CharonY

Careful with the disrespectful posts. If the president could read, he could get upset. About that: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/two-cats-in-california-died-after-drinking-raw-milk-recalled-for-bird-flu-their-owner-says

Well then let's say historic lessons plus synthesis and advancement of that knowledge plus tech?

Sure, and the trick is to figure out how to optimize a system and also what the priorities are. I am sure there are different views on it. For example, what delay would be acceptable to, say, ensure that 0 lives are lost vs 1 vs 10? Folks calling for total deregulation usually are not the ones paying the price. Conversely, it makes sense to build in accountability mechanisms (and quite a few of those do exist) which check for unnecessary bloat. A bit of an issue however is when folks calling for deregulation have all the money and power, whereas folks who might be affected are the poor and powerless.

In addition, today we have improved information structures and are able (at least theoretically) to handle much higher data inputs. Assuming we have a good idea what to optimize for and by deploying appropriate algorithms it might be possible simulate free market price information. There will be huge challenges of course, and there is good reason to believe that it won't be as effective as a competitive system. But I also don't think that we can take the lessons learned from history without acknowledging the difference in knowledge and technology.

I stand corrected. It isn't tomorrow yet and it got worse. I shouldn't have read the news.

The only way the world can become more stupid is by whatever is likely going to happen tomorrow.

Oh yeah, I just wanted to point out that it is already happening. But scale is likely to increase as some asshat will figure out that there is money to be made (or already have, hard to tell sometimes). And well, cruelty is the point. Panem et circenses for the mob. As long someone is doing worse, folks won't noticed by whom they are being robbed blind. Somewhat more related to the science part, but probably a universal tactic, is the use of small truths to cover up big lies. For example, pointing a side effect of a drug or vaccine and then question the use of vaccines. This is going to be a more common with RFK JR at the helm of HHS. For the rest of the world, the tight relationships with CDC (and to some degree FDA) for public health safety might now be in trouble.

I don't think that that is what you mean, but prison labor is already a thing under exception of the 13th amendment.

Also regarding what geniuses Musk and his Doge team are: https://www.404media.co/anyone-can-push-updates-to-the-doge-gov-website-2/ This is exactly the level of expertise folks expect from people with unchecked access to sensitive data. Also: https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/russia-elon-musk-list-names-dissidents-usaid-s798gktd7 I think this world is not well-suited for folks with long-term memory, it gets just too bizarre. I slowly realize the benefit of having TikTok-level of memory. You can just live in the moment and there is no context for anything. There is not pain of realization, just opium for the masses.

The on thing that is not believable is that there was embarrassment. You would need the ability to experience shame to feel that.

The cutting itself not so much. It is more a way to influence policy without getting elected. He and his folks do not really care if it makes sense, whether it wastes money or if people suffer or die. All these three things are already happening. However, while he wrecks essential services (which he doesn't need) he can also gut oversight systems that could hinder his businesses. There could also be ideological reasons, as rich libertarians don't want regulations, as they ultimately limit their power. Without those, they are free to do close to whatever they want and use the public as they playground. That being said, there are plenty of reports regarding conflicts of interest where Musk is shuttering agencies that provide oversights to parts of his business. One example is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is a consumer watchdog to protect customers. The CFBP would be in the way of turning Twitter/X into a money service (https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5293382/x-elon-musk-doge-cfpb) USAID was auditing Starlink contracts and uses in Ukraine and FDA as well as transportation services (among others) would allow him to run his business as he wants, regardless of harm to consumers. You mustn't forget, folks with giant egos often believe that whatever they is right. And the one thing that they cannot stand is oversight and accountability. Dismantling all these agencies satisfies that demand to the harm of many, many folks. Ultimately he is too stupid and/or uncaring to take the harm he is doing into account. And that includes starving kids across the globe.

