this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
748 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3341 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Valuable thought! Thank you!

You're not wrong about the system being what it is.

But the system lacks agency. The system cannot do things differently one fine Tuesday morning. Only human beings have this kind of latitude.

Another distinction is that the system is a tool while humans are the beneficiaries or the fodder for the system, as the case may be. Billionaires are the foremost material beneficiaries of the system.

Therefore, the weak link is the human, and not the system. But. What you say is, in my opinion, very important because it helps us recognize that the human beings are organised in networks and are also creatures of habit, which means there is a lot of inertia that must be overcome. Even the best action won't have instant results.

Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for the billionaires. They have the biggest per-individual influence on the system which essentially prints money for them. It makes sense that protecting and expanding the system would be the sole concern of the 99% of the billionaires. The other 1% might have some earnest sympathy for the underclass. Might... So simply adding an element of risk will change this equation.

However if you think there is a clever way to gum up the system in a purely procedural/bureaucratic way, I am all ears. I am currently not smart/cognizant enough to think of a way.

[–] SirDerpy 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Crystal clear piece of writing. Humans are obviously collectively responsible for the systems they create and perpetuate.

I am currently not smart/cognizant enough to think of a way.

An individual, regardless of wealth, power, and ability, is powerless relative the systemic mandate. Large groups produce mediocrity. Their outcomes fail to meet the prerequisite urgency of the human mandate.

However if you think there is a clever way to gum up the system in a purely procedural/bureaucratic way, I am all ears.

The first rule consists of a relatively small number of people, who know little to no information concerning organization assets (such as member identities). This limits the harm that can be done to the organization as a whole by any individual member. The structure can range from a strict hierarchy to an extremely distributed organization, depending on the group's ideology, its operational area, the communications technologies available, and the nature of the mission.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Gold.

The human Mandate!

First time I hear such powerful words. I have to think about this and the last part too.

[–] SirDerpy 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Above, I wrote one cohesive response, not three snippets. It's powerful because great people wrote it: from King to Wiki. I'm just a guy who knows you're not looking for ideas.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I am always learning, but I have accepted that I own my process of learning. This means I enjoy discussions and it is possible for me to learn something new in a discussion or to remind myself of something I don't want to forget, and I sometimes enjoy good company, but the grand strategy of my cognition and the final say on meanings and values are not collaborative for me, but the sole responsibility of myself to myself.

I enjoy solitude every bit as much as I enjoy good company.

[–] SirDerpy 1 points 4 months ago

I respect your agency in your learning process and assume personal wisdom.

I learned very little useful studying the Bible and philosophy by myself. Some subjects are just that way, such as Capital. And, no one comes just wanting to learn the material. All want an opportunity for praxis.