Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Exeter350

Search: Search took 0.01 seconds.

  1. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    That's why talking with people who aren't in your echo chamber is good, yep. Like Exeter who made me define more clearly in my mind the importance of democratic tradition earlier, and have a sneak peak in why in the world would people not want democracy for non-religious reasons lol (and I must say it does make some sense, even though I definetly don't want it).
    Good post btw.
    Yeah, it was a good discussion.

    I’ve always been a firm believer in authoritarianism, that a strong competent hand is needed to guide the herd, e.g. heavy penalties for breaking the COVID lockdown, mandatory mask & contact tracing procedures, etc, which not everybody likes to do, but have to comply regardless of what they think or feel.

    But you made me realise in the wrong hands, it could be disaster. E.g. Mandatory bleach injections en-masse to cure COVID.
  2. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    You're right. I never said we lived in a perfect world with perfect democracies though lol. We just should strive to cultivate the best world possible, and that indeed comes back to my point about the failsafe.

    "Never having been allowed into office at all in the first place [when you're a crappy leader]" in this sense is an authoritarian utopia (and it being an utopia is the reason why authoritarianism is bad). If all authoritarian leaders were skilled and good-willed, authoritarianism would be amazing and superior to democracy (even a democracy with skilled and good-willed leaders). However, since most leaders are mediocre and since their goodwill is... debatable (especially when they want all the power for themselves), democracy is needed.
    I hear you. It’s important to compare “ideal vs reality”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Some examples of people who got into office in authoritarian regimes in different contexts: Hitler (elected and then basically self-proclaimed dictator), Stalin (not elected, under an authoritarian regime with great "political conformity", a bit like what you're advocating for), and, to take less universally hated people, Franco and Pinochet (through a coup d'état). As far as I know, none of these were amazing.

    And if you're going to say I picked highly authoritarian people instead of "soft" ones, well, you're right, but there is no such thing as a stable soft authoritarian regime. If someone has enough power to "imprison dissidents", as you say, he can and very likely will take over completely and establish a regime similar to the one Franco established government-wise.
    I have to disagree here. Those are extreme examples, and not all authoritarian governments devolve into such.

    However, I will say that it is less likely to occur with a full democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    The fact of the matter is that Exeters countrys had the same government since the 60s and government corruption is very low. Do I expect this to last? No, but I can see why Exeter is heavily advocating for it.
    I believe that without such authority, we would not have been able to come as far as we did.

    However, I understand MM’s point. And as you said, you don’t expect the current status quo to last.

    What happens when an incompetent / corrupt administration takes over and starts misusing / abusing their power?

    It’s interesting food for thought I guess.

    Well, there’s pros and cons to every governance style. Given my country’s past and current performance, I think it’s fine to maintain the status quo for now. They have accomplished a lot with the advantages of an authoritarian, and have not validated many of the risks.

    Whether or not this will continue to be the case remains to be seen.
  3. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    No Trump doesn't. No president can without good reason.
    You’re right. I meant to say “he should”, based on my earlier arguments for authoritarianism. Not because of him as a person, but because of the position.
  4. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    If people are only voicing their discontent peacefully, you have to defeat them by reason and not by prison... else, there is no democracy, and the lack of democracy leads to forms of power abuse I shouldn't have to talk about given how much history has given examples of this.
    As I answered to doug, ideally arguments will be backed by “reason”, but in actuality, that may not be the case, as is happening in the US now.

    However, I understand your point about lack of democracy and power abuse. I suppose this goes back to your earlier point about needing a failsafe to authority to safeguard power of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Plus, that's a lot of discontent people. Doing what you suggest would probably result in an actual civil war that would probably involve something like a third of the whole country on the Trumpist side (if half the country voted for Trump, I daresay there are some among those who are sane enough not to want Secession War 2.0). It's not like you can throw them all in jail and expect no resistance when they feel like they have to defend their liberties; doing this would just give them a halo of righteousness and morality.
    It would never have been allowed to get to that stage in the first place.

    The moment people started to make baseless accusations and inflammatory rhetoric, they would’ve been barred from running.

    i.e. Trump would’ve been ousted at the early stages in 2016 and the problem would never have become this big.

    As it is currently, the situation will need to managed delicately - Exactly how I cannot say. However to prevent such problems from arising in future, they should implement more stringent preventive measures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    There's also a big thing you're missing... Trump himself isn't cooling things down at all. Should he be arrested too?
    Unfortunately, no. He’s the authority, voted in by the public. He has should have the authority to imprison dissidents, not the other way around.

