The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.Douglas Adams
Politicians shouldn’t be elected. If they want to rule, they should take control by force like in the old times.
That’s how you cull the useless leaders. They perish
So like… a 1 on 1 fist fight to the death then, yeah?
On the one hand yeah sure, but on the other hand in the USA youre an accomplice if you didnt vote or if you wasted your vote on a 3rd party.
Vote for baddy, your fault. Vote for less baddy, youre propping up the system. Vote for good guy, you wasted your chance to vote against baddy. Dont vote, you wasted your chance yo vote against baddy.
Everyone gets the boot on the neck, everyone gets the blame, there are no winners
That’s the point, wanting to be elected is disqualifying for getting elected.
The US has needed rank choice voting since Nixon at least.
This includes people who give everyone shit for not voting for the “lesser” corruption. Accomplices all.
In some cases.
In other
Yeah, it’s your personal responsibility to vote for the “good” candidate, with voting for the “bad” candidate being an individual’s moral and mental failure as opposed to it being caused by shifting material conditions, crises or simply just failure of liberal political side to garner enough support or them targeting only the affluent middle-class intelligentsia.
Why don’t everyone just vote for the good guys, are they stupid?
Why don’t everyone just vote for the good guys, are they stupid?
Politically, yes
To answer the question, yes, yes they are stupid.
In 2016 both Hillary and Trump had a lower than 50% approval rating and yet they were the frontrunners: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
Congress has a less than 50% approval rating and it’s made up of elected politicians: https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/
We don’t have a democracy, we have a system where you can only choose which representative for billionaires you dislike the least. They’re all corrupt, any that aren’t are quickly drowned out by well-funded opposition.
People tend to approve of their own representatives, and blame others in Congress for unsolved issues. We have become good at identifying problems while minimizing our own contributions to them. And in general, as a country we are very divided on the way things should be changing.
For presidential candidates especially, I’ve found people tend to latch on to reasons to dislike someone and ignore positive things, except perhaps for their favorite candidate. It’s a form of tribalism. But from what I remember Trump and Hilary were both considered distinctly weak candidates at the time.
I believe that’s an overstatement, not all politicians are corrupt. There are many members of Congress that are working to make things better and pass progressive legislation. AOC and Bernie for instance haven’t been silenced and replaced by big corporations.
I agree with you that the US’ federal Congress is more pro-billionaire, but there are still people that want to make things better. The issue is that those people do not have the votes to pass progressive legislation. Lots of people are seemingly happy with the status quo given that half of the states predominantly vote Republican each election cycle.
You are right. Americans are slaves, tricked into thinking their votes count. But people must understand the enemy is the corruption found by members of both parties. Democratic and Republican
I wouldn’t say Americans are tricked, but a vote for positive change tends to be met with a vote for ‘changing nothing’ by someone on the other side of the aisle.
People’s best bets is really to focus on making their own states more progressive and pass those progressive programs at the state level. Banking on having the federal government pass the progressive programs people want is not going to work
People living in Purple and Red states are going to need to see Blue states thriving from progressive policies if they’re going to be convinced to change their voting habits. People living in Blue states should no longer be banking on doing the more caring option of passing progressive programs federally, instead Blue States should be willing to go into debt to fund these progressive programs.
I got the book 1984 for $1 on Kobo a couple months ago
Still haven’t read it. (Surely next year)
It’s a short, easy read…
That’s what I keep saying: Trump isn’t the problem, he’s a symptom.
And the disease is that a majority of voting Americans are either morally bankrupt and gullible enough to overlook all that Trump did and said and elect him, or actively fascist.
And that’s why, when people tell me I need to “make space” for those people and give them an exit ramp, so that when Trump finally turns on them too, and they realize what they done did, the nation can heal and come back together, I say: fuck this shit.
I don’t want to make space for immoral morons and fascists. These people deserve what they’re about to get, and what they’ve inflicted on the rest of us who didn’t sell out, and they’ll never come back from the moral quagmire that made them think it’s a-okay to elect a fascist POTUS.
Make space if they actually repent for real, because it would be stupid not to. That’s an ally.
Do not make space if it’s not genuine, because it would be stupid to.
