Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[soon]

12 minutes ago, wasted said:

Seems to be the way it is, but not sure what anyone can do. 

It sure is a daunting challenge. When you say "anyone" do you mean an individual or a collective?

[wasted]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

It sure is a daunting challenge. When you say "anyone" do you mean an individual or a collective?

Literally both. I see no group that could touch such a huge system. It’s almost arrogant to talk about it. I mean maybe it’s not even that bad, or at least we’ll be dead before it goes south. 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, wasted said:

Literally both. I see no group that could touch such a huge system. It’s almost arrogant to talk about it. I mean maybe it’s not even that bad, or at least we’ll be dead before it goes south. 

What about General Strikes and Caserolazo?

Im for em having seen Casseroles win some changes in Quebec as recently as 2012! Iran has had General Strikes this year. And while America has infantilized social action and offered up even their moderate Unions to the chopping block out of some sort of sensibility that resistance is gauche, at some point its got to give. General Strikes as a tool has been developed most thoroughly by anarcho-syndicalisim. Anarcho-syndicalism was a huge factor in setting the playing field for workers and the economy of the USA. Its still there in the social fabric, however dormant. The system ain't much without us hoisting it up on our backs!

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, wasted said:

Literally both. I see no group that could touch such a huge system. It’s almost arrogant to talk about it. I mean maybe it’s not even that bad, or at least we’ll be dead before it goes south. 

Americans live in a democracy, they simply have to vote for candidates they politically align with.  What is stopping them?

[wasted]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Americans live in a democracy, they simply have to vote for candidates they politically align with.  What is stopping them?

The jist of the article is that both if not all parties are part of the same corruption of war economy and corporate interests. 

I think what we saw with Trump especially because he really exposes the system is that they get elected saying anything then it just stays the same neo con agenda. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, wasted said:

The jist of the article is that both if not all parties are part of the same corruption of war economy and corporate interests. 

I think what we saw with Trump especially because he really exposes the system is that they get elected saying anything then it just stays the same neo con agenda. 

I believe that in a functional democracy when the voters want something different than the current politicians, a new brand of politicians will arise. A functional democracy cannot be hijacked by any particular demography of politicians not having a majority support among the voters. New politicians that resonate with the voters, will emerge and replace the old politicians that are out of tune. In a functional democracy.

So why is USA regurgitating the same old brand politicians that are so disgusted by the majority, leading to the emergence and election of disasters like Trump? Why isn't USA a functional democracy? Who nominates these "elite" politicians so distanced from the voters?

Edited July 10, 2018 by SoulMonster

[wasted]

9 hours ago, soon said:

What about General Strikes and Caserolazo?

Im for em having seen Casseroles win some changes in Quebec as recently as 2012! Iran has had General Strikes this year. And while America has infantilized social action and offered up even their moderate Unions to the chopping block out of some sort of sensibility that resistance is gauche, at some point its got to give. General Strikes as a tool has been developed most thoroughly by anarcho-syndicalisim. Anarcho-syndicalism was a huge factor in setting the playing field for workers and the economy of the USA. Its still there in the social fabric, however dormant. The system ain't much without us hoisting it up on our backs!

Maybe for a few convinced people but for the masses watching the Netflix or people who it’s working out for being a useful dummy for team politics is a conveinent out. You need an open mind and read a lot and them still who knows maybe you are wrong. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by wasted

[wasted]

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I believe that in a functional democracy when the voters want something different than the current politicians, a new brand of politicians will arise. A functional democracy cannot be hijacked by any particular demography of politicians not having a majority support among the voters. New politicians that resonate with the voters, will emerge and replace the old politicians that are out of tune. In a functional democracy.

So why is USA regurgitating the same old brand politicians that are so disgusted by the majority, leading to the emergence and election of disasters like Trump? Why isn't USA a functional democracy? Who nominates these "elite" politicians so distanced from the voters?

I think maybe because power goes to money. And there are dynasties in place, families with decades of ties. Plus self interest of military. The reality of the system as it works and how you can’t change it and win. People aren’t that in tune. They don’t think what I think, and even I’m looking for someone to explain why it isn’t like I see it. The nature of the state is to blame. It’s there to serve itself. It wants to grow and get bigger, the money gets sucked in to state institutions like military, education (where the brainwashing begins possibly), religion and that strangles the economy for ordinary people. 

But also there’s kind of a cabal of rich people who aren’t on one side or the other. So when Trump tries to avoid war with Syria they open investigations on him until he does what they want. But there’s also the option that he doesn’t really care he just said these things to get in the game. The war economy is where the money is. Maybe people like Trump or Clinton are compromised early, so they are just puppets of the deep state really. 