Well, you forget, much of the money for his companies comes from the government (over 13 billions in the last 5 years). And now being part of it allows him to funnel more money into it. Also his companies have been under investigation for a range of issues. This is a great way to get rid of them. Just yesterday the state department released plans to buy 400 million worth of cybertrucks. So I would say that money is at least part of it. The other is likely just power. Also, I would not trust anything he says without external validation. He is known to lie a lot on various platforms.

For those interested, here is an overview of some of the ongoing lawsuits. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/us/trump-administration-lawsuits.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wk4.0z0g.e81RvcLuMcdb&smid=url-share

RFK Jr is confirmed to lead HHS. This is in no way going to be devastating to public health. Avian influenza milk for all!

That is certainly a... interesting take. Do you have any suggestions how crippling research infrastructure by stopping grants and massively reducing overhead is going to improve science? Ultimately, it would mean that research labs will be closed eventually as universities won't afford to support research. And as you might know, especially fundamental research happens mostly in academic institutions. I think you are reading the wrong biographies then. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-11-14/elon-musk-toxic-boss-timeline His companies are embroiled in lawsuits involving poor working conditions, lack of safety and sexual harassment. This is just one example https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jun/12/elon-musk-spacex-lawsuit I mean, it is possible that he cultures a frat boy culture which is attractive to a certain demographics, but it is certainly wrong to say that he is not making his workers miserable. In fact, Tesla has been cited for multiple safety violations and they have mechanisms to leave injuries unreported. So no, I have little confidence that he knows what he is doing, especially as everything he is doing right now is way out of his area of expertise. It is already happening. Public data, as in data generated for the public with public money, including on health, environment but also health recommendations and advice are being removed. Musk's approach of breaking things taking no responsibility is affecting people's lives already. This is the issue with corporate person to run things. For them breaking things, taking no responsibility and make others to pay the price is a good business model. The issue here is that the public is paying the price.

Well, as you know it is a fake argument, anyway. Also he is their tyrant.

If you mean agencies, they are not actually protective as they are part of the executive (though they can only be abolished by congressional order, from what I understand). So at best they could slow down orders from the POTUS but not really in an active act of defiance. And while they could resist unlawful orders, Project 2025 plans to oust folks (which Musk is doing now) to ensure compliance (or Gleichschaltung). The institutions that actually protect against a power grab would be the other branches of government. However, executive and legislative are now fairly aligned and the highest instance of the judicial branch (SCOTUS) apparently also has loyalists, which makes things tricky. I.e. the latest development seems to suggest that they are happy to heap power to the presidency. We are, to be frank, in what scholars have called a constitutional crisis, as the institutions (as in the branches, not the agencies) are creaking in ways they shouldn't be.

No that wouldn't have happened. The power grab is not one of Trump alone. Over half of the congress have worked towards the goal. Collectively they have erased January 6, they have invoked the culture wars even way before Trump was a candidate. Heck, they looked at Project 2025 and decided to like it. They just want power. The voters are those who should have read it, but as MigL mentioned, they probably wouldn't have understood. Regarding Ukraine, it is possible that they will abandon Ukraine. But regarding deaths, the dismantling of USAID will ensure that there will plenty of them coming in pretty soon regardless. Edit to add: reports are coming in that in various parts of the world nutrient paste funded by USAID has run out. Children are starving now. Meanwhile close 500 million in food might be rotting because their delivery has been cancelled. All that to "prevent waste". In addition, Ebola outbreaks might expand. Both, the callousness as well as shortsightedness is astonishing and with regard to critical thinking that goes beyond just being biased. After all, just a few years ago we learned collectively how much diseases respect borders. And because of the pace of freezing and firing people something like 8 billion dollars cannot be tracked anymore, because the folks responsible for it are gone or have no access anymore. Again, just because someone made tons of money it doesn't mean that they are critical thinkers. If he was he might have figured out that the systems he is breaking are vastly more complicated than those he used to deal with. Even if we assume that he has no regard for human life in the first place.

