this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
871 points (98.4% liked)
interestingasfuck
6106 readers
1 users here now
interestingasfuck
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a pretty reasonable societal model (that scales beyond 10 people living in a cave) that has so far prevented sociopatic behavior.
We have laws and we have democracy to establish them. Whatever happens in your dumbfukistant, in western Europe it's unimaginable to be able to use violence and physical power to claim territory or food. Even a drunken fight in a bar will get you in a lot of legal trouble. E.g. being a stronger ape gets you exactly nowhere in life if you use want your power to dominate. You could use it to create, and you'd be rewarded.
Very similarly the economic system could be trivially adjusted to conform the societal values and violations would be prosecuted. All this requires is a democratic choice.
The societies so far democratically have no chosen to abolish capitalism. Although a lot of western-european democracies have severely limited the potential for abuse from this system.
We don't need to develop mechanisms, we don't need violent protests, we don't need vigilantes. We simply need for people to choose differently. And if they don't, it's their choice.
Ah, yes, you in your default country definitely need a better democratic system, although Trump did win the popular vote, so I wouldn't hope for that much change tbh.
How well is "western" Europe doing at curbing the global corporations ability to turn the earth into wasteland?
The majority of people in an average western European country want to drive their car and fly to their vacation destination. They also might heat their homes with gas.
Destruction of climate is not anti-democratic. There are green parties in every parliament and they get 15-30% of votes. E.g. only that many voters consider the issue of climate change to be pressing. The others believe things are fine, or that moderate measures are enough.
You keep preaching "evil corpos oppress us poor". But this is simply not true. The majority of the population is pretty content with the status quo, and if they weren't they could change it any election cycle.
You are making my point for me. They couldn't do anything about the current system of they wanted to within the system. Consent has been manufactured, packaged, shipped, and bought.
They perfectly can. It requires them to make a collective choices that will require individual sacrifices in order to achieve collective gains (assuming people actually see it that way).
And that's clearly not in anyone's interest. And you're one to tell them what's wrong or right.
There's no system. There are free individuals living their lifes as they see fit. But you somehow keep imagining an evil monster that suppresses everyone's free will, while you, the hero, are unaffected.
If you actually believe there is no systemic oppression, and personal choice can change the world, I have no idea what to say except
Haha, read any historical account of western civilization. The west has always been great about backstabbing its non-west allies, or even each other.
People are people, don’t fall for some us vs. them bullshit, you’re just being a tool for someone else. It’s also pretty funny to me that half the countries some Americans look down on have had more women presidents or prime ministers, lol.
And you can’t seriously say democracy is working as intended when we don’t have campaign finance reforms, and have citizens united in the U.S.? You’re literally living in a world where a billionaire bought a country’s presidential election outcome! What a joke.
Sociopathic behaviour is not prevented, it is rewarded. Stepping on other people to claim more wealth is encouraged. A decent person has no money, in general, and most people are decent. Nobody chose this. Nobody voted for this, and there's no vote which will put an end to it. We are, like it or not, in a situation where we cannot change the system to benefit us (us=the working/middle classes) by peaceful means. The ruling classes are extending their monopoly with every move, and will never willingly give power back. I'm terrified by the prospect, but looking at similar situations in history, I think violence is inevitable.
What are you on about? You can easily vote for far left in pretty much any of the functioning democracies in Europe. And if a radical left party were to win, they could easily implement a profit cap.
You're talking about some "ruling class" as if we're in a society where such bounds exist by birth right of some sort. Anyone can become a politician and be elected to be the main voice of the country's legislative and executive branches. You don't need violence to radically change everything, you need a majority's approval. And, I'm telling you, your ideas are already out there and they're not selling. They're not selling even peacefully, but you somehow dream that someone will die for them?
Here's my experience as a citizen of the United Kingdom.
A vote for a party which will benefit the majority of people (which you are calling the "far/radical left") is ignored because of our first past the post political system and because of the mass media, which is rabidly pro-establishment. A lower rate of further education exacerbates this effect. They form an impenetrable system which disallows anything but the tiniest of incremental changes, while the climate and the wealth gap worsen exponentially and relentlessly.
There is a ruling class, and it does largely depend on birthright. None of these billionaires are self made, look closely enough and you will find seed money in their mercurial rise, usually from a family member. You have your eyes shut if you think we're not ruled by the wealthy. It's a fact. If you want to argue this point with me you can, but you will lose.
In my country, it's difficult to become a politician, you usually have to get a specific degree from one of three specific universities, which are much easier to get into if you are -you guessed it- rich.
Which ideas of mine are you talking about exactly? Without some specifics on what you think they are, your last two sentences just don't land.
We can stop the discussion right here. You clearly know better than the voters themselves what's best for them. In my opinion, it would be the most efficient solution for us to nominate you to be a dictator for life, as you will achieve a better outcome for everyone than them thinking for themselves.
The rest of your argument continues with insults towards the voters disagreeing with your political views "uneducated, influenced by media, etc". You, obviously, do see yourself as a superior being and thinker.
I don't think debating democratic choices with you makes any sense. You're anti-democratic.
You are caricaturing my arguments. It's interesting, because you must understand them to a sufficient level to do this whilst not understanding then to a sufficient level to actually consider them. That's quite a mental effort. Either that or you are for some reason understanding them properly, yet choosing to misrepresent them for some reason.