Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Sengoku Strider]

People without an internal monologue visualize their thoughts (like the majority of us do), the absence of which is more often than not associated with aphantasia. A close friend "suffers" from this, but he's hardly some rudimentary filtration device incapable of responding
appropriately and contextually to external stimuli.

Well if the statistics are to be believed, most people are like this. Which is why I specified that the monologue might be limited rather than absent, there's clearly a grade of degree to which people experience it. It also doesn't preclude self-reflection, it just seems to need to be prompted by the environment. Which is also why I kind of question the way the construct is articulated in the first place.

But I think we can all agree there are a lot of people out there who don't interrogate their world all that much, they just take what it gives them as the way things are.

Or they do, just not frequently enough to be any good at it.

pussy-ass leader hiding away in Florida.

That's exactly what the grandmaster wants you to think. He's just turtling on the other side of the screen for a bit, building meter.

[BryanM]

I've read varying statistics, but anywhere between 30-70% of people have some form of aphantasia: either limited or no internal monologue at all (though TBH I question those studies' instrumentation and have a hard time believing it's really that high). As in, they read a sentence but don't hear it in their heads. They make no editorial or qualitative judgements as they read. There's no inner critic which they can consciously interact with. There's no Spider-Man thought bubble floating out of their heads as they walk around.

Yeah, I don't know how people can hear about the concept of shadow people or philosophical zombies and not immediately nod their heads and be enlightened, vigorously.

Too many dudes are like this guy.

[Mischief Maker]

I love fat saggy old man faces on ripped bodybuilder torsos.

Look at how they basically chop half of Trump's face off at the bottom to simulate a cut jaw. He looks like a bobblehead!

And Bolsonaro, literally the world's most hospitalized man, on Street Fighter Ryu's body:



His version of the Hadouken Fireball is exhaling a sickly green cloud of Covid.

[BulletMagnet]

Just in case you thought George Santos couldn't possibly be any more of a shameless shitbag.

The GOP responses to all of this - on the rare occasion they can be bothered to give one - are nothing short of hysterical: Hey, it's Congress, people lie all the time! If we punish him for this, is anyone safe? Where does the slippery slope stop? I'd absolutely love to know where all these mouth-breathers stand when it comes to, say, Monicagate...then again, these are the same people - and their voters - who heard "I sent investigators to Hawaii, and they can't believe what they're finding" and not only didn't bat an eye but to this day have absolutely no regrets, let alone apologies.

[Sengoku Strider]

I love fat saggy old man faces on ripped bodybuilder torsos.

Look at how they basically chop half of Trump's face off at the bottom to simulate a cut jaw.

I mean, it's not like things really get better if you leave his chins in.

(Spoilers: high art)

Spoiler

[BulletMagnet]

Just in case you thought George Santos couldn't possibly be any more of a shameless shitbag.

The New York Republican accepted campaign contributions from Rocco Oppedisano, who was expelled from the U.S. in January 2019 and then arrested for piloting a yacht loaded with undocumented migrants and $200,000 in cash toward Florida, and the donations are almost certainly illegal, reported The Daily Beast.

...good god, it just gets better.

[Sengoku Strider]

Spoiler

[BulletMagnet]

One thing I know about this town, they come for the fighters. And they’re coming for George Santos like nothing I’ve seen in quite some time.

And, because it must, it just gets better from there.

EDIT: ....AND and, the fact that Santos lied to such a brazen and dizzying degree isn't even his fault. Guess whose it actually is.

EDIT 2: By the by, how many anti-democracy riots have to happen in how many countries before this fucker actually faces some consequences?

[orange808]

The American two party system is fucking bonkers. The people have almost no real input in selecting and vetting candidates. Voters also have no power to hold party leadership accountable. For instance, voters should have a mechanism to remove local and national Republican party leaders for their inept incompetent performance. Those leaders backed Santos and didn't vet him; they didn't do their jobs. Both national and New York Republican leaders should be facing extreme consequences for their failure at work--and the voters have absolutely no mechanism to remove them and hold them accountable for their complete incompetence. Verifying Santos was their job and it's not negotiable.