    However, as explained above, such a person would never have been allowed into office at all in the first place. He does not have what it takes to wield such authority.
  5. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Things have to be put in context first. Stop The Steal was deleted for inciting violence (literally having a #civilwar...). The movement crossed the line I talked about earlier: the line beyond which free speech does not protect you anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/t...ook-group.html

    However, straight up shutting the movement down for contesting the official version of things would result in a "Streisand effect" strenghtened by the righteousness provided by the stifling of free speech the movement would be a victim of, as wrong as they may be. Therefore, Facebook was right to shut the page down, but it wouldn't have been if they hadn't incited violence.
    You’re right, Stop the Steal crossed the boundaries like you described earlier.

    In the case of violence, I think it’s pretty clear cut that it should be shut down.

    However, even before that stage, there are other negative outcomes that could be prevented.
    For instance, civil unrest, peaceful protests, strikes, social disharmony / divisiveness, etc.

    Isn’t it better to nip the problem in the bud, rather than wait for it to escalate to riots before saying “Ok, it’s time to stop”?
    Those other problems, while not as extreme as violence, can still have significant, far-reaching and subtle consequences on the country.

    And while I admire your willingness to let those Stop the Steal people propagate their ideas and protest as long as it isn’t violent, I wouldn’t do the same.

    If I analyse their arguments and conclude that their cause is misguided, based on misinformation / disinformation, I would not allow them to disrupt the peace. Whether violent or peaceful, their actions will impact others in society.

    There may be a chance that my conclusion is wrong, but letting the problem drag on forever is not the solution either. There has to be a cut-off time to make a decision. The protesters will not like it, because they think they’re right, but they have to accept the judgment of the authorities. Failing that, they have to be isolated where they cannot stir further unrest, i.e. imprisonment.

    All to avoid the consequences of civil unrest. Not just the violence, but the effects of discontent and disharmony.
  6. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Ahh, so that's the fundamental point we differ on: the inherent trust in our government. I believe in some sort of "power corrupts" reality, for the simple reason that if people can do something that benefits them without getting in trouble for it, they will most likely go for it. Hence why democratic tradition is extremely important.

    For example, in the UK, since there is no unified written Constitution, the Parliament could (in theory) revoke laws that guarantee British citizens' freedom. Their extremely long-standing democratic tradition (under an extremely large meaning, it stems from as far as the Magna Carta (1215), putting limits encoded in laws to the absolute royal power) protects them from such a thing: it would never be accepted by the people, and the power in place would be overthrown. That is the power of democratic tradition: protecting from power abuse by the "power of the people", which would revolt if its rights were to be taken away; this, in turn, makes governments stop considering blatant authoritarianism as something even possible when the country's democratic tradition is strong.
    I see. Yes, I understand your concern.

    I don’t think we have any such failsafes in place here, in case things ever do hit the fan.

    It’s good food for thought.
  7. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    But it's on the internet which anyone from any country can just waltz in to.

    Would it be based on the jurisdiction where the server is hosted and "foreigners" only need to worry about the laws where the server is hosted?
    Would it be based on the jurisdiction of the individuals, where people mingling amongst each other have different rules they are all abiding by?

    Globalization is the only answer. We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.
    In my country, it’s only enforced against our citizens. On the giant social media platforms, e.g. Facebook & Twitter, accounts are usually tied to real world identity, so it’s possible to enforce.

    During this election, there was a large Facebook group (>300k members) called “Stop the Steal” in which US citizens were organising protests against election fraud. However, this was shut down by Facebook, prompting backlash from the group admins about how it’s unwarranted and against free speech.

    Since many here know that some of the election fraud accusations have been debunked as either false alarms, minor data entry mistakes or straight-up lies,
    What do you think of these troublemakers who refuse to listen to “facts and logic” and still want to organise protests? What if it escalated into riots and civil war?

    Isn’t it better to just shut them down early to prevent the situation from escalating?
    Having heard their arguments and looked into it, and answering their concerns, there should be no further need to discuss this further.

    Or are the Stop the Steal admins right, that shutting them down was wrong, and that they should’ve been allowed to protest?
  8. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    If your idea has more merit than theirs, then it will win out if it is sufficiently backed up by facts and logic.
    That’s the idea, yes.

    But it doesn’t work well in reality because of the sheer number of voices.

    I cannot imagine a competent, functional government has the time and resources to spend on answering every accusation and challenge. Not to mention the ideal assumes that the public are capable of rational political discourse and proper research.

    It is necessary for a government to be accountable to its people, but realistically, they will not be able to answer every single complaint. Attempting to do so will only cripple them and prevent them from focusing on more important issues.

    Therefore, they should only address issues that actually have merit.

    This is achieved via a formal systemic process that filters out the white noise.

    The remaining voices need to be shut down to prevent inflammation. They have already been deemed as invalid, therefore there is no need to pay them further attention.

