...we're gonna have to re-evaluate old concepts of free speech and democracy.
Everyone's on anti depressants/sleepers/speed, the chuds are blasting testosterone out their ears until they stroke, weed is everywhere and as potent as heroin.
Add the perfect dopamine delivery system, a political internet economy modeled on the addictive technology of vegas slot machines.
It's gonna have an effect on the national psyche.
Is it a partial explanation for Q?
Shout out to the divorced, biker, small business tyrant, dad...caught with test injectables and thc edibles, and guns, after the Capitol. Just the only man for the moment.
*removed externally hosted image*
edit: gotta step away for now. will come back to this. Feels like this post was misunderstood, or I just didn't make enough sense. Hope it won't make things awkward when i slide into selected PMs asking for a plug 😀
I don't know, are curriculums being "dumbed down?" I feel like you're asking questions rather than giving evidence for these claims.
But I'm also confused about your time frames here. You talk a lot about modern drugs, how prevalent weed is now, how they now have super potent heroin type strains and your example of the "dumbing down of education" goes back decades? The largest American evangelical college is 50 years old. These time frames don't really make sense to me. Also, I'm fairly certain the people opening and attending religious colleges aren't the ones smoking the super potent weed or doing speed lol.
I think it is contentious. In fact, education levels have been steadily rising. Not that I think educations levels or how "dumb" society is should be the metric for whether or not we "re-evaluate democracy." Like honestly this is wading into uncomfortable idiocracy eugenics type territory. I'm not saying it's intentional, but that's the vibe I get, so maybe that's something you should keep in mind.
That's kind of an issue though. I don't know if my questions are answered in your other posts, but if you're advocating for something rather extreme (e.g. re-evaluating democracy) I shouldn't have to read through 30 posts to figure out what your actual position is on one of the main things outlined in OP.
Cool, no worries. Don't mean to be overbearing or anything. I'll step away too.
Back again!
Appreciate your post and the tone.
As an example of curriculums being dumbed down: In my area, I learned the most basic, centrist/right historical narrative, questioning it wasn't allowed. Nothing about why things happened, just a story. A couple of years ago history became an optional subject in high school here, with no consultation. Kids can now choose to learn how to make web pages or something instead of learning the most basic historical context.
That's dangerous imo. Without historical context people cannot understand their current moment and can be easily deceived. I know I needed a lot of historical education to form a coherent worldview. Still learning, too.
People are focussing on the mention of weed and anti depressants. I was talking about them as some of many psychoactive drugs that are waaay more widely available/prescribed/stronger now than in the past. It's shouldn't be contentious to say that all of these drugs are behaviour altering, that's why we take them, and while they are beneficial to most, they cause unpredictable behaviour in a minority.
Couldn't the rapid rise in Qanon be at least partially attributed to the fact that some people have adverse reactions to medications? If these medications are overprescribed on an industrial scale isn't there going to be more people out there having adverse behavioural reactions? If people are mixing many psyschoactive medications and recreationals couldn't that result in unpredictable behaviours and beliefs on the macro, wider, societal level? There are examples, but I don't want to trigger anyone. I mean, caffeine has been proven to make people more suggestible.
To your point on education levels rising or falling, I'd ask you to refer to a post I made a couple of minutes ago, can't type it again.
When it comes to re-evaluting democracy, again, I don't see it being contentious. Shit, the constitution was written by slave owners for an agrarian frontier society. It absolutely should be re evaluated to serve the needs of the many, not the few, to ensure equality and justice.
If you have millions believing in white supremacist ideas, qanon shit, at the highest levels of society, then yes, maybe you need to re evaluate democracy. Leaving that aside, it should be re evaluated just because a white vote in dakota is worth more than a black vote in a urban area. One man one vote is the stated ideal and needs to be enforced.
The reason I said to read the posts is because if I had to reply to everyone individually it would take 24 hours lol. You weren't being overbearing at all, I legit had to step away after hours of posting lol.