Careers should be over, full stop. Go fry fish if you need money. Get out. That's how meritocracy works. There's no excuse for failing to vet Santos. At least locally, New York Republicans are embarrassed and they feel they were misled. Some of them work the party and they shouldn't be the subject of sympathy; they should be sacked. I don't understand why people still have jobs. Sweep out Santos, clean house in the party, and hold another election. Fire everyone. Local Republican voters in New York want something done, but they have no power. There's no excuse and there shouldn't be any second chances. Party workers should go fry fish or flip burgers.

[Sima Tuna]

How can we hold anyone accountable when we can't even decide who to vote for? We're handed a choice between candidate A, who is a total shitbag, and candidate B, who is either an equally big or even more massive shitbag. If we ask for something else then we're third-party radicals dreaming of utopia. In a sense, it feels pointless even to mention when another politician is found to be corrupt. We can't punish them. We don't really elect them. We're handed a form with two names and told to pick one. We're told this is what freedom means. The freedom to pick one of two names, both of which are corrupt career politicians (in most cases) raised on a steady diet of kickbacks and taught how to lie.

An honest man could never survive our political process, which is why we never receive any.

Just once in my lifetime, I'd like to see a righteous man, full of indignation, take political power in America and sweep out all the big money and corruption. Of course, when it comes to impossible dreams, that one is about the most impossible of them all.

[BulletMagnet]

Those leaders backed Santos and didn't vet him; they didn't do their jobs.

The real question, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is what in God's name the Democrats were doing in the lead-up to the election: it's hardly beyond imagining that Republicans, if they knew in advance of Santos' litany of lies, might choose to ignore them in the name of convenience (y'know, as nearly all of them are doing in the aftermath), but especially considering that Santos flipped a historically blue district (and, I can't help but note, did so largely by fearmongering on crime rates, which will hopefully teach a lesson when it comes to politicians who want you more concerned with what your neighbors might be up to than what they might be up to), where on Earth was the opposition research against Santos? How did they possibly miss ALL of this?

If anyone needs to be permanently out of a job (well, aside from Santos), it's whoever was hired to do that job.

[BryanM]

We're handed a form with two names and told to pick one.

There's this thing called a primary. Sometimes it has dozens of names on it. Sometimes, there's someone that's an actual human being to vote for.

Presidential primaries are especially important, at least in the Democratic party. Because votes are proportional there; even if your state goes to someone else, your vote added to the total delegates your guy gets.

The republicans did a hilarious winner-take-all delegate system back in 2016. The funny part is it was supposed to rig the process for their designated Mitt Romney guy.

An honest man could never survive our political process, which is why we never receive any.

Just once in my lifetime, I'd like to see a righteous man, full of indignation, take political power in America and sweep out all the big money and corruption. Of course, when it comes to impossible dreams, that one is about the most impossible of them all.

We had a shot with moderate centrist Sanders. He at least had an actual history of purging corporate democrats out of power in Burlington when they teamed up with republicans to make sure he was a one-term mayor that couldn't get anything done. And he actually came really close to winning the primary, both times. South Carolina killed him the first time, an unprecedented in all the history of the world ratfuck Voltron the second.

(Granted, after he won the primary The View and all TV media would have slurred him into the dirt and backed Trump 1,000% like they did with Corbyn, so even that might have been a useless in the short run victory.)

In theory millennials on down wouldn't tolerate anyone who didn't at least consistently support universal healthcare and doesn't have a shit ton of bank money on their OpenSecrets page. In practice we're all already dead where we stand and the collapse of civilization is a foregone destination. Even if wizard zombie Jesus himself came back to life and took power.

[Sima Tuna]

But see, that's my point. Bernie couldn't win the Primary because the DNC fucked him over. The primaries are useless because the establishment, corrupt politicians have no interest in seeing a normal person win.

We see this whenever anybody running for office has sincere plans to remove corruption or make the rich less comfortable. What happens? As you said, left and right suddenly become one party and they circle their wagons around whichever candidate (right or left) is cool with the status quo. It's an illusion of choice meant to keep popular revolts and civil unrest suppressed, while not actually providing anything meaningful to the downtrodden.

[BryanM]

That does wrap back into the basic core tautology of politics: If politics is only something bad and lame people care about, then of course it would be bad and lame. But if cool and good people cared about it, it could be cool and good.

The system does a great job of grooming the absolute worst electorate that it can.

I never blame the politicians or the vampire kings; like George Carlin said, the problem isn't them. They're following their own incentives. It's the public that sucks. Cattle believe anything the TV tells them to believe.

