General News Thread

[OverMaster]

I mean, it's a statement I'd love to be wrong about. I'd really like to be able to think otherwise from what life and experience have taught me. Does it sound cynical? I'm well aware. What am I supposed to do? Fool myself for the sake of Doctrine A or B? Because someone else would want me to? Nuts to that.

[SpoonyViking]

Sounds reasonable.

Not to fall into the No True Scotsman Fallacy, but there's a good argument to be made that socialism - whether as envisioned by Marx and Engels, Bakunin, or Lamennais - is fundamentally incompatible with Stalin's and the CCP's regimes, among others.

[Twelveseal]

Oh no, I agree. But that's "as they envisioned." The problem there is that, in execution, it usually ends up looking more like what we've seen in reality than in theory. One of our other members described Communism as a perfect system for perfect people, but because no one is perfect it never works right. I feel it's reasonably accurate as an assessment, but that's just me.

[LegalLoliLover]

One of the Maggot Baits endings has loli goddess literally rewire people's souls, and one of the lines during that ending was "and then communism finally worked".

[Twelveseal]

Blech. Wasn't referring to that.

[aldeayeah]

One of our other members described Communism as a perfect system for perfect people, but because no one is perfect it never works right

I mean, name one system which wouldn't work with perfect people.

Modern politics is a fine balancing act between "keeping the power-thirsty bastards in check" and "getting shit done"

[Kamera]

♩
Our snuffed-out lives are on the other side of TV--
even in the brilliance of full HD, it doesn't clearly display the tragedy.

Resentment is all over the net, like a beta-test for detesting this unforgivable world.

An empty sort of fulfillment comes when you finish tonight's variety shows.

And you can't leave your room as a side-effect of this imperfect communication.

They sell magazines, but the person on the cover doesn't even know they exist.

Since we only speak ironically, these unconveyed emotions--
are just inferior goods, collecting dust in the furthest corner of a convenience store.

Ah-ah, I never knew that a single teardrop could outweigh an entire ocean.

This century's death game
A pessimistic death game

What is there even, on the other side of 365 days of derision?

And the one who's strangling us is someone living among us.

You can't just escape with your pessimism - in this era there's a closed circle of suspects.

So who's the bad guy? Who's the bad guy?

The most sensible things are also the most ridiculous.
The most righteous things are maybe even the most wicked.

And our throats are slit in our sleep by the trivial things we overlooked.

You can't show your back to the people who tell you, ''Take it easy!''.

The implements of murder are valued higher than a single life,
and in a locked room, jumping at shadows, the only one you can trust is yourself.

Your uneasiness is driving you into a corner -
it'll do for now, but the one screaming for help somewhere is just the victim of someone else's business.

Ah-ah, I never knew that a single teardrop could outweigh an entire ocean.

This century's death game
A pessimistic death game

What is there even, on the other side of 365 days of derision?

And the one who's strangling us is someone living among us.

You can't just escape with your pessimism - in this era there's a closed circle of suspects.

So who's the bad guy? Who's the bad guy?

Right and wrong don't even exist - reality is less interesting than fiction.

You can't even see the shadows of villains as they nefariously plot their evil deeds.

If you're going to survive in this world, so close to its epilogue,
the don't trust the most righteous people, and to start off, don't even trust yourself.

This century's death game
A pessimistic death game

What is there even, on the other side of 365 days of derision?

And the one strangling us is maybe even oblivious of it.

You can't just escape with your pessimism - in this era there's a closed circle of suspects.

So who's the bad guy? Who's the bad guy?
♩

[Twelveseal]

I mean, name one system which wouldn't work with perfect people.

Modern politics is a fine balancing act between "keeping the power-thirsty bastards in check" and "getting shit done"

Yup. Pretty much. That, and having to fix or overturn any system that becomes too broken or corrupt to function.

[OverMaster]

♩ So who's the bad guy? Who's the bad guy?
♩

You, of course.

We are on you! Don't act innocent, now!

Spoiler:

[Altima of the Gates]

Sounds reasonable.

I think its better to say that context matters. Basically the "you can have a murderer who loves his mama" type rationale and go from there. But it would bad to devolve it into a both sides are just as bad argument.
Power corrupts, that can happen whether its on the left or the right, but I disagree with the assessment that the Right is more "honest" as they don't even seem to be honest with themselves as he would imply. Even the YMMV doesn't really seem to get is that there is no consistency on the Right except to posit whatever owns the Libs, not matter if that damns them as well. That isn't honesty, its avoiding reality because its painful.