The issue is you identified correctly that folks vote them in because they are afraid of something. What you miss or at least do not seem to acknowledge is that the threat is something that the right has constructed so that folks allow them to grab the power. And this is the crux and what Snyder alluded to when he shortly discussed Schmitt. Make people believe that the situation now is exceptional. Make them afraid without any evidence and they will hand you their liberties on a platter. And as I mentioned the only part one can nail them down is somehow convince folks that there is a reality. Otherwise anything you try to do in good faith to address these fears will be ignored (like the increasingly aggressive stance of Dems on border crossings).

I am somewhat surprised then that you seem to repeat some of the issues that have been outlined in the book. The point is that despite the fact that we do not have communists on the street, we got fascists authoritarians in power. They took the power and folks supported them. No one made them. Heck they had to invent an all-powerful gender identity conspiracy to build a new bogeyman. With bathrooms as the battleground. Again think about Snyder's book and consider what he explicitly points out. As you have the read the book, there are a couple of suggestions there. One is somehow to bring the public to focus on facts (Chapters 10 and 11). Avoid amplifying falsehoods (such as "open borders"). Don't blame the issue on the ominous others (be it the left, antifa, immigrant or whatever). Investigate specifically how the folks who took over power got it. It is never because someone else made them. It is because they dismantled institutions, made people believe lies en masse and avoided any responsibility by blaming others for their actions. So our job is to identify these things, and demand from our leaders to do better and hold them accountable. That being said, once they have successfully dismantled all these institutions who could do that (say, the judiciary), it will be too late.

Oh yeah, that was one of the things that blew even my cynical mind (in this case it is about cat litter boxes). There is even a wiki for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_boxes_in_schools_hoax But in short, there was a hoax that claimed schools would put out litter boxes for students who identified as cats or furries or something like that. And then this thing spread among conservative media leading to very upset parents. Utter failure of critical thinking.

No, you are exactly right, which is why I think it is together with the other elements (and more which I have not mentioned) that play a role. Basically an emerging property of ignorance. And I do think that the overinundation with social media shapes what folks are worried about. For example, folks have been complaining about chemtrails and litter boxes in school. They clearly did not get that idea from traditional media. I mean, perhaps I am in my own bubble, but in my feeds that is literally on top. I have way down something about sports. The other news I see are regarding talks between Trump and Putin. But at the same time, I will also acknowledge that there is so much going on that I do selective reading (I am not sure where the lawsuits regarding federal grants are, for example though my colleagues will tell me, for sure). And given the fact that Trump tries to suck out all the oxygen, I am sure I am missing a lot stories. But that exactly is the tactic of flooding the zone, it is virtually impossible to use normal news to stay on top of these things. As such, it is easy to miss and/or deliberate zone out of important events (I just hope that there are good long-form articles to summarize aspects at least). I guess he is on the way out. Edit: I just realized that a dog show is also on it. I have no idea why. Perhaps the algorithm figured out I am an immigrant and wants to make a menu suggestion? And worse than that- this talk has led Dems starting with Obama to align their border approach with Republican desires. And it is startlingly clear that it did not matter. At best it motivated Reps to become even more extreme, so just they can "outshine" efforts by Democrats.

