Topic: Where Did It All Go Wrong.

[Phil M]

It is a question that has bugged me for years. Really fucking has.

Where did society, both here and abroad go so fucking wrong?

Was it really the financial crisis of 2008 which initiated both Brexit and the rise of Trump and other populists - is it actually the case that the moment the first plane went to the North Tower that fateful day - and we have been dealing with the shitstorm ever since - or was it something else?

We've got some really bright, thoughtful and intelligent people on this forum - and I would be intrigued what your thoughts are?

Social media.

[CraigDS]

Social media.

I’d argue social media has done a lot of good too.

There is a generation of people who are far more accepting of others being brought up right now and a lot of that is because of social media. Gone are the days of their parents/churches/local leaders opinions being forced on them as they’re able to converse with wider, more diverse, groups of people.

[Libertine]

All a matter of perspective really.

If you can point to another time in human history when people, the world over, have lived longer, had more personal freedom, more security (from crime or war), more nutrition and better healthcare, then you'll be doing well.

Progress doesn't always go in a straight line, and the last few years have felt tough. But it's important to take a wider viewpoint as well.

[Dr. Beaker]

You only need one person out there who is capable of exploiting the fact that a 'lie will spread around the world before truth has got its boots on', and then we are all fucked. The right wing, unencumbered by any philosophy other than greed, have led the charge with it's social media crusade. Whether this can be reversed or at least policed in any meaningful way seems to be one of the big questions facing us now.

[Phineus]

Ever since one monkey said to another monkey that the big red thing in sky said you have to give me your banana.

[liverbloke]

So you blame the youth for all the issues we've created over the past 200 years, and for the society we live in today?  All the ecological, environmental and societal injustices are their fault?

i think you've missed the real answer within my reply

the only answer that this question is ever going to have is US (no, not the united states)

we have the power but we choose not to wield it - we sit and watch while the world burns and only get bothered by it when the smell comes through our windows

we don't vote we don't help we are selfish

yes some do but the majority don't and hey ho - that's where we are today with a world that is so close to self-imploding

if there's shit outside your house then go and get a bucket and mop it up or if you prefer then just step over it but don't then complain about it

everyone should look in the mirror and ask themselves - what do i do? what have i done? what can i do?

because it's not their problem - it's yours as it's everyone's

wanna change the fucking world - then it starts with that man/woman/gender-neutral/non-binary person in the mirror

[Phil M]

I’d argue social media has done a lot of good too.

There is a generation of people who are far more accepting of others being brought up right now and a lot of that is because of social media. Gone are the days of their parents/churches/local leaders opinions being forced on them as they’re able to converse with wider, more diverse, groups of people.

Anti-social media.

[Fromola]

Reagan and Thatcher both getting in power at the same time.

We had the chance to rail back from the neoliberal/globalist consensus, but Blair and Clinton were wolves in sheeps clothing and accelerated it further.

In modern terms the answer is 9/11.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

i think you've missed the real answer within my reply

the only answer that this question is ever going to have is US (no, not the united states)

we have the power but we choose not to wield it - we sit and watch while the world burns and only get bothered by it when the smell comes through our windows

we don't vote we don't help we are selfish

yes some do but the majority don't and hey ho - that's where we are today with a world that is so close to self-imploding

if there's shit outside your house then go and get a bucket and mop it up or if you prefer then just step over it but don't then complain about it

everyone should look in the mirror and ask themselves - what do i do? what have i done? what can i do?

because it's not their problem - it's yours as it's everyone's

wanna change the fucking world - then it starts with that man/woman/gender-neutral/non-binary person in the mirror

You could argue that if we're going down the 'what you HAVE to do route' then the 'Right' is more correct than many on here (including me) would choose.

After all nature shows that 'survival of the fittest', 'dog eat dog' and 'the individual' is king.


But I'd say that's why the 'left' is progressive - because the 'right' doesn't take into account the good that a combined society can achieve. 'Dog eat Dog' was OK many centuries ago, but by working together then societies are much more than the sum of their parts. The 'Right' wants to put the 'dross' of their societies into ever more turgid and boxed-in boxes. The advantage of this is that the 'alphas' and the rich benefit and fulfil their personal 'dog eat dog' and 'survival of the fittest' tropes.

