Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

You claim, with no evidence, in the face of many examples of successful instances of direct democracy.

I have made very clear from the very start that I'm arguing against "full direct democracy"-- direct democracy used as a full model of government, deciding all areas of policy. What we actually have examples of are referenda within otherwise representative democratic systems. That's what happened in Chile, and that I have no issue with. There is no country on the planet operating a full direct democracy, so no, you don't have any examples of that.

Incorrect. Unelected Cubans made many suggestions which were then approved. All Cubans were able to do this.

Oh, the public consultation, yes-- in which suggestions were put forward by the public and then approved by elected representatives if they were then to be included.

You do both realise I'm not arguing against referenda or public input, right? The example societies you've put forward so far are 1) a representative democracy, and 2) a dictatorship with a representative-democratic legislative body within it. Whatever successes can be attributed to these societies do not bolster the case for full direct democracy, since neither of them are.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes... I too believe that full time work, in a world where most of what we produce goes directly in the garbage and most jobs, at best, don't need to exist, is purely an idea to keep the populace too stressed to meaningfully engage with society and just continue to funnel money from one ghoul to another,. The latter ghoul's existence being doubly unnecessary.

Yep, largely agreed. A huge amount of full-time work does not need to exist, and it doesn't need to be the default or the only realistic option for someone.

Which would be far more likely to happen with a press more concerned with informing than profiting.

Yup! Though as I've said below, in a full direct democracy, you would have several dozen referenda every week at the very least, so good luck prioritising the space and informing the population consistently on every one.

So like now then? A few years ago we outsourced our cervical check screening to foreign labs, despite the protests of experts. A whole bunch of women were later diagnosed with late stage cancer because everyone involved was too busy covering up the fuck ups that experts warned would happen rather than letting women know that they had cancer. Like I don't even want to get into how horrid a shitshow the whole situation was and I definitely won't get into what I feel is an appropriate punishment for the people involved who chose to let women die to save their own careers.

Not quite like now, no. Under full direct democracy, I doubt you'd have cervical check screening in the first place, at all.

That's not really how participatory budgeting works though. It wouldn't be a referendum for every single topic.

"FULL DIRECT DEMOCRACY". The person who I originally responded to was outlining a society in which almost all "hierarchies" are dissolved, except for in the military, student-teacher, and in the family. So that means no elected representatives at all making these decisions, no economists or financial experts or trade researchers deciding on cost. Every aspect is up to the people.

And the governments that we have now are burning the planet to the ground, creating wealth inequality that a French King would call excessive and exploiting and killing innocent people all across the Global South.

Yes, representative democracy is shite. Every issue you've outlined above would be magnified a thousandfold under full direct democracy.

There's two things that you seem to miss here.

1.) People who want direct democracy don't want it in a world where everything else stays exactly as is. Most of your arguments against it are basically "It won't work because capitalism." But I think most of us also want capitalism to go.

Capitalism is a massive exacerbating factor, but by far the largest stumbling blocks are ignorance, selfishness, and the disinclination to learn or care.

2.) The system we have now is literally going to kill us all in an ugly way. At worst direct democracy would be AS bad as what we have now and what we have now definitely doesn't work, unless you are part of a very privileged minority.

No, not "as bad". Supply chains would have entirely collapsed; health systems would be fully non-functioning. We would be functionally incapable of importing or exporting. And all the current issues of brutality, poverty, inequality, pollution, climate change etc would all still be there, only hugely magnified.

"It's bad now so the alternative can't be worse" is bunk logic.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I have made very clear from the very start that I'm arguing against "full direct democracy"-- direct democracy used as a full model of government, deciding all areas of policy. What we actually have examples of are referenda within otherwise representative democratic systems. That's what happened in Chile, and that I have no issue with. There is no country on the planet operating a full direct democracy, so no, you don't have any examples of that.



Oh, the public consultation, yes-- in which suggestions were put forward by the public and then approved by elected representatives if they were then to be included.

You do both realise I'm not arguing against referenda or public input, right? The example societies you've put forward so far are 1) a representative democracy, and 2) a dictatorship with a representative-democratic legislative body within it. Whatever successes can be attributed to these societies do not bolster the case for full direct democracy, since neither of them are.

You've also made it clear what you don't like about direct democracy and when it's pointed out that it happens now in both successful direct democracy moments and in unsuccessful representative democracy reality, you blow it off and retreat to stupid hypotheticals. It's why I keep saying I'm not convinced, you have put forward no good reason for why you believe what you do. You might as well be talking out your ass because all your doom saying can be responded to with "yes, the world really does suck right now, doesn't it? Maybe we should do something different, like direct democracy".

