What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Try: What is the purpose of defining good? That is, Why do I need to make this distinction?
To acknowledge that some things are good and some things are bad is to exercise judgment. Why do you want to exercise judgment? Why do other people?

I would start with: which good - personal or social?
Personal good is whatever contributes the individual's continued survival, welfare and happiness.
Social good is whatever contributes to the well-being of the community.
Very often, these two kinds of good are in conflict, which is why societies establish rules that apply to everyone - whether a religious moral code or a secular code of ethics. Both can be enacted as laws. In a theocracy, the religious one is applied across the board; in a secular state, laws are devised for the benefit of the ruling elite, the polity or the dominant faction.
The confusion begins when religious precepts bleed into the legal code of a nominally secular nation and are imposed on both the religious, who may reject the secular aspects and the non-religious, who resent being constrained by dogma.

With those or similar titles, I'd consider changing from read only to write maybe.
It actually starts sounding like fun.

By what standard/criterion do you judge which sorts of human thinking(rational or otherwise) non humans are capable of? — creativesoul

I don't discriminate between 'sorts' of thinking.
Reason is reason, whether it's applied to practical or fanciful subjects.

We imagine them. — Questioner

That's been known to produce variably reliable results.

That's why. — creativesoul

That's equally true of your theories.

We can make conclusions about emotion and health just by observing outward signs. — Questioner

Of course. How else do we draw conclusions about anything? We don't get inward signs of other individuals.

Not all rational thought is the same — creativesoul

So what? A thought is rational or irrational. And action the result of thought or of emotion.

Some rational thought can only be formed by virtue of naming and descriptive practices. That is one crucial difference between our language and non human animals' languages. It is the difference between being able to think about one's own thought and not. Only humans can do this. — creativesoul

Yes, yes, several people have already established human specialness about two dozen times in this thread alone, and I have not disputed it once. I just don't see how it could invalidate the capability of other species for rational thought.

There's much more nuance within my position than you've recognized. — creativesoul

Oh I appreciate the distinction you keep making. Sounds much like Descartes': They don't speak [in human words] and they don't philosophize. Granted on both counts. I just don't consider it relevant to the topic.

you have invalidated observations made on scientific principles for the choice of words not being objective enough. — Vera Mont
That's not true. — creativesoul

Than what was the purpose of

What seems to be of philosophical importance, from my vantage point anyway, is how the narrators and/or authors report on the minds of the subjects. There is always a notion of "mind" at work. — creativesoul

That's our theory of mind at work. Why is it a problem, if you're not fussy about objectivity.

None of them require a creature capable of metacognition. — creativesoul

Neither does the Ford assembly line. The point is still to find areas of human specialness. You already have that. Why belabour it?

Humans have a lot of beliefs that no other species has, and we wouldn't without language. That seems like a significant difference to me. — Patterner

This is the direction this discussion needs to take. — creativesoul

This is the direction this discussion needs to take. — creativesoul

It's been taken in that direction ten times over. By all means, pursue it again.

The origins of both theory of mind and empathy go back about 5-6 million years ago. — Questioner

Theory of mind originated with gorillas? Without language? OK - I did not know that 'theory' could be applied to an inarticulate process like watching and interpreting the physical actions of another sentient being. Though I do suspect emotional empathy is older and less dependent on the socialization of young.

Interacting is not the same as interpreting mental states. — Questioner

I don't see how two individuals - other than predator and prey - can interact without interpreting states of mind - or at least states of emotion and health.

And yet, you have not elaborated the scientific method whereby it can be objectively measured and verified. — Vera Mont

Nor have I claimed that. — creativesoul

But you have invalidated observations made on scientific principles for the choice of words not being objective enough.

I have elaborated on the philosophical enquiry/method I've used to discriminate between language less thought and thoughts that are existentially dependent on language and/or each other - as many of our own thoughts are. — creativesoul

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of how much reliable factual information philosophy has contributed to human knowledge over the last two millennia.
The distinction of human language-using vs human language-less is entirely anthropocentric. I do understand why that distinction may seem vital to establishing human superiority, but I don't see why it matters to the question of whether a thought is rational.