The 'left' wants to promote socialism (of one kind of another) - working together towards an end so that everyone in that society benefits. Except that quite often, when the 'left' gets power then they just turn into another version of the 'dog eats dog' 'survival of the fittest' branch.


What's the answer? As has been said a few times on the thread - 'we' as a species have found a way not to blow ourselves up (And we've had that chance for over 70 years now) - I think ecological turmoil is going to happen because of global warming, running out of fossil fuels, religion v no-religion, power-struggles, big vs. small, corporations v governments and all the rest..

.. that's all happening now..


.. and what we've seen is that the world somehow gets to be that little bit better after each massive event. Humanity seems to pause and think 'Fucking hell. What the actual shit." and then does something about it.

But the problem we've had and will have for the forseeable is that this upturn in 'good' tends to be fairly local - for your own people - but again, after WW II - the EU saying 'No. This won't happen again" was a great way to pull countries together for the mutual benefit of everyone (With the problems it was always going to have of course)

The UK has shit the bed and fucked themselves, but the world doesn't need to be concerned about how fucking stupid the people of the UK are. Countries can come back from the brink - the isolationilism that the US has kicked on several times is now being reversed by Biden and that has to be the key I think - all of mankind working together for one purpose, for one aim.


Can that ever happen? Dunno.

Personally I think that it will only ever happen when some of us leave this lump and go to other lumps. Once you have more than one patch then that brings things into perspective. The sheer amount of materials and water and oxygen available in the solar system is way more than we first thought - if we can start getting colonies and more importantly heavy industry into orbit then that is going to help a lot - once you have good routes to shift shit then we can look at removing the toxins, poisons and radioactive shit from our biosphere.

And that's likely to be the thing that finally does us in - running out of good air and water and not being able to avoid radioactivity, microplastics, toxins and all the baggage that comes with that.


The good news is that once we're dead and gone and all the waste has degraded and gone through the cycle of being eradicated, the species that follows us in 2 or 10 or 50 million years gets another crack at it

[BarryCrocker]

I think the gradual shift up of the middle class through the accumulation of capital via property ownership is an issue. We're ending up with generations who are developing wealth off a generation of renters who accumulate nothing. This gets handed over to their children and the issues multiply.

Housing has become a vehicle for wealth accumulation rather than distribution. Death/estate taxes go some way towards reducing the kick-on effect to the next generation but nowhere near enough. The rich have many ways of getting around this through the use of family trusts and/or creative accounting. And when the government does get anything off them where does the money currently go?

I wouldn't mind seeing 100% of death/estate taxes collected going into a social housing fund that would help lower-income households get breathing space through cheaper housing so they can provide better to their families.

[Fromola]

I think the gradual shift up of the middle class through the accumulation of capital via property ownership is an issue. We're ending up with generations who are developing wealth off a generation of renters who accumulate nothing. This gets handed over to their children and the issues multiply.

Housing has become a vehicle for wealth accumulation rather than distribution. Death/estate taxes go some way towards reducing the kick-on effect to the next generation but nowhere near enough. The rich have many ways of getting around this through the use of family trusts and/or creative accounting. And when the government does get anything off them where does the money currently go?

I wouldn't mind seeing 100% of death/estate taxes collected going into a social housing fund that would help lower-income households get breathing space through cheaper housing so they can provide better to their families.

This started with Thatcher. Her attitude was home owners will vote Tory so they sold off the social housing stock.

Funny how when you look at the voting demographics over 50's overwhelmingly vote Tory, under 40's overwhelmingly don't and tend to vote Labour. Under 40's as a generation can't get on the housing ladder.

[rafathegaffa83]

In modern terms the answer is 9/11.

That was my first thought. I think a lot of where we are now stems back to that point.

Economically, there's perhaps more a cogent line to the deregulation of the 80s, but there's an argument to be made that resources and manpower that could have gone to domestic infrastructure, healthcare, education or other programs to invest in national resources were diverted towards security services, police, military, as western nations responded to 9/11 etc. Additionally, the U.S. federal government's monetary policies post-9/11 masked the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and encouraged consumer spending, which in turn arguably led to the housing crisis in the U.S. which led to The Great Recession.