[Kamera]

the problem isn't which """system""" would """work""".

[Twelveseal]

I think its better to say that context matters. Basically the "you can have a murderer who loves his mama" type rationale and go from there. But it would bad to devolve it into a both sides are just as bad argument.
Power corrupts, that can happen whether its on the left or the right, but I disagree with the assessment that the Right is more "honest" as they don't even seem to be honest with themselves as he would imply. Even the YMMV doesn't really seem to get is that there is no consistency on the Right except to posit whatever owns the Libs, not matter if that damns them as well. That isn't honesty, its avoiding reality because its painful.

Yes, there is that.
Honestly though, I think the reason they're doing that these days is because they can't face the underlying reality that the Conservative movement as it exists today is becoming irrelevant on a national level, and that its current direction shows no sign of averting this.

As for power corrupting? Big YUP. Hence my comment about fixing or overturning things. This is actually one reason why I feel a measure of equilibrium is valuable. At least in the short term.

[Kamera]

i'm starting to suspect that the "right" and "left" you imagined is a hollow construct of power dynamism

- - - Updated - - -

please kindly explain how this """equilibrium""" would """work"""

[OverMaster]

Do you REALLY need it explained?

Neither side gets a full edge on the other, both keep the other mostly in check from authoritarianism of ideas or actions. That's it. Do you want full schematics, never mind that the exact nature on how to enforce those dynamics should and would vary wildly from one society and culture to another, making a specifical single way to achieve that result impossible to apply for the whole world? Tell ya what, we'll bother to provide those as soon as there's a chance to actually enforce them rather than just for the sake of convincing another username with no face in the Internet.

Granted, if Twelveseal does want to explain further then great for him regardless.

[Kamera]

how is this different from simply boot licking the status quo

[Twelveseal]

I kind of don't, but I'll at least try. Probably fail, but still try XD

You know what, I'll spoiler this textwall.

Spoiler:

I've yet to find something that feels wholly satisfactory. The current structure and separation of powers with the US doesn't match simply because of the ease with which it's co-opted by Capital. It edges steadily closer to Feudalism sans titles due to the concentration of wealth and the formation of unofficial-but-functional socio-economic and racial castes.

The consolidation of power seen in authoritarian models inevitably results in rapid corruption but the loss of any meaningful ability to overturn the structure; the state perpetuates itself as the only path to power for the ambitious and dominates the population through military and police coercion and control of resource distribution. And usually toxic propaganda, though that's a problem across the board. In essence, it becomes a monopoly on power maintained by those who want power.

What I feel is needed is a mixed economic model where there is a private sector, but the most profitable industries within a given State are owned and operated by the same while being bound by business practices standards and regulations. There would likely need to be a set threshold for acquisition by the State based on average profits or stock value of all state companies. The State would rely on the profits of these businesses and a progressive tax model based on income percentages to provide for its citizens basic needs and government functions, with each State paying a percentage of that income to the Federal government to fulfill its functions and assist the States as needed. The government, likely as a cooperation between State and Federal levels, would be responsible for providing the most basic needs of the citizens, but in no way provide luxuries. That would be dependent on individual labor through private or public sector jobs, the former subject to regulation and fair business laws but also protected from the economy of scale available to massive corporations via their inclusion into the government and its own restrictions.

Government itself would need to operate in a system of checks and balances in order to prevent it from becoming too overreaching, too weak, or too corrupt. The US model is fine... except that it needs a great deal more transparency and a higher level of control in the hands of the people. A system for public referendums to override existing laws, determine legislative agendas, and impeach public officials (including Representatives, Senators, Judges, Justices, Cabinet Members, Secretaries, and the President and Vice President) should be put in place. The House and Senate should not vote separately on legislation; they should operate as a single body under normal circumstances and only behave independently in their committees and under peculiar scenarios like traditional impeachment proceedings.

The current lobbying system needs to be completely removed. Gift-giving to politicians creates problems. It's toxic af. Likewise, there should be a prohibition on retiring from politics into the leadership of companies. Stock ownership is fine... However, the entire population of a State should be awarded a set number of shares of each company under State management. Any significant changes in that value will impact the finances of their constituents, and such carry additional political risk for anyone messing around with it inappropriately.