    Letting these invalid voices continue to speak just risks letting them build momentum. Which does not validate their cause - Populism is not necessarily backed by “facts and logic”.

    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    The answer to free speech you don't like is never censorship. The answer is more free speech.
    This will only lead to more white noise.

    If I only have 24 hours to address public concerns, I would rather address a well-researched issue that is professionally delivered by somebody of credible background, not some crazy nutjob living on the streets who believes in conspiracy theories but have nothing to back his words up.

    You would imagine that the nutjob wouldn’t gain much traction from the public, since only ideas “sufficiently backed up by facts and logic” will win out, yet the US is a living example of how that’s not how it really works in reality.
  9. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Inciting violence is a crime, and I've seen some things that were really borderline, yeah. Like an article concluding that Americans were legitimate in "resorting to blows in time"...
    However, what you're suggesting here seems to be much wider than just jailing for some time those who incite violence; it rather extends to people disagreeing with the "official talk", and that is a very dangerous thing.
    I was thinking of the false election fraud accusations actually, some of them being straight-up lies.
    These people should not be allowed to go free.

    However, I understand the point about “going against the official talk”.
    We recently implemented a controversial Fake News Act which gives the authorities the power to remove online content that is deemed as fake news.
    Ideally it would be used to only remove content that’s misinformed, misleading or manipulative.
    However this power can easily be abused to declare anything as “fake news”.

    There is definitely a concern.
    However I trust in my government.
    As with all ideals, it’s important to also track the actual “performance” of the ideal.
    There are many criticisms / concerns about how things are run here, yet the outcome is overall positive (arguably, but to me it is).

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    I actually quite agree with this for those who are in government/higher positions.

    While I cannot agree that free speech should be removed in the majority of cases, I do believe it can be or is a dangerous freedom to give to people who's statements are supposed to be more trustworthy than the general public's.
    That is a good enough start.

    Businesses, politicians, celebrities, etc have powerful influence over how the public thinks and feels.

    Their words should be kept in check. Not by the public (which would end up with a populist culture where dumb ideas can be propagated as long as they are popular), but by the government.

    News companies that publishes sensationalised, misleading or unrest-inciting news? Slap them with hefty fines or completely shut them down.

    Celebrities who take a stance on politics in an attempt to sway the lazy masses? Chuck them into jail, penalise them with heavy fines, and ban them from their profession for life.

    The public has the responsibility to think for themselves, not be fed thoughts from news outlets and celebrities.

    Of course, the outcome is very much dependent on how capable & morally upright the government is.
    In the hands of an incompetent or corrupt government, this authority can be easily misused or abused.

    Again, ideals can sound great in theory, but it’s also important to evaluate their actual execution & performance.
    Any governance style can have its pros and cons.
    The question is whether the pros have been realised and the cons have been validated.
    Otherwise we could well be promoting the benefits of a system that doesn’t work, and refusing to adopt a system out of paranoia.
  10. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    You can cut through that if you look at the legal arguments submitted. People can run their mouth and say whatever to the public but when they submit things to law they can not lie and have to provide evidence. Simply put- The things that are being said about fraud happening to the public are not being said at all to judges in courts because there would be legal repercussions.

    This lawyer gives a decent breakdown of the majority of cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E
    Those people running their mouths ought to be thrown in jail for 30-40 years and slapped with life-destroying fines for inciting national-level unrest.

    Am I the only one who sees a problem that people are allowed to shoot their mouths off irresponsibly without repercussions?

    The whole “freedom of speech I can say whatever I want you can’t do shit to me” system sucks, seriously. People are not held accountable for their words. Talk about a complete lack of responsibility.
  11. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:TRUMP TEARS THREAD

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:Exeter350

    Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Can I complain about how much I hate all the information surrounding this election? You have people alleging that some serious fraud took place in some states, and on the other hand you have State governors or whatnot literally going "no, it never happened, its all completely wrong". It pisses me off so much because I cannot tell whats true or whats not. For every allegation or rumour of fraud, there is an equivalent cry of 'FAKE NEWS!!!'

    This isn't even about Trump winning; its just about people being able to trust the electoral system. How can people do that when half the country doesnt believe the President is actually the President? People should be pushing for greater investigation into what happened this election just so we have some closure. I'm glad I'm not American because this looks like a total nightmare.
    This is why freedom of speech should be restricted.

    There’s too much white noise, misinformation & manipulation overwhelming the different media platforms.

    They need to implement a system to block out the low-effort garbage.

    People would be a lot less keen to lie or spread other people’s falsehood without verifying the facts first, if they know they can be legally persecuted.
    Freedom of speech to be a fear-monger, political heckler, brainless parrot and straight-up manipulative, lying scumbag?
    (Applies to businesses too, not just private individuals.)
Results 1 to 11 of 11