|
axeil posted:Also because of his stupidity and arrogance lead to the downfall of the Roman Republic! Just like how Facebook is killing the American Republic except there's no idiotic general out in the middle of the Syrian desert getting his rear end kicked because he doesn't understand a thing about classical-era battle tactics. Wait a second...
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
axeil posted:Also because of his stupidity and arrogance lead to the downfall of the Roman Republic! Just like how Facebook is killing the American Republic except there's no idiotic general out in the middle of the Syrian desert getting his rear end kicked because he doesn't understand a thing about classical-era battle tactics. by crassus' time, the republic was basically dead. the republic had ceased to really exist as a stable functioning government with the marius/sulla civil wars, and the periods where the republic seemed to be restored were more interregnums between civil wars. the republic never really figured out a way to have armies loyal to the republic instead of their general after Marius, the republic couldn't survive without armies, so there were just basically periods between the last general giving up power and needing a new general(s) who eventually decided he/they were now in charge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DavidNakamura/status/1197922440145440769 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197877319358144513 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197874791828598784 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197874166768291840 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197874975274913794 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197871835871887360 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197868524326309888 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197872397791178753 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197866942847180801 Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:im a loving gigantic roman history nerd and just lol at actually wanting to emulate anyone from that time beyond maybe like, Cicero or Diogenes if i wanted to found a lasting dictatorship out of a formerly democratic nation while maintaining its material prosperity there are worse examples than augustus but uh i don't think we generally consider that a valid goal
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
things relevant today where we can draw from roman history: "how the gently caress do we deal with a republic that has a constitution that no longer works in our day and age without devolving into civil war" problem: the only examples are "well boy, that didn't work out at avoiding civil war or preserving the republic"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:zuckerberg is so far off from augustus its farcical  I didn't know about the Augustus haircut thing Holy lmao Augustus didn't need boomers on facebook to do his dirty work
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
I mean you aren't talking to PJ you're responding to me, and what I choose to take away from PJ's post is not necessarily everything she's said or intends. The key word doing a lot of work though in the expression "the core issue with climate change is if sufficient power can be accumulated behind people pushing to fix it to force people who would like to defect/ignore it to play along." is if. What if, it never actually happens? Or happens so late as to have materially harmed a majority of the human race? The utilitarian calculus here is the longer you wait, the more harm accumulates that can not be further mitigated, maybe at best delayed and be some future generations problem. While action sooner, more immediately, may undo or mitigate much further future harm, with maybe some harm in the short term. There's a lot of scientific data out there, and I'm not expert and can only read summaries, but I get the sinking feeling we're much closer to that tipping point then ever before. The marxist critique of capital is that the powers that be's short term interests are whats driving them, and fundamentally lack the foresight, morality, or intention to sufficiently act with the decisiveness required or give anything other than the most tepid or lukewarm apathy at best; while a majority seem strongly determined to obstruct that process that may require removing from them some of their power and influence. It isn't really an issue of industrialization requiring fossil fuels, in fact it can be made such that it doesn't. But resources needed to be allocated first, and who has a hand in allocating those resources? The Powers That Be. Fusion power has been invested at levels far less than "Fusion never" totals accounting for inflation. Knowledge of climate change and the need to Do Something, Anything Really, Please? Has been around since the 80's. Isaac Asimov gave a talk about the Greenhouse Effect in like 1986 about how the whole world needs to get together for something to be done, outlining some of the major economic and political hurdles, in 1986! It's already been pointed out that China and india aren't really meaningfully socialist; but it should be pointed out that in per capita terms, China, which its state capitalism, is at least onboarding something like 30 new nuclear reactors over the next 50 years and is reducing their total share of coal consumption in favour of renewables by a considerable amount; they are doing far more in terms of effort, relative to their GDP than the First World currently is doing. Additionally China and India act in an international context. If you had a One World Government where the wealth of the first world could be redistributed to the Global South, then much of the "growth at all costs" mindset of the CCP wouldn't need to exist beyond personal enrichment or meeting metrics for promotions. Nearly the entire renewables market exists because of China biting that bullet first and making those investments into their massive solar panel production plants and so on. So I think its fair to say that capitalism as a system has so far has been the biggest impediment, and that dismantling it is one solution and that it is also fair to say that it doesn't really have solutions; the solutions all by and large seem to depend on trying to convince people to sacrifice material conditions in the short term, for a payoff in the long term, appeals to morality, ethics, conservation, etc. There has been no uniquely capitalist solution; just a lot of companies who at best, recognize they can profit by trying to get ahead of things and lobbying for every other industry to also jump onto the bandwagon as well so they can compete in that space fairly. An argument like, "We need to orient our nation's economy to prepare for climate change so we can become world's leaders in exporting climate change mitigation technology and services" just doesn't seem to exist. Everything that does exist is piggybacking off of government subsidies and regulations i.e redistribution i.e "socialism" i.e state capitalism. All the other solutions thus depend on this process happening fast enough, and pray that there's no big major fascist takeover that happens that reverses the trend that resorts to ecoaparthied instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