There needs to be a cap placed not only on campaign donations, but on campaign spending in order to open up the field for the rest of the population besides the current ruling class. This should be coupled with strict limits on how many seats a given political party may hold in either house of Congress, a prohibitive definition of what constitutes a political party that's intended to block the existence of national-scale parties and break up existing ones while also rendering cooperation during campaigns illegal. There should also be full transparency on campaign and other political contributions; Dark Money should not exist. If you're afraid to reveal you're donating to something, you probably don't need to do so. Coupled with the caps on spending, this should reduce the impact of big donors on races outside of flooding races with hordes of candidates from rival parties.

There's honestly more, but I'm getting tired of writing this post

Not sure it's what you're wanting to hear or not. I may have misunderstood you.

[Kamera]

who decides what is extremism, who designates which one is left and right, who ensures that none cross their designated boundaries

[Twelveseal]

who decides what is extremism, who designates which one is left and right, who ensures that none cross their designated boundaries

I'm not sure who this is directed at.

[Kamera]

I kind of don't, but I'll at least try. Probably fail, but still try XD

You know what, I'll spoiler this textwall.

Spoiler:

I've yet to find something that feels wholly satisfactory. The current structure and separation of powers with the US doesn't match simply because of the ease with which it's co-opted by Capital. It edges steadily closer to Feudalism sans titles due to the concentration of wealth and the formation of unofficial-but-functional socio-economic and racial castes.

The consolidation of power seen in authoritarian models inevitably results in rapid corruption but the loss of any meaningful ability to overturn the structure; the state perpetuates itself as the only path to power for the ambitious and dominates the population through military and police coercion and control of resource distribution. And usually toxic propaganda, though that's a problem across the board. In essence, it becomes a monopoly on power maintained by those who want power.

What I feel is needed is a mixed economic model where there is a private sector, but the most profitable industries within a given State are owned and operated by the same while being bound by business practices standards and regulations. There would likely need to be a set threshold for acquisition by the State based on average profits or stock value of all state companies. The State would rely on the profits of these businesses and a progressive tax model based on income percentages to provide for its citizens basic needs and government functions, with each State paying a percentage of that income to the Federal government to fulfill its functions and assist the States as needed. The government, likely as a cooperation between State and Federal levels, would be responsible for providing the most basic needs of the citizens, but in no way provide luxuries. That would be dependent on individual labor through private or public sector jobs, the former subject to regulation and fair business laws but also protected from the economy of scale available to massive corporations via their inclusion into the government and its own restrictions.

Government itself would need to operate in a system of checks and balances in order to prevent it from becoming too overreaching, too weak, or too corrupt. The US model is fine... except that it needs a great deal more transparency and a higher level of control in the hands of the people. A system for public referendums to override existing laws, determine legislative agendas, and impeach public officials (including Representatives, Senators, Judges, Justices, Cabinet Members, Secretaries, and the President and Vice President) should be put in place. The House and Senate should not vote separately on legislation; they should operate as a single body under normal circumstances and only behave independently in their committees and under peculiar scenarios like traditional impeachment proceedings.

The current lobbying system needs to be completely removed. Gift-giving to politicians creates problems. It's toxic af. Likewise, there should be a prohibition on retiring from politics into the leadership of companies. Stock ownership is fine... However, the entire population of a State should be awarded a set number of shares of each company under State management. Any significant changes in that value will impact the finances of their constituents, and such carry additional political risk for anyone messing around with it inappropriately.

There needs to be a cap placed not only on campaign donations, but on campaign spending in order to open up the field for the rest of the population besides the current ruling class. This should be coupled with strict limits on how many seats a given political party may hold in either house of Congress, a prohibitive definition of what constitutes a political party that's intended to block the existence of national-scale parties and break up existing ones while also rendering cooperation during campaigns illegal. There should also be full transparency on campaign and other political contributions; Dark Money should not exist. If you're afraid to reveal you're donating to something, you probably don't need to do so. Coupled with the caps on spending, this should reduce the impact of big donors on races outside of flooding races with hordes of candidates from rival parties.

There's honestly more, but I'm getting tired of writing this post

Not sure it's what you're wanting to hear or not. I may have misunderstood you.

that's one way to describe the Chinese model

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure who this is directed at.

cont of reply above

[SpoonyViking]

But it would bad to devolve it into a both sides are just as bad argument.

Indeed!