For example, would the current pandemic have occurred or been as devastating had it not been for 9/11? I think there's certain areas that 9/11 unleashed toxic elements that have made this situation worse: less international collaboration, in favour of hyper-nationalism; xenophobia fuelled by technology and populist political movements; treating a pandemic like a military conflict instead of a public health issue; reduced investments in healthcare systems, education and public infrastructure in favour of military technologies; the development of an irrational binary view of the world that allows disinformation to be easily spread (and accepted)

[oldfordie]

America has always been far, far, far, far more rightwing than the Tory party.

If you think that Starmer is anywhere near that far right then I'd like to see your reasoning..


This is something that gives you a good overview:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum 
This is an interesting read as well: http://factmyth.com/the-left-right-political-spectrum-explained/


This is an interesting diagram as well






With all these things, the writer and the view of the writer will always skew the ideals and meanings. For instance;

- In the Uk I quite often see people say that Fascism and Conservatism are the same thing. They clearly aren't.

- In the US I quite often see people say that Communism and Socialism are the same thing. They clearly aren't.



In the case where you have taken two different countries with two entirely different political systems and two entirely different mindets and have made them the same in your head then you are falling into the same trap - your ideas of left and right don't seem to tally up - but then again, read those things I included and not many of them will agree.

What is right? What is left? You also see Liberty/Slavery/Freedom/Government/Control used interchangeably - it's a fascinating subject and I have to hold my hands up and admit that although I've read a lot and I've (I think!) learned a lot - the more you look into it - the more complicated and detailed it is.

Yeah it's very complicated as it's not just about whether a person or party is left or right it's also about the publics perception on whether they believe they are left or right wing and I think this maybe the most important lesson to think about.
We have people arguing Starmer is centre right and am sure there are many people in this country who will refuse to vote for Starmers Labour because they believe he is right wing, there are also many people who will refuse to vote for Starmer because they believe he is too left wing.
Mentioned it a few times over the years but the 2015 leadership election debates gives us some clues on whether people actually understand what left and right means and there views on whether they are scared of a left wing government taking power.
Nicola Sturgeon impressed the whole country during those debates, the polls after the debate had her the clear winner, she came out of nowhere for millions of people so they had no preconceived bias about her, the thing that surprised me was she became the biggest internet search straight after the debate, people were trying to find out if the SNP were left or right wing which raises 2 questions for me.
1. Many people don't know how to judge whether a politician or party is left or right.
2 Why did they think it was important if they liked what they heard?
I get the impression people liked what they heard and then thought to themselves thats a shame, I really liked her but I could never vote for someone who is left wing.

America has always been far more to the right than the UK. the fear of the left has now reached paranoia for many. so the question isn't all about whether a party or politician is left or right it's also about the publics perception of left and right. is it possible for the radical left to gain power in the US,? I view that as impossible but there is a very real fear in millions of Americans over the left taking power, how it will result in the destruction of everything they hold dear.

[skipper757]

the youth

always moaning about war violence racism the environment

yet play vastly aggressive war-like games where they not only kill other beings but do so on a gory level

then buy from ebay and amazon and fuel the fascist states like china

buy throw-away clothing that's made by little children in india and asia

live a narcissistic superficial life through social media where they travel the world using transport of the most polluting kind imaginable just so they can post a selfie on instagram or fb

alter their youthful faces with poisons so they can look perfect and make everyone else feel inferior

constantly us mobile phones which house batteries that take 100s of years to break down

only communicate through media that is funded by immoral corrupt non-tax paying mobile companies and their web-based evil counterparts

you have to remember that the children are our future - who said that now? whitney was it? a drug-riddled narcissist herself who died of an overdose

but if that's what our kids are being exposed to and it's being dressed up all in pretty ribbons and bows then WE are the downfall of our own society

the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing

every phone you buy

every comment you post

every thing you say

they'll be watching you

Rare we see a post blaming it all on the youth. 

The vast majority of people that use these services and also profit from them are not the youth, but feel free to go on with your thoughts.

And governments aside, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in Asia (specifically China).  Would you rather they live in poverty/squalor instead?  Or do you have a better way for the vast majority of the people in the world (non-developed countries) to live the same life as the average Brit or American?

Consumption and capitalism has been the way of life.  Countries like the US and UK benefited greatly from this as well as globalization.  It's just that the people who benefited the most wanted to hoard all their wealth instead of redistributing it into better foundations and services.

