Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 16 2019 23:42 Ryzel wrote: I take issue with a lot of the shit Mohdoo is getting for his proposed solution to CURRENT extremely mentally ill homeless. Not that I personally think it’s the best, but everyone else just jumped on top of him for its dystopian qualities and, more importantly, only provided preventative solutions. This basically implies “there’s nothing we can do for the current crop of extremely mentally ill homeless, but it’s better to let them continue their current existence than hypothetically putting them in a facility with trained individuals that care for them.”
Especially GH, stating that it depraves them of their humanity. If you want me to take you seriously, please provide an alternative solution for this group that results in their rehabilitation. And I don’t mean capitalist version of rehabilitation.
1) Able to form meaningful relationships with other human beings. 2) Able to sustain themselves in a way that they live to at least 60 years old without diet-related complications (diabetes, heart attacks, etc.). 3) No longer engages in self-injury.
Not a super high bar, I hope we can agree. Before coming up with solutions, keep in mind the premises...
1) Some of these individuals are non-verbal (not just that they can’t talk, but they have little to no understanding of written/spoken language of any kind). 2) Some of these individuals will completely ignore you when attempting to communicate with them. 3) Some of these individuals will attempt to get you to leave them alone by ANY means necessary. 4) Some of these individuals will refuse to trust anything you say. 5) Some of these individuals will have short-term and/or long-term memory deficits and won’t remember anything you do or say to them. 6) Some of these individuals are convinced self-harm is of their best interest. 7) When pressed, some of these individuals will become extraordinarily violent and require 4-5 linebacker-sized guys to handle one 180-pound man in a way that results in safety for everyone involved.
Please provide me a hypothetical REACTIVE (not preventative) rehabilitative solution that is more humane than Mohdoo’s alternative given these constraints.
Even Mohdoo recognizes that our systems deprive them of their humanity in the first place which is largely responsible for why they get to the state they do.
I think treating the cause supersedes treating the symptoms, but symptoms suck and sometimes need to be alleviated. That's to say being proactive is dramatically more efficient and productive than being reactive, but there's a legitimate concern even if misplaced in your framing.
As to what's more humane than forcing people to work (shitty jobs that exploit them) and calling people who won't do it broken? We provide housing, counseling, food, etc. Our criminal justice system and much of psychiatry is terrible (as I mentioned getting people hooked on drugs that don't work and might only make them more prone to what they think they are treating) so for those people for which those systems are all we have there isn't really a reactive solution. We have to scrap the criminal justice system as it exists and unlearn a bunch of psychiatry myths first.
On July 17 2019 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote: As if the last 100 pages of this thread have dedicated to xDaunt not knowing what open borders means lol
When you can't publicly justify your opposition to your opponents idea's your only option is argue against fictional idea's that you can justify opposing.
That's a good way of putting it. That's why the Republicans and Fox marched out the whole "death panel" charade when the ACA was being debated. It's much easier to say "We are against the Big Bad Government being able to choose if you get covered for an illness" than to say "We are against insurance companies being required to provide access to more affordable health insurance to people in several particularly vulnerable demographics ". The Republicans likely knew that if their supporters found out the actual substance of what was being proposed, it would gain their support, which would be viewed as a loss for the Republicans, something they seem to absolutely hate. This proved to be the case since the ACA now polls quite well among many demographics, including key Republican ones. This also shows though, that the Republicans are more than willing to push policy that is actively harmful to their supporters if they view it as politically beneficial. Though that's something many here already likely know.
That's not to say the ACA wasn't flawed, but for many folks they were certainly better off than they previously were.
On July 16 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote: SF Homeless issue stuff: Based on my time there, there is no way to half ass that problem. If you haven't been in some of the worst areas of SF's homeless stuff, you can't understand. I didn't either. There is an enormous number of people who are mentally not quite right. These shelters give people food and water, but the people remain fundamentally broken and wreak havoc on the surrounding area. These people do not have their qualities of life improved by these shelters. All it does is serve as a meeting ground for people who literally throw their own bloody shit at people walking by.