 

[Silvanus]

You've also made it clear what you don't like about direct democracy and when it's pointed out that it happens now in both successful direct democracy moments and in unsuccessful representative democracy reality, you blow it off and retreat to stupid hypotheticals.

There is no society which implements full direct democracy, so no, my complaints are not applicable to any extant example.

The only examples you've quoted are examples of referenda existing within otherwise representative-democratic systems. Which, for the umpteenth time, I have no issue with.

It's why I keep saying I'm not convinced, you have put forward no good reason for why you believe what you do. You might as well be talking out your ass because all your doom saying can be responded to with "yes, the world really does suck right now, doesn't it? Maybe we should do something different, like direct democracy".

The situations I've given thus far would be far, far worse under a full direct democratic system.

Hell, take the Chilean constitution, or the Cuban constitution-- both of which I would say are exemplary examples of a direct-demoratic element introduced into a representative-democratic system! Both were brought about by a synthesis of representative democracy and direct democracy... and both would be tremendously unlikely to come about under full direct democracy.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

There is no society which implements full direct democracy, so no, my complaints are not applicable to any extant example.

The only examples you've quoted are examples of referenda existing within otherwise representative-democratic systems. Which, for the umpteenth time, I have no issue with.

Experts aren't writing the laws, experts aren't necessarily elected anywhere, and experts who do write laws fall prey to every single complaint you have at at least the same rate as the mob, if not more so. You have never addressed this.

The situations I've given thus far would be far, far worse under a full direct democratic system.

There's no reason to believe you. All your complaints may as well be made up.

Hell, take the Chilean constitution, or the Cuban constitution-- both of which I would say are exemplary examples of a direct-demoratic element introduced into a representative-democratic system! Both would be tremendously unlikely to come about under full direct democracy.

They are direct democracy.

 

[Silvanus]

Experts aren't writing the laws, experts aren't necessarily elected anywhere, and experts who do write laws fall prey to every single complaint you have at at least the same rate as the mob, if not more so. You have never addressed this.

I have never addressed this largely because its a false equivalence.

The text of (say) an entry to the criminal code will be suggested in principle by elected representatives, then drafted and returned by legal experts, then approved.

And no, the issues I've outlined will not apply. Because under the above system, a society will at least be able to functionally outlaw something, whereas a system of full direct democracy would be incapable of doing so.

There's no reason to believe you. All your complaints may as well be made up.

I've encountered quite a few average people, including in public-facing and data-gathering positions, and have found them to be consummate, gigantic morons.

The idiocy of my fellow man cannot be overstated. And above all else, it would be a right-wing/ libertarian nightmare. I am a socialist, and there's a reason the person I originally responded to explicitly stated that they were not a socialist and were against socialism.

They are direct democracy.

They are direct democratic votes within representative democracies (or, in Cuba's case, dictatorships with direct-democratic legislative bodies). Which I have no problem with.

For the fiftieth time, I am not arguing against referenda. I am arguing against full direct democracy. Which has never been functionally implemented beyond the scale of a small town.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I have never addressed this largely because its a false equivalence.

No it isn't, you gave specific and limited complaints about direct democracy and it was pointed out repeatedly how those problems have nothing to do with direct democracy.

The text of (say) an entry to the criminal code will be suggested in principle by elected representatives, then drafted and returned by legal experts, then approved.

Like this is fucking stupid, why can't this be done in direct democracy? Literally there is nothing stopping this from happening. Propose an idea, have it drawn up, vote on it. Just have everyone vote on it instead of a handful of people. This isn't hard. What, do you think direct democracy means opening up a google sheet and letting everyone edit it simultaneously?

And no, the issues I've outlined will not apply. Because under the above system, a society will at least be able to functionally outlaw something, whereas a system of full direct democracy would be incapable of doing so.

Neat but you're wrong.

I've encountered quite a few average people, including in public-facing and data-gathering positions, and have found them to be consummate, gigantic morons.

The idiocy of my fellow man cannot be overstated. And above all else, it would be a right-wing/ libertarian nightmare. I am a socialist, and there's a reason the person I originally responded to explicitly stated that they were not a socialist and were against socialism.

Hold on, sit down for this one, it may blow your mind.