Our differences seem to be about which sorts of thoughts other species are capable of and which ones they are not. Although, there is some agreement there as well. — creativesoul

How did sorts of thought become the central issue? A logical solution to even one single problem, such as getting a grub out of a hollow tree or escaping from a fenced yard demonstrates rational thought. Adding layers of complexity, all the way up to wondering why the universe exists, doesn't change the fundamental nature of reason itself; it merely obfuscates the issue by shifting focus from the process to the subject matter.
A very small minority of humans set themselves the task of mulling over questions with no available answers (just how many angels can dance on a pin); a large minority grapple with the invention and application of technology or administrative affairs; the vast majority think about getting food, securing their physical well being, having sex, raising their young, pursuing pleasure when they get the chance - much like all the other animals. They go about these activities through both rational and irrational decisions - much like all the other animals.

That's not true. — creativesoul

And yet, you have not elaborated the scientific method whereby it can be objectively measured and verified.

It's not that the word troubles me. It's that the report of the language less creatures' thought(s) is based largely - if not exclusively - on the reporter's notion of mind. — creativesoul

Whose narrative isn't based on their own notion of mind?

There is no other method to discriminate between what language less creatures are capable of thinking and what we are. — creativesoul

There is no method to discriminate between what human language less creatures are capable of thinking and what we are. Quite apart from the fact that one species - undisputedly - having more fanciful and abstruse thoughts than others doesn't negate rationality in others. And the secondary fact that the majority of humans also don't give very much of their day to contemplating metaphisics, the nature of thought about thinking, or 'the hard question of consciousness'.

There is always a notion of "mind" at work. — creativesoul

No kidding! What's the point of a brain, if it's not to generate a mind? But if the word troubles you, turn off the sound and watch the action.

The difficulty is in discriminating between which sorts of thoughts are existentially dependent upon language use and which ones are not. — creativesoul

Why is that so important to you, and by what method - other than philosophizing - do you propose to discriminate? Aside from the fact that you arbitrarily consign all communication, among any species, that doesn't have human grammar and vocabulary as language-less. Makes pre-verbal babies sound mindless, and completely dismisses the human vocabulary a great many human-associated animals are capable of learning. (Some humans are also capable of learning some non-human vocabulary.)

What language less creatures are capable of believing and thinking is precisely what's in question here. — creativesoul

I thought the question was whether other species are capable of rational thought. The language boondoggle was introduced later.

I said empathy is one trait that depends on theory of mind. — Questioner

And I say it doesn't. I say empathy predates theory of mind by many millennia.

"Homo sapiens" translates to "wise man"

We're also very big on wishful thinking.

You use your theory of mind every time you make an inference about the mental state of another – like reading a mind. Sometimes, these inferences are correct, and sometimes they are not. — Questioner

Yes. But how is that empathy?

It doesn’t have to be that dramatic. Smiles are contagious. — Questioner

It doesn't have to be dramatic; people also yawn when they see others doing it; a giggle fit can engulf the entire table. Mirror neurons firing at random. Still not empathy.

Why humans exist? Or the entire universe? — Questioner

Whatever. Gods have been used as stop-gap explanations for lots of things we didn't know, and are still used as a explanation for misfortune, the weather, altruism and the supremacy of man over all of creation. But their main function is to replace the all-powerful father figure from childhood.

And when we make up an explanation for existence that involves a supernatural being with specific characteristics – whether we imagine he is a loving god, or a vengeful god, or whatever – we are using our theory of mind to infer what is in the mind of that god. — Questioner

By projecting there whatever is in the mind of whichever kind of man invented that god.