If capitalism and globalization inevitable, there were ways to make it a positive for everyone, lifting millions (eventually billions) out of poverty while still creating a better society in developed countries.  The people in these countries chose not to.

And I don't think it's because of youths on TikTok that people are selfish.

I think the gradual shift up of the middle class through the accumulation of capital via property ownership is an issue. We're ending up with generations who are developing wealth off a generation of renters who accumulate nothing. This gets handed over to their children and the issues multiply.

Housing has become a vehicle for wealth accumulation rather than distribution. Death/estate taxes go some way towards reducing the kick-on effect to the next generation but nowhere near enough. The rich have many ways of getting around this through the use of family trusts and/or creative accounting. And when the government does get anything off them where does the money currently go?

I wouldn't mind seeing 100% of death/estate taxes collected going into a social housing fund that would help lower-income households get breathing space through cheaper housing so they can provide better to their families.

The housing issue is a big one.  It's another vehicle to accumulate wealth (like the stock market), but it's not just an investment but also a life necessity.  Certainly from an American perspective, I see how the incentive structure goes.  Social Security kicks in late (and most younger people don't even expect to receive much), and given the lifestyle most want post-retirement, it makes sense to have a house in valuable real estate accumulate as much value as possible.  Having a house skyrocket in value when you're in your 50s is ideal.  Just hold out for a little while longer before selling and either downsizing or moving to a cheaper location for retirement (which will become more expensive as retirees move in).  Another nice financial boost.  Then pass it on to children.  These are hugely valuable assets, and the incentives are to keep them valuable.

There's a shortage of supply of houses here, but that's quite frankly fine if you're looking for asset values to increase, and that's a concern that we just let it go through the roof (no pun intended).  Homeowners want prices to go up.  Politicians know that a price drop will make them unpopular.  Developers/builders want to build but will be doing it at market value prices.  At the same time, there's plenty of land further away from urban centers to build affordable housing, but a chunk of the population doesn't want money to be spent on public transit (which in many places isn't good enough), which makes these areas unattractive.  And wages don't go up fast enough to match these trends.

It's like the incentive structure for taxes.  Theoretically, they go up and down, but in reality, one movement gets significantly more popularity (and votes), and the other, even if better for society, will be spun as bad.  For housing prices, there's only one price movement that keeps politicians in power, and it's not the price movement that goes towards affordability.

All a matter of perspective really.

If you can point to another time in human history when people, the world over, have lived longer, had more personal freedom, more security (from crime or war), more nutrition and better healthcare, then you'll be doing well.

Progress doesn't always go in a straight line, and the last few years have felt tough. But it's important to take a wider viewpoint as well.

Also true.  We can't say that 2021 is worse and more dangerous than say, 1967 or 1942 or 1918.  But I think compared to maybe 1999 or 2006, there is a concern that we're "backsliding."  The long-term trends do have people concerned, so there's definitely a lot of consternation.

[hide5seek]

Social media.

Without social media there would be a lot more religious freaks out there.

[Wilmo]

Without social media there would be a lot more religious freaks out there.

That type of crazy isn't attached to a belief structure, it's attracted to a fetishisation of power. Those people are now freaks about Brexit and Trump. There's probably even more of them as well.

[Billy The Kid]

I’d argue social media has done a lot of good too.

It has certainly done some good, but when you stand back and look at the full extent of its impact on modern society, then a good argument can be made to say that the we're actually worse off because of it. Leave aside the technological, educational and communicative conveniences it provides, and just look at what its done to us on a human level.

My own personal opinion is that our technologies have evolved in ways that are not harmonious to our evolution as a species. Our brains are not intrinsically designed to be bombarded with information/content/media/news/videos/opinion 6 to 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Thats not what Mother Nature designed them for

[Snail]

I think the gradual shift up of the middle class through the accumulation of capital via property ownership is an issue.

We’re going to have a huge problem in a few decades as people my age and younger whose income gets pissed away into the pockets of faceless landlords face retirement without owning their own homes. It’s a ticking time bomb.

[Red-Soldier]

It has certainly done some good, but when you stand back and look at the full extent of its impact on modern society, then a good argument can be made to say that the we're actually worse off because of it. Leave aside the technological, educational and communicative conveniences it provides, and just look at what its done to us on a human level.

