|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Look at all the people willing to stand by and do nothing while we subject our planet to an entirely avoidable yet devastating and irreversible catastrophe and let millions of children starve to death just so a small handful of people can have hundreds of of billions of dollars they could never spend itt What are you doing to start the peoples' revolution, comrade?
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Look at all the people willing to stand by and do nothing while we subject our planet to an entirely avoidable yet devastating and irreversible catastrophe and let millions of children starve to death just so a small handful of people can have hundreds of of billions of dollars they could never spend itt I'm on to you OwlBot, you won't be getting me all riled up  Seriously though, this is the same conversation that happens over and over in D&D; proto-marxists bemoaning the complacency and unwillingness of the citezenry and the left to overthrow their capitalist oligarchs and risk what stability they have on a huge upheaval of society that would likely leave them dead or similarly maligned. No revolution in human history has ever occured without thousands, hundred thousands, even millions of deaths, and widespread suffering for the innocent. People calling for the violent upheaval of the system always seem to cast themselves as glorious leaders of the new age, but this is just as dumb as believing yourself to be a Randian Captain of Industry. Chances are the violent overthrow of the system will have you up against the wall as likely as anyone else. That people prefer what stability exists over the very slim chance that things could be improved if it all got blown up first is not them being selfish or ignorant, it's people simply choosing to live, which is what the vast majority of the human race will always choose to do, because it makes the most sense. Bemoaning the unwillingness of the people to start the revolution is the narcissistic whining of privileged fucks wanting to feel smugly superior to the common man as they enjoy the same comforts of society as everyone else. I am not okay with the way things are; that's why I join advocacy groups, that's why I try to get involved with politics to get different policies pushed, that's why I would totally be glad if the Kochs suddenly came down with a bad case of polonium poisoning. But I also understand the desire to just live, which is why I still go to work everyday, still vote every election, and am still willing to try and change things using our current system rather than wish for a radical fringe group to come in and tear out the foundations of society in a bloody uprising. But hey, if you're really really commited to sparking agitation of the populace against the government, I hear self - imolation on the steps of the capital has worked wonders for that in the past. (as far as climate change goes, you are taking absolutely the wrong tack if you want people to listen. Saying the 'planet will be hosed' in a few generations has about as much impact as saying the rapture is coming. The planet will be fine, and humanity will still be here, we're quite resilient to being wiped out. What will happen, and in fact is happening now, is areas across the globe will change dramatically, forcing the adaptation of lifestyles and societies in those regions. Rapid adaptation, which will entail suffering of countless millions if action is not taken now to a) curb the effects and b) prepare to mitigate the suffering that will come. The more efficient and ecologically balanced our society is, the better we will be able to accomplish those goals, which is why it's Important to work towards. Don't try to get people afraid of the end of the world. People long ago stopped paying attention to that) (again, none of this is directed at you, OwlBot )
Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:What are you doing to start the peoples' revolution, comrade? No such thing on the horizon, just organizing for workers rights and wage increases for now. Samurai Quack posted:No revolution in human history has ever occured without thousands, hundred thousands, even millions of deaths, and widespread suffering for the innocent. People calling for the violent upheaval of the system always seem to cast themselves as glorious leaders of the new age, but this is just as dumb as believing yourself to be a Randian Captain of Industry. Chances are the violent overthrow of the system will have you up against the wall as likely as anyone else. And yet most people agree there's a point where no change is far more violent and unjust and deadly than any revolution could ever be. I don't think there will need to be any significant level of violence in the west, but if there is it will be initiated by security forces and not the poor people tired of being pushed around. Venezuela's not a great example for a lot of reasons and has been very poorly governed, but there was no major civil war of the scale of the French Revolution. Chile voted in a radical leftist without any violent struggle. You can acknowledge the absolute, pressing need for major, fundamental change (which you can call a revolution) without hoping or expecting extreme violence or upheaval. Violence isn't anybody's goal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Honestly a tea party on the left that held government hostage in some way would be interesting to see. I don't know whether default would ever get floated again, but half the reason to fear it under the tea party was that if poo poo hit the fan, it's not like they would have been willing to bring in relief measures for the poor. If it was "nationalize the energy industry, or we'll force you to anyway", well maybe that would work better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