Politicians... are people too. And are perfectly capable of being gigantic idiots. Literally to the same degree as the populace since they are, by definition, drawn from the populace. And in fact because of the political weight we give them, their stupidity (or paid obstinance) gives them undue weight in influencing people's opinions.

So again, you have not made a single cogent point against direct democracy, because representative democracy is made up of "consummate, gigantic morons" putting us into "a right-wing/ libertarian nightmare". You're not avoiding this problem because your solution is not a solution to these problems. Your solution is a solution to land-owner's complaints that the public with a voice would enrich themselves at the expense of landowners.

They are direct democratic votes within representative democracies (or, in Cuba's case, dictatorships with direct-democratic legislative bodies). Which I have no problem with.

For the fiftieth time, I am not arguing against referenda. I am arguing against full direct democracy. Which has never been functionally implemented beyond the scale of a small town.

Except you have a smug view of your fellow man that means you think they're incapable of governing themselves.

 

[Hades]

Remember people who got vaccinated; you aren't human anymore.

View attachment 4629

You see anti Vaxers! Now I've had my vaccines you're not dealing with the average human anymore. I...am now a super human!

 

[Gergar12]

From what it seems like unless you major in physics employers hate the S part of STEM, it's harder to get a job in biology(lab techs great pay very little), easier in chemistry, and so fore. Even in the math part of STEM unless you know to program, or you're a statistics major it's hard to find a good-paying job in M unless as TE or technology, and engineering.

Along with the war on lawyers, and even pharmacists. I am starting to feel like you must either have a niche low demand major that is useful like pharmacy used to be that isn't oversaturated, you must do a job no one wants like education or special education, or you must pursue a uber hard major like economics, physics, chemistry, engineering, and so fore. Hopefully, the population decline lowers some of that, but I suspect if you're from the US, Australia, or UK the business-controlled political elites will just immigrate people to your country and offset any decline in the supply of labor. So don't expect this sudden lowering of supply of labor to be forever, if you want a job now, get it as soon as possible before wages go down again.

Or you could do a trade, and risk suffering various types of injury, and body decline.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

A person with real Q clearance has been caught being a naughty boy trying to sell secrets.

Maryland Nuclear Engineer and Spouse Arrested on Espionage-Related Charges

Jonathan and Diana Toebbe, both of Annapolis, Maryland, were arrested in Jefferson County, West Virginia, by the FBI and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) on Saturday, Oct. 9.

www.justice.gov

https://justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1440946/download…

From the link, complaint;

Jonathan and Diana Toebbe, both of Annapolis, Maryland, were arrested in Jefferson County, West Virginia, by the FBI and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) on Saturday, Oct. 9. They will have their initial appearances on Tuesday, Oct. 12, in federal court in Martinsburg, West Virginia. For almost a year, Jonathan Toebbe, 42, aided by his wife, Diana, 45, sold information known as Restricted Data concerning the design of nuclear-powered warships to a person they believed was a representative of a foreign power. In actuality, that person was an undercover FBI agent. The Toebbes have been charged in a criminal complaint alleging violations of the Atomic Energy Act.



“The complaint charges a plot to transmit information relating to the design of our nuclear submarines to a foreign nation,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The work of the FBI, Department of Justice prosecutors, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Department of Energy was critical in thwarting the plot charged in the complaint and taking this first step in bringing the perpetrators to justice.”



Jonathan Toebbe is an employee of the Department of the Navy who served as a nuclear engineer and was assigned to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, also known as Naval Reactors. He held an active national security clearance through the U.S. Department of Defense, giving him access to Restricted Data. Toebbe worked with and had access to information concerning naval nuclear propulsion including information related to military sensitive design elements, operating parameters and performance characteristics of the reactors for nuclear powered warships.



The complaint affidavit alleges that on April 1, 2020, Jonathan Toebbe sent a package to a foreign government, listing a return address in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, containing a sample of Restricted Data and instructions for establishing a covert relationship to purchase additional Restricted Data. The affidavit also alleges that, thereafter, Toebbe began corresponding via encrypted email with an individual whom he believed to be a representative of the foreign government. The individual was really an undercover FBI agent. Jonathan Toebbe continued this correspondence for several months, which led to an agreement to sell Restricted Data in exchange for thousands of dollars in cryptocurrency.