Consider this: When I was in SF, I was walking by a bus that shuttles people to Facebook's campus. In this area, where FB people work, there were multiple homeless people who were straight up bad. A couple of them would sexually harass anyone woman who got near him. One of the dude's *ENTIRE LEGS WERE BOTH BLOODY* because he was scratching all the skin off of it. He was just sitting there DESTROYING the skin on his legs and it looked like he'd been doing it for days. Imagine watching a dude aggressively scratching flesh that is already bloody. Then there was actual human shit on the sidewalks. You needed to look down as you walk because you will otherwise very likely walk on poop. actual human poop.
I forget the name, but there was this 1 street where it was like all the super messed up homeless people took over in some weird dystopian madmax scenario. It was entirely not safe to walk through that area.
In SF, it is like these 2 entirely distinct populations living side by side. And there are so, so, so many of these people I am describing. It is NOTTTTTTTT some people down on their luck who happened to not quite pay rent, but also had no friends nearby, so here they are sleeping on a bench. No. These people need to be committed to a mental facility. I can't emphasize enough how completely past the point of return a LARGE number of these people were.
You know how in most cities, you see homeless people just kinda mumble to themselves as they look through trash cans, sometimes asking for money? Not in SF. In SF, it is a totally different world. And again: there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many.
In order for SF to solve their homeless issue, it will require full on billion dollar facilities to house these people, commit them to years of therapy/medication, on-site job training, on-site job counseling, a fleet of psychologists and psychiatrists...there's nothing you can do that is less than that while still doing anything at all. It is so hopeless.
If someone proposed a $100/year tax on me to spend $10M building homeless shelters, I would vote no. If they proposed a $1000/year tax on me to spend $1B on some super-shelter that expects each resident to spend at least 2 years recovering/coping with their mental illnesses, I would vote yes. The current approaches to homelessness do not come close to being sufficient for SF. It is a totally different world. If you have homeless people where you live, the situation looks nothing like SF. Portland is getting pretty bad lately too, but SF was like an actual state of emergency.
On July 16 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote: Right, there basically 2 different groups:
1. Homeless without mental illness or drug addiction
2. Homeless people WITH mental illness or drug addiction
They need entirely different solutions. If someone has advanced schizophrenia, a bed, a meal, a temporary address and some job leads won't help. We need to have a solution for the people who are downright broken as humans. In Portland and SF, there are a ton of support networks for people who are down on their luck. We don't have ANY method of dealing with the people who are fundamentally non-functional as humans. We just give them some bread, socks and say "nice, I defeated homelessness".
I think you're missing how your kind of "nice homeless" rummaging through trash cans without destructive or extremely noticeable mental illness aren't a separate creature from "SF and Portland homeless." It's social evolution and hard nights with the catalyst of their high population in certain inner cities. They're literally the same people at different stages of a growing homeless community, that you won't see transitioning unless the community gets large enough. I include access to drugs and development of a separate culture as more people stay away from the areas.
You can see it in the expanding Skid Row areas of Los Angeles. Two years ago, there were a couple trendy areas with studios to 2bedroom apartments running for $3-5,000 a month. Now, there's lines of tents and tarps on the sidewalk for a half mile surrounding. Stench in the air, needles on the ground, trash everywhere. This second area a little ways away you see regular disinfecting crews in white hazmat outfits trying to manage the growing typhus and Hep a by spraying the areas down and carting away trash. I'll probably see them and vermin control somewhere in the city while driving at work today. There isn't a SF poop-everywhere stage right now, but it's getting there quickly.
What is your proposed or preferential solution?
I'm not danglers but here's what I'd do: Liberalise zoning laws to increase supply of housing. Levy a land value tax to encourage development and raise money. Legalise drug use and levy a pigouvian tax on it. Use the proceeds of both these taxes to increase mental health coverage, fundprogrammes to reduce homelessness (such as getting them into permanent housing until they can get on their feet again) and to treat substance abuse.
