When will you all realize that it's the other side that's partisan? It's the other side who are hypocrites. The other side is only posturing to court votes. The other side is pure evil. The other side is acting like Nazis. The other side is un-American. The other side wants to destroy the country. The other side is greedy and selfish. The other side is fanning fear. The other side isn't a political philosophy, it's a mental disease. The other side can't face reality. The other side has always engaged in racial pandering. The other side are nothing more than domestic terrorists. The other side are a bunch of entitled crybabies. The other side cherry-picks facts to suit their agenda. The other side only represents a minority of Americans. The sheeple who vote for the other side don't realize they're voting against their own interests.

Well, I'd expect you to say that, being that you're a loudmouth white-trash teabagging FAUX News-watching Republicunt Austrian School wingnut Koch-head conservatard. It's all the right's fault. The 2008 elections were a clear mandate. We're in this financial mess because the top 2% don't pay enough taxes. Your personal problem is that you can't stand to see a black president.

Ahh, but your Alinskyite tactics won't work on me, you screeching ghetto hoochie-mama socialist pond scum MSNBC-watching Dim-o-Crat Keynesian moonbat Soros-zombie libtard. It's all the left's fault. The 2010 elections were a clear mandate. We're in this financial mess because the bottom half don't pay any taxes at all. Your personal problem is that you're too scared to admit a black president can fail.

SHUT the fuck up. ALL of you.

Never in world history have more retarded people called other people retarded in more retarded ways. Never have people called one another unintelligent while misspelling so many words: "Your not smart enough to notice their to stupid." It's Beavis on one side, Butt-head on the other. To observe this sort of discourse is to watch conjoined Mongolian idiots hocking loogies in one another's face. We've reached rock-bottom on the dumbing-down.

But not everyone in America is stupid—not yet—and one wonders how otherwise seemingly intelligent people can buy into such gross political simplicities. In those cases, the reasons they're acting stupid are more likely due to emotional unease rather than cognitive deficiencies.

Everyone with two neurons to rub together seems to know in their guts that this country is in an irreversible free-fall. Though few seem willing to admit it, most probably suspect that things will get much worse and that this debt-ceiling agreement will only be a Band-Aid on a severed limb. Even in good times, the small souls among us suffer a constant terror of not having all the answers. But just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are very few political agnostics when times get tough. People believe whatever is most soothing to them, and so confirmation bias is bleeding all over the place at hemophiliac levels. It's less retarded to admit you don't know what's going on than to pretend you do. But it's also scarier. Therefore, most people opt for retarded.

It soothes me to believe I'm intelligent enough to admit I can't isolate blame for what has happened. I don't claim to know whether our economy is failing due to human incompetence or whether it was deliberately engineered to collapse by the hyper-competent. Being fundamentally econotarded, I'm also probably the worst person in all 50 states to consult for solutions. But I'll pretend you asked me, anyway: I'd abolish the Federal Reserve, end all foreign wars now, legalize drugs, tax all religious real estate, deport all illegal immigrants, toss out almost all government-related civil lawsuits involving intangibles such as discrimination and emotional distress, and give me back every cent I've paid into Social Security NOW.

But even if every one of my suggestions helped, I don't think we can reverse our descent into the abyss. And I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about this. There'd be no joy in being correct about it, and not the least bit of satisfaction. So please, let me be paranoid rather than correct. If things ever get better, nothing would make me happier than for everyone to call me retarded.

Read more: http://takimag.com/article/the_retarded_state_of_public_debate/print#ixzz1Tqeq0ZV4

[Juana]

I LIKE this person.

[Salty]

Yes. This. All of this and more.

MotherFUCKERS.

[The Johnny]

Up until before the propositions its a nice rage, but

I'd abolish the Federal Reserve, end all foreign wars now, legalize drugs, tax all religious real estate, deport all illegal immigrants, toss out almost all government-related civil lawsuits involving intangibles such as discrimination and emotional distress, and give me back every cent I've paid into Social Security NOW.

-The foreign wars boost the economy.
-Legalizing drugs wouldnt bring in much taxes.
-Deporting illegal immigrants would ruin agriculture and infrastructure. (no work-hands)
-I wouldnt think civil lawsuits were a free cashpot.

I mean, most of his "propositions" seem to be derived from personal convenience/ideology (anarchist-hippie-atheist-xenophobic-lower class) rather than rationality.