On June 8, 2021, the undercover agent sent $10,000 in cryptocurrency to Jonathan Toebbe as “good faith” payment. Shortly afterwards, on June 26, Jonathan and Diana Toebbe traveled to a location in West Virginia. There, with Diana Toebbe acting as a lookout, Jonathan Toebbe placed an SD card concealed within half a peanut butter sandwich at a pre-arranged “dead drop” location. After retrieving the SD card, the undercover agent sent Jonathan Toebbe a $20,000 cryptocurrency payment. In return, Jonathan Toebbe emailed the undercover agent a decryption key for the SD Card. A review of the SD card revealed that it contained Restricted Data related to submarine nuclear reactors. On Aug. 28, Jonathan Toebbe made another “dead drop” of an SD card in eastern Virginia, this time concealing the card in a chewing gum package. After making a payment to Toebbe of $70,000 in cryptocurrency, the FBI received a decryption key for the card. It, too, contained Restricted Data related to submarine nuclear reactors. The FBI arrested Jonathan and Diana Toebbe on Oct. 9, after he placed yet another SD card at a pre-arranged “dead drop” at a second location in West Virginia.



Trial Attorneys Matthew J. McKenzie and S. Derek Shugert of the National Security Division's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jarod J. Douglas and Lara Omps-Botteicher of the Northern District of West Virginia, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Lieber Smolar for the Western District of Pennsylvania are prosecuting the case on behalf of the government. The FBI and the NCIS are investigating the case.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

You see anti Vaxers! Now I've had my vaccines you're not dealing with the average human anymore. I...am now a super human!

Being less susceptible to a specific disease isn't the most exciting of mutant powers, but I suppose there's worse....

 

[Gordon_4]

You see anti Vaxers! Now I've had my vaccines you're not dealing with the average human anymore. I...am now a super human!

I feel we’ve been here before. Have we been here before? Oh God we have been here before.

 

[Silvanus]

No it isn't, you gave specific and limited complaints about direct democracy and it was pointed out repeatedly how those problems have nothing to do with direct democracy.

The near-complete ignorance and lack of concern or awareness among the population is not a "limited complaint", and the issues it causes would be by far the most on display under a full direct democracy.

Like this is fucking stupid, why can't this be done in direct democracy? Literally there is nothing stopping this from happening. Propose an idea, have it drawn up, vote on it. Just have everyone vote on it instead of a handful of people. This isn't hard. What, do you think direct democracy means opening up a google sheet and letting everyone edit it simultaneously?

"Why can't this happen in direct democracy", you're asking about a description which specifically includes elected representatives proposing and drawing up an idea?

The person to whom I was originally responding was explicitly calling for the abolishment of all hierarchies, all elected positions. So that's what's stopping it happening under their conceptualisation.

Neat but you're wrong.

Cool. What proportion of people in (say) the US are aware of how much insulin or morphine a country needs on a yearly basis? Because unless it's exceptionally high, a motion to order it when stocks run low ain't getting proposed, and ain't getting passed.

Can I just ask what is your remedy for this? Mass education on every topic for every citizen, so awareness grows to the point where these things are common knowledge?

Hold on, sit down for this one, it may blow your mind.

Politicians... are people too. And are perfectly capable of being gigantic idiots. Literally to the same degree as the populace since they are, by definition, drawn from the populace. And in fact because of the political weight we give them, their stupidity (or paid obstinance) gives them undue weight in influencing people's opinions.

So again, you have not made a single cogent point against direct democracy, because representative democracy is made up of "consummate, gigantic morons" putting us into "a right-wing/ libertarian nightmare". You're not avoiding this problem because your solution is not a solution to these problems. Your solution is a solution to land-owner's complaints that the public with a voice would enrich themselves at the expense of landowners.

Politicians are people too, obviously. And in representative democracy, a hell of a lot of countries will end up electing either career politicians, shills, or people who just generally don't share the best interests of the population. This is hardly "blowing anyone's mind", considering I've been open about how shit representative democracy is from the very start.

But let's see. Is it always this way? You've pointed to Chile, in which the people elected representatives who were.... not careerists, not shills. Ordinary people who were more representative of the country at large, and weighted to be demographically representative too. Your own example of a laudable, beneficial system resulting in a progressive constitution... was representative democracy functioning as intended.

Representative democracy requires enormous safeguards, widespread press reform, and huge measures to tackle or undo corporate influence & the power of finance in politics. Safeguards which have rarely, but occasionally, been implemented. Safeguards which would be utterly impossible to bring in under full direct democracy, where we rely on average Joe in the street to be cogently aware of the need for them.

Except you have a smug view of your fellow man that means you think they're incapable of governing themselves.

Not really "smug"; more despairing.