My own personal opinion is that our technologies have evolved in ways that are not harmonious to our evolution as a species. Our brains are not intrinsically designed to be bombarded with information/content/media/news/videos/opinion 6 to 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Thats not what Mother Nature designed them for

I agree.

There is also a substantial number of studies to support this.

It's one of the reasons many have (re)discovered nature/green space during the pandemic.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It has certainly done some good, but when you stand back and look at the full extent of its impact on modern society, then a good argument can be made to say that the we're actually worse off because of it. Leave aside the technological, educational and communicative conveniences it provides, and just look at what its done to us on a human level.

My own personal opinion is that our technologies have evolved in ways that are not harmonious to our evolution as a species. Our brains are not intrinsically designed to be bombarded with information/content/media/news/videos/opinion 6 to 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Thats not what Mother Nature designed them for

Of course it did. filtering is the most basic thing the brain does.

[killer-heels]

Without social media there would be a lot more religious freaks out there.

Its done more harm than good.

[west_london_red]

I still can’t believe I seem to be the only one saying 2008. Without the financial crash you don’t get the Tories back in 2010, even if they did win they would have struggled a lot harder to justify Austerity and without the financial crash and Austerity you don’t get things like Trump and Brexit.

[killer-heels]

I still can’t believe I seem to be the only one saying 2008. Without the financial crash you don’t get the Tories back in 2010, even if they did win they would have struggled a lot harder to justify Austerity and without the financial crash and Austerity you don’t get things like Trump and Brexit.

Yep 2008 was absolutely the start of the issues currently. Once the coalition government came in you could feel things changing and anger building.

[So… Howard Philips]

I still can’t believe I seem to be the only one saying 2008. Without the financial crash you don’t get the Tories back in 2010, even if they did win they would have struggled a lot harder to justify Austerity and without the financial crash and Austerity you don’t get things like Trump and Brexit.

It's a generational thing , obviously.

I'm opof the much maligned? boomer generation. The sixties were OK, seventies had their pluses and minuses but once Thatcher came on the scene things went to shit.

[Red-Soldier]

We’re going to have a huge problem in a few decades as people my age and younger whose income gets pissed away into the pockets of faceless landlords face retirement without owning their own homes. It’s a ticking time bomb.

I work in nature conservation - the majority of the workforce used by charities are volunteers, most of which are retirees.  In 20/30 years time, the whole sector could be in big trouble, as there wont be another generation of mortage free, gold-plated pensioners replacing them.

[west_london_red]

It's a generational thing , obviously.

I'm opof the much maligned? boomer generation. The sixties were OK, seventies had their pluses and minuses but once Thatcher came on the scene things went to shit.

To be fair my original answer was 1979 and 2008 but a few people have said Thatcher and I don’t think anyone really disagrees on that one. But for me and people of my generation 2008 and what it’s brought with it has been pretty crushing, and the Boomers as a generation have an awful lot to answer for too, but I suspect that’s because a lot of them voted for Thatcher and bought into all that she represented.

Don’t know if you’ve seen the film The Big Short about the 2008 crash (very good film if you haven’t) but there’s a line at the end of it that really stands out for me:

“I have a feeling in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks. They will be blaming immigrants and poor people.”

And that’s how you end up with Austerity, Trump, Brexit, Johnson. If 2008 doesn’t happen none of that happens.

[west_london_red]

I work in nature conservation - the majority of the workforce used by charities are volunteers, most of which are retirees.  In 20/30 years time, the whole sector could be in big trouble, as there wont be another generation of mortage free, gold-plated pensioners replacing them.

And this is where Thatcher comes in. She made it acceptable not to care about others who don’t own their own homes, or who earn less then you so there is no outrage as we slowly sleep walk towards what you suggest.

[skipper757]

I still can’t believe I seem to be the only one saying 2008. Without the financial crash you don’t get the Tories back in 2010, even if they did win they would have struggled a lot harder to justify Austerity and without the financial crash and Austerity you don’t get things like Trump and Brexit.