But as you can see we are in deep speculation mode. It’s really just having a memory. They lied us into wars and continue do these things under in consistent reasoning. Regime change for humanitarian reasons for example. But then they load up Saudi arabia with weapons, and they are a brutal regime beheading more people than ISIS. The guide seems to be the petro dollar. If you play ball with the US it doesn’t matter if you are a dictator etc. But like Iraq when they were dealing with the US on the petro dollar the US funded them against Iran, but as soon as Iraq nationalized oil and stopped giving a good deal, then Saddam was brutal dictator. 

It’s pretty hard to prove, but it’s something like that. Or it’s at least a good plot for a Leo DeCap movie. 

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You think the USA is a functional democracy and that if it wasn't it wouldn't be the way it is because people wouldn't allow that? Unfortunately you are very wrong.

Maybe it’s a Plutocracy. 

[SoulMonster]

33 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You think the USA is a functional democracy and that if it wasn't it wouldn't be the way it is because people wouldn't allow that? Unfortunately you are very wrong.

I was kinda asking why USA ISN'T a functional democracy.

[SoulMonster]

The paradox is, if both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are detested by the majority of voters, how do they end up being presidential candidates? In a functional democracy - yeah, I keep harping on this - there should be some democratic process in nominating presidential candidates resulting in them having support among the voters. We shouldn't end up with the situation where all candidates are detested. There is something fundamentally wrong with US democracy.

[wasted]

27 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I was kinda asking why USA ISN'T a functional democracy.

I suppose also that real policy decisions are decided by the senate, supreme court has final say? It’s not as simple as vote for a politician who does what you want, even if that candidate was dedicated to what the voters want. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

there should be some democratic process in nominating presidential candidates resulting in them having support among the voters

For instance...?

[wasted]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The paradox is, if both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are detested by the majority of voters, how do they end up being presidential candidates? In a functional democracy - yeah, I keep harping on this - there should be some democratic process in nominating presidential candidates resulting in them having support among the voters. We shouldn't end up with the situation where all candidates are detested. There is something fundamentally wrong with US democracy.

I would say it’s the same as what I outlined. Hilary stole the election from Bernie. Trump pretty much lied to the Alt right/anti war voters etc. 

Like the article suggests Trump is diffrrent maybe because he has no real allegiance. But there was votes in that. He did what every Prez but he did it more blatantly. Bush ran anti war. 

Candidates either come from money or are bought off by big business to get elected. Big money decides if you win or not. Trump was slightly different because he ran it like a TV show. 

The government is just the political wing of Goldman-Sachs. 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

For instance…?

A cross-section of the population must nominate candidates, not an "elite" group who tend to favors nominees that maintain the status quo or their privileges. It could start by anyone eligible to vote in small community electing their local candidates. These candidates then move on to a new vote in a larger region. The winners then move on to an even larger region. The point is, it is the voters, the general populace, who decide which politicians will be elected and move on to the next round, not the leaders of a political party who tend to be different than Average Joe. Eventually there will be 10-12 national candidates and there will be a presidential election to choose among these. Maybe the whole thing could be done in about 4-5 rounds. Obvious problems are people getting tired and the logistics of it all. Anyway, I am just brainstorming. 

[wasted]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

A cross-section of the population must nominate candidates, not an "elite" group who tend to favors nominees that maintain the status quo or their privileges. It could start by anyone eligible to vote in small community electing their local candidates. These candidates then move on to a new vote in a larger region. The winners then move on to an even larger region. The point is, it is the voters, the general populace, who decide which politicians will be elected and move on to the next round, not the leaders of a political party who tend to be different than Average Joe. Eventually there will be 10-12 national candidates and there will be a presidential election to choose among these. Maybe the whole thing could be done in about 4-5 rounds. Obvious problems are people getting tired and the logistics of it all. Anyway, I am just brainstorming. 

Yes something like that might help. In the UK you vote in your constituency and that MP reps you in parliament. So there’s some connection there. But like with Iraq war hardly anyone thought it was a good idea. They just did it anyway. 

You need 50 mil to just run a presidential campaign in US. It’s huge country so you need media and tv coverage. Trump was a little freer using his own money, and cheap things like twitter and internet played a factor. That’s why they hated him. He is getting access to donations. I just over heard he’s made 40 mil from his hotels in the last year. After bailing out the banks Obama is giving speeches to bankers for 400k. Kind of like getting paid to bail them out. It’s all a big scam. 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by wasted

[soon]

4 hours ago, wasted said:

Maybe for a few convinced people but for the masses watching the Netflix or people who it’s working out for being a useful dummy for team politics is a conveinent out. You need an open mind and read a lot and them still who knows maybe you are wrong. 