Yes, if the signals sent are false, then your inference about what is in the mind of another will most likely also be false. — Questioner

And that is why humans can lie so much more elaborately and sustainably (sometimes an entire lifetime, sometimes even to themselves) than any other species, and more convincingly to one another than to any other species.
But false signals, feigning and misdirection are not exclusively human; we inherited the instinct and motivations for preverication from a long line of ancestors.

But the “theory of mind” (and the empathy related to it) I described allows a human to understand what another is thinking and feeling — Questioner

Being able to read thoughts and feelings are very different attributes. Humans discern the thoughts of other humans through choice of words, tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the little 'tells' when we're bluffing or lying. This is relatively easy to do between persons from the same culture and social background, much more difficult between people of different ethnicity or nationality or class or even sex in most cases. We can read the thoughts and feelings of a fictional character from the speech and manner of an actor, while the actor himself thinks and feels quite differently.

What people are feeling, otoh, is more nearly universal; much less affected by cultural mannerisms. It's more remarkable that other species can read our emotions more readily than we can read theirs, almost certainly because their noses are more sensitive and we sweat hormones. It has nothing to do with theory; it's about experience and the recognition of our same emotions in another.

Rather than empathy, what a dog is experiencing when he responds to your grief is emotional contagion, which is a response to emotions without fully understanding what the other individual is feeling. — Questioner

Sneaking in the requirement to "fully understand" makes it exclusively human.... As if humans all fully understood their own emotions, let alone one another's.

Emotional contagion — Questioner

Like human mobs at a lynching or cattle in a stampede? No, that's not very much like empathy.
How does a dog react when her human behaves in an uncharacteristic way? Try lying very still on the floor. Does your dog get contaminated and play dead? No, he paws and nuzzles at you, puffing little breaths through his nose, maybe whimpering or uttering short sharp yips, concerned for your welfare. (Which is why they train service dogs.)

Theory of Mind is not a set of proposals to explain the characteristics specific to any one religion, but rather an explanation for why religion exists at all. — Questioner

It's one explanation. And gods are one explanation for why humans exist. We're good at making up explanations, either from fact or fantasy; other animals are not. That's another distinction to add to the list.

For example, empathy could not exist without a theory of mind. — Questioner

Clearly, you have never had a dog console you in grief or ask you anxiously why you are on the ground with your head in the kitchen cabinet.

It has been proposed that religion is a by-product of this mental capacity we call theory of mind, as we evolved to make inferences about what is in the mind of God. — Questioner

Much has been proposed about "God", usually without reference to all the various conceptions of deity in all the various cultures that invariably project some aspect of their own version of human onto their gods.

It is the kinds or complexity of language less thought that needs attention. — creativesoul

It's getting plenty of attention from animal behaviorists. We're getting more and more studies of problem solving in both nature and laboratory conditions.

Many rational thoughts we have are incapable of being formed, had, and/or held by language less creatures. — creativesoul

And a great many irrational ones, as well.The human mind has a great breadth and variety of function and malfunction.

Isn't that exactly what is about to happen to humanity? — Ludwig V

Yes, but we've already wrecked most of the infrastructure that would reset the balance. When the rabbits die off, the grass grows back and little tree seedlings; the birds and squirrels move into that habitat. When a wolf-pack overhunts its territory, some die of malnutrition, but the survivors move on, leaving space for their prey to re-establish a healthy population. What we do is demolish entire ecosystems and poison the water and soil so that it cannot be revived.

Perhaps it would be best to scrap the present system and start again. — Ludwig V

We should have done that 2000 years ago. Even now, it might not be too late, if there fewer of us and we had the collective will to make a fundamental change. As things stand, this freight train has no brakes.

I'm not sure about the Big Brain, — Ludwig V

I'm just saying we take every kind of thinking to a new, unequaled level, including the ability to prevericate in more elaborate and creative ways.

So even our awesome power to wreck the entire planet has forerunners. — Ludwig V

In a way. A number of species are capable of overpopulating, overgrazing or overhunting their territory, given the right conditions. However, when that happens, nature quickly resets the balance by killing off the excess, though famine, disease or both. This was also true of pre-technological man.
It's only since humans declared war on nature and started winning that the the TEE (total extinction event) became all but inevitable, because man never reverses a bad decision; he generally exacerbates it with an even more technological 'solution'.