This way you fight homelessness on multiple fronts. By increasing housing supply and development you make housing more affordable and by treating drug use, increasing mental health coverage and funding programmes you fix (some of) the root causes of homelessness.
Why do you think liberalized housing laws will increase the supply of the kind of cheap and accessible housing people need? You’ll just get another sea of McMansions because that’s what makes developers money. The market has no interest in supplying the kind of dense communities with public transport and nearby amenities that the poor need because they’re poor.
For the same reason there’s H&M and Gucci, Ferrari and Opel, etc. As long as markets aren’t too restricted and there’s money to be made the market will fill the gap. In fact the market is behaving exactly as you’d expect when you’re rationing supply. Take for example a shoe company which sold 10.000 shoes for 100$ and 100.000 for 50$ in a given year. If you limit production to 30.000 the shoe company would likely keep producing the more expensive shoes and drop the cheaper shoes even though the cheaper ones contribute more to the bottom line. This is what’s happening in the housing market as well. Developers are only building those McMansions because you’re restricting supply.
In addition it’s questionably that even if only McMansions were built it’s worse than the current situation. What happens if those McMansions don’t get built? The rich people who would fill those McMansions will instead bid on lower cost housing and price out said middle class. In addition as mr Sumner out:
The key point here is that by far the most effective way of providing “affordable housing” for average people is to get upper middle class people to vacate their existing homes, to free them up for middle class people to move in.
If high rise luxury buildings are built in a (low rise) gentrifying Seattle neighborhood, then it will become more difficult for lower middle class people to live in that particular neighborhood. However it will also reduce the overall price of housing at an aggregate level, and thus help working class people in aggregate.
Many non-economists make the mistake of thinking about living standards in terms of money and affordability. The correct way to think about these issues is in terms of output. If you build it they will come. We can “afford” whatever we can build. If America built 100 million McMansions, then almost all of America could afford to live in a McMansion.
The evidence to support that excessive zoning laws and regulation is actually overwhelming. I could link some of it if you’d like.
The land market isn’t a vacuum, use of land for one purpose necessarily reduces the availability for others. Urban sprawl makes the kind of high density blended use areas we need to build impossible.
It seems to work fine in a city like Tokyo. There's no reason why it wouldn't work in the US. This is really where the land value tax comes in as well. Since it taxes the unimproved value of land the landlords will need develop the land in order not to lose money. Space in cities which didn't get used before will get developed as a consequence. This will make use of available land much more efficient.
On July 16 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote: SF Homeless issue stuff: Based on my time there, there is no way to half ass that problem. If you haven't been in some of the worst areas of SF's homeless stuff, you can't understand. I didn't either. There is an enormous number of people who are mentally not quite right. These shelters give people food and water, but the people remain fundamentally broken and wreak havoc on the surrounding area. These people do not have their qualities of life improved by these shelters. All it does is serve as a meeting ground for people who literally throw their own bloody shit at people walking by.
Consider this: When I was in SF, I was walking by a bus that shuttles people to Facebook's campus. In this area, where FB people work, there were multiple homeless people who were straight up bad. A couple of them would sexually harass anyone woman who got near him. One of the dude's *ENTIRE LEGS WERE BOTH BLOODY* because he was scratching all the skin off of it. He was just sitting there DESTROYING the skin on his legs and it looked like he'd been doing it for days. Imagine watching a dude aggressively scratching flesh that is already bloody. Then there was actual human shit on the sidewalks. You needed to look down as you walk because you will otherwise very likely walk on poop. actual human poop.
I forget the name, but there was this 1 street where it was like all the super messed up homeless people took over in some weird dystopian madmax scenario. It was entirely not safe to walk through that area.
In SF, it is like these 2 entirely distinct populations living side by side. And there are so, so, so many of these people I am describing. It is NOTTTTTTTT some people down on their luck who happened to not quite pay rent, but also had no friends nearby, so here they are sleeping on a bench. No. These people need to be committed to a mental facility. I can't emphasize enough how completely past the point of return a LARGE number of these people were.
