andrewrgross

I think the 3rd option is just this with licensing.

I don't expect a system of community policing right now to be good, but let's start with the idea of cops who are required to live and serve in the same area. No traveling to the next town over to police people.

Next, no qualified immunity. No special exemptions to laws or unique authorization of violence. You have no additional powers under the state, just the same rights as everyone else.

If you required local protectors to organize within a licensing body that only let people participate in their organization after meeting requirements I think what you'd get would be an improvement on what we have without being totally chaotic and lawless.

I love this meme because this is the absolute spiciest take and I'm totally here for it.

I know people don't like this concept, but I think it needs more genuine discussion. There is a general unwillingness to address the question of who comes to lend aid to someone who is being threatened. Personally, I like the answer "your neighbors, who've trained in deescalation and have no unique authority" a lot better than either "the state" or "no one ❤️ ".

I specifically said I wasn't.

I'm not prescriptive in the order, but I would imagine they're most likely to occur in tandem over a period of years.

I find this surprising, because frankly I agree.

I don't know much about Dorsey, but in Musk's case, I think this is another case of him espousing a good idea he'd never actually honor.

I think that anyone should be able to make movies with Mickey Mouse and no one should need to license code. But I suspect that like with free expression, these are values most proponents only like when it's benefiting them.

Also, as for the alternatives to support creatives, I would say start with universal services. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal education, universal food. We would have so much more art if we recognized that no one should have to "earn" their survival. Once that's guaranteed -- and abolish billionaires and extreme wealth inequality too -- I think discussions over how to support creatives would take place from a much more favorable starting point.

Again, I think the effect you're describing is real, but it's also pretty gated in a lot of ways.

We have a lot of treatments first, but also widespread medical bankruptcy. A lot of people lack access to basic necessities.

I'm other words, I don't think someone running out of insulin gives as Schitt's Creek...

Again, though, I don't think it's accurate to use the phrase "going back".

They say no man steps in the same river twice: because he's not the same man, and it's not the same river. Even if someone decides to present as a gender they once occupied, that is still a move forward, to a new gender for them, imo.

I get the sentiment, but I think it's possible we might miss the benefits you're describing less than you think.

For the average American, the biggest manifestation of what you're describing was cheap electronics, trucks, and suburban developments. These kinds of benefits are a poor salve for the alienation and atomization that now besets us. We have been trained to try and fill the holes in our lives with crap while losing more and more of the time and security that affords actual contentedness.

I think a generation raised knowing and trusting their neighbors, able to walk to school and bike to work and possibly go home for lunch, where they can eat some veggies grown in a community garden on an apartment roof might not feel like they've lost all that much just because they can't buy an exercise machine they never use for $99 at a Black Friday sale.

There's a reason a lot of "poorer" countries greatly outpace is in satisfaction and quality of life surveys.

I agree with most of this. However I think there are additional elements that make prediction challenging.

First, if the US undergoes any kind of revolution in the next five years, the cultural effects you mentioned could by overwritten by more recent events. I realize this sounds improbable, but the transition from the New Deal era to global neolibralism was a revolution. "The Reagan Revolution" was an actual economic and social revolution. And we're overdue for another.

Second, both the markets and the real economy were in an unsustainable condition before Trump. The pursuit of endless growth, the disruption of climate breakdown, the end of the US' monopolar hegemony, and the return of extreme wealth inequality in the US made the status quo impossible to simply maintain. Big changes were coming even without Trump.

I maintain some optimism. I think anti trust regulation, climate-based financial regulation, and an embrace of market socialism could render the last three months to be the last gasps of the old order instead of another point in what has been a decline decades in the making. But it depends what happens next.

I'm not an expert, but I'm an index fund/mutual fund guy. I'm not looking for a lottery ticket, I just want to keep up with the market.

They're basically the new savings account, right? If they don't do well, chances are nothing really is, so your money is stagnating to the same degree as everyone else. No real loss.

I feel like discussions of this topic are sadly regressive, not just by critics, but by well intended supporters of bodily autonomy who make the mistake of accepting the premise that wishing to return to a previous gender presentation is a problem that needs solved.

Imo, there is no such thing as "detransitioning". It's just another transition. Or another stage in an ongoing transition.

Within this model, bad faith arguments about people regretting a transition become moot. Someone regrets a decision in how to present themselves? I'm glad they had the freedom to experiment and celebrate their continued journey of self exploration. Done.

Wow!

That's good world building.