I didn't mean to suggest that the cat was to be blamed in any way. No more than the foxes are. — Ludwig V

Yet many, if not most, humans do blame animals for being animals; do judge other species, as well as other humans by human standards - but themselves. Little brains are quite capable of dishonesty, but only the Big Brain is capable of unlimited hypocrisy.

We need a concept of a pan-species morality. — Ludwig V

What would that accomplish? It could not be arrived-at through discussion and consensus; it could only be imposed by humans. Which is already the case in our folklore. Nor, even if we could make him understand the reason, could the lion lie down with the lamb unless we offered him satisfying veggie-burgers instead. And it would not be convincing, even so, unless all the humans - who do have dietary alternatives - all refrained from eating, torturing, trapping and hunting other species. Or even their own... Condemning a cat for playing with something that moves, something she does not recognize as being like herself, is just as human and irrational as applauding a human when, after some fancy play, he kills a terrified captive bull.
If we were able to agree among our species on a coherent moral system applied to our own species, we would achieve an immensely remarkable feat. Meanwhile: Try not to do to anyone or anything else what you would not like done to yourself.

Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other? — Patterner

In what circumstances, according to what law, by what standards? The pain and death other animals cause one another are generally inflicted in the course of feeding to survive - the means and method of which they have much less control than we do, and we don't outlaw human mean and methods of obtaining food, regardless of the pain the captivity and death of that food entail.

Why do we often kill dogs that break their chain and attack people? — Patterner

Because in a human-controlled world, people are sacred - unless they've been convicted of a capital crime or inducted into an army - and dogs are not.

To deny that humans are leaps and bounds above any other species in significant ways is willful ignorance. — Patterner

Who's denying it? I'm well aware of all the things humans have accomplished and are capable of that no other species - indeed, not all the other species put together - could have done or can do.
Surely, having all those superior attainments, possessions and complexity of intellect are distinction enough. Our power to destroy them all should be power enough. I don't see a reason to deny them basic attributes like affection, communication and rational thought.

Can I take that as suggesting that the things that make humans so special are not necessarily important to other creatures or, necessarily, to the planet? — Ludwig V

Of course not. Why should they be? Every individual member of every species is primarily concerned with its own survival, secondly with the survival of its family, flock or colony, thirdly with making their life less difficult. Only those with an unusual amount of physical security and leisure time have the luxury of reflection, self-assessment and thinking about how to think about their own thinking. Only a diminishing minority of humans are lucky enough to have that. Some felines and canines under human protection have the leisure, but they use it differently.

The planet, at least, seems poised to wreck our civilizations and we seem incapable of doing anything much about it. — Ludwig V

That's only because our civilizations wrecked the planet, and when we became aware of this fact, refused to do anything about it.

The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

I've never thought so. Even rabbits are capable of destroying their habitat.

Most mammals don't fly but bats do fly. — Athena

And bats cannot communicate with iguanas and condors have little in common with zebras. Species within the same family are more like one another than they are like members of another family; human are more different from chipmunks than they are from gorillas. Gorillas are also very different from octopi, even though both are capable of rational problem-solving, neither can do algebra, but I expect both can be taught to play the piano. There are similarities and differences between species throughout the animal kingdom and its evolution.
But humans are super-duper-special; utterly different from other species in so many ways that are hugely important to humans.

How about love. What is it? What does it consist of? Will the lion ever learn to "love" its neighbor? — Athena

Love is older and more deeply rooted in sentient beings than rational thought. Love is a complex of emotions that connect one individual to another. In its most primitive form, the mother's tender concern for her young, closely followed by the bond between mated pairs. In the more evolved species, close friendship are formed between individuals - and not only of their own species. Many lions love their tiger, canine or human friends. Most humans are also picky about whom they love, and it's rarely their neighbour.