The public sucks a little less every year that passes, and the Democratic Party is down to only having one anointed one left in reserve. Harris's well isn't as deep as Clinton or Obama's white friend was. I'd be almost optimistic, if material concerns weren't a concern.

Almost two whole weeks of winter this year, good times.

[BulletMagnet]

It's an illusion of choice meant to keep popular revolts and civil unrest suppressed, while not actually providing anything meaningful to the downtrodden.

Methinks this depends on your definition of "meaningful", as in "completely upends the entire system overnight" versus "has a very real, tangible effect on people's lives". As you've acknowledged yourself, attaching one's expectations to the former will inevitably disappoint; the question then becomes whether you think the latter is still worth trying to accomplish or if you insist on "all or nothing" when it comes to what or whom you're willing to support.

[Sima Tuna]

We don't even get small self-buffs to our lives, bro. Just a string of nerfs.

The last thirty years is a history of the middle class being squeezed out.

That does wrap back into the basic core tautology of politics: If politics is only something bad and lame people care about, then of course it would be bad and lame. But if cool and good people cared about it, it could be cool and good.

Maybe. I happen to think our current political system is a product of Natural Selection. My view is that most political systems, given enough time, inevitably become one or two-party and thoroughly corrupt. Natural Selection doesn't care about morality, it just selects. Being an amoral scumbag is quite a boon to one's political career, if history is to be believed. Honest and righteous people make a lot of enemies and step on many toes. They are not as well liked, particularly by the rich. But even by the poor, since the poor get all their information filtered from sources owned by the rich.

[BulletMagnet]

The last thirty years is a history of the middle class being squeezed out.

The main thing to remember here is that it was not always like this, in both a positive and negative sense: no, the USA has never been and likely never will be an egalitarian economic wonderland, but there have been very significant gains made by non-plutocrats over the years, a number of which even much of the conservative rank and file take for granted now (labor laws, Social Security, etc.); as I always like to point out, during the Eisenhower administration, which so many like to recall as an idyllic point in modern American history, the top federal tax rate was 90 percent, essentially a wealth cap. And that was under a Republican. Plenty of ground has been lost since then, yes, but we also know these things are not only possible, but have already happened. We have been there.

Approaching this from the other angle, of course, there are also more recent gains to take note of: to squeeze another analogy from the aforementioned Eisenhower era, I think it's very safe to say that the people most inclined to remember that time so fondly were white, straight, Protestant and male, as things were very, very different for other groups back then, and while there's still plenty of room for improvement anyone who declares "nothing has changed" in terms of social equality even in very recent times is either in dire need of an info dump or simply not making that statement in good faith.

The point is, despite all of the developments that have me tearing my hair out within this thread at least as intensely as anyone else, progress is possible, has been made and is being made, even if it's seldom as much or as fast as many of us would like. Be angry, be depressed, but don't wear blinders.

EDIT: Back to regularly scheduled programming: of COURSE he fucking did. And of course they fucking did.

[GaijinPunch]

the top federal tax rate was 90 percent, essentially a wealth cap.

Jesus christ, that's ridiculous. I guess then it was harder to take your ball and go play in a cuntry that didn't take so much of your taxes. I even think Japan's inheritance tax (which caps at 55% somewhat quickly) ludicrous. Not nearly as ludicrous as the laws they put in place to ensure they get it though.

[BryanM]

Yeah, 99.5% on all income over 500k would have been much better. Some incentive to actually put that money somewhere useful, like into actual research or even wagie's pockets. Instead of Chris Cock's floppy wallet for sex slaves and heroin.

I mean, imagine being a modern wagie. Paying 230% of your income into rents. Imagine.

It's testament to the reforms the communists got through the second great depression is so comparatively mild so far. I mean, at least as long as we have some gas left. After that's gone, well.

It is correct of you to point out that Kennedy deserves as much blame as Reagan does for the end of all things, I guess. He gets too much of a pass. Giving them even that 10% sliver gave them enough power to pry society open like a tasty lobster shell. I still blame the Nixon regime a bit for cutting off exploration of thorium though.

[BulletMagnet]

Jesus christ, that's ridiculous.