The problem with "a Tea party of the left" is that the tea party is insane. Like, totally detached from reality insane. If were taking about a radical group willing to protest and strike and organize resistance to government actions pushing against the common good, then yeah, I'm all for it, but the last thing we need is more ideologically brainwashed idiots pushing for policy decisions without actually understanding what tge problems or solutions to our issues are. e: Default under the tea party would've meant axing what little remains of the social safety net and casting the poor out into the cold even more than they already are, to say nothing of the massive infrastructure damage that would occur. Like, their demands literally made no sense, they wanted to cut all government spending without giving up any government service. if we had a leftist group pushing for GMI or CEO wage caps or w/e than yeah, using the debt ceiling as a way to leverage for progressive change than fine great, at least that would actually have a real end goal that could be accomplished, and you could actually iron out exactly what needs to be in the policy to satisfy demands and avoid default. But what I don't want to see is a group detached from the consequences of its actions, willing to default out of spite or accelerationist tendencies. A US default wouldn't have been 'a blow against global capitalism', it would've been economic turmoil that would've devasted the poor the world over. If that's the end goal of the organization, that's hosed up. Don't praise the Tea Party people. The Nazis also got a lot of poo poo done, that doesn't make them a model to aspire too, regardless of your aims. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:The problem with "a Tea party of the left" is that the tea party is insane. Like, totally detached from reality insane. If were taking about a radical group willing to protest and strike and organize resistance to government actions pushing against the common good, then yeah, I'm all for it, but the last thing we need is more ideologically brainwashed idiots pushing for policy decisions without actually understanding what tge problems or solutions to our issues are. Well you've already obviated that problem by calling them a tea party of the left, by definition having a better understanding of real issues like science, the environment, poverty, DEBT and racism. The tea party aren't crazy because they're uncompromising, they're crazy because they're right wing and uncompromising.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:That people prefer what stability exists over the very slim chance that things could be improved if it all got blown up first is not them being selfish or ignorant, it's people simply choosing to live, which is what the vast majority of the human race will always choose to do, because it makes the most sense. I'm not calling for a revolution right now, and in the absence of real opposition to capitalism it makes perfect sense to get by and do what good you can. What doesn't make sense is shutting down any discussion of radical paths of action because they would disrupt the system. That's kind of the point, after all. "The revolution" will only be peaceful if the discourse is moved very far to the left so that it is simply the majority imposing their will rather than a civil war. That does not happen without people who are willing to overlook nuances and take risks, and honestly, to be a little stupid and overzealous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
This thread has become really, really lovely and should be closed again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This thread has become really, really lovely and should be closed again. I agree with this here post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Well you've already obviated that problem by calling them a tea party of the left, by definition having a better understanding of real issues like science, the environment, poverty, DEBT and racism. The tea party aren't crazy because they're uncompromising, they're crazy because they're right wing and uncompromising. And actually delusional about reality. No compromise in calling for progressive policy and social progress, I'm right there with you. But the call to allow a default is in the same vein as calling for a revolution, which is the problem I'm having with the whole 'tea party of the left' Milktank was taking about. The goal of progress has to be the driving force, not the goal of taking down capitalism at all costs. A radical left like that is just as possible (in theory at least) , and just as dumb, as the tea party is. Basically as long as the goal is helping people, rather than taking down the system, I can see the merrits, but those goals are distinct, and in many ways mutually exclusive. We aren't nearly at the point where I think wishing for a global default to prime the land for the new age is in anyway intelligent or helpful. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:The goal of progress has to be the driving force, not the goal of taking down capitalism at all costs. A radical left like that is just as possible (in theory at least) , and just as dumb, as the tea party is. The reason more and more people are supporting socialism, in addition to the very obvious crisis of capitalism the world is still experiencing, is a growing recognition that capitalism itself cannot abide by fair pay, environmental regulations, socialized healthcare or the taxation needed to fund such things for very long. The social welfare state of the post-WWII era is being rapidly dismantled, and people who don't have billions of dollars to throw at politicians have no means of fighting back within the system. Getting rid of capitalism is not an end in itself, it's a means to make possible a reduction in human suffering and wanton environmental destruction and an increase in human freedom. It's not support for communism along the lines of the USSR or Cuba (which developed in those specific ways as a result of their low development and inability to otherwise defend themselves from far more advanced countries) but a new, democratic kind of socialism. People don't want to "take down the system" because they want violence or revolution, they feel it's an unfortunate necessity if they want to make any lasting progress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This thread has become really, really lovely and should be closed again. Needs more brony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, there are some criticisms of early voting specifically in that the sample of population opinion is spread out over time, inviting certain forms of manipulation, abuse or plain old absurd outcomes if the practice becomes too universal. I'd really prefer a federal mandate that election day be a national holiday and that the US employ a stricter version of Australia et al.'s voting requirements. (not factoring in voting from abroad of course, but that's meant to address a different set of exigencies). A national holiday is bullshit because tons of people still have to work on national holidays, often the very people currently being squeezed out by normal voting rules. Vastly expanded voting periods is preceisely the real answer, if for no other reason than the fact tha the all-mail-in ballot states effectively have very long polling times with no apparent issues; so why can't we do that with polling stations too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:People don't want to "take down the system" because they want violence or revolution, they feel it's an unfortunate necessity if they want to make any lasting progress. It may very well be, but don't set out calling for it, because that is exactly what will push most people away. Don't start with the mind set that it has to happen because no one will want to follow you into turmoil for the off chance of things maybe getting better when they could also get a lot worse. Summing up my point here; Radical left willing to risk default to change policy = great. If it takes default, fair enough, sometimes tearing down the system is the only way to overcome its resistance. Radical left aiming to cause default to take down the system = terrible. This is a group whose end goal is illogical and damaging, one that clearly doesn't really understand what it is proposing and wouldn't know what to do if it did get into the position of changing things. The latter is what I hear when someone says "tea party of the left", and yes, there are people that misguided about the world out there. I don't want to associate actual progressive movements with groups like that, because one is actually trying to help people, the other is blinded to the results of its actions and would be willing to burn the world to the ground to satisfy its idealogical nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:It may very well be, but don't set out calling for it, because that is exactly what will push most people away. Don't start with the mind set that it has to happen because no one will want to follow you into turmoil for the off chance of things maybe getting better when they could also get a lot worse. They're not trying to open up the conversation with scary radical rhetoric, left activists are campaigning for concrete improvements to the lives of poor people like better wages, public transit and more funding for education. And they genuinely hope they can win. But if it turns out that the rich are able to undo all of their progress and prevent any disagreeable candidate from being elected, people in general will take notice. People see that the gap between rich and poor is growing, that their bosses are taking home more and more while they get less. They notice they can't afford healthcare, housing, education or even food. And as things continue to decline, despite our best efforts, people will start asking "why is this happening?" Uncompromising but practical leftism is working up here in the Northwest, and it may be spreading to the Midwest before too long. That's why "centrist" "solutions" like MayDay and AmericansElect are beyond useless, they take away resources from things that can actually make difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:No revolution in human history has ever occured without thousands, hundred thousands, even millions of deaths, and widespread suffering for the innocent. People calling for the violent upheaval of the system always seem to cast themselves as glorious leaders of the new age, but this is just as dumb as believing yourself to be a Randian Captain of Industry. Chances are the violent overthrow of the system will have you up against the wall as likely as anyone else. You are 100% wrong on this. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution in Portugal was practically bloodless. There's even a list of some other ones. Also, even if you decide to attribute pretty much every death and suffering you can to a given revolution and end up with some big 'ol hyperbolic number, the only real fair comparison is to look at deaths and suffering caused by the status quo, which you'll find is immense in pretty much every country in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A national holiday is bullshit because tons of people still have to work on national holidays, often the very people currently being squeezed out by normal voting rules. Vastly expanded voting periods is preceisely the real answer, if for no other reason than the fact tha the all-mail-in ballot states effectively have very long polling times with no apparent issues; so why can't we do that with polling stations too? I am not saying that a holiday (even an enforced one) would solve all electoral problems; please reread my earlier post and check its context. The reason we aren't having problems with expanded polling periods is in part because the practice isn't as widespread as it could be, and because methods to fully abuse and exploit the situation are still being worked out. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Wtf, what happened to my mock thread, I came here to see bronys getting owned repeatedly not Goons owning themselves
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Wtf, what happened to my mock thread, I came here to see bronys getting owned repeatedly not Goons owning themselves Bryan left us high and dry so we reverted to natural goon D&D state of arguing over things we actually agree on. Someone should do more photoshops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not saying that a holiday (even an enforced one) would solve all electoral problems; please reread my earlier post and check its context. The reason we aren't having problems with expanded polling periods is in part because the practice isn't as widespread as it could be, and because methods to fully abuse and exploit the situation are still being worked out. It is impossible to abuse it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Leofish posted:You make good points. I was looking at it from the angle that, if you have several days of advance voting in multiple locations, it allows for a greater amount of chances for someone who may be working on Election Day to have a chance to get to a polling station. A national holiday would work, too, but I still would fear that certain industries that typically remain open on holidays (like food service) would remain open due to increased holiday business, and their employees would still have a difficult time getting to the polls. I'm not as familiar with Australia's rules, though I'm aware their vote is compulsory, but I would assume some privision to allow an employee time off to vote, or extended polling hours on election day would accompany a proposed U.S. national holiday. Why don't you guys just vote on Sunday, like most European countries do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Sunday is for church, you heathen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
The Congress is sufficiently polarized that a change to the status of the national election day (which was established in the mid-1800s iirc) can't be easily adjusted. According to wikipedia, Tuesday was originally selected so that people had time to travel to polling places without interfering with the Sabbath or Market Day. There's nothing preventing the government from requiring businesses to permit workers to take time off without loss of pay, either-at least a couple states do it.Nintendo Kid posted:It is impossible to abuse it. Oh, well OK then, I stand corrected by your detailed argument. Thanks for showing you understood the context of my original comments! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Most US posters here are also pretty unhappy with living in an oligarchy but what is this going to accomplish. A single billionaire will easily be able to outspend any populist superpac not to mention a group of them. The 1% control 50% of the wealth, you literally could not outspend them even if you could rally the remaining 99% behind you (you can't). Article 5 of the US constitution. You should read it. http://www.wolf-pac.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
fermun posted:
I live in the same general area as Mount Maunganui. That second photo seriously distorts the scale of the mountain (the bloody thing is only a couple hundred metres above sea level), and paths up it are pretty drat easy. One is a reasonably steep staircase, and the other is a long shallow gravel road up along the - and I know which one he probably took. Walking around it is a great way to spend a healthy hour or a half and get some fresh air, though. The other photos in the linked website are fairly pretty and give an idea of what the walk is like, but the man has no reason at all to be that proud of climbing a big hill near a fairly built-up beach/touristy spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:I live in the same general area as Mount Maunganui. That second photo seriously distorts the scale of the mountain (the bloody thing is only a couple hundred metres above sea level)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Oh, well OK then, I stand corrected by your detailed argument. Thanks for showing you understood the context of my original comments! It has existed in Oregon for 16 years. If a major flaw existed in it, it would have been found by now. Americans care about election fraud, more than voter disenfranchisement even. Your argument is far stupider because you're implying a flaw with no evidence to support over someone saying no flaw exists using a lack of a flaw in multiple states over an extended period as their evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