How does a god exist? — Athena

By inhabiting the human - exclusively human - imagination. Gods come into being through human projection and/or wishful thinking and are then sustained by application of rational narrative and social infrastructure to an irrational central idea.
Animals don't do that. If they're in awe of something, it's because that thing has got real power, not because they've they've conjured it up from their own murky subconscious.

"Legal != immoral != socially acceptable" looks like a whole other thread. — fdrake

Then why did you drag the legality into this one? The OP question was whether incest between consenting adults is immoral - not whether it should be forbidden by law.
I was merely answering

Never being immoral" isn't the same thing as "being required not to". It's never immoral to eat ice cream, but you are not required not to. Separate ideas. — fdrake

Think those are separate too. — fdrake

That's what I said, yes.

Never being immoral" isn't the same thing as "being required not to". It's never immoral to eat ice cream, but you are not required not to. Separate ideas. — fdrake

So are: Is it immoral? and Should it be illegal?

Moreover, your reason doesn't touch people shagging who're both sterilised. — fdrake

Of course it doesn't. They're not producing conditions that are likely to make an innocent suffer.

IE, people who have heritable conditions having a child together is just definitionally "wilful engagement in behaviour that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects". If having a child is wrong on that basis, you've got a conclusive argument for people with genetic diseases having kids committing an evil act — fdrake

I wouldn't go so far as evil. They are committing a selfish, irresponsible act with willful disregard for the risk they're imposing for a non-consenting third person - and the community. The analogous fatalaty charge would be 'reckless endangerment'.

A better reason for claiming that incest should not be considered as permissible is that the conditions for consent to it don't make that much sense, the hypothetical scenario in the OP is not representative of the scenarios where incest occurs. — fdrake

However, there are cases of adult siblings pairing up. Unless one partner has some significant undue influence over the other, that's consensual. The run-of-the mill child-molesting parent is not under consideration here.

If hypothetically you had two sterile 60 year olds who were separated at birth, fell in love, married and shagged...what's wrong there? — fdrake

If they were 60, nobody would notice or care. They're more likely to be in their teens or early 20's, and not necessarily with a history of separation. Still no moral problem, so long as they take effective measures against procreation.

Also, if they do end up having a baby and that baby is deformed, then is that still a reason not to have it? — Hyper

It's a good reason to prevent conceiving it in the first place. Many lives are much worse than no life - ask the people who apply for assisted suicide. Knowingly risking the welfare of another person in order to satisfy your lust is morally wrong.

If the informed, uninfluenced consenting adults decide to embark on an incestuous relationship, they should begin by the one who least desires offspring being sterilized. That way, if the relationship ends, the one who desires children may still have them with a different partner. No, not his other sister!

because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done. — Hyper

Good reason for the act not to be done. The sexual satisfaction of two people who have agency and a choice of other partners who might satisfy them weighed against a lifetime of suffering for one innocent victim with no choices at all is a net loss. A big one!

I don't condemn the act between freely and maturely consenting adults; I do condemn disregard for the consequences to others.

It depends.

The clearest increase from the 1980s is probably the rise of neoliberalism and individualism. — Christoffer

That's slogan 'individualism'. The idea is to foster the illusion of choice, of personal freedom, individual responsibility. What this actually means is cutbacks in social services (Those poor people made bad choices; the price gauging on is healthy competition; trade unions restrict your choice of employment; increased government surveillance is for your own protection; you can buy any of a hundred identical items made by the same three corporations; law-enforcement needs to be beefed up with military weapons and harsh punishment to prevent those shiftless other stealing your stuff.) Meanwhile, news, entertainment and pastimes all grow more and more alike and patriotic, less and less challenging to comprehend.