 

[Hades]

I feel we’ve been here before. Have we been here before? Oh God we have been here before.

You're just jealus of my Super Human swager.

 

[BrawlMan]

You're just jealus of my Super Human swager.

I'll find a level to go even beyond superhuman! YaAAaaaaaaHhhhhhhhh!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

2 parts to make the Escapist happy

The near-complete ignorance and lack of concern or awareness among the population is not a "limited complaint", and the issues it causes would be by far the most on display under a full direct democracy.

It's limited in that it's a discrete problem and again, it's a problem that is currently killing us in representative democracy because it has nothing to do with the structure in how you come to decisions.

"Why can't this happen in direct democracy", you're asking about a description which specifically includes elected representatives proposing and drawing up an idea?

The person to whom I was originally responding was explicitly calling for the abolishment of all hierarchies, all elected positions. So that's what's stopping it happening under their conceptualisation.

That's not an elected representative, you're spouting nonsense. Asking a lawyer to draw up a legal document for others to vote on is neither a hierarchy nor an elected position.

Cool. What proportion of people in (say) the US are aware of how much insulin or morphine a country needs on a yearly basis? Because unless it's exceptionally high, a motion to order it when stocks run low ain't getting proposed, and ain't getting passed.

How many elected representatives know this?

FUCKING THE EXACT SAME PROPORTION BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE. WHY DOES WINNING AN ELECTION MAKE YOU SMARTER?

Can I just ask what is your remedy for this? Mass education on every topic for every citizen, so awareness grows to the point where these things are common knowledge?

No, you just have a lower threshold to propose an idea than you do to pass it, literally exactly how it works now.

Politicians are people too, obviously. And in representative democracy, a hell of a lot of countries will end up electing either career politicians, shills, or people who just generally don't share the best interests of the population. This is hardly "blowing anyone's mind", considering I've been open about how shit representative democracy is from the very start.

And yet every argument you make is based on the premise that when someone wins an election they're spread with magic pixie dust that just make them better decision makers.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But let's see. Is it always this way? You've pointed to Chile, in which the people elected representatives who were.... not careerists, not shills. Ordinary people who were more representative of the country at large, and weighted to be demographically representative too. Your own example of a laudable, beneficial system resulting in a progressive constitution... was representative democracy functioning as intended.

It's also completely counter to your whole premise for why direct democracy is bad, as has been said multiple times.

Representative democracy requires enormous safeguards, widespread press reform, and huge measures to tackle or undo corporate influence & the power of finance in politics. Safeguards which have rarely, but occasionally, been implemented. Safeguards which would be utterly impossible to bring in under full direct democracy, where we rely on average Joe in the street to be cogently aware of the need for them.

Only you would look at the current political landscape and say there are meaningful safeguards.

Meanwhile, let's look at the merits of representative democracy and how fast they've come to the aid of people. Gay marriage (approved years after it was popular), gay rights (approved years after it was popular), minimum wage hike (still not approved despite it winning direct democracy initiatives), drug reform (still not approved despite it winning direct democracy initiatives), leaving Afghanistan and Iraq (years after everyone was sick of it), universal healthcare (still not approved despite popular support), climate legislation (still not approved despite popular support), funding utilities (still not approved despite popular support), etc.

What have they beaten the public to the punch on? Well we banned alcohol once. We reformed banking rules that hollowed out the industry and led to a massive financial crash (where were the experts legislating wisely?). We destroyed safeguards between corporate money and political action to give money an outsized influence on politics (something you say representative democracy guards against). I think you might be full of shit.

Not really "smug"; more despairing.

Well luckily you're here to save us all with your big brain. King Silvanus, who knows his fellow man needs an iron fist to keep them in line.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

As fox's most fervant viewers move to more radicalised sources of misinformation since conspiracy theorism has taken full hold, it only makes a desperate sort of sense that Tucker submits and panders to the new extremist bottom line. The already tumultuous Overton window buckles under our own collective madness.

 

[Chimpzy]

I'll find a level to go even beyond superhuman! YaAAaaaaaaHhhhhhhhh!

So, what? Like a megahuman? Ultrahuman? Maximum overhuman!

 

[Gordon_4]

As fox's most fervant viewers move to more radicalised sources of misinformation since conspiracy theorism has taken full hold, it only makes a desperate sort of sense that Tucker submits and panders to the new extremist bottom line. The already tumultuous Overton window buckles under our own collective madness.

Do you think running a deep state is more or less stressful than running other kinds of states?