Yeah for sure, I was trying to acknowledge the detachment of the average American. But I think people are starting to pay more attention. I read lots, from different sources and love netflix. If I were to organize a US General Strike it would riff on something like "Netflix and Chill Day: Coming July 12th!" Everyone can sit home, they just have to not carry out their economic function for the day.

There have been at least 15 General Strikes since 2000 in places like Italy, Spain, France, India, Bolivia. Most recent in US (according to wikipedia, lol) was Oakland in 1946, with a number in parts of Canada happening since. During Occupy in around 2012 Oakland shut down its commercial ports. Its still in the Nations DNA.

All this to say that I would frame the tactic as forgotten rather then nonexistent.

[soon]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

A cross-section of the population must nominate candidates, not an "elite" group who tend to favors nominees that maintain the status quo or their privileges. It could start by anyone eligible to vote in small community electing their local candidates. These candidates then move on to a new vote in a larger region. The winners then move on to an even larger region. The point is, it is the voters, the general populace, who decide which politicians will be elected and move on to the next round, not the leaders of a political party who tend to be different than Average Joe. Eventually there will be 10-12 national candidates and there will be a presidential election to choose among these. Maybe the whole thing could be done in about 4-5 rounds. Obvious problems are people getting tired and the logistics of it all. Anyway, I am just brainstorming. 

I like this as a brainstorm. Some might try to contend that the current US electoral system is designed to be similar enough to what you've said with possibility for open caucuses and the centrality of delegates and super delegates. But the main difference is that your idea isnt based on the 2 party system. And its far more open sourced.

If that infrastructure were put in place, it would be a lot of what is needed to implement a Participatory Economy. Parecon has 4 central institutions to function. One is already covered here; A Participatory Planning Procedure. Another is all but set up by this framework which is Democratic Worker and Consumer Councils.

 

[wasted]

7 hours ago, soon said:

Yeah for sure, I was trying to acknowledge the detachment of the average American. But I think people are starting to pay more attention. I read lots, from different sources and love netflix. If I were to organize a US General Strike it would riff on something like "Netflix and Chill Day: Coming July 12th!" Everyone can sit home, they just have to not carry out their economic function for the day.

There have been at least 15 General Strikes since 2000 in places like Italy, Spain, France, India, Bolivia. Most recent in US (according to wikipedia, lol) was Oakland in 1946, with a number in parts of Canada happening since. During Occupy in around 2012 Oakland shut down its commercial ports. Its still in the Nations DNA.

All this to say that I would frame the tactic as forgotten rather then nonexistent.

Things do keep repeating themselves so maybe it is collapse or waking up from the videogame. 

[Len Cnut]

10 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Sorry, my mistake then.

Honestly, I'm so fucking out of it right now. I'm trembling all over with cold sweats and a fever. Had fever dreams all night. I don't know how I functioned in class just now.

I agree with what @wasted is saying. It's speculation, sure, but if one thing is for certain a few of the real reasons society is fucked is; the military industrial complex, vested interests like oil and the banking system. I would also say, at least aspects of religion, the royal family etc any institutions which seek to basically oppress people mentally. The school system. There are many widespread reasons which all contribute, probably. The 'people' with power only care about their own interests. 

P.S. Check this out.

 

Her surname weren't Catermole was it?

[wasted]

On 11/07/2018 at 8:16 PM, Oldest Goat said:

No idea, who's that?

A very skillful winger with the finesse and guile of Platini. 

How did that not get at least a dolphin thing. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by wasted

[soon]

 

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by soon

[Len Cnut]

On 11/07/2018 at 8:16 PM, Oldest Goat said:

No idea, who's that?

 

He's the football player than this chant is directed at

[soon]

This Incel stuff is strange. A dude shits his pants as part of his online-incel-persona in this clip. I dont get it.

The only thing I think that I can wrap my head around is that the incel culture seems to intentionally place barriers in the way of the rest of our compassion or intervention. Any lifeline or assistance an average person might offer falls outside of the language of the incel culture. The irony that the incel community has a priority of insularity raises some serious questions imo. Are there puppet masters who realized how backwards this insularity is and dont intend to empower people to succeed in their dating lives by becoming less insular and more engaged with society?

Im concerned that people suffering bullying, abuse, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, social anxiety, and so much else are trapped by this culture. The idea that "you dont understand us" seems to be pervasive. And the incel cultures curiosity with the rest of the world seems to be encapsulated by the incredibly limited concept of Chad's and Stacy's. So we know that they do not understand how diverse the rest of our experiences and lifestyles are. Is incel culture experienced as an ecstasy of fatalism? 