Again, some of the mechanisms are well-known, misinformation on the internet, heavily driven by radical-right populist groups and parties: https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612241311886 Often under the guise of free speech or related concepts, they systematically misinform people. And again, not all groups are equally likely to abandon facts. Also, I have no idea what your various anecdotes about ticks are supposed to tell me. I suspect they are part of your personal experiences that have formed some kind assumptions, but the deeper meaning eludes me. All I can see that there is an MD who you think is incompetent and somehow it is an example of failure of critical thinking? Or maybe not? Also your sweeping generalizations are obfuscating parallels to the past due to altered mechanisms now. I think Snyder's book (you really should read it) does actually a decent job translating what was happening then to what is happening now. Misinformation was rampant also in the past, but they were broadcasted in different venues at much smaller scale. It was therefore a somewhat slower process but also driven by some more severe challenges. The same number of folks can be reached now from the comfort of your home. Horse carts vs cars. Also, I think you are assuming things to have a rather simplistic relationship, a bit like a seesaw or pendulum, where you seem to argue that the rise of the right is somehow just a response, rather than the intended action. In Weimar, the right was not rising as a response to communism, for example. In a way it was the other way round. Communism rose in response to rampant capitalism and corporatism, benefiting nobles and the new class of industrialist. From an US viewpoint you could imagine the robber barons. You have to remember, Weimar rose from the German Empire that went form a monarchy to a republic. In many aspects, conservatism was the default and there were laws to prevent parties with socialist leanings (such as the SPD) from power right to the later parts of the German empire. But their success was ultimately fueled by anti-elite and nobility sentiments. The KPD (the communist party) was formed as an anti-war outgroup from the socialist parties. In 1920, the governing Weimar Coalition (SPD, Centre (catholics), DDP, a conservative-liberal party) suffered major losses. The communists remained marginal, with major wins for the right wing parties (e.g., DNVP). In 1924 in the aftermath of hyperinflation (then stabilized), Ruhr occupation, beer hall putsch and so on has seen again losses in the center and only now the far left is also seeing gains, as well as the far right. I.e., the far right gain was not a response to a far left threat. And again, what we see today is not really a real far-left threat. Instead it is a bogeyman fueled by erroneous slogans (open borders being one). Which makes it even more nebulous than it was in Weimar (though again, being nebulous was a fascist tactic). Again, no pendulum or seesaw just movement in one direction.

I think you are touching a range of important points here and I will say that these not only impact politics but also to some degree also science (or at least science education). The last paragraph is a good explanation on the why, I believe. I think there are a few processes working together to further our idiocracy. First, there is the flood of information. Originally we thought that was a good thing, and I believe we had some discussions (maybe a decade or longer back) on how competition of ideas could be important to further knowledge in an unbiased way. However, mis- and disinformation is flooding the channels making it difficult to sort through the information. Second, we are not equipping folks to deal with this information flood. Most people lack the ability to sort through the mess and to filter out the nonsense. In many groups, including young folks, there is a sense that all information is fake, which is a very dangerous situation. Third, the attention industry, including social media, floods the brain of folks with distractions to make money. Few folks take a breather to e.g., read long texts or even books to contextualize information or try to figure out what is going on. This exacerbates the second issue and makes them even more vulnerable to misinformation. Fourth, because folks are unable to sort through information and consider traditional sources suspect, they increasingly rely on familiarity with sources to evaluate veracity. This includes shares from folks they know but also influencers. Ironically uncritical use and sharing of information makes folks extremely vulnerable to propaganda, while making them feel to be in control of information flow. I think we are in the age bracket where we still saw the information age as something incredibly, a way to evaluate human knowledge and revolutionize the way we see and, more importantly, understand the world. We have seen how tedious information gathering is and entered a world where it almost became trivial. What we (or at least I) did not realized at that point is that we would also unlearn our ability to understand information. I thought the information age would see unprecedented gain of knowledge and a future generation of highly educated and skilled students and scholars who would surpass us without breaking a sweat. Instead we got TikTok and college students who struggle with high-school level questions. Sorry, sorry, old man and cloud situation again.

You are missing the broader point, or perhaps approach the issue for a certain fixed position. The broader point is really why are folks so upset about certain things (outside of their tribe) as you mentioned? Are these threats real? For example, do you think that nudity inevitably leads to autocratic leanings? All you are saying about tribalism is that folks do not follow logic and facts. That might be true to various degrees, and yet, we see a rise of right-wing autocracies across Europe and the US, yet very little in the area of left-wing autocracies. Why is that? Just because voters might ignore facts, it doesn't meant that they don't matter.