He’s never going to get over the Baghdadi thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if i wanted to found a lasting dictatorship out of a formerly democratic nation while maintaining its material prosperity there are worse examples than augustus yeah, and within the context of his time, there is no simple republic = good, sole dictator = bad equivalence as the senate was a nearly entirely closed off ruling class of a few hundred people and fewer families that had complete and total control of everything, and was loving it up constantly. its endlessly fascinating and i can and have talked about it for hours, but again, its never with legit admiration for people who had the "wisdom" to murder their rivals just enough to remove them and not enough to piss off extra people looking for vengeance
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Zuckerbergs pivot to blatant support of neo Nazi propaganda is undoubtedly as a result of who spends time on Facebook and actually clicks ads (old white boomers)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if i wanted to found a lasting dictatorship out of a formerly democratic nation while maintaining its material prosperity there are worse examples than augustus It's a bit of a pet peave but the Roman Republic was never democratic because none of its Senators were elected. Being in the .01% was literally a requirement, even after the caste system was opened up to wealthy plebeians like Crassus and Pompey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I don't think the length of the Empire is the point there. It took a few bloody wars and a lot of death and destruction to fix the problem. Even after Napoleon had been kicked out he came back and had to be kicked out again. Guillotines didn't fix the problem, they only advanced the process to fix the problem that had to be done by multiple countries curb stomping France the interesting part, and the part that people are very careful to forget for... various reasons, is that after the various other countries stomped France they tried to put the monarchy back in power. and failed completely. the Bourbon Restoration was fifteen years of Louis' idiot brothers doing the dril tweet about twiddling a dial marked "racism" while looking for audience approval, concluding with a nice little ultimatum to the tune of "your brother's head turned out to be really puntable. maybe find somewhere else to be before we decide to put yours through its paces." the guillotine broke the French monarchy. the broken thing gasped on for a few decades on life support, before Louis Napoleon introduced Europe to the concept of a democratically elected authoritarian strongman, but it turns out once a populace learns a king's head is separable from its neck it becomes really hard to sell them on the inviolate and sacred nature of the upper class. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's a bit of a pet peave but the Roman Republic was never democratic because none of its Senators were elected. Being in the .01% was literally a requirement, even after the caste system was opened up to wealthy plebeians like Crassus and Pompey. It's not a great example, but they did allow citizen voting and there was the tribune, etc. It's impressive for an ancient society. Certainly not something we want to emulate today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's a bit of a pet peave but the Roman Republic was never democratic because none of its Senators were elected. Being in the .01% was literally a requirement, even after the caste system was opened up to wealthy plebeians like Crassus and Pompey. yeah, its tough to do any real modern comparisons because its a totally alien world, which is why its so fun to learn about. everyone is painfully the same, and at the same time wildly different. you can go from the super relatable stuff like mothers sending sons socks to keep warm on in the legionary fort, to weird rear end poo poo like people being extremely angry at a guy not consulting the sacred chickens before a naval battle and thus dooming them to failure
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
the answer to the guillotine thing is “memes” and i’m not even kidding it’s a short and easily digestible message that says “gently caress you” in a way that caught on. Think about the context of where you’re seeing guillotine imagery: in the replies to billionaire tweets, as mic drops at the end of a post. Nobody’s SERIOUSLY (yet) considering taking the guillotine to these people, it’s a symbol that caught on and sends a clear message that what they’re doing is hosed and we won’t stand for it. e: uh y’all i don’t know how to tell you this but the history of the guillotine as used in France is probably not actually relevant to a dude wanting to know why it’s so prevalent as a symbol on social media
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Whole lotta wonderful faces in this thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/KFILE/status/1197892261637509121
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1197927239591112704
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if i wanted to found a lasting dictatorship out of a formerly democratic nation while maintaining its material prosperity there are worse examples than augustus Augustus didn't understand dynastic politics and when he died he set up a legitimacy crisis that caused shitloads of trouble. That's dynasty 101. quote:but uh i don't think we generally consider that a valid goal No, we don't consider that a valid goal. In fact it's such an invalid goal that we should never mention some supposedly enlightened dictator and valid in the same sentence ever again. You roll the dice whenever you create dynasties. You're dominated by personalities, not rationality. Democracy moderates people, emperors are not moderated. Imagine Caligula with nuclear weapons. Our world is too fragile for dynastic politics. Hell, it's too fragile for liberal democracies due to all of the poo poo we're facing in the coming years. Our modes of government are hundreds of years old. Let's not show interest in modes than are thousands of years old.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Zuckerbergs pivot to blatant support of neo Nazi propaganda is undoubtedly as a result of who spends time on Facebook and actually clicks ads (old white boomers) Well, that and wanting to stay on the good side of the current government, which is allied with neo-nazis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
