|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 07 2018 03:17 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 01:07 Silvanel wrote:
On the other hand ordinary people have nothing to say about the workings of the country. I think this is precisely why China has a great future ahead in this century. There's simply no reason for regular people to have any say in the matters of running a modern country. You can see democracy failing all over the developed world, people are simply too stupid to decide (correctly) as a collective on large-scale matters of any complexity. The next US election might be Oprah vs. Trump ... that's as about as profound a "death" of democracy as anything you can imagine. What's next, Kanye vs. Taylor Swift?
I agree, but that is largely because those in power do everything they can to obfuscate what they're doing and why they're doing it, making meaningful participation a near-impossibility.
On April 07 2018 00:42 mozoku wrote:
This just further supports my previous post: democracy, for whatever reason, has gone into a vicious cycle where policy merits no longer matter. It's a popularity contest at this point. Trump and the policy are, from a rational perspective, to separate entities--yet the discussion always comes to Trump-bashing. It's not just the US either. Europeans are hesitant to get behind America, even when world interests align, because of the stench of the 2003 Iraq War and the election of Trump--neither of which have anything to do with China and its trade practices. General populace voters are tragically incapable of separating the policy from the person/country.
Remember when the US opened up to China in 1979, and worked to allow their entry into the WTO? The reasoning was that trade would liberalize the country and its government.
Today, they've made zero progress in that area, have massively increased censorship, are massively ramping military spending, and just appointed their ruler dictator-for-life. And now we can't even muster the will to respond to blatantly hostile predatory trade tactics because the prices of our cheap goods will rise in the short-term. Nevermind human rights in China (apparently we forgot about that when the cheap goods came), or the enormous threat to human rights that the CCP poses worldwide.
There's no way to portray this as the behavior of a rational, functioning system.
They should be two different things but they aren't.
Trump literally threatened to pull support out of Puerto Rico because a Puerto Rican mayor said mean things about the administration. You cannot make rational assumptions about policy when dealing with an irrational actor.
The problem you're talking about - Europeans being unwilling to get behind America - isn't personality-driven, it's because the US is now an unreliable ally that regularly talks shit about us in public. Trump has said he might not live up to NATO obligations or protect us if we need it unless we pay what amounts to a ransom. There's that old phrase 'choose the devil you know over the one you don't'; but we don't know the current US. You're sending ambassadors who tell bald-faced lies to our press and try to tell them he didn't say things he did, you have a President retweeting and tacitly supporting the absolute scummiest of our farthest right arseholes, who backs the guy in Italy who is basically a fascist, and so on and so forth.
Why would any sane european leader be on Trump's side? He's petty, childish, volatile, and he constantly tries to bully and demean us. This ENTIRE trade war is about him trying to bully the EU and China instead of doing the hard work of coming up with an actual functioning economic policy.
|
I certainly don't think a system where the masses who basically preoccupy themselves with the Kardashians, Bobby Shmurda and football to what seems like pseudo-religious extremes, and are also thoroughly brainwashed by mercantilism, belief bubbles and corporate marketing (might as well call it Pavlovian conditioning) are able to collectively decide about anything substantial on the level of running society - or who is best fit for the job - to be the theoretical optimum.
In my country every elected government is demonstrably worse than the last, we have referenda on matters even people with master's degrees don't understand on which we spend millions of € to then make blatantly wrong decisions, and our current president is mostly working on his Instagram game for the past year.
Either we need a direct democracy based on an universal income, which is in turn rooted (conditioned) in active, thoughtful participation in public matters via some kind of uber-facebook, or we need to decide who is smart enough to vote. Right now, I'm definitely anti-democracy.
|
i mean, i agree that a benevolent enlightened dictatorship is probably the 'best' form of government, but there's never a guarantee that said dictatorship will be benevolent or enlightened.
|
On April 07 2018 03:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
i mean, i agree that a benevolent enlightened dictatorship is probably the 'best' form of government, but there's never a guarantee that said dictatorship will be benevolent or enlightened.
