And I'm telling you we do not live in a far-right empire (if you want that, go to Russia or North Korea), and I already explained that Biden is nowhere near a conservative. I'm sorry, but what an absurd notion. I'll tell you now that a couple of the inequalities you're crying about are not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be (I stress a couple, there are others that are more legitament that I'll go with you on like the fact that there is a population in the US in dire poverty).
In terms of American politicking, no Biden is not conservative he is a blue wave Democrat and is liberal. This is not a result of a unified definition of what constitutes liberalism and what constitutes conservatism but rather a remarking on the regressivism of modern American conservatives. On a
global scale and on the measure of the Overton window, Biden is indeed conservative. Even his slogan, a return to normalcy, reflects a conservative shift back to the status quo. You two are arguing with different definitions of "conservatism" in mind, with dice incorporating his definition based off other countries whereas you are arguing in reflection of American neoliberals. This is a moot point and doesn't get anyone anywhere however but I figured I would try to clarify where you two were miscommunicating.
One is wealth inequality. I'm not following how the rich being richer is a bad thing, especially while considering that poor are in fact not getting poorer, but also richer. The gap is expanding, sure, but why this isn't a bad thing imo is because having the ability to get ahead is not a bad thing once so ever. I believe people have a right to do that. Jeff Bezos is a great example. He created possibly one of the best online shopping services worldwide. He didn't just get rich out of nowhere; people habitually rely on Amazon, and investors believe in its value.
People getting richer is not necessarily a bad thing. What people most take issue with wealth inequality is that once you are in that "in crowd" it is remarkably easy to remain in that crowd. As a different user stated, capitalism is designed to funnel money to the top, with the theory that that money would then distribute amongst the people in terms of various social benefits: expansion of the corporation resulting in newer jobs, expansion of job benefits, the companies pay into taxes which go to social programs.
I do not think this is a bad thing and when practiced can produce a lot of good for the welfare of the citizens.
The problem comes when corporations subvert that. I do not decry Bill Gates being a billionaire and making it to the top because he uses his money and influence in ways that benefit society overall. I do decry corporations that use their profits to buy back stock, to raise salaries of CEOs to absurdly high levels, to not pay any money in federal taxes (as in the case of Amazon). Therein lies the fundamental problems associated with a pure capitalist society: the capitalist' only goal and only appeal to virtue is to increase the amount of capital. All actions are justified in pursuit of capital because it is with capital that they can influence the world in a positive manner. The problem comes when they get stuck in a loop, justifying actions in pursuit of capital so they can then make more capital and so on, without ever redistributing that back into society. In the economic theory of Adam Smith this is solved by the free hand of the market. People will simply stop buying products of an amoral corporation which does not put back as much as it hoards from society, but this is simply not the case in modern America due to corporate lobbying and stock buybacks, in which an oligarchial corporate board dictates the laws to most benefit their existing power structure and maintains and keeps power through stock buybacks.
I think any user trying to slide in Marxist theory to Deceit is wasting their time, there is too much controversy surrounding the outcome of authoritarian regimes and the connotation of, and it is not in the right academic climate for him to be susceptible to it. One can describe wealth inequality and critiques of modern American capitalism without necessarily pointing to Marxism, even if it would just be easier for him to research it more.
The other I take issue with is unceasing racism. I do not deny racism still exists, and it is impossible to get rid of it in its entirety. It's a sickness that has has plagued the entire world for centuries. I would like to say though as a country we have progressed profusely. I guess you're gonna have to tell me why America by-in-large is unceasingly racist because for one, given we just overwhelmingly elected Obama not so long ago for starters, I'm having trouble believing that. What I've seen more of is our media trying to frame a narrative out of only partial bits of a story and does not always use the full context or notable statistics.
I think this is true. This is a point we can agree upon, that America has progressed a lot on the topic of tackling racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. The election of the first black president was indeed a momentous event.
In terms of progress there is indeed a positive trend, but that does not mean that racism does not exist or that it is not a problem core to America's foundations as a society. Both you and dice are correct in your own ways. I won't touch on "media narrative," I do agree with you there but I also think that you are underselling it.
For better understanding dice's point, one only needs to look at the most clear-cut example of systemic racism in the country: racial disparity in criminal sentencing. One can point to the fact that 1/10th of every black person nationally is in jail or prison on any given day in America, or that black people are far more likely to be sentenced to serve time for non-violent crimes than white people, the fact is that
for committing the same crime black people endure a 19.1% longer sentence than white people. (
source). One can point to a lower population for wondering why 10% of the black population is in jail on any given day, or point to statistics with racist connotations like the old 13% of the population commits 50% of crime, but I personally don't believe there is any excuse for the
exact same crime receiving different sentencing. There is a plethora of data to suggest that there is racial disparity in a host of other areas in society, from the health care industry to the housing industry to even the job market (with interesting correlations, such as a more "black" sounding name being far less likely to get a job compared to a white sounding name in double blind studies).
Is racism in society trailing downward? Yes, I do believe so. I do think there are lots of "faux crimes" that get called out for nonsensical reasons. You can see evidence of this in this very thread, one example is the implication that you are sexist if you don't believe Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders from ages ago. Do I believe that they are completely gone? Absolutely not, and it is for this reason that there are a great many people fighting for egalitarianism. Unfortunately with any movement it is important to be able to discern the separation between the goals you want and extremists who fight for regressive ideals (which, if I might make a bold hypothesis, might be where stem some of your concerns; that you might decry fauxgressives who argue for a reversal of race and sex power structures).