Maybe the rise of social media has only been a catalyst and fuel onto a fire that was lit in the 80s? — Christoffer

No, it's a tool. Technology at all level has been owned and controlled by the privileged elite. When industry and commerce required mechanically competent workers, they supported trade-schools. When they needed a literate and numerate work-force, they supported public education. When they needed chemists, biologists, technically savvy and financially shrewd minions, they supported highly specialized post-secondary education. If you have to digest and be tested on 400 page books on Business Communication or DNA sequencing, you don't have much time or mental energy for general reading.
So, the clever ones are channeled into being precision instruments, the moderately endowed are made into tools; the surplus serves as examples to keep the productive classes productive and obedient.

While I agree, it doesn't explain the broader decline globally, since not all cultures share the same level of religious conservatism. — Christoffer

No, but many countries have religious bias of one kind or another. And that's just one factor. Political ideology is a more compelling one. Pretty much the whole world has been trending rightward since the 1980's. The most pervasive influence, however, is the commercial one. Persuading the consumer to buy things, wars, the status quo, attitudes and opinions is good for the top economic layer. And they're global.

Thank you. I got local help to adjust it. I can read everything now.
It only remains to install Word and Outlook and I'm functional again.

Dems lose the Make America Great argument because they don’t think America was ever great nor do they really want it to be. The one time Dems are consistently honest is when a sentence has the words “great” and “America” in it - they instinctually insert the word “not” is those sentences. — Fire Ologist

But I've never heard them call it a garbage can.

The most convivial place I frequent is the quick sale rack at Food Basics. It's a magnet for old women and there is always some item of produce that one of us knows how to cook. I make a point of complimenting the attire of anyone of who has obviously gone to some trouble to present herself, and remark on the most striking tattoos of young women at the checkout. (I shun the automated one, as do many of my contemporaries, which is another subject for comment when the line is long.)
Another thing I've noticed is the young people working minimum wage jobs in the farm supply, hardware and department stores go out of their way to help an old lady. One cheerful fellow not only lifted the cat litter into my cart but came out to the parking lot to lift it into the trunk.
We're not completely oblivious of one another just yet.

A cat tunnel. Well, well, well. I think need the human version. Why should kittens have all the fun? — Amity

They make all sizes, for babies, dogs, small and large children and adults.

No, Vera, just No!! — Amity

I suppose it would have helped not to read the book, which happens to be among my top favourites.

But, hey, does it matter? — Amity

YES - to me. The tone, the flavour, the atmosphere, the focus - the very essence of the story was altered unrecognizably. If they wanted to make a vibrant, brilliant, over-the-top funny movie, they should have made their own movie, and I would have enjoyed it for itself. But I was promised Good Omens, in fact, it was the deciding factor in signing up to Prime instead of Netflix, and this wasn't it. If a book is worth adapting, I expect fidelity to it. John Irving was treated with respect...

What is that [tube with a window], pray tell?! — Amity

It's called a cat tunnel. Elaborate ones are available; we have the basic version, inherited from a neighbour who moved into a seniors' apartment with her old cat. I used to cut out cardboard boxes, but the tunnel is light and it rolls, which is apparently very amusing.

I often consult The Guardian myself, for clarity and objectivity. Michael Moore recommends it, along with CBC, for news on US affairs. (Pretty soon they won't have any uncoerced domestic sources)

This is a one-sided view. — Amity

I guess. I took it as an op-ed piece from the author's POV, on one aspect of the protracted male backlash. I'm not sure talking to adolescents is enlightening: they repeat what they hear from their social media, have little patience for honest self-examination and generally distrust non-peers. I sure never had much luck talking to the one I was raising, whereas the boys in technical school were happy to confide. Different approaches at different ages, by different adults.

I don't know how much time teachers have nowadays to spend with individual students, even if they didn't have to fear accusations of inappropriate behaviour. Boys' clubs, interest groups, community projects and informal sports under the leadership of male role models would be more are beneficial. I think teenaged boys today are cast adrift by society: shielded from adult concerns, excluded from decision-making, not given enough responsibility. They don't see a defined role for themselves, present or future; they don't feel needed and have few opportunities to earn respect. As far as commercial media are concerned, a man is a hero, a villain, a drudge or a booby - so all the young boobies try to appear heroic, without all the effort or resort to villainy.