Give the AI a few decades maybe?
|
On April 07 2018 04:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 03:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
i mean, i agree that a benevolent enlightened dictatorship is probably the 'best' form of government, but there's never a guarantee that said dictatorship will be benevolent or enlightened. Give the AI a few decades maybe?
Let's be honest here, whose gonna pay for the AI? In all likelihood it's just gonna help the Mercer's or some nonsense playing the role Republican Congressmen are right now. Only "better". Also on what authority will such a thing act?
Dictatorship also really isn't the solution to the problems of democracy, a "benevolent dictator" just isn't going to be holding favor with the powers they'd need to (while maintaining benevolence). It's a pipe-dream. The only stable solution is to actually have, somehow, reasonable and informed people voting and being politically involved. Not that that is always achievable, but I don't think getting rid of democracy is going to bring you closer to a citizen-serving, effective government.
|
On April 07 2018 04:12 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 04:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 07 2018 03:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
i mean, i agree that a benevolent enlightened dictatorship is probably the 'best' form of government, but there's never a guarantee that said dictatorship will be benevolent or enlightened. Give the AI a few decades maybe? Let's be honest here, whose gonna pay for the AI? In all likelihood it's just gonna help the Mercer's or some nonsense playing the role Republican Congressmen are right now. Only "better". Also on what authority will such a thing act? Dictatorship also really isn't the solution to the problems of democracy, a "benevolent dictator" just isn't going to be holding favor with the powers they'd need to (while maintaining benevolence). It's a pipe-dream. The only stable solution is to actually have, somehow, reasonable and informed people voting and being politically involved. Not that that is always achievable, but I don't think getting rid of democracy is going to bring you closer to a citizen-serving, effective government.
I mean, I'm pro-democracy, so I'm not really the one to argue the point with you. But if someone likes the output of dictatorships but dislikes the inconsistency, AI overlords seems like a best case scenario
|
On April 07 2018 04:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 04:12 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On April 07 2018 04:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 07 2018 03:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
i mean, i agree that a benevolent enlightened dictatorship is probably the 'best' form of government, but there's never a guarantee that said dictatorship will be benevolent or enlightened. Give the AI a few decades maybe? Let's be honest here, whose gonna pay for the AI? In all likelihood it's just gonna help the Mercer's or some nonsense playing the role Republican Congressmen are right now. Only "better". Also on what authority will such a thing act? Dictatorship also really isn't the solution to the problems of democracy, a "benevolent dictator" just isn't going to be holding favor with the powers they'd need to (while maintaining benevolence). It's a pipe-dream. The only stable solution is to actually have, somehow, reasonable and informed people voting and being politically involved. Not that that is always achievable, but I don't think getting rid of democracy is going to bring you closer to a citizen-serving, effective government. I mean, I'm pro-democracy, so I'm not really the one to argue the point with you. But if someone likes the output of dictatorships but dislikes the inconsistency, AI overlords seems like a best case scenario
You still have to provide a metric on what is defined as an optimum policy for the machine learning algorithms. What is a beneficial policy? Who gets to decide that definition?
|
On April 07 2018 03:41 Kickboxer wrote:
I certainly don't think a system where the masses who basically preoccupy themselves with the Kardashians, Bobby Shmurda and football to what seems like pseudo-religious extremes, and are also thoroughly brainwashed by mercantilism, belief bubbles and corporate marketing (might as well call it Pavlovian conditioning) are able to collectively decide about anything substantial on the level of running society - or who is best fit for the job - to be the theoretical optimum.
In my country every elected government is demonstrably worse than the last, we have referenda on matters even people with master's degrees don't understand on which we spend millions of € to then make blatantly wrong decisions, and our current president is mostly working on his Instagram game for the past year.
Either we need a direct democracy based on an universal income, which is in turn rooted (conditioned) in active, thoughtful participation in public matters via some kind of uber-facebook, or we need to decide who is smart enough to vote. Right now, I'm definitely anti-democracy.