You know how in most cities, you see homeless people just kinda mumble to themselves as they look through trash cans, sometimes asking for money? Not in SF. In SF, it is a totally different world. And again: there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many.
In order for SF to solve their homeless issue, it will require full on billion dollar facilities to house these people, commit them to years of therapy/medication, on-site job training, on-site job counseling, a fleet of psychologists and psychiatrists...there's nothing you can do that is less than that while still doing anything at all. It is so hopeless.
If someone proposed a $100/year tax on me to spend $10M building homeless shelters, I would vote no. If they proposed a $1000/year tax on me to spend $1B on some super-shelter that expects each resident to spend at least 2 years recovering/coping with their mental illnesses, I would vote yes. The current approaches to homelessness do not come close to being sufficient for SF. It is a totally different world. If you have homeless people where you live, the situation looks nothing like SF. Portland is getting pretty bad lately too, but SF was like an actual state of emergency.
On July 16 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote: Right, there basically 2 different groups:
1. Homeless without mental illness or drug addiction
2. Homeless people WITH mental illness or drug addiction
They need entirely different solutions. If someone has advanced schizophrenia, a bed, a meal, a temporary address and some job leads won't help. We need to have a solution for the people who are downright broken as humans. In Portland and SF, there are a ton of support networks for people who are down on their luck. We don't have ANY method of dealing with the people who are fundamentally non-functional as humans. We just give them some bread, socks and say "nice, I defeated homelessness".
I think you're missing how your kind of "nice homeless" rummaging through trash cans without destructive or extremely noticeable mental illness aren't a separate creature from "SF and Portland homeless." It's social evolution and hard nights with the catalyst of their high population in certain inner cities. They're literally the same people at different stages of a growing homeless community, that you won't see transitioning unless the community gets large enough. I include access to drugs and development of a separate culture as more people stay away from the areas.
You can see it in the expanding Skid Row areas of Los Angeles. Two years ago, there were a couple trendy areas with studios to 2bedroom apartments running for $3-5,000 a month. Now, there's lines of tents and tarps on the sidewalk for a half mile surrounding. Stench in the air, needles on the ground, trash everywhere. This second area a little ways away you see regular disinfecting crews in white hazmat outfits trying to manage the growing typhus and Hep a by spraying the areas down and carting away trash. I'll probably see them and vermin control somewhere in the city while driving at work today. There isn't a SF poop-everywhere stage right now, but it's getting there quickly.
What is your proposed or preferential solution?
I'm not danglers but here's what I'd do: Liberalise zoning laws to increase supply of housing. Levy a land value tax to encourage development and raise money. Legalise drug use and levy a pigouvian tax on it. Use the proceeds of both these taxes to increase mental health coverage, fundprogrammes to reduce homelessness (such as getting them into permanent housing until they can get on their feet again) and to treat substance abuse.
This way you fight homelessness on multiple fronts. By increasing housing supply and development you make housing more affordable and by treating drug use, increasing mental health coverage and funding programmes you fix (some of) the root causes of homelessness.
Why do you think liberalized housing laws will increase the supply of the kind of cheap and accessible housing people need? You’ll just get another sea of McMansions because that’s what makes developers money. The market has no interest in supplying the kind of dense communities with public transport and nearby amenities that the poor need because they’re poor.
For the same reason there’s H&M and Gucci, Ferrari and Opel, etc. As long as markets aren’t too restricted and there’s money to be made the market will fill the gap. In fact the market is behaving exactly as you’d expect when you’re rationing supply. Take for example a shoe company which sold 10.000 shoes for 100$ and 100.000 for 50$ in a given year. If you limit production to 30.000 the shoe company would likely keep producing the more expensive shoes and drop the cheaper shoes even though the cheaper ones contribute more to the bottom line. This is what’s happening in the housing market as well. Developers are only building those McMansions because you’re restricting supply.