:maduro-salute:
The issue is that virtually everything you're saying is pure conjecture. My 65 year old dad could tell you that his curriculum was from a centrist/right perspective, I mean for fucks sake the entire world was raised on red scare propaganda for like 90 years. But because you had a pro-American schooling and because in your specific area history is elective I'm just supposed to accept that education is "dumbed down" despite all evidence to the contrary? That's absurd. I even disagree with the premise that children learning practical computer skills is some sort of signifier of the downfall of education. It comes off as boomer tier "kids these days on their computers" type energy. I'm assuming we're talking the final years of high school education too. The reality is that programming or web design may have a more practical use to someone than forcing American imperialist propaganda down their throat.
People are focusing on the drug part of your post because it's a major part of your argument. I mentioned this before, and you never really addressed it, but you're grouping a bunch of different psychoactive drugs, and as far as I can tell, there's really no consideration being put into why those particular drugs are dangerous, mind altering Q enablers. A lot of things are psychoactive. The coffee you drink in the morning has psychoactive properties. If you're going to make a pretty extraordinary claim, you sure as hell better be able to specifically explain how each individual drug is contributing and what the science is behind it. This is my primary issue with every argument you're making here, they rely on you asking questions rather than providing evidence. It's a way to shift the burden of proof on others while not actually fully committing to an ideological position you know you can't defend.
This is a prime example. A lot of things "could" result in unpredictable behaviours, but it's a mistake to think that because something "could" happen, that is is evidence in favour of it actually happening. Couldn't our reptilian overlords be transmitting mind control waves that result in unpredictable behaviours? Sure, but you better bring some strong evidence if that's an argument you're seriously putting forward. Not that I even know which psychoactive medications are being mixed and by whom and how those medications actually interact with each other and what specific "beliefs" they foster, nor do I think that's information you can provide beyond some sort of personal anecdote.
And okay, caffeine makes people more "suggestible," in what way, in what dosage, how does this adequately explain people's belief in conspiracy theories? Where is the scientific literature to back it up? These are rhetorical questions, I don't want an answer because I know there's no suitable answer and I'm not interested in being asked more leading questions.
And I will again point out that your time frames make zero sense and you haven't bothered to address it. The "dumbing down" of education, even by your own definition, doesn't coincide with the "rise" of stronger psychoactive drugs.
"When it comes to re-evaluating democracy" is absolutely contentious because that's extremely nebulous statement, you haven't described what you mean and a lot of your supporting arguments seem quite reactionary and fascist adjacent. When you talk about "re-evaluating democracy" in response to recreational drug use, mental illness and the "dumbing" down of society, people will rightly assume you are proposing some sort of conservative and reactionary form of authoritarianism or, at worst, you are making an argument for eugenics.
Sure, that has nothing to do with "dumbing down" of society, drug use or mental illness though.
Look, I'm not trying to be a dick and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but I just don't think your arguments are particularly coherent or engaging and they come off as fairly reactionary to me. I don't think it's worth it to get into this much more, especially since the mods removed this thread. I've said all I can say about it.
Not trying to be a dick either here, frankly this post is either a comprehension fail or disingenuous. Of course there's an element of conjecture, the points in the OP were massively broad.
Fundamentally, is there a point at which we re-evaluate democracy with consideration for modern factors which didn't exist in the past? It's glib, but one of the conditions for democracy is an educated citizenry. We don't have that imo.
Would we consider re-evaluation when the entire republican party is objectively irrational qanon white supremacists, as an extreme example?
I'm happy to go through your post point by point, if you're interested, because I think it's worth discussing. It's your perogative to dip out.
Please don't, it's really not worth discussing. There's a reason this post thread was removed by mods. Feel free to think I am disingenuous.
As you wish.
I'm interested in your response to the core of the last post though:
Fundamentally, is there a point at which we re-evaluate democracy with consideration for modern factors which didn’t exist in the past? It’s glib, but one of the conditions for democracy is an educated citizenry. We don’t have that imo.
Would we consider re-evaluation (of democracy) when the entire republican party is objectively irrational qanon white supremacists, as an extreme example?
I reject this premise. I'm not particularly interested in answering a hypothetical based on something that you believe in. I don't think the problem is that people have been "dumbed down" and I do not support whatever "re-evaluting democracy" means that would attempt to correct something like that. It's really that simple.