Re: Random Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:45 pm
Certainly not. I consider suicide acceptable in no circumstances short of imminent torture and betrayal in a war (as mentioned by Travis).
Certainly not. I consider suicide acceptable in no circumstances short of imminent torture and betrayal in a war (as mentioned by Travis).
You get handpicked to be President of North Korea. Though, in such an event, wouldn't you want to use your power to improve things there?
I used to say "It is always morning somewhere."If the existing slate of catastrophes facing the world and by extension me does not suffice, then what would?
You mean they are embracing again. It ended before, and it will end again.Right now pretty much every country in the world has either embraced some form of reactionary authoritarian politics or will in their next election
Huh? That would be a massive opportunity to do good. How could any rational person prefer to commit suicide over taking that role?
that was kinda my point - its a massive opportunity......the downside was that Malloc got hand-selected, and to run North Korea of all places.bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:51 pmHuh? That would be a massive opportunity to do good. How could any rational person prefer to commit suicide over taking that role?
It only ended because the Axis powers picked a fight with multiple superpowers ideologically opposed to fascism in some way. Currently the only major power still committed to liberal democracy is the EU and they could hardly defeat the US, Russia, and so forth in hypothetical world war.
I wasn't referring to WW2, actually.
Marvel's claims of Earth 616 aside, not all evil nations are united with puppetmasters calling out the marching orders, jackboots or none.Currently the only major power still committed to liberal democracy is the EU and they could hardly defeat the US, Russia, and so forth in hypothetical world war.
Partly because the oligarchs of today have perfected the art of propaganda. All major media in the US is owned by billionaires aligned with Trump or at least unwilling to criticize him. Consider how Putin has convinced 80% of Russians to support him. Trump will achieve the same thing.
And why is open war the only way to do something? Kermit Roosevelt isn't the only person in modern history who managed to change a large nation without going to war.
I remember not too long ago, people were saying that Russian hackers were influencing the US election...now, Russia and the US are not the only nations with...how did some movies phrase it?...with hacking technology. (or am i thinking of Stellaris and Civilization?) either way.Partly because the oligarchs of today have perfected the art of propaganda. All major media in the US is owned by billionaires aligned with Trump or at least unwilling to criticize him. Consider how Putin has convinced 80% of Russians to support him. Trump will achieve the same thing.
Because there is simply nothing else that can defeat an authoritarian regime on this scale. Trump will have the entire military, every police department, and tens of millions of heavily armed followers fighting to keep him in power. A minority of dissidents cannot possibly defeat him.
The hell it is. You can't win an election or even wage an insurrection with only twenty percent.and that 20% leaves a lot of opposition...I doubt they're all Luddites.
I believe the expression I need here is "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?"malloc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 11:00 pmBecause there is simply nothing else that can defeat an authoritarian regime on this scale. Trump will have the entire military, every police department, and tens of millions of heavily armed followers fighting to keep him in power. A minority of dissidents cannot possibly defeat him.
Roosevelt argues otherwise.The hell it is. You can't win an election or even wage an insurrection with only twenty percent.and that 20% leaves a lot of opposition...I doubt they're all Luddites.
Aw man. Seriously, nothing. Nothing at all. Go get some help; there isn't that much we can do here over the internet, except telling you to get help.
And you're basing this on...?
Basic arithmetic. 80% is considerably larger than 20% so logically it should win a civil war unless the smaller side has some astonishing advantage. That is hardly the case for liberals who are not exactly known for their firepower or charisma. How do you defeat someone who outnumbers you hour to one and has all the guns and media?
You forget that having 20 percent doesn't necessarily mean you're up against 80 percent. There may be a lot of undecideds or neutrals as well.malloc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 3:00 pmBasic arithmetic. 80% is considerably larger than 20% so logically it should win a civil war unless the smaller side has some astonishing advantage. That is hardly the case for liberals who are not exactly known for their firepower or charisma. How do you defeat someone who outnumbers you hour to one and has all the guns and media?
Seriously, none. Any reason you might come up with is trumped (pun not intended) by one simple fact: the world is a better place with you in it.
fair enough, we're currently in a wave of things going to shit... but i mean, that's common in history too: sometimes things are improving, sometimes they're going to shit, in this sense and that. and at least by political standards the fash are, yeah, currently winning. they've been winning since the eighties. I don't thing the distinction between libertarian and fascist all that relevant. I don't think we'll fare better here than you'll do over there in the imperial core, if we're honest. my point isn't that reality isn't shit, it's that it's kind of always been shit? sure, the us might cease "being a democracy", but while it was it engaged in its fair share of human rights violations, in north america and then elsewhere. sure, the future looks pretty grim, but would you really trade it for, say, 1983? 1907? 1663? 1492? 814? it only makes sense to think of the past as better (and thus, that we're in a downwards spiral from the past to the future) if we think of "the past" generally. as long as you compare the present and probable future with a specific point in space in the past the illusion breaks. let's say 1559 mexico. would you trade it for what you expect 2159 will be like either in mexico or where you live?malloc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:42 pm Sure but it was hardly that long ago when the far right was taboo instead of winning pretty much every election where it has appeared on the ballot. Right now pretty much every country in the world has either embraced some form of reactionary authoritarian politics or will in their next election. There are no longer any redoubts of liberal democracy, let alone signs that we can advance beyond it. Your neighbors in Argentina have enthusiastically and overwhelmingly taken up the cause of far right libertarianism. How long do you think Chile will withstand the reactionary tide?
sure but geopolitics is not a battle over who imposes their political system on the rest of the world all the time. that's just the tale the gringos tell in order to justify their regime changes etcetera: the official policy of the chinese is to not care about what kind of governments other countries have, and that's been their policy throughout deep time: a world where china is the hegemon, whatever it ends up being (likely bad, amongst other things), will likely not be one in which china imposes sanctions on nigeria because they refuse to adopt the hegemon's political system. and even if they try to enact such a policy of political system evangelism, they're way too weak to get away with it for the foreseeable future. the us spends a looooooooooot of money maintaining the empire, which china won't be able to afford for at least a century: russia may be able to impose *its* political system on big chunks of europe... but then again, not further than warsaw, surely, not in the next 100. israel might carve out big chunks of the middle east, but it seems unlikely that it'll turn the entirety of it into a settlements: there aren't enough jews to give the land to (though they may broaden the criteria to europeans, americans and aussies, i wouldn't be surprised). iran might grow too, and it seems possible the EU might break apart in the next 100. in the same period there's probably going to be a big war, like WW2, and with similar or higher casualties both military and otherwise. nukes might even fall, and climate change will displace millions upon millions causing extensive famines and so on. yes, all of this seems likely.It only ended because the Axis powers picked a fight with multiple superpowers ideologically opposed to fascism in some way. Currently the only major power still committed to liberal democracy is the EU and they could hardly defeat the US, Russia, and so forth in hypothetical world war.
at least includes not the state of the world unless the state of the world was also a good reason to commit suicide in 1983, 1907, 1667 etcetera. i don't think it was, do you ?Out of curiosity, what would people here consider a legitimate reason for me to commit suicide? If the existing slate of catastrophes facing the world and by extension me does not suffice, then what would?
How did having control of the armed forces and all media outlets work out for Bashar Assad?malloc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 3:11 pmNot when the dictator has overwhelming propaganda and has managed to convince the vast majority of people to support him and hate whoever he hates. Putin for instance has consistently won 80% of the vote because all major media only reports favorably on him and his agenda. People honestly believe everything Putin does is good and necessary and will never turn against him.