[Scribbly]

-The foreign wars boost the economy.
-Legalizing drugs wouldnt bring in much taxes.
-Deporting illegal immigrants would ruin agriculture and infrastructure. (no work-hands)
-I wouldnt think civil lawsuits were a free cashpot.

Well, leaving aside the fact that he qualifies he doesn't know if it'd actually help and it seems like a fairly obvious attempt to pick and choose the 'best' bits from both sides to highlight his overall point:

1) No more foreign wars would enable the US to cut defence spending more easily, which is a massively huge burden on the economy, and is a sacred cow. I'm pretty certain that the 'foreign wars boost the economy' statement is a common thought, but I'm also pretty sure it is wrong. I'm sure I read an in-depth analysis of this a while back, but I can't immediately find it - a good article on the subject is here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-wartime-prosperity/

2) Legalizing drugs doesn't need to bring in taxes to save money - the massive cost of sustaining the War on Drugs could (arguably, etc etc) free up a lot of money. This is gone round and round in circles in That Thread. Good luck trying to determine if it'd cost more to treat the flood of people who would use drugs or whether it'd save the economy on its own. Finding unbiased stats is pretty insane.

3) Probably, yes, concede on that - though it could go hand in hand with a much more open border, at which point more natural immigration is better for the economy than illegal immigrants (pay taxes!)

4) I'm in two minds on this, because it'd probably hurt a lot of individuals and open up more abuses, particularly with discrimination (not sure on 'emotional distress'). On the other hand, if the government can't pay, it can't pay.

[Disco Pickle]

 

9/10

would read again

[The Johnny]

-The foreign wars boost the economy.
-Legalizing drugs wouldnt bring in much taxes.
-Deporting illegal immigrants would ruin agriculture and infrastructure. (no work-hands)
-I wouldnt think civil lawsuits were a free cashpot.

Well, leaving aside the fact that he qualifies he doesn't know if it'd actually help and it seems like a fairly obvious attempt to pick and choose the 'best' bits from both sides to highlight his overall point:

1) No more foreign wars would enable the US to cut defence spending more easily, which is a massively huge burden on the economy, and is a sacred cow. I'm pretty certain that the 'foreign wars boost the economy' statement is a common thought, but I'm also pretty sure it is wrong. I'm sure I read an in-depth analysis of this a while back, but I can't immediately find it - a good article on the subject is here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-wartime-prosperity/

2) Legalizing drugs doesn't need to bring in taxes to save money - the massive cost of sustaining the War on Drugs could (arguably, etc etc) free up a lot of money. This is gone round and round in circles in That Thread. Good luck trying to determine if it'd cost more to treat the flood of people who would use drugs or whether it'd save the economy on its own. Finding unbiased stats is pretty insane.

3) Probably, yes, concede on that - though it could go hand in hand with a much more open border, at which point more natural immigration is better for the economy than illegal immigrants (pay taxes!)

4) I'm in two minds on this, because it'd probably hurt a lot of individuals and open up more abuses, particularly with discrimination (not sure on 'emotional distress'). On the other hand, if the government can't pay, it can't pay.

Well, regards to point 1, i was thinking more on the likes that the root of the problem is the arms manufacturer lobby, im not sure less foreign wars would necesarily equate less spending, im assuming it would simply go to massive spending on R & D or boosting the war-in-space superiority. (I wasnt arguing from the posturing that war creates jobs, more on the likes of persevering hegemony which has indirect economic benefits, like puppet governments and controlling oil infrastructure.)

On 2, i personally support legalization, but the case being economic outcomes... im sure theres a lot of waste in operations involving enticing/entrapment that lead nowhere and a lot of enforcement costs.

3, what is "natural inmigration"? If by that you mean "legal inmigration" then the result is a net loss for the USA, because when you have illegals working, you can pay them much less than the legal requirements and with no basic spendings on worker-protection measures or benefits.

4, ive heard over and over about frivolous lawsuits in general within the USA paying off, but, yes, broadly denegating any civil lawsuit opens up for a lot of abuse.

[Doktor Howl]

to Goad.

[Gordon C]

Well I like the guy. I wouldn't call him retarded I'd just call him mistaken. Unless he mistakes himself for a retard then there's no doubt about it