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, soon said:

This Incel stuff is strange. A dude shits his pants as part of his online-incel-persona in this clip. I dont get it.

The only thing I think that I can wrap my head around is that the incel culture seems to intentionally place barriers in the way of the rest of our compassion or intervention. Any lifeline or assistance an average person might offer falls outside of the language of the incel culture. The irony that the incel community has a priority of insularity raises some serious questions imo. Are there puppet masters who realized how backwards this insularity is and dont intend to empower people to succeed in their dating lives by becoming less insular and more engaged with society?

Im concerned that people suffering bullying, abuse, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, social anxiety, and so much else are trapped by this culture. The idea that "you dont understand us" seems to be pervasive. And the incel cultures curiosity with the rest of the world seems to be encapsulated by the incredibly limited concept of Chad's and Stacy's. So we know that they do not understand how diverse the rest of our experiences and lifestyles are. Is incel culture experienced as an ecstasy of fatalism? 

Its just a case of society becoming more and more compartmentalised and isolated.  There was less of it back in the day because you couldn't live through the internet, it was either 3 channels of the telly or fuck off down the pub and go hang about with real people.  Also, its to do with the idealisation of sex and sexual conquest and how we've made pussy (or cock if you're a bird...or a bender...) into this fuckin'...thing way up there in the sky to fuckin' aspire to getting.  The making out of sex to be the be all and end all of life, when really its as common as a bag of chips. 

At a certain point, I think you just have to make a choice and get on with living, despite your handicapps.  You can look at all the Chads and Staceys in the world and assume that they have some kinda perfect life or are well-adjusted or whatever but quite frankly there's an arrogance to that as well, you dunno what those people go through in life, what goes on in their head, all the things they have had to learn to harness and restrain, there might be a million Chads and Staceys that struggle every fuckin' day just to get through but don't telll nobody and just bite down and plow through their fuckin' shit the only way they know how. 

[Graeme]

8 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Its just a case of society becoming more and more compartmentalised and isolated.  There was less of it back in the day because you couldn't live through the internet, it was either 3 channels of the telly or fuck off down the pub and go hang about with real people.  Also, its to do with the idealisation of sex and sexual conquest and how we've made pussy (or cock if you're a bird...or a bender...) into this fuckin'...thing way up there in the sky to fuckin' aspire to getting.  The making out of sex to be the be all and end all of life, when really its as common as a bag of chips. 

At a certain point, I think you just have to make a choice and get on with living, despite your handicapps.  You can look at all the Chads and Staceys in the world and assume that they have some kinda perfect life or are well-adjusted or whatever but quite frankly there's an arrogance to that as well, you dunno what those people go through in life, what goes on in their head, all the things they have had to learn to harness and restrain, there might be a million Chads and Staceys that struggle every fuckin' day just to get through but don't telll nobody and just bite down and plow through their fuckin' shit the only way they know how. 

I think there's a lot of truth in this... For these guys, because they've never had it, sex seems to be put on a pedestal, like it's achieving a form of nirvana. As if once you get laid all the normal challenges of existence cease to be a problem, you've made it, you're in the club. They've clearly been brought to view the world through some sort of cultural frame or narrative where sex is attained through a meritocracy and if you're not getting laid then there must be something hideously wrong with you. In reality, aye, it's great to take your clothes off with someone else you find attractive and have a good time, but life goes on and it becomes another fun thing you do, alongside the existing things you already did to entertain yourself.

Then you bring the gender dynamics into it, they're in an all-male community where women can be totally 'othered', they cease to be three-dimensional human beings and instead they're just viewed as a homogeneous mass that stand against them to deny them entry into nirvana because they've not 'earned' it according to the rules of the fictional meritocracy.

Some people just don't get laid for all sorts of reasons. I know beautiful, intelligent, successful and kind-hearted women who have never had a single relationship by their late 20s... Shit happens, (or doesn't, as the case may be). It took a long time for me too, through a combination of shyness, high standards and a hell of a lot of really bad luck, but I never ended up having the viewpoints that these guys have somehow manufactured. I've always had a lot of female friends (which is something that's heavily stigmatised in the online 'get laid' community as the 'friendzone' is apparently the worst thing in history) so it was impossible for me to think "all women are..." or "all women want..." because I knew that they were real people and as different from one another as men are.

You can extrapolate trends to try to present yourself according to what you think more women on average find attractive, but it's not really likely to get you anywhere, and if you're looking for emotional fulfilment based on a lowest-common-denominator strategy of trying to appeal to a generic archetype of 'what women want' then you deserve the failure or the shitty, shallow relationship that's likely to come out of it.