EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2681
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On December 19 2015 06:59 corumjhaelen wrote: I completely disagree with your simplistic take of the Sicilian expedition. I think it would have been perfectly winnable or at least neutral, if not for Nikias, such a knowledgeable man who managed to make a serie of dumb decisions not being submitted to a vote. Also I'm pretty sure Athenian democracy did not end after the Sicilian expedition, but hey, I'm no history major. The really horrible mistake was the trial after the battle of Arginusae, but it's not like we can't find other examples of stupid war decision that have little to do with "mob rule". Ask yourself who was better informed, George W. Bush, or Themistocles. The Athenian Golden Age ended with the end of the Empire that funded the experiment and that in turn ended with their defeat in the Peloponnesian War which can be traced directly to the disaster in Sicily. Even if it were winnable there was no clear objective or purpose and the stakes could not have been higher, their very civilization rested on survival against Sparta and that, in turn, rested upon a realistic threat of Athenian naval support for a Helot revolt. They gambled with something they couldn't afford to lose in the hope of a prize they didn't need. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On December 19 2015 07:05 KwarK wrote: The Athenian Golden Age ended with the end of the Empire that funded the experiment and that in turn ended with their defeat in the Peloponnesian War which can be traced directly to the disaster in Sicily. Even if it were winnable there was no clear objective or purpose and the stakes could not have been higher, their very civilization rested on survival against Sparta and that, in turn, rested upon a realistic threat of Athenian naval support for a Helot revolt. They gambled with something they couldn't afford to lose in the hope of a prize they didn't need. Yeah, ten years to Aigos Potamos, in a war that lasted 27 years and started with an epidemy that likely killed a third of Athens population, but you found the single factor explaining everything, bravo. Also if you can't see what a fast sucess in Sicily would have meant for Athen, I'm sorry you're that blind. I don't think it's the best decision ever taken, but it's certainly not as dumb as you're trying to make it out to be. Now, Nikias deciding not to leave because of a moon eclipse, that's some real dumb shit but it has little to do with direct democracy. Finally, the fall of the Athenian empire certainly is because of its regime, while its greatness was in spite of it I guess... Also IVth century Athen certainly was not a local superpower, but it probably was the real golden age of the city for about everything else... | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
He basically said Trump is the friend in the billionaire club that everyone else makes fun of. He also said he doesn't think Trump believes any of the stuff he's saying and is just purely pandering for Republican votes. Also I don't think Kwark saw the same Idiocracy movie I did. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On December 19 2015 07:14 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, ten years to Aigos Potamos, in a war that lasted 27 years and started with an epidemy that likely killed a third of Athens population, but you found the single factor explaining everything, bravo. Also if you can't see what a fast sucess in Sicily would have meant for Athen, I'm sorry you're that blind. I don't think it's the best decision ever taken, but it's certainly not as dumb as you're trying to make it out to be. Now, Nikias deciding not to leave because of a moon eclipse, that's some real dumb shit but it has little to do with direct democracy. Finally, the fall of the Athenian empire certainly is because of its regime, while its greatness was in spite of it I guess... Also IVth century Athen certainly was not a local superpower, but it probably was the real golden age of the city for about everything else... Sparta made peace with Athens at a time of Athenian strength in the years after the plague. Athens squandered that strength in Sicily and Sparta, sensing an opportunity, resumed the war. It's not hugely complicated. Athens has powerful fleet, subdued empire fueling the fleet, naval power projection, the threat of supporting the Helots and an army and Sparta sues for peace. Athens throws those away in Sicily (the empire became less subdued when Athens can no longer crush them at whim) and suddenly Sparta is back at war with Athens. Classical Athens is a blunt lesson in the problem with direct democracy, that while you want to involve the people you certainly don't want to trust the people. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On December 19 2015 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Mark Cuban talked about Trump on Larry Wilmore and I think he was keepin it 100. He basically said Trump is the friend in the billionaire club that everyone else makes fun of. He also said he doesn't think Trump believes any of the stuff he's saying and is just purely pandering for Republican votes. Also I don't think Kwark saw the same Idiocracy movie I did. It's a comedy but it's based on the notion "you're so smart but look at all these idiots these days and look at how the poor are having children, maybe we should sterilize the poor, but not you, you're so smart". I have an instinctive distrust of anyone who says that society is becoming like Idiocracy, what they mean is that they think there is a large part of society, of which they are certain they are not a part, who need to be robbed of influence/reproductive rights/votes/whatever. Take it as a fictional comedy and it's fine. Try and make an ideological statement based upon it and you're only a short goosestep away from invading Poland. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Also fuck the French people for voting the invasion of Russia. