musings about 'democracy' (2)
And to clarify, this is about the *institution* of democracy, and how a society should be organized to achieve its goals, the idea that people have of how a "democracy" is actually achieved.
It's not about one's personal choice to vote, which is a completely separate consideration - the system is as the system is today.
Dear politicians
If you are trying to court the progressive vote
It is your job to get us excited about the progressive things you're doing or will do
That's your job, you don't have any other jobs, that's it
If you're playing "progressive policy chicken" with your constituents by seeing how little you can offer us while we still vote for you out of fear of the alternative, you're doing it extremely wrong
musings about 'democracy'
More and more, I'm feeling like there's a suspicious lack of evidence that policies such as "majority voting" and "electing people" are actually reasonable or rational ways to arrive at the claimed goals of democracy, at all.
Like, I have always had my issues with the failures of these systems, personally, but I would at least entertain the possibility of there being a hypothetical Good Implementation that could work.
I don't think I believe that anymore, and over the years I have seen basically nothing to convince me otherwise.
And to go even further, I am starting to believe that the only possible long-term outcome of both of these systems is authoritarianism, and no sustainable mitigations to this exist.
@loren fish hanging out at their computers, watching the webcam, waiting for a chance to ring the mensendeurbel for you
Trump, segregation, uspol
Wow, I wasn't expecting the speed run to be this speedy. They are bringing back segregation, as in non-white people explicitly not allowed to use white facilities.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-musk-lift-ban-on-segregated-facilities/
@joepie91 It's probably fine that every business is adding the ability to spend money you don't have, try not to think too deeply about what this implies about the general situation.
governance advice
One insight I've gained from many years of being involved in governance discussions...
If someone responds to governance advice with some variation on "prove to me that it works", rather than an interest to non-judgmentally understand its mechanics or effects in depth... then they are exceedingly unlikely to ever take your advice no matter how much proof you provide. It's probably not worth having the conversation at all.
When people are genuinely interested in your advice, they do not demand proof - they ask to learn from you. They open a space in their heart or mind where the new ideas can go.
If someone demands proof, chances are good that they're just trying to strike down your idea without making it look like they are to others - in a way that lets them claim that they've considered the idea, when they really never had any genuine intention of doing so and were just looking for the nearest way to make you 'wrong'. They're setting you an impossible-to-meet challenge.
Hey, so, in light of Microsoft killing off Windows 10 in October (https://digipres.club/@misty/114190352645015060)...
If you want more people to use Linux, now would probably be a good time to start talking to your friends and relatives about how Linux will still work and get updates and, most importantly, *offer to help them setting it up and keeping it working*.
And ideally, take notes of what problems they run into, because those notes are going to give you a pretty good idea of what needs changing for Linux to become more widely usable to people. Maybe you could even contribute some of the fixes yourself!
governance advice
One insight I've gained from many years of being involved in governance discussions...
If someone responds to governance advice with some variation on "prove to me that it works", rather than an interest to non-judgmentally understand its mechanics or effects in depth... then they are exceedingly unlikely to ever take your advice no matter how much proof you provide. It's probably not worth having the conversation at all.
When people are genuinely interested in your advice, they do not demand proof - they ask to learn from you. They open a space in their heart or mind where the new ideas can go.
If someone demands proof, chances are good that they're just trying to strike down your idea without making it look like they are to others - in a way that lets them claim that they've considered the idea, when they really never had any genuine intention of doing so and were just looking for the nearest way to make you 'wrong'. They're setting you an impossible-to-meet challenge.
Technical debt collector and general hype-hater. Early 30s, non-binary, ND, poly, relationship anarchist, generally queer.
- No alt text (request) = no boost.
- Boosts OK for all boostable posts.
- DMs are open.
- Flirting welcome, but be explicit if you want something out of it!
- The devil doesn't need an advocate; no combative arguing in my mentions.
Sometimes horny on main (behind CW), very much into kink (bondage, freeuse, CNC, and other stuff), and believe it or not, very much a submissive bottom :p
My spoons are limited, so I may not always have the energy to respond to messages.
Strong views about abolishing oppression, hierarchy, agency, and self-governance - but I also trust people by default and give them room to grow, unless they give me reason not to. That all also applies to technology and how it's built.