*connecting, connecting* — Amity

I'm just glad I visited San Francisco in the 1980's, when it was colourful and charming, when we engaged in conversation or banter or at least commerce with many locals.
I'm also glad that, when not in my own bubble at home, I'm in one of several nearby communities where people still notice one another, hold elevators, smile at jokes in the checkout line and appreciate a compliment. They do all seem to have cellphones (I don't), but mainly just for consulting shopping lists or significant others, or passing the time in waiting rooms where the tv is silent and nobody turned on the captions. D'you know how unentertaining it is trying to deduce the asinine questions from the idiotic replies in Family Feud, or being warned, over and over, of the the dangers of gingivitis? My kindle doesn't hold a charge anymore; can only be read in bed.

Several things happened.
Before the internet, children were dumbed down by television. While there was some educational and socializing content, most children's programming was purely for amusement, and much of it was anti-intellectual. The more time children spent looking at moving pictures, the less they read.

Before the 1950's, American schools were quite strict and punitive. During the 60's, the power of administrators and teachers was curtailed. To a large extent this was necessary to prevent harsh treatment of children; OTOH, it also reduced student discipline. A number of innovations were tried at that time, some more effective than others, but they generally allowed students to move on to the next level without having fully mastered the basic skills. Within a year or two, the weaker ones would be hopelessly out of their depth, just marking time until they could legally quit. Some of these potential school-leavers were then diverted to vocational programs - or entire separate schools - where academic subjects were neglected.
Meanwhile, teachers had classes of 35 and more students, due to the post war baby boom; they were required to take courses in the new methods in their spare time; they were expected to lead extracurricular activities and supervise lunchrooms, schoolyards, sporting events and dances, and their routine paperwork tripled inside of a decade. When were they supposed to provide extra help for the slower students?

As the general population's reading and math skills declined, news and public affairs outlets adjusted their vocabulary, the structure of their articles and the level of detail in their reports. Over time, information was gradually reduced to generalities and sensations. Schools, too, had to lower their standards in order to keep promoting students, up and out to make room for the new ones.

Since states are in charge of setting curriculum and administer the main funding of schools, poor states and poor neighbourhoods have poor public schools. Additionally, as the standard of living of low-paid workers stagnates or declines, parents have less time to spend with their children; there is little privacy in cramped homes to do homework, and books are generally absent.

As the religious factions push for less science and more scripture; conservative local governments and school boards ban or reject more and more books, and forbid the discussion of a range of disapproved topics, bar critical thinking instruction and unrevised history courses, there is a homogenization of thought which doesn't require analysis or comprehension of complex ideas.

A polity that thinks in slogans and jingles is easier to control than one that arms itself with facts.

So, why is it that Republicans in the US just dominate the airwaves and internet social media sites? — Shawn

Because commercial communications media, tv, radio, internet, and print, is privately owned. Owners have control of staffing and content. Owners and sponsors have a lot more to gain under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
In concert with politically aligned state governments, the owning class can get its own way pretty much all the time - except immediately after it's caused an economic collapse. Then, it has to wait for the little people, under liberal leadership, to build something worth exploiting again.

And now, a word from our kittens:
They've discovered that collapsible tube with a window in the side. Even the big cats still play with it from time to time, but for the little guys, it's a whole playground.

Footnote to genres. I think they're like cliches: the original examples were strong literary efforts; once their popularity grew, there rose many inferior imitators. There is only one Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, one Dracula one Rebecca, one monumental Lord of the Rings; there are maybe a dozen very successful - I don't like to say imitators; say rather, stories on the same theme. After that, it becomes predictable, which is what fans are looking for.