In addition it’s questionably that even if only McMansions were built it’s worse than the current situation. What happens if those McMansions don’t get built? The rich people who would fill those McMansions will instead bid on lower cost housing and price out said middle class. In addition as mr Sumner out:
The key point here is that by far the most effective way of providing “affordable housing” for average people is to get upper middle class people to vacate their existing homes, to free them up for middle class people to move in.
If high rise luxury buildings are built in a (low rise) gentrifying Seattle neighborhood, then it will become more difficult for lower middle class people to live in that particular neighborhood. However it will also reduce the overall price of housing at an aggregate level, and thus help working class people in aggregate.
Many non-economists make the mistake of thinking about living standards in terms of money and affordability. The correct way to think about these issues is in terms of output. If you build it they will come. We can “afford” whatever we can build. If America built 100 million McMansions, then almost all of America could afford to live in a McMansion.
The evidence to support that excessive zoning laws and regulation is actually overwhelming. I could link some of it if you’d like.
The land market isn’t a vacuum, use of land for one purpose necessarily reduces the availability for others. Urban sprawl makes the kind of high density blended use areas we need to build impossible.
It seems to work fine in a city like Tokyo. There's no reason why it wouldn't work in the US. This is really where the land value tax comes in as well. Since it taxes the unimproved value of land the landlords will need develop the land in order not to lose money. Space in cities which didn't get used before will get developed as a consequence. This will make use of available land much more efficient.
Tokyo is a textbook example of a dysfunctional real estate market. As in they literally write textbooks about Tokyo. Libertarian market assumptions can be useful in some markets but civic planning is absolutely not one of them. San Francisco is what cities look like when they’re built to cater to the purchasing power of the residents.
On July 17 2019 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote: As if the last 100 pages of this thread have dedicated to xDaunt not knowing what open borders means lol
When you can't publicly justify your opposition to your opponents idea's your only option is argue against fictional idea's that you can justify opposing.
I'm appreciating this statement, and shout out to Ryzel for posting the video "death of a euphemism," I was super happy to get turned on to that youtube channel. Watching a couple videos created by that guy felt like taking the "red pill" in regard to my experience of this forum.
Some version of the dynamics discussed in these videos absolutely takes place here on the regular. And largely supports my direct experience that after pages and pages of posts, few to no minds are ever changed on their positions.
These videos do a masterful job of exploring the phenomena behind that experience.
Planned Parenthood ousted their leader after eight months on the job and all I can think of as I’m reading about it is: Tom Hagen, you’re out, we need a war time consigliere.
On July 17 2019 06:39 farvacola wrote: Planned Parenthood ousted their leader after eight months on the job and all I can think of as I’m reading about it is: Tom Hagen, you’re out, we need a war time consigliere.
Given the shit show that we just saw in Congress with Pelosi's hilariously failed attempt to censure Trump, the Democrats need a wartime consigliere as well. Trump has them on full tilt. Pelosi got herself banned from speaking, lol.
On July 17 2019 06:39 farvacola wrote: Planned Parenthood ousted their leader after eight months on the job and all I can think of as I’m reading about it is: Tom Hagen, you’re out, we need a war time consigliere.
Given the shit show that we just saw in Congress with Pelosi's hilariously failed attempt to censure Trump, the Democrats need a wartime consigliere as well. Trump has them on full tilt. Pelosi got herself banned from speaking, lol.
Can you clarify what qualifies as a failed attempt to censure Trump, and what qualifies as a non-failed attempt?
1. "It shouldn't have been reported on. It violated all the standards for publication... "...The AAPOR, AP, CNN guidelines etc require -- rightly so -- release of all findings, release of who did the poll and who paid for it, release of question wording."
2: "The questions were unbelievably biased and the cherrypicking of results even more so.... ...We know from other polling: Half of Americans don't know what socialism is. What would results have been if you asked a question which is standard wording -- do you have a favorable rating, an unfavorable rating of socialism or don't you know."
It's just so transparent that it's a leaked poll to throw shade at "the squad".
On July 17 2019 06:39 farvacola wrote: Planned Parenthood ousted their leader after eight months on the job and all I can think of as I’m reading about it is: Tom Hagen, you’re out, we need a war time consigliere.