The two main things to remember here are 1) This was the tax on the highest bracket, which is the equivalent of annual earnings over 1.7 million in 2015 (closer to 2.2 million now), most people never paid that much, and those who did only did so on the very highest portion of their earnings (there's also the area of both deductions and outright evasions then versus now to consider, which I'm not terribly well-versed in); to that point, 2) Again, despite this, even those on the right consider this era the halcyon days of the country's history, though they always fail to mention the fact that the wealth gap was so much lower then, because obviously that never works and had nothing to do with it.

[BryanM]

The labor market being completely rigged against minorities and women and homosexuals and atheists rather helped the fash realize their ideal fantasy world back then, too. (The one thing I'll give the fash is they at least will admit the way we decide to divide loot is indeed a zero-sum game, unlike the liberals. Pity they only care about being the ones wearing the boot themselves. Still better than "hur, there is no boot you crazy" their friends give us...)

The supply of people in general, as well. People service areas more than other people, carry capacity, etc. Postwar labor had a historic low on the number of guys who could fit through all those filters, and thus comparatively higher bargaining power.

Guess McCarthyism set us right back then, and McCarthyism will set us back on the path again. Godspeed, Eyepatch Guy o7

Oh, but yeah. If they could pay dudes that much back then, they could pay people that much today. Minus having the same amount of racism and sexism, plz. No reason it takes eight lifetimes to buy a house or whatever.

Besides the banks consolidating an ironclad grip on all capital everywhere of course.

[GaijinPunch]

I live in crazy tax land by choice and know that trickle down economics is fucking ridiculous. But just because "most people never reach that high" is probably the second worst reason to have a tax bracket as such... trailing closely to "just because". Taxes are a business, and if yours sucks, you will lose your customers - in this case, extremely wealthy, high earners that fuck off to any cuntry that keeps things in the stratosphere and in turn donate to their defense budget. Japan learned this the hard way, and now have been forced to implemented the weirdest (and still highest) inheritance tax laws on the planet while walking a razor thin line keeping the place attractive to high earning expats.

though they always fail to mention the fact that the wealth gap was so much lower then, because obviously that never works and had nothing to do with it.

Why is the wealth gap so less pronounced in literally every other cuntry than the US? US tax bracket gets comparably high, even higher when insurance/and medical is factored in. Yet US CEOs get paid ridiculously when outside of the US they don't. Are the boards in the US just fucking lunatics? I'm not saying there are ways to fix the wealth gap. 95% tax bracket anywhere is definitely not one of them.

[BulletMagnet]

Taxes are a business, and if yours sucks, you will lose your customers

The thing is, this equation involves more line items than the final cost by itself - it's what you get in exchange for what you pay. The USA isn't such a hotbed of commerce solely because of how much or little it costs at the end of the day to do business here: companies also desire security and stability, an educated workforce, usable infrastructure and so forth - most of these things, as it happens, are to a significant extent paid for and maintained by tax dollars. Many of the people who have benefited most spectacularly from all of these advantages, of course, want to continue to benefit from them without actually paying into any of them, and as such very seldom move themselves or their businesses out of the country, but through "creative accounting" shift their balance sheets overseas, effectively passing their share of the bill for their prosperity on to the rest of us.

I've said before on here that a pipe dream of mine is that one day the government - or better yet, the global community at large - actually calls out these cheats and makes them literally put their money where their mouth is: don't like it here? Okay, leave if you want, but actually leave, as in if you're not willing to abide by our laws you're not allowed to reside or do business here. Best of luck keeping those profit margins up from that empty lot in Dublin and that PO Box in the Cayman Islands. The heel turn would be so massive the sonic boom would be felt worldwide. (And no, they wouldn't get a pussy-ass "tax holiday" as a grossly undeserved reward for finally being forced to put up or shut up in earnest.)

Why is the wealth gap so less pronounced in literally every other cuntry than the US?

The short, pithy answer I'd offer is the doctored Steinbeck quote that people here have been taught all their lives to see themselves not as a chronically oppressed underclass but temporarily embarrassed millionaires - and, more importantly I'd add, to cast blame for said embarrassment down instead of up where it belongs.

[GaijinPunch]

Why is the wealth gap so less pronounced in literally every other cuntry than the US?

The short, pithy answer I'd offer is the doctored Steinbeck quote that people here have been taught all their lives to see themselves not as a chronically oppressed underclass but temporarily embarrassed millionaires - and, more importantly I'd add, to cast blame for said embarrassment down instead of up where it belongs.