This sounds some grand insight, but was this was the core argument against democracy to begin with and the greatest fear of our Founding Fathers. And what they feared about each other as well, that each would turn to being a demagogue for power. It is why they designed our system of government to have checks and balances. The system assumes that citizens will make bad decisions and vote for demagogues from time to time. And why we have a representative government, not direct democracy. The existence of modern celebrities does not undercut the merits of democracy. Nor does China’s creep towards authoritarianism assure its success long term. Authoritarians don’t make governments that last for generations. Often they end in the dictator’s lifetime.
|
On April 07 2018 03:41 Kickboxer wrote:
I certainly don't think a system where the masses who basically preoccupy themselves with the Kardashians, Bobby Shmurda and football to what seems like pseudo-religious extremes, and are also thoroughly brainwashed by mercantilism, belief bubbles and corporate marketing (might as well call it Pavlovian conditioning) are able to collectively decide about anything substantial on the level of running society - or who is best fit for the job - to be the theoretical optimum.
In my country every elected government is demonstrably worse than the last, we have referenda on matters even people with master's degrees don't understand on which we spend millions of € to then make blatantly wrong decisions, and our current president is mostly working on his Instagram game for the past year.
Either we need a direct democracy based on an universal income, which is in turn rooted (conditioned) in active, thoughtful participation in public matters via some kind of uber-facebook, or we need to decide who is smart enough to vote. Right now, I'm definitely anti-democracy.
people were never able able to make smart decisions; not in the past anymore than they are now.
just wanted to mention that; it's simply more apparent at some times than at other times.
if you want some academic backing to help justify your view to people, you could check the book in my sig (get it from a library or something), it has lots of well-sourced facts to backup the existence of problems. (though it doesn't conclude whether or not democracy is good on the whole, it just catalogs the problems extensively) it is a very dense read though.
edit: side question I just thought of kickboxer:
do you think you're one of the people smart enough to vote?
and @iamthedave
I disagree with your statement "but that is largely because those in power do everything they can to obfuscate what they're doing and why they're doing it, making meaningful participation a near-impossibility."
I think there's a lot more basic structural factors involved. note that i'm disagreeing with your use of the word "largely", i would classify your cited reason as only one small part of a much larger set of factors.
|
Ok democracy sucks because corruption and dumb voters. Anyone else got better ideas?
|
On April 07 2018 06:08 riotjune wrote:
Ok democracy sucks because corruption and dumb voters. Anyone else got better ideas?
Technocracy?
|
On April 07 2018 06:08 riotjune wrote:
Ok democracy sucks because corruption and dumb voters. Anyone else got better ideas?
if you want an actual answer:
increase research funding on government design; both to find ways to fix the problems in democracy, and to develop new forms of government.
|
In my opinion, this problem of people not being qualified to make good decisions in elections is a symptom of a fundamental problem of capitalism, especially the form that has become dominant these days. Actions that increase profitability rarely overlap with being good for the general public or good for long term stability. A massive oversimplification of one way this manifests is that it's much easier to sell things to people who don't need them when those people have less critical thinking skills and apply them less frequently.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 07 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2018 03:41 Kickboxer wrote:
I certainly don't think a system where the masses who basically preoccupy themselves with the Kardashians, Bobby Shmurda and football to what seems like pseudo-religious extremes, and are also thoroughly brainwashed by mercantilism, belief bubbles and corporate marketing (might as well call it Pavlovian conditioning) are able to collectively decide about anything substantial on the level of running society - or who is best fit for the job - to be the theoretical optimum.
In my country every elected government is demonstrably worse than the last, we have referenda on matters even people with master's degrees don't understand on which we spend millions of € to then make blatantly wrong decisions, and our current president is mostly working on his Instagram game for the past year.