I think the argument to make space for them is more practical than compassionate. WTF are we going to do if we just refuse to speak to or have any dealings with 1/3 of the working age population. Are we relocating all Trump voters South of Virginia and splitting the Union here?
Setting aside our own authoritarian problems for a second, if you want to have a wealthy country that can oppose authoritarian regimes (like China and Russia), you need all 350 million of us. (And you need Europe, India, and democratic Asia on board, perhaps even some middle eastern countries, all people you may have philosophical differences with that you have to learn to work with).
Even authoritarian governments can be swayed when money is on the line, imo. If countries enforce standards via an international trade deal, anyone that doesn’t play ball by the rules could be incentivized to change if they want a cut of the pie.
Take non-ethical working conditions for example. If every country said they will not do business with a country that doesn’t implement ethical working standards then that country could be incentivized to change. If there was a requirement for third party auditors to be able to regularly verify that those standards are being upheld then that could help ensure that those basic standards are being met even in authoritarian countries.
Sure, but whether you’re talking about military might or economic might, more people is more leverage. That was my point.
I agree, that’s why I feel that having more countries willing to stand together on certain points matters as well. The more people coming together to say something and stand by that, the more that message gets through, even to those that have selfish goals.
My mom voted for Trump and her gov job is abt to be furloughed
Trump isn’t the problem, he’s a symptom.
The problem is America , systemically not socially. The idiot Trump voters are likewise symptoms.
The sad part is many Americans simply think if you just get rid of Trump and his supporters that it would fix the problems with the country when in reality it perpetuates them by ignoring the underlying issues.
you can’t expect perfect results…
I’d take getting rid of Trump and his supporters. It WOULD fix the problems with the country right now
You can certainly aim for your best…
I’d take actually standing for something and not succeeding over standing for nothing and succeeding. It would fix the problems with the country permanently.
You were correct in the first half then you fell right off. Name a president that didn’t suck. You can’t, you won’t. This has nothing to do with Republican or Democratic being worst. BOTH are traitors to the American people.
You were correct in the first half then you fell right off.
I was going to comment that as well. They’ve identified the problem correctly, but rather than trying to fix it they decide to cement it in. We want people to be able to accept they were wrong and think (and vote) differently going forward. That sort of growth is how things get better. This vindictiveness just makes people defensive and want to double down on mistakes when doubt and regret could have lead to character development.
By all means, hold people accountable, but if you don’t allow them to change you are giving up hope entirely.
I do not understand how “vote for the better option” could possibly not be the correct move. If you want to change the candidates we have in the general election, no strategy for voting within the general election will change that; you would need to vote in the primaries to get the legitimately good candidates into the general. This is once again voting for the best option. If you have another theory I would love to hear how you expect it to work.
There is a wide chasm between “suck” and “fascist”.
And it’s filled with slave owners, genociders, imperialists, and war criminals.
John Quincy Adams was pretty decent, as far as I’m aware.
If I were in charge I’d ban every last Trump voter from ever voting again. It’s only immoral if you’re incorrect ™.
Never ask a man his salary
Never ask a woman her age
Never ask what George Orwell was doing in Myanmar in the 1920s
He literally wrote a novel that was heavily inspired about his time in Myanmar.
You can kinda ask him yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Days
Set in British Burma during the waning days of empire, when Burma was ruled from Delhi as part of British India, the novel serves as “a portrait of the dark side of the British Raj.” At the centre of the novel is John Flory, “the lone and lacking individual trapped within a bigger system that is undermining the better side of human nature.”[1] The novel describes “both indigenous corruption and imperial bigotry” in a society where, “after all, natives were natives—interesting, no doubt, but finally…an inferior people”.[2]
To be clear, that last bit of that last sentence is meant to be read as hideously haughty and privileged… it is dripping with irony, a self-cariacature, as the novel showcases the craven nature of characters in all kinds of social positions, from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds.
The whole thing is meant as an unflinching critique of how colonialism ruins everyone involved.
I guess we could also maybe ask Orwell what he was doing in Spain in the 1930s, but at the time, he would again have difficulty telling you.
Turns out that when you join an internationalist anti fascist militia to go personally shoot fascists yourself, well, sometimes they shoot back, and sometimes they hit you in the neck.
… thankfully, writing exists.