Given the shit show that we just saw in Congress with Pelosi's hilariously failed attempt to censure Trump, the Democrats need a wartime consigliere as well. Trump has them on full tilt. Pelosi got herself banned from speaking, lol.
Can you clarify what qualifies as a failed attempt to censure Trump, and what qualifies as a non-failed attempt?
It's the closest thing to spine I've seen from the Democrats in awhile. Apparently it's against the rules to call tweets racist, but they kept it in the record (for now) anyway.
On July 17 2019 06:39 farvacola wrote: Planned Parenthood ousted their leader after eight months on the job and all I can think of as I’m reading about it is: Tom Hagen, you’re out, we need a war time consigliere.
Given the shit show that we just saw in Congress with Pelosi's hilariously failed attempt to censure Trump, the Democrats need a wartime consigliere as well. Trump has them on full tilt. Pelosi got herself banned from speaking, lol.
Can you clarify what qualifies as a failed attempt to censure Trump, and what qualifies as a non-failed attempt?
It baffles me how *some* republican politicians can read Trump's tweets from the other day and come to the conclusion that he isn't racist and shouldn't be called racist.
How on Earth do you even pull off that level of blatant denial? This wasn't a dog whistle that can be interpreted in a non racist way for PR purposes, it was overt, proud, non flinching racism.
On July 17 2019 08:38 Jockmcplop wrote: It baffles me how *some* republican politicians can read Trump's tweets from the other day and come to the conclusion that he isn't racist and shouldn't be called racist.
How on Earth do you even pull off that level of blatant denial? This wasn't a dog whistle that can be interpreted in a non racist way for PR purposes, it was overt, proud, non flinching racism.
I think the thought process is: admitting what Trump said was racist starts the whole house of cards tumbling down, which quickly leads to the country becoming a shithole based on extreme leftists communist policies.
I didn't say the thought process is correct. It seems to be an attempt to choose the lesser of two evils.
edit: Also, some people legitimately don't understand what's racist about it. That is possible. They miss the forest for the trees in their interpretation of the words, out of some combination of ignorance and desperation.
On July 17 2019 08:39 Gorsameth wrote: When the President is so openly racist you can't talk about how openly racist he is in Congress without breaching decorum.
What a wonderful world we all live in.
Democrats sincerely believe there is a nepotistic, criminal, profiteer in office being overtly racist and they are inadvertently exposing all they can do is censure him (while breaking their own rules).
Which Pelosi less than a month ago characterized as:
"Censure is nice but... That's a day at the beach for the President, or at his golf club or wherever he goes."
On July 17 2019 08:38 Jockmcplop wrote: It baffles me how *some* republican politicians can read Trump's tweets from the other day and come to the conclusion that he isn't racist and shouldn't be called racist.
How on Earth do you even pull off that level of blatant denial? This wasn't a dog whistle that can be interpreted in a non racist way for PR purposes, it was overt, proud, non flinching racism.
We talked about this a while ago.
They are racists, they just don't want to admit they are racists so they will keep pretending they don't see it and look strange/stupid/illogical/hypocritical ect from the outside.
The simple truth is they know its racist, and they are ok with it.
I like how it doesn't even dawn upon y'all that we might actually have reasons for supporting our "racist" policies that have absolutely nothing to do with race. The small-mindedness here is staggering. This is the fundamental intellectual bankruptcy of identity politics: when you artificially force every issue into the prism of identity politics, you completely lose sight of the true principles and considerations that are at stake. And as a side effect, you also inevitably end up in contradictory positions given that identity politics are cannibalistic as I have noted before.
There's a difference between supporting racist policy for non racist reasons and literally telling Americans with different racial backgrounds to go back to their countries.
Do you really think Trump's tweets need artificially forcing into the prism of identity politics?
On July 17 2019 08:38 Jockmcplop wrote: It baffles me how *some* republican politicians can read Trump's tweets from the other day and come to the conclusion that he isn't racist and shouldn't be called racist.