Either we need a direct democracy based on an universal income, which is in turn rooted (conditioned) in active, thoughtful participation in public matters via some kind of uber-facebook, or we need to decide who is smart enough to vote. Right now, I'm definitely anti-democracy. This sounds some grand insight, but was this was the core argument against democracy to begin with and the greatest fear of our Founding Fathers. And what they feared about each other as well, that each would turn to being a demagogue for power. It is why they designed our system of government to have checks and balances. The system assumes that citizens will make bad decisions and vote for demagogues from time to time. And why we have a representative government, not direct democracy. The existence of modern celebrities does not undercut the merits of democracy. Nor does China’s creep towards authoritarianism assure its success long term. Authoritarians don’t make governments that last for generations. Often they end in the dictator’s lifetime. I remember reading something a while back about how the entire reason we have an electoral college was to keep people like Trump from becoming president. I can't recall the source or attest to the accuracy of that statement, though.
|
On April 07 2018 06:08 riotjune wrote:
Ok democracy sucks because corruption and dumb voters. Anyone else got better ideas?
Both of those sound like problems we can work around.
And people forget that democracy handles the one part that other governments systems do not address: the peaceful transfer of power. We take removing Nixon from office for granted, but that moment reaffirmed the durability of the US government over corruption and abuse.
|
I don't know why China state control is being put in place as some sort of superior system to democracy. Right now China has both the problems of capitalism gone mad and state corruption masquerading as state control. However terrible you may think Trump is, how corrupt and unrestrained he is, he has nowhere the level of corruption and power and the accumulated wealth of China's princelings. However you may deplore the focus on social media for today's politicians, it cannot be as self serving as the government ministers who enrich themselves at every opportunity, grabbing the land of those with the least for "development", where the provinical police are basically a disguised mafia gang. However terribly educated and "dumb" voters are, the state apparatus doesn't consistently deploy propaganda on One United China and whipping nationalism and hatred towards Japan, though to be fair Trump tries his best.
And lets be serious, for all the failings of democracy, we are all happy to write about the things we don't like about our politicians, without being sent off to a "corrections" facility.
If you admire the China "uplifting from poverty" story look towards Taiwan and South Korea. They have their fair share of problems, but they are fully democratic,and grew the most during their democratic and free media years..
|
The everlasting appeal of a strong leader fixing the problems through the “action” of serving the people directly. All of these problems threaten the people of the nation and its very existence, and only the strong leader can solve them.It is the core of demagoguery. Because there is great allure to being saved.
|
Edit: probably inappropriate
|
|
|
man those were good jokes but discretion is the better part of valor or something.
|
As part of its "media monitoring," the DHS seeks to track more than 290,000 global news sources as well as social media in over 100 languages, including Arabic, Chinese and Russian, for instant translation into English. The successful contracting company will have "24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc." in order to "identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event."
"Any and all media coverage," as you might imagine, is quite broad and includes "online, print, broadcast, cable, radio, trade and industry publications, local sources, national/international outlets, traditional news sources, and social media."
The database will be browseable by "location, beat and type of influencer," and for each influencer, the chosen contractor should "present contact details and any other information that could be relevant, including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the media influencer."
One aspect of the media coverage to be gathered is its "sentiment." Speaking of visas — and showing that social media activity is squarely on the radar of this Administration — earlier this week, the State Department placed two notices in the Federal Register seeking comments on its proposal to require that all visa applicants to the U.S. turn over their social media information for the previous five years.
Regarding the DHS media database, we are entering potentially dangerous territory with the government keeping track of the "sentiment" of citizens and foreign nationals. If not legal challenges from organizations that defend press freedom and freedom of speech interests, the government should expect, at the very least, backlash from the public.
And that means you. If you think the idea of the U.S. government's compiling and monitoring a list of media professionals and "top media influencers" is a potential threat to democracy, now would be the perfect time to call your local and congressional representatives to let them know how much you value a free press and the freedom of speech, just in case they've forgotten. www.forbes.com
We now have the executive branch, run by a president with a personal and extremely public hatred of a number of media outlets, wanting to collect information on media figures that would certainly allow them identify the specific political leanings of individuals.
Does this look like a significant milestone on a slide into authoritarianism to anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