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On December 19 2015 07:46 corumjhaelen wrote: I suggest a closer look at Thucydides to relativise Athenian strength after the peace of Nikias and the likeliness of it lasting. But history is always so simple with you, and you wont answer half my arguments, so what's the point... Also fuck the French people for voting the invasion of Russia. When did a French direct democracy invade Russia? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 19 2015 07:43 KwarK wrote: It's a comedy but it's based on the notion "you're so smart but look at all these idiots these days and look at how the poor are having children, maybe we should sterilize the poor, but not you, you're so smart". I have an instinctive distrust of anyone who says that society is becoming like Idiocracy, what they mean is that they think there is a large part of society, of which they are certain they are not a part, who need to be robbed of influence/reproductive rights/votes/whatever. Take it as a fictional comedy and it's fine. Try and make an ideological statement based upon it and you're only a short goosestep away from invading Poland. Okay, well I didn't mean it in any way like that. I'm more concerned with the trend that if we keep trending and appealing to the lowest common denominator that's where we'll end up. Anyways, we've pretty much broken natural selection. Once upon a time, a guy who was dumb enough to shoot himself in the face because he was cleaning a loaded gun would probably die and not pass on his stupidity. Now he'll probably survive and have dumb kids who will receive the combined idiocy of his nature and nurture. Well, I guess he might learn from his mistake so it's not the strongest example, but you get the idea. (on the other hand, medicine could have saved James A Garfield. He seemed like he could have been a pretty good president) | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On December 19 2015 07:49 KwarK wrote: When did a French direct democracy invade Russia? I'm pretty sure you know that tje implied parallel is that the Athenians took a decision that was "as bad" as Napoléon's. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On December 19 2015 08:00 corumjhaelen wrote: I'm pretty sure you know that tje implied parallel is that the Athenians took a decision that was "as bad" as Napoléon's. I never claimed that having a Sardinian dictator was a good system. I would argue that both direct democracy and Sardinian dictatorship are both systems that will lead to suboptimal results. My argument was that "the people" have never been good at making good strategic decisions and that representative democracy in which people try and pick people who, if not already experts, can dedicate themselves to becoming experts is a better system. It doesn't always work but it's the best we have going on for now. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Your dismissal of direct democracy seems to have little to do with a careful lesson drawn from history, but more with a a priori understandable but arguable conviction that you justify with a single example, refusing to acknowledge what happened before, after and the context. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On December 19 2015 08:18 corumjhaelen wrote: Experts fuck up, see Napoleon, that's the argument. Also Athenians elected their strategos. Representative democracy have also taken horrible decisions. Direct democracy can and have been amended as much to avoid as much as possible their danger, just like representative ones. Your dismissal of direct democracy seems to have little to do with a careful lesson drawn from history, but more with a a priori understandable but arguable conviction that you justify with a single example, refusing to acknowledge what happened before, after and the context. I reject your premise. I'd question whether Napoleon was an expert in Russian weather, geography and the logistical planning of an invasion of Russia. I doubt any military in the world would appoint Napoleon to single handedly manage a non mechanized ground invasion of Russia if they could somehow bring him to the present day. That's part of the problem with a dictatorship. People overestimate their own competence to make decisions. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
(reuters) | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
I admit defeat, you've clearly showed that representative democracy is the currently known system who minimizes strategic mistakes in warfare and is therefore the best system we know. Skipping most of the conteny of my posts made it even more convincing. Edit : for a funnier more personnal example, let's all remeber the best product of the Third Republic, Gamelin and Nivelle. I'd rather have Napoléon for invading Russia than those two to fight in France | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On December 19 2015 08:33 Toadesstern wrote: Sanders takes Democratic officials to court over campaign data breach (reuters) It would be so nuts to see Sanders beat down the DNC. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
| ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a direct democracy of this large scale is no good, and people generally are dumb or ill informed. they are also not morally superoir in any way. would heavily depend on the political culture/ideology. it's just looking like some sort of ideologically guided, romantic attachment to 'revolution' and all that. politicians are of cours enot alone in this function of information filtering and there are abuses abound, but there is no irresolvable contradiction between democracy and having elected officials with power. but generally abusive democracies are those with dysfunctional politicians and or regimes, i.e. demagogues and authoritarian states relying on internal propaganda. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
If a drug company makes an ad that includes too many positive images, they have to remake the ad entirely and state everything wrong with the first ad in it. If a politician says something demonstrably false...they go on with their day. And no, this is not infringing on the right to free speech. You do not have the right to lie to the American public. I would argue you actually have the responsibility to keep them informed. Unless you're the CIA or NSA I guess. | ||
| ||