fermun posted:It has existed in Oregon for 16 years. If a major flaw existed in it, it would have been found by now. Americans care about election fraud, more than voter disenfranchisement even. Your argument is far stupider because you're implying a flaw with no evidence to support over someone saying no flaw exists using a lack of a flaw in multiple states over an extended period as their evidence. I'll repeat- reread the context of my original posts on this subject. Early voting creates problems of delayed sampling that can become more severe as the practice expands in either time or participation rate. Current practices have reduced risk due to reduced numbers. Further extension of the practice increases this risk (there are also more philosophical problems about the meaningfulness of a distorted image of public will, akin to an overexposed photograph, but these issues actually tend to map to the more pragmatic concerns). Treating early voting as an unmitigated or inevitable progressive good is a poor approach to policy in the area, as is the practice of calling other people's arguments stupid without reading them in full. You did notice that the person I was originally responding to was agreeing with me, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This thread has become really, really lovely and should be closed again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Honestly a tea party on the left that held government hostage in some way would be interesting to see. I don't know whether default would ever get floated again, but half the reason to fear it under the tea party was that if poo poo hit the fan, it's not like they would have been willing to bring in relief measures for the poor. If it was "nationalize the energy industry, or we'll force you to anyway", well maybe that would work better. A "tea party of the left" is impossible because the tea party of the right wanted to make the government stop working but the left wants the government to do more things. In our system it's a lot easier to stop the government from working than it is to make the government do more things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Btw, Discendo Vox, I think that your transparency plan might be open to a different 1st amendment challenge; namely that of it infringing the right of free association. Several campaigning organisations like the NAACP have challenged and won in court attempts to get them to disclose their membership and donation rolls on these grounds. I think forcing PACs and other such political organisations to drop their veil of anonymity on their donors might very well fail on the same grounds. I'm probably missing a crucial legal distinction somewhere but do you think that this would a be a potential issue with the plan you put forward?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
AndreTheGiantBoned posted:Why don't you guys just vote on Sunday, like most European countries do? On Sunday tons of people are working still. Discendo Vox posted:
But it seriously isn't possible to "abuse" long opening times unless you get into something silly like having the polls stay open for two years straight. Most people have already decided what they want to vote for by September or so, so why not make that when polling starts to open? Among other things it will kneecap tendencies of the campaign machines to get ever more intrusive as election day proper approaches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This thread has become really, really lovely and should be closed again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Well, you could go and have a laugh at Mike Masnick who also fully bought into this entire MayOne/MayDay stuff: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-politics.shtml Mike Masnick posted:One note on cynicism: pretty much every time we've written about this, the comments have been filled with people cynically trashing the idea either based on the argument that it's impossible to get rid of the influence of money in politics or because Lessig hasn't taken a specific issue on a particular pet issue (term limits is one that comes up often enough). Personally, I find this disingenuous and disappointing. It seems like people are actively looking for ways to keep the status quo, rather than to represent any real challenge to it at all. This kind of attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only keeps things the way they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Munin posted:Well, you could go and have a laugh at Mike Masnick who also fully bought into this entire MayOne/MayDay stuff: Mike Masnick is a Silicon Valley libertarian, it's no surprise he's bought into this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
delete the last few pages of this thread and goldmine
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:delete the last few pages of this thread and goldmine
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Yeah this thread is like month old milk, it's gone bad. Reopen it when Mayday picks their candidates on July 15, so we can discuss what that says about the organization, then close it before again it becomes a slapfight over who is the socialest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:Yeah this thread is like month old milk, it's gone bad. I am actually ashamed of my participation in that 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:21 |
|
Swan Oat posted:delete the last few pages of this thread and goldmine seriously, why is this open start a new thread for discussion if you have to, close this, goldmine it
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:27
|
|