As for convergence and subdivision of genres, they're too confusing for me. I prefer to know whether I'm picking up a science fiction story based on actual science, or a fantasy with magic. But whether it's alternative history or speculative or post apocalyptic, I don't really care. I don't really understand about 'punk' in any context. I like William Gibson's stories, whether he's cyber, steam or rust.

Footnote on hope.
When I was in elementary school, they held drills on what to do in case of nuclear attack (duck and cover - I guess it's jut effective against gunmen) and Mr. McCarthy was ruining lives left, left and center. American children pledged allegiance, not to the constitution, but "to the flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," while Black people were barred from restaurants, excluded from schools and quite often got sentenced to years of hard labour for loitering.
That nation was, in fact, not merely divisible, but divided from its very inception. Things got better, with a lot of hard work, perseverance and sacrifice. Now they're worse again. The descents are fast; destruction is much easier than construction; destruction can be carried out by an army of drunken orcs, while construction takes vision, co-operation, forbearance, patience and fortitude.
I just don't believe there is time for another long upward slog.

Camus' apparent negative view of hope comes from the idea that human existence is absurd. I don't see this as having anything to do with courage. — Amity

You can be realistic; understand the futility and absurdity of life, and yet have compassion for those who suffer greater hardship or pain. So keep on keeping on, alleviating as much of that pain as you are able. There is little reward and plenty of risk in service, and so it takes more courage than hoping for improvement to come from elsewhere or from the hope of a better afterlife. (Camus had an effect on my teens.)

This started me wondering about genres, subgenre and how certain kinds of writing are classified. How they might limit the writer by having a need to keep to criteria. Why can't a nasty Gothic character have nice elements? — Amity

They can, but the author needs to be very subtle. The average reader of that genre might miss subtlety.
The very popular escapist genres are easy and quick to write, because they're formulaic: plug in the necessary elements in a slightly different order. They're also read only once and quickly discarded. If you're going to mess with the formula, elevate the novel to something approaching literary fiction, it loses most of its fan base and appeals to a smaller, more discerning audience.... or nobody at all.
I read a trilogy by Ray Bradbury that would be loosely classified as psychological thrillers. The first one, Death is a Lonely Business, was wonderful; I reread it twice in later years. The other two were disappointing: the impetus (fond remembrance of a time and place) was absent; the stories had no soul. Yes, Bradbury can miss!
My favourite aunt had a saying for when she learned something that went counter to her assumptions: "A world collapsed inside me."

Actually, I'm not a strict adherent to genres; I just understand why they're helpful to the reader. If there is a zombie or vampire on the cover, I'm gone. If it says young adult, I tiptoe around it, and if it's designated H, I run the other way.

Does he stand as a testament to the power of hope? — Amity

I think Gene Roddenberry did. But that was in the optimistic, expansive, society-improving 60's and 70's. There is nothing grubby about Star Trek NG, even when they have moral dilemmas, or when they're forced to fight.

I hated the cinematic version of Good Omens, perhaps even more than I normally would have, because I like David Tenant and found that over-the-top campy performance embarrassing. The book OTOH, was charming and quietly amusing. The central characters were determined mortal kids, not the supernaturals. Thereafter, I didn't watch American Gods, which is all Gaiman, and therefore much darker. I'm curious, but afraid to find out what the movie people made of that.

Sounds to me like the eternal social tension: competition vs co-operation, between vertical and horizontal society. In a vertical society, there are clear distinctions in status, in privileges and duties, in social and familial roles. While men are dominated by rulers and bosses, they have little control of their lives. If they lose superiority over an even lower caste of men, and then control of their household, what status, what source of pride do they have left? How they feel about that, we've been aware of the backlash for years, the bitter recriminations against women and minorities, the anxiety disguised as bravado. Moreover, with dwindling resources and growing population, the competition for the last of everything grows more fierce every day.
They want the middle ages back, because they cannot imagine anything better than having someone to kick down at while their masters give them attaboys.

Interesting to explore side-taking in conflict. — Amity

I didn't get into the big picture, just individuals: How their minds changed and what events brought that change about.