I find it absolutely incredible that George Orwell, a man who has likely personally shot more fascists than probably anyone you’ll find on the internet… somehow doesn’t clear the ideological purity test these days.
And that is because Orwell, while literally shooting at fascists in Spain, also found himself as the target of a pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin smear campaign, which tried to paint him and his outfit as Trotskyists and also as fascists.
Apparently, this smear campaign remains quite influential, to this day.
Orwell wrote openly about the things he did throughout his life, both in casual letters and widely read short stories
He certainly wrote a version of it.
Tautologous
Kind of? Many of them, if not most, are also victims of the same system that indoctrinated them. Like an awful, evil feedback loop of victimization.
Not to say that makes it okay ofc, but all people are fallible and all can be cast as fools under the right circumstances, which is just a very important thing to remember at times like these.
Yeah, I view them as catspaws. They are assisting someone working against their interests without understanding how they are being used. You can show sympathy for them while nonetheless opposing them.
And you’re right that everyone should have the humility to accept they also sabotage themselves sometimes. But electing who will lead the country is high stakes and some accountability is fair.
Most people simply are cowards and fools.
Victims, yes, but also still cowards and fools.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
—Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).
How is this a shitpost?
How is it not?
All according to plan so farmland can be bought up by large corporations and billionaires. They want to control and commodify every aspect of survival.
Try saying this yourself, without a famous pen name to append after it, and people call you absurd, extreme, unrealistic, violent.
… I call those people cowards.
May all cowards go extinct. It’s up to the brave to change the world
Sadly, it is the cowards who invent nightmares and conjure them into reality, and who also have little hesitation toward cruelty and violence when they lash out at those they project their inner demons onto.
Thus, all that is necesarry for the triumph of evil is for the good to do nothing.
History clearly shows that no rights simply exist; no status quo can simply be assumed, no priveleges or standards cannot be corroded… they must always be actively fought for, deliberated over, studied in detail.
Apathy, complancency, incuriousness… that is the first step toward regress, toward barbarism.
The better future is a concept that must continuously be actively struggled for… it is not a definable state of permanent victory, no, it is a constant fury against injustice that must be wielded with control and discipline… but never extinguished.
Sadly, it is the cowards who invent nightmares and conjure them into reality, and who also have little hesitation toward cruelty and violence when they lash out at those they project their inner demons onto.
You say that in response to a comment from a person considering themselves courageous and asking to the death of most people on the world…
You say that in response to a comment … asking to the death of most people on the world…
So firstly, that isn’t a sentence.
You cannot ‘asking to the death’ of anyone.
Assuming you meant to say ‘for’ instead of ‘to’…
Well then what you are saying is just factually wrong.
You’ve read ‘people who elect facsists to office are accomplices’ as ‘people who elect fascists to office should all be killed’.
Uh, nope, nobody said that, that’s a completely different concept, a whole different sentence.
Going extinct is not the same thing as a genocide or massacre or murder.
Neanderthals are extinct, trilobytes are extinct, velociraptors are extinct.
Extinction can happen as the result of direct, proximate, single cause, but it generally occurs simply because that kind of creature is weeded out of the biosphere by natural selection over time.
Hoping that cowards go extinct is no more radical or direct than saying that you hope for bravery and courage to prevail, unless you think that ‘coward’ is some kind of clearly distinct genotype of humans, which it obviously is not.
Cowardice, bravery, these are concepts applied to describe the actions of a thinking being, how they respond to their surroundings, their context… they are a spectrum of mindstates and subsequent actions that are inherent to the human condition.
The only way to eliminate cowardice is to educate people, equip them with the tools to think critically, trust nothing blindly, don’t fall for bullshit or a false sense of security, teach them that it requires courage to keep a safe and prosperous world as such.
Simplifying your understanding down to ‘kill all cowards’… is how an incurious coward would read this.
You are doing the thing, you are inventing nightmares to be afraid of.
You also misread the comment I replied to in that you think they are saying they themselves are courageous.
They did not say this, at all.
They said that it is the brave who change the world.
They did not attempt to define bravery or courage… I did.
I do not know that person or what they truly believe, but I will tell you that it does require bravery to stand up against the perceived slander of another person you do not even know, simply out of principle.