That's all fair enough but that is a lousy reason if true. I mean, America prides itself on being the best at everything, yet we can't figure out universal health care (or even affordable health care) while the rest of the world has. There are ways to get this done w/o being lazy and saying "just tax billionaires". History has taught us that isn't electable. I guess we're not only the unhealthiest developed nation but the dumbest one, too.

[BulletMagnet]

There are ways to get this done w/o being lazy and saying "just tax billionaires". History has taught us that isn't electable.

If you'll pardon me for going back to Eisenhower one more time, he won both his elections in landslides.

That being said, even if you somehow didn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy in spite of the absolutely monstrous gains they've made over the past half-century, we're still the richest country in the history of the world: whenever anyone says we "can't afford" universal health care or any other investment into our society, they're really saying "I don't want to spend money on this". We piss away trillions on ill-fated military ventures (hello, F-35 Project), many of which the military brass doesn't even want, not to mention tax break after tax break after tax break for the people who least need them, among countless other flights of plutocratic fancy, but, as you say, we still can't figure out an essential need that everyone else has been offering for ages already?

Once again, our current state of affairs is not an inevitability. It is a VERY deliberate choice.

[GaijinPunch]

We're in alignment on health care. It's pretty ridiculous. Even people that are considered quite well off can get it rammed in them w/o lube. I'm also not against the wealthy paying more tax. It needs to be reasonable though. 95% is not.

[Sima Tuna]

I've said before on here that a pipe dream of mine is that one day the government - or better yet, the global community at large - actually calls out these cheats and makes them literally put their money where their mouth is: don't like it here? Okay, leave if you want, but actually leave, as in if you're not willing to abide by our laws you're not allowed to reside or do business here. Best of luck keeping those profit margins up from that empty lot in Dublin and that PO Box in the Cayman Islands. The heel turn would be so massive the sonic boom would be felt worldwide. (And no, they wouldn't get a pussy-ass "tax holiday" as a grossly undeserved reward for finally being forced to put up or shut up in earnest.)

Exactly. If you want to do business here, then your business should also benefit the people here. If you don't want to pay into the system that built your very wealth, then go elsewhere but don't expect to be allowed back.

I'd like to see what a company like Coca Cola would do if they tried to outsource shit (or evade taxes) and we came back with "Okay, that's fine, but your products are now banned for import into the USA. Best of luck!" A company like Coke could probably weather the storm. But how many others could or would want to? These megacorps exploit us for profit but refuse to give anything back. Companies like Wal-Mart don't want to pay their employees a living wage, but they rely on these living employees to make all of their money. That's unjust on an unfathomable level.

At the very minimum, any business should support its employees continuing to live, shouldn't it? Even slavers in the ancient world could do so much! It's a basic law of the world that you must ensure your workforce stays alive and in relatively good condition to continue working. Megacorps have such a bizarre, short-term-profit-driven mindset that they've forgotten and view every person as disposable.

[BryanM]

Bill Burr is such an illustrative example. It's one thing for an absolute child-eating troll like Ellen DeGeneres to go "but muh monie q_q", but Burr is an actual human being with an actual soul. Actually believes we should improve society slightly.

And he, too, went "but my money." "Don't go after me, go after the billionaires!" Which is... still a million times better than an Ellen, at least. I'm not exactly sure why he's afraid of missing out on a couple extra cars or houses as something like that's phased in over five years, are these people leveraged so close to the edge they'd fall off a cliff and default on everything and have to prostitute themselves to live after needing to cough up an extra 2% in the next year?

People getting six figure corpo paychecks don't understand why they get paid so much. It's not because they're so super special and they couldn't get someone qualified (or train someone) to do the same exact job for a lot less pay, they're paid that much to ensure loyalty. To align their interests to their boss's interests, all the way up the chain.

[orange808]

Ladies and gentlemen, every righty's hero: Soloman Pena

That's not a Stalin move at all! If you lose, gun everyone down! And, they call me a red commie. Ha!

[Vanguard]

There are ways to get this done w/o being lazy and saying "just tax billionaires". History has taught us that isn't electable. I guess we're not only the unhealthiest developed nation but the dumbest one, too.

It was electable and it worked really well for a good while. The one and only problem was literally that it didn't go far enough.