2008 was a key tipping point for a lot of world, but some of the underlying causes were due to policies well before that, so a lot of discussion has focused on those.  The issues were bubbling under the surface, but there was a lot of exuberance (at least in the US), possibly irrationally so, around 2006-07.  The trends before that (e.g. global capitalism, automation) and the policies instituted (e.g. de-regulation, tax cuts, etc) created the boom, but once it bust, all the issues below surfaced once the crash happened.  A lot of rhetoric poured to the fore.  It was also at that time that social media really took off, so that all accelerated it.

Things like EU-skepticism, consternations about multi-culturalism, foreigners being blamed for stealing jobs, etc were all there before 2008.  The voices became a lot louder and clearer post-2008.

[So… Howard Philips]

To be fair my original answer was 1979 and 2008 but a few people have said Thatcher and I don’t think anyone really disagrees on that one. But for me and people of my generation 2008 and what it’s brought with it has been pretty crushing, and the Boomers as a generation have an awful lot to answer for too, but I suspect that’s because a lot of them voted for Thatcher and bought into all that she represented.

Don’t know if you’ve seen the film The Big Short about the 2008 crash (very good film if you haven’t) but there’s a line at the end of it that really stands out for me:

“I have a feeling in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks. They will be blaming immigrants and poor people.”

And that’s how you end up with Austerity, Trump, Brexit, Johnson. If 2008 doesn’t happen none of that happens.

But how far back do you go?

Wall Street crash and the rise of Nazism?

Some Boomers no doubt voted for Thatcher but they can't be held so they can't be held solely responsible for every disaster since then - or are they the one group in society that are an easy target?

[oldfordie]

I still can’t believe I seem to be the only one saying 2008. Without the financial crash you don’t get the Tories back in 2010, even if they did win they would have struggled a lot harder to justify Austerity and without the financial crash and Austerity you don’t get things like Trump and Brexit.

The 2008 crash set up the conditions for extremism to flourish just as the wall street crash in the late 20s set up the conditions for extremism to flourish in the 30s but it doesn't explain how the right wing extremists exploited the period to win power.

[west_london_red]

But how far back do you go?

Wall Street crash and the rise of Nazism?

Some Boomers no doubt voted for Thatcher but they can't be held so they can't be held solely responsible for every disaster since then - or are they the one group in society that are an easy target?

It depends what disasters your talking about, but it didn’t end with Thatcher. The election and re-election of the Tories, Brexit, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson who between them have screwed my generation out of an awful lot of what they themselves enjoyed which is now deem superfluous, so understandably I would say there is some resentment from my generation to yours.

[please, I have my reasons for it but...]

It is a question that has bugged me for years. Really fucking has.

Where did society, both here and abroad go so fucking wrong?

Was it really the financial crisis of 2008 which initiated both Brexit and the rise of Trump and other populists - is it actually the case that the moment the first plane went to the North Tower that fateful day - and we have been dealing with the shitstorm ever since - or was it something else?

We've got some really bright, thoughtful and intelligent people on this forum - and I would be intrigued what your thoughts are?

The rise of social media and reality television like the Kardashians has made social human interaction something hard for people.

[west_london_red]

The 2008 crash set up the conditions for extremism to flourish just as the wall street crash in the late 20s set up the conditions for extremism to flourish in the 30s but it doesn't explain how the right wing extremists exploited the period to win power.

Well you have to remember in the 1930’s right wing extremism flourished in some countries, but at the same time it was also rejected by a lot, I don’t remember Stanly Baldwin ever being described as an extremist, FDR was labelled a ‘socialist’ by his political enemies but by most rational people wasn’t.

[oldfordie]

Well you have to remember in the 1930’s right wing extremism flourished in some countries, but at the same time it was also rejected by a lot, I don’t remember Stanly Baldwin ever being described as an extremist, FDR was labelled a ‘socialist’ by his political enemies but by most rational people wasn’t.

Exactly the point am making, the conditions for the right to flourish were felt all over the western world but only a few extremists managed to win power and we should be learning the lessons on the tactics they used to win power rather than just putting it all down to a financial crash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq9yst4W-6c

[Sheer Magnetism]

9/11 was really the big one. Crushed the vast majority of anti-globalisation protests along with anti-governmental dissent, brought racism and xeonophobia back into the mainstream and ushered in the security state in a big way both over here but particularly in the States. No one seems to even mention the large scale of security cameras and mass surveillance anymore, it's just become accepted.