I've seen some discussion so far talking about how using the guillotine as a symbol to remind the rich and powerful that they can be deposed isn't harmful because it's just a symbol. The problem here is twofold; first that the symbol carries with it an intrinsic threat and second, that any symbol (especially one implying violence) disseminated amongst a large populace will inevitably have people that don't grasp any existing "nuance" of that symbol and take it at face-value i.e. that we should kill and eat the rich. Allow me to talk into the void here, because this dead gay comedy forum won't change the world but I'm happy to at least talk about stuff here. I miss forums, glad I found one that still exists and is very active...anyway. Violence begets violence, as Phisherman said. You can see it in the Hong Kong protests; the police deliberately pushed the protesters to violence using violence. Now China has an easy narrative for a harsh crackdown. However if we look at the Civil Rights movement and the Indian Independence movement then you can see that non-violent protests are the most effective at creating long lasting change. Violent overthrow of a violent hierarchy just installs a new leader/ruler who has committed lots of violence to get there and now leads a group of violent people. I'm not saying that force can never be used; there is an existential calculation to when it can be. But slow, deliberate movement against an oppressive leadership is generally how things have gone well in the past. Ukraine and Tunisia are recent examples, IIRC. The problem with leaderless movements is that any individual or group of individuals can come to dominate the space by simply committing violent acts. Those get the focus, then the rest of the movement gets associated with them. However, leaderless movements are the new normal and we shouldn't expect them to go away. We could use technology to harness and direct them, but that requires effort that most people aren't willing to put in. Anyway, if we attempt to take the billionaire class by force then we will not only fail, smashing ourselves against the rocks of the state system that they control but we will also not get most of the real villains. Yes we'll disrupt Facebook and Twitter, but what about the billionaires that you don't know the names of? The sort of people who can quietly kill Epstein and slink away because no one knows their names? They're the ones that will not be uprooted and in fact, probably be given more power in the chaos of disrupting the established structure. Sinking empires rarely (if ever) experience a rebirth during their decline. I attribute this to hubris. No one wants to admit when they have a problem, so like the British after WW2 they will spend and act as if they don't - leading to further ruin, rather than reinvesting in themselves. But if we are smart, maybe the USA could be an exception. Maybe, more importantly, a new world order will rise that connects people across nations horizontally, rather than in silo'd verticals. UnknownTarget fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Andronian posted:the answer to the guillotine thing is “memes” and i’m not even kidding true, but it's also fun to point out that a lot of the line on how "well, it didn't actually change anything" is horseshit. every nation from across europe came together for a huuuuge party! and stomped the French Empire back into France, dragged some Bourbons who'd kept their heads on onto the throne, and said "EVERYTHING IS BACK THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE NOW" and the French responded "nah. we chopped off your brother's head, we'll chop yours off too if you don't get the gently caress out."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1197878059938013184
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Augustus didn't understand dynastic politics and when he died he set up a legitimacy crisis that caused shitloads of trouble. That's dynasty 101. what? Tiberius assumed the throne instantly with no challenge to his legitmacy. he was not a very good ruler but that's because augustus had him as his last choice and was foiled by having all of his other chosen heirs die. (livia is innocent) this is a good slow news day to have these talks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So I think its fair to say that capitalism as a system has so far has been the biggest impediment, and that dismantling it is one solution and that it is also fair to say that it doesn't really have solutions; the solutions all by and large seem to depend on trying to convince people to sacrifice material conditions in the short term, for a payoff in the long term, appeals to morality, ethics, conservation, etc. There has been no uniquely capitalist solution; just a lot of companies who at best, recognize they can profit by trying to get ahead of things and lobbying for every other industry to also jump onto the bandwagon as well so they can compete in that space fairly. so the problem i have with this is basically the phrase "capitalism as a system" because i think it fails to deal with the fact you have two problems: how do I convert this one country's economy to emit less carbon; and how do i convert all countries' economies to emit less carbon. the ability of a government to reorder the economy of that country around reducing carbon emissions is, at core, a question of the strength of that country's government and its ability to absorb a short-term loss for a long-term gain without losing power. it would be relatively trivial for the united states government to maintain a capitalist economy but substantially reduce carbon emissions. you ban the use of fossil fuels. you can do it abruptly (probably a poor idea, as we lack sufficient power generating capacity to do that) or over some phase-out timeline. the problem is that causes substantial economic harm, in specific localized areas, which risk the government