How on Earth do you even pull off that level of blatant denial? This wasn't a dog whistle that can be interpreted in a non racist way for PR purposes, it was overt, proud, non flinching racism.
I think the thought process is: admitting what Trump said was racist starts the whole house of cards tumbling down, which quickly leads to the country becoming a shithole based on extreme leftists communist policies.
I didn't say the thought process is correct. It seems to be an attempt to choose the lesser of two evils.
edit: Also, some people legitimately don't understand what's racist about it. That is possible. They miss the forest for the trees in their interpretation of the words, out of some combination of ignorance and desperation.
Another possibility, is that as people, most of us seem to have some (seemingly) logical mental construct (identity) of who we imagine ourselves to be. Being "American" is a prime example of this... Being "American" brings with it a whole host of beliefs about who one person (or a culture of people) is/are.
I would argue in an extremely populist environment, identities are largely projections the individual person (and likely unconsciously) takes on and uses to create an understanding of themselves in a cultural context.
The problem is many of us define "identity" as based on the "actions" of a person, rather than what the person believes about themselves. For example, some white person believes they aren't racist, but then votes for trump and isn't bothered by the racist actions/policies that follow (through action everyone else draws the conclusion, they are actually racist. despite their words in opposition).
Since words don't tell us much about a person, I tend to agree that actions are a better descriptor of identity. The problem with actions, is that largely most of our actions happen subconsciously (beneath our awareness). Opening a door is not something we "think about," and even larger actions than opening a door take place subconsciously as well...
The concept of Jung's Shadow I think is relevant to this level of denial you question... It is the idea, "that which we would most deeply deny as a part of our self is our shadow self." It is the aspect of a personality, which we would most deeply wish not to be true, and because we deny it so much... it ends up oozing out of our attempts to hold it back and manifesting in some form of action/reality.
For the collective consciousness of America, racism is part of our shadow... There has always been a grand and sweeping deep denial (among white people) that America could never commit the atrocities that are typically born out of racism and inflict those on a people. The white portion of the country has denied that we could commit such atrocities for hundreds of years (claiming as of the last 3-4 decades that we had dealt with that demon), and at the same time ignore that our country was born out of a racist genocide.
Shortly after followed by slavery.
While portions of the population are awakening, there are still massive amounts of cultural denial and a cultural identity of "TEAM AMERICA" (like the identity projected in the movie) that gets pushed as a much more palatable version of "identity," for the culture... and people gladly take hold of that without thinking twice about it, because the alternate reality is unfathomable to them.
We are doing the opposite of what post nazi Germany did. They acknowledge what they are capable of, and are therefore unlikely to reoffend their previous transgressions on the world. We however, project legitimate problems or identity of our American culture out onto the rest of the world seeing them as terrorist or "other bad people" (subconsciously, because it allows us to escape responsibility of atoning for our past actions), because it is easier to always see ourselves as the heroes of ww2 rather than a country who could (or already have) fall into committing the same (or similar) atrocities.
Isn't in interesting how many games and movies we as a culture make about WW2 (finest moment) vs Vietnam (tragedy)?
Constantly pushing movies which reenforce what might be our finest moment in history. How many nazi zombi killing movies/games have we made? If we keep the image of nazism/facism out there like that, projected onto other parts of the world, it is always the opposite of "American" and therefore nothing we believe we could become... Return to Wolfenstein a prime example of a game which reinforces these stories.
Which is the supreme (potential) tragedy/irony.
The irony is that in our denial, we make it much more likely of an outcome for our culture, that we become the next offender of world wide harm, because we are unable to acknowledge, consider, and own the parts of our collective consciousness that could (and have already done) do these and similar things. Because we as a culture absolutely have to potential and power (just as any other human culture) to commit atrocities of equal or surpassing horror.
The genocide of millions of Native Americans and our racist/murderous history of slavery being the 2 main examples from our past. The former completely unacknowledged, the latter we claimed to have "risen above" despite the evidence to the contrary.
EPT
