This still doesn't make any sense:
pay taxes for everyone’s health care
This was never up for debate until let's say 2003 when Conyers introduced medicare for all. Then it was up for debate in pockets of years, and it really matters specifically what you mean by who's debating in that window. Politicians or news media.
So roughly these are the open Overton windows for universal healthcare
follow international law
This was never really up for debate until 2001. The US simply just broke international law when it saw fit prior, and after.
not do extrajudicial killings/imprisonment
This is essentially the same as above. See our various policing actions in the modern era. MOVE, Japanese Internment, Mexican "Repatriation". Lynchings. Pinkertons. No real debate to be had here, America just does it and then does paperwork to justify it.
not be personally or institutionally racist
This has essentially been debated since the start of the US. So it's been "in the window". But in practice the position has always been right wing even to this day.
I would argue that the stage where a society starts to openly embrace its crimes is the one to be really worried about.
Open embrace of crimes is worrying sure, but in practice it's not practically better than doing crimes, denying you do them, and pretending you're good. Because in reality, what you can see on the left as "open embrace of criminality" on the right is seen as "being the good guys". So the open embrace may qualify as an increase in magnitude but not a change in direction. I'd love to see this actually proved out, rather than just said.
This also pretends that the causes of these shifts are not a change in material realities, but rather a change in attitudes ex nihilio. When every empire thinks its fading it does this kinda shit, because this is the kind of shit that builds and maintains empires. It's not because the "bad guys" are in charge.
A large portion of the reason that these things never came into debate until the 21st century is because the US was cruising off of the compromises made as part of reconstructing the rest of the modern world post WW2. Those compromises started being untenable in the 70's and have created these debates in the 2000's, 2010's, and 2020's solely because they are crumbling.
The most important of these debates happened behind closed doors before most of us were even born. The Overton Window shifts rightward not because it's a nerdy window function, but because it's a marble on a table long enough so that it takes the marble a century to traverse, and that table was set up a century ago to be tilted to the right. The ratchet effect is because Democrats defend the core compromises made in 1945.
fight the centrists
Centrists are literally the people that often have the majority of backing from the very people and institutions that allow these problems to fester and grow. Their solutions are often the most unworkable in the real world and their outcomes are often right leaning simply because of how politics works in capitalist societies. Centrists have power in our political system not because of brokering any good compromise, it's because Centrists are often the best fundraisers because they can appeal to a wide array of rich donors.
It's a silly take if you think Centrists can be allies to any semblance of Left. The Kamala Harris campaign is literal proof of it. Raise $1.1B, spend $1.120B on literal Centrist trash positions and political strategy like paying celebrities and sending Richie Torres to Michigan, while telling everyone how you're the smartest people in the room.
The most celebrated Centrist policy of the 20th century is the ACA (note all the other ones that were celebrated before it are not so much celebrated now because of what they actually did see NAFTA, TANF, etc). The only "left" positions in the ACA is 100% coverage of preventative medicine, mandatory contraception coverage, and making preexisting conditions an illegal qualification. In reality the real mark of the ACA is that instead of going bankrupt for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in medical debt, Americans are going broke for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt. It's literally a debt regulation that keeps private healthcare a viable and profitable system because the game of musical chairs that is our healthcare debt system was running out of chairs. 10% of Americans owe medical debt, thanks to the ACA it's thousands to hundreds of thousands, if it wasn't for the ACA it would be 10x larger.
Who had the most benefit from that policy? It certainly wasn't people, who still struggle to pay for healthcare, still carry medical debt, and still are going bankrupt. It was the corporations who could continue this extractive grift because the government essentially brokered a deal between the entire market to reset the scale of the economy and no one corporation felt like it was losing out compared to the others.
You can even look at the majority of legal opposition to the ACA isn't based in it's left positions. For contraception you have Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. That's it for opposition to the left positions, the rest is about how the market is regulated under ACA:
Where is the opposition to the left here? It's not really there, because there's not a lot of "left" policy. This is centrist infighting about who has to hold the bag (and how much bag they have to hold) for this fucked up system that extracts money from people's health.
That's what centrism is, market brokerage.
I hate the term "normalization" because it doesn't mean anything to most people. The closest approximation of it's meaning to most people is "stuff (usually negative) is happening".
Please point me to the time in American history where it was normal to:
Spoiler you cannot. These times literally do not exist in any meaningful way, they only exist as ephemeral pockets of modernity that you personally have experienced. Many of the arguments that you can make in favor of these points of time, suffer greatly from the just world fallacy. When you look a little too hard at those pockets of time, you'll find that your feeling was just a feeling and it wasn't even true.
This meme may be good at convincing libs their world view is fucked, but it's not an accurate depiction.
Because it's become obvious to many people that these problems of climate and class-based wealth accumulation, cannot techohopiumed out of. Space exploration did lead do useful technology and scientific advancement, but in our current era our relationship to space is no longer star trek, it's snowpiercer in space. The average person no longer has a positive view because they are crushed under a capitalist class that seeks to leave them behind, hence the comic.
first class languages
So like Racket/Scheme and like maybe Ruby?
Factory factory...n is literally just creating an OOP closure for when your language doesn't support first class functions, closures and/or currying.
Also metaprogramming and abstraction is literally the only way to actually manage and deal with the capriciousness of your stakeholders.
It's not simple, because it's literally not that simple. It's Conway's Law. That's what being a programmer in the industry is. I run a platform team, and I get paid because I can organize and deal with technical risk and contingency better than anyone else at my company. You bet your ass I do metaprogramming.