that implemented that policy falling and the policy being reversed (via elections). so that's one major difference between China and the United States. China can be fairly argued to basically be capitalist. but it's a highly authoritarian government that does not hold relevant elections: the chinese government is much more able to implement those policies not because of their thin remaining socialist heritage, but because once the government makes a decision public opinion isn't as much of a problem (actually enforcing the decision when local powers may disregard it, on the other hand, can be an issue). in the united states we will need sustained public opinion behind it. in both China and the United States, there may be very wealthy people who are exceedingly put out by that idea, but the relative rights of wealthy people to influence government policy is, uh, dramatically different between the two. separately, you have the problem of what is the globe's economic system. and there, there is no alternative: it's capitalism. capitalism is basically a "default" economic system. implementing a global socialist economy requires implementing a global government. so you will always have the problem of "well, the united states banned bunker fuel ships...so they all got sold to another country which is using them instead". the only real way to deal with this is political: you must assemble a coalition of nations that is strong enough to coerce the remaining nations. once you've done that you have the power to effectively regulate globe-wide - but that requires reaching agreements between nations and that requires finding enough common ground to get necessary regulations enforced by the world's powers. that is unlikely to go as deep as abolishing capitalism globe-wide, much like it's unlikely that it goes as deep as requiring democracy globe-wide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1197923558187507712?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Jesus bloody wept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
I'd prefer the conversation focus a little less on Rome and France and a bit more on the US please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Augustus didn't understand dynastic politics and when he died he set up a legitimacy crisis that caused shitloads of trouble. That's dynasty 101. he understood dynastic politics just fine. he just failed at producing a son that lived to adulthood and everyone else he'd have preferred died. that said, tiberius's takeover was nearly flawless. roman politics was also much more tolerant of adopted heirs than you would think, augustus was relevant only because he was ceasar's adopted son
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/townsquare56/status/1197881113542373379 Not sure how true this is, but...it makes a lot of sense doesn't it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Can we get a Wheel of Fortune-like, or Press Your Luck, or something with "Brain Worms" "Senile Dementia" "Denial of Reality" etc etc, as options? I feel like this needs to exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I'd prefer the conversation focus a little less on Rome and France and a bit more on the US please. Fine, if yall ever want to talk about Rome, or any other ancient history, the thread for it is p good and we always like new people and no one minds answering old questions. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3486446
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:https://twitter.com/townsquare56/status/1197881113542373379 responses to that tweet appear to indicate it was a problem in every agency. There simply were no pictures available for a year
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Uncleanly Cleric posted:Can we get a Wheel of Fortune-like, or Press Your Luck, or something with "Brain Worms" "Senile Dementia" "Denial of Reality" etc etc, as options? I'm guessing this is a "Schiff arranged for the whistleblower, its made up and theres no actual whistleblowing!" conspiracy theory thing that I've seen make the rounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
e:nm
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
ryde posted:I'm guessing this is a "Schiff arranged for the whistleblower, its made up and theres no actual whistleblowing!" conspiracy theory thing that I've seen make the rounds. Which also doesn't make sense since that would mean Nunes, Jordan, Conaway, Stuart, etc. spent weeks trying to out someone that doesn't exist. Someone that they repeatedly claimed Schiff knew the identity of. On the other hand it means the GOP Intel Committee is being hurled under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
President Trump's fascination with comparing certain things to the same subject repeatedly is interesting. People who suffer do so like dogs, people with flaws are always noted as not being angels. It's a very weird verbal thing!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
ryde posted:I'm guessing this is a "Schiff arranged for the whistleblower, its made up and theres no actual whistleblowing!" conspiracy theory thing that I've seen make the rounds. Well, that's stupid enough. Probably is. Christ...
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Dammerung posted:President Trump's fascination with comparing certain things to the same subject repeatedly is interesting. People who suffer do so like dogs, people with flaws are always noted as not being angels. It's a very weird verbal thing! It's also what chuds would inevitably say about black teenagers who got gunned down for being black in the wrong place, usually after finding a picture of them within 100 yards of a spliff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
ryde posted:I'm guessing this is a "Schiff arranged for the whistleblower, its made up and theres no actual whistleblowing!" conspiracy theory thing that I've seen make the rounds. Alternatively, he meant to say, "Which whistleblower?" There's also the IRS one if I remember. And maybe even others we haven't heard about yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Which also doesn't make sense since that would mean Nunes, Jordan, Conaway, Stuart, etc. spent weeks trying to out someone that doesn't exist. Someone that they repeatedly claimed Schiff knew the identity of. Nah, it makes sense if you look through the "Schiff made it up, that's why we demanded to meet them repeatedly as proof that the whistleblower wasn't real. No testimony, no person" lens. I mean, it's stupid, but on brand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:45
|
|