The other big issue is the simultaneous ubiquitousness and centralisation of the internet, which is related to but not limited to social media. Back in the early days of the internet there were a range of search engines, and social areas which were largely independent. Now large parts of the internet are generally controlled by a few players who use AI to essentially hive people off into echo chambers. Twitter in particular has been hugely damaging because it encourages binary takes and groupthink, especially in how people who express unpopular opinions are piled on.

However, I wonder if the deteriorating environment may be a bigger factor than most people take into account. When we talk about how things have gone wrong we're essentially talking about the loss of hope and the idea things are irretrievably screwed. I think on some level people inherently link this to future climate catastrophe whether it's on a conscious level or not, and that it encourages selfish and nihilistic beliefs and actions.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

It's a lot of talk when the crux of the issue is simple: It was never right. 

The US and the UK worked better than most because there was a baseline of competency and a basic attempt / pretense at decency whoever got through. Now that's gone.

No well run enterprise leaves its recruitment so open to luck.  Filters are in place to guarantee technical competency,  ensure a basic quality of character though the latter is harder to control completely.

Get working to improve the management / politics of a country by putting in filters for those who want to manage and filters for those who have the power to elect (voters).  If for whatever reason you cannot get this mechanism going,  no point complaining about the randomness / luck that follows.

Let garbage like Trump through and it's laughable to complain afterwards.  That aspect of the system is shit if it can't even filter out a creature so transparently incompetent and riddled with character defects.

You get the best collection of people you can pick,  excellent in their work,  the character to treat others with civility: you can pretty much do / build / solve anything.  The job is picking them and getting the rest out of the way.

[kcbworth]

OK, it's just that when I was growing up - in my teens - 1996, 97 especially - it felt like there wasn't an ocean of darkness overlooking the world

I was feeling optimistic as recently as Obama being elected

[Dr. Beaker]

The 2008 crash set up the conditions for extremism to flourish just as the wall street crash in the late 20s set up the conditions for extremism to flourish in the 30s but it doesn't explain how the right wing extremists exploited the period to win power.

See Milliband.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

I don't think we ever had it right. Humans have always been weird. Right from the neanderthal days to the present. We have been selfish, ignorant, differentiating, jealous, irresponsible, shortsighted and self-centred.

We have strived for a better society, but it has almost always come at a terrible price. The small ones who did have an impact were too small to make the change impactful and/or permanent.

Even today, we have taken so many things for granted that we don't care about the long term implications. Deforestation, animals going extinct, mining, economy, politics, diseases, religion everything that we see around us, has been done with an ulterior motive. If talking about nature, the northern white horn Rhino, which's survived 55m years, is apparently officially functionally extinct. Bees are endangered. Coral reefs are critically endangered. If talking about politics, then we have been placed into groups that are defined by who we voted for in the last election instead of who best represents us. This has resulted in multiple fractions of political identity and each with its own violent ideologies. Economy? Religion? I don't think I want to open that can of worms.

Humans have always acted in what's best for us and considered everything else second-tier at best. Society? That's just a group of dysfunctional humans coming together to live together in some form of an unwritten contract with each other.

But if I had to point to one event in the history and say it went bad from there on, I would say the Industrial revolution. Sure lots of positives from it. But we didn't take care of the negatives that came along with it. We allowed them to manifest and grow inorganically. We lost our way and now its too late to hit the reset function. A meteorite could though...

[liverbloke]

Rare we see a post blaming it all on the youth. 

The vast majority of people that use these services and also profit from them are not the youth, but feel free to go on with your thoughts.

And governments aside, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in Asia (specifically China).  Would you rather they live in poverty/squalor instead?  Or do you have a better way for the vast majority of the people in the world (non-developed countries) to live the same life as the average Brit or American?

Consumption and capitalism has been the way of life.  Countries like the US and UK benefited greatly from this as well as globalization.  It's just that the people who benefited the most wanted to hoard all their wealth instead of redistributing it into better foundations and services.

If capitalism and globalization inevitable, there were ways to make it a positive for everyone, lifting millions (eventually billions) out of poverty while still creating a better society in developed countries.  The people in these countries chose not to.

And I don't think it's because of youths on TikTok that people are selfish.


'''

erm i think you either haven't finished reading my original full post or didn't even bother reading my second post explaining the real answer within my first...