Also my product itself is a factory factory factory. Users create processes to author content, author content, and that content is delivered to other users. All in the same system. Managing complexity is extremely important if you want to work on interesting things.
"And this is the way everyone is doing it now? Everyone is using a general-purpose tool-building factory factory factory now, whenever they need a hammer?"
I've had this exact conversation with a programmer who was retiring. He was complaining that I ask too much because I told him that he needed a more generic way to represent the logic that encodes how our end-users traverse the content that our authoring users create and manage. He literally said something to the effect of the above quote to me, but as complaining contempt.
The business explicitly doesn't want to spend money crafting individual code bases and products and unique logic. Our system lives and dies by our ability to service our internal clients and meet their needs in a dynamic manner. We need manage each factory layer carefully because very often different clients want two different things at two different times, and so each decision needs to be encoded in a way that allows us to make future platform changes without having to sell the business on refactors.
Sure you'll run into people who overuse things when it could be simpler from the business perspective. But the reality is that most programmers in the industry have never stepped foot into a well run shop. Most programmers in the industry haven't actually launched a product tip to tail.
It's very easy to criticize patterns when you don't actually have to use them, you've never seen them being used properly, and you don't know how and when to implement them.
You don't know how many times I've had to explain what two phase migration means and how to do them across multiple dependency links in the chain.
This practically means nothing tbh. Social networks when they gain economies of scale due to the network effect will effectively shed all the pretense of open source and open platform etc.
We've seen it with Facebook, Google, etc, during the 2010's with closing of chat standards and destruction of XMPP. Reddit 3rd Party API access is another example of this. We'll see it again.
They're the same answer.
You need money to market applications to users. Bluesky is sold the same way that Twitter is, your favorite moron celebrity might hit like or retweet on your stuff.
You're talking from a relative position of understanding of these concepts. You're not talking from a blank slate. Even in professional environments that I've been in where everyone went to college and theoretically is fully literate, you would have trouble getting people to retain these concepts even if you used friendlier technical language. You're overestimating the amount of time it takes to actually achieve understanding, there are people on this site that constantly mix up these words and concepts, have a hard time applying them to the real world and misapply them regularly and are self professed Marxists. You're also mistaking cultural policing of agreeing/using these concepts for understanding of them. Just think about how many people in America agree with capitalism but can't adequately explain what capitalism is. They agree with freedom but don't have a working definition or framework of what freedom means. On a societal level this often becomes bromides. My parents and grandparents read Marx in school but couldn't give you an accurate basic run down of Marxist concepts.
Marxism isn't some magical thing. There were plenty of people in the USSR that also didn't understand the system they existed under and it's concepts but reflexively or sheepishly agreed with it.
Audiobooks aren't really a good solution to be honest. Reading / writing literacy are the basis of scholarship. We have centuries of research and examples that we've turned our back on that efficient learning happens only when you can unlock good literacy skills. Specifically the aspect of reading/physical writing/sublingualization is a cornerstone of comprehension of complex ideas. With something like Marxism that's based on understanding both technical and archaic language and social constructs it becomes really hard. There are tons of self professed Marxists that couldn't tell you what commodity fetishism actually means in simple terms.
Great example is the Communist Manifesto itself, meant to be a pamphlet for factory workers in the 19th century, but is typically a mildly difficult text to approach for the average person today.
Audiobooks can replace something like pleasure reading where you're just reading pulp garbage, but they're not really a good replacement for learning.
Yeah because it's primary research and this is a huge unaddressed and uncared about problem that's only growing. The last National Assessment for Adult Literacy took place in 2003.
PIAAC (PROGRAM FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF ADULT COMPETENCIES) which this is likely partially based on is typically who provides the survey data to these institutions.
Barbara Bush Foundation is another source that deals specifically with this.
A lot of this data is cobbled together because the government has practically defunded any studies of this issue. Literacy has effectively been taken for granted and hasn't actually been upheld. Everyone in this space says more data is needed but isn't optimistic that more data is going to paint a better picture of literacy (both in children and adults) in the US.
This is a position you can no longer seriously hold in America in 2024. Public debate on these issues does nothing. You can look at the public attitudes towards plenty of policy positions that when polled have an overwhelming majority of support across the country but have been politically nonviable at the federal level:
We can have open debate till we're blue in the face. We can march until we wear out our shoes. The liberal tools have failed us completely in actually moving the political dial. These tools have been defeated in the modern era by experiments at the imperial periphery. I suggest you read If We Burn by Vincent Bevins.
Legitimacy is not a real discussion point in this country, it is assumed. If it were we'd constantly ask why is our democracy legitimate when the government is not actually picked by a majority of our population. Democrats in their racism are blaming Latino men. The percentage of Latino men that voted for Trump is a minuscule percentage of Latinos that can vote in this country. The overwhelming majority of Latinos didn't vote in the previous election. The president is picked by 1/5th to 1/3rd of the population eligible to vote. If you were to boil that down to a friend group you'd have a social intrigue movie in the style of Bodies Bodies Bodies.
If we liken this to the problem of consent with sexual relations, the US rules on tacit consent at best, and generally coerced sexual assault and when those don't work outright violent sexual assault. If legitimacy was a real issue the US would rule on enthusiastic consent. But it doesn't.
Parenti's lecture is meant to disabuse tankies of advocating for censorious democratic centralism of the USSR. It does not work in the context of the US because the system of control is completely different. If a country is a boiler that you need to keep from exploding, the USSR worked by creating the most armored boiler possible. The US works by having a minority or impoverished person or some other type of scapegoat put their face in front of a pressure relief valve and open it. The end result in the context of ruling a country is the same, the architects of the boiler are well insulated from its negative effects.