Pavel Chichikov

Removed by mod

Me or Luigi? I guess it doesn’t matter because technically both have issues.

Removed by mod

I’m not going to prison for life, for starters.

Removed by mod

Luigi was not justified in the murder. If someone with a loved one endangered by UHCs policies enacted by Brian Thompson had killed him, I’d be much more conflicted. But as it stands, Luigi is just some spoiled poser who decided to try and disguise his mental illness and violent urges as internet radicalization. He’s a poser, using the proletariat’s suffering as a cloak behind which he can hide his own twisted fantasies.

It’s certainly an intriguing idea, but its not as good as the current system. It’s a hyperreality of voting that would simply exaggerate flaws of the current system.

First off, good luck keeping anything anonymous. And, even if you could, candidate anonymity is a horrible idea, because you’d have even less accountability and more campaign dishonesty than you have now. Without anonymity, politicians have to at least try to fulfill campaign promises if they want to get reelected. But with anonymity, I can get elected and not follow through on campaign promises because when I run for reelection nobody knows which candidate is me and I can just lie again.

You’d probably also seriously exacerbate political capture. In the interest of putting forth the best policy proposals, people like presidential candidates would certainly outsource writing to powerful lobbies that have the top policy analysists and writers. And these lobbies or other groups would almost certainly only offer services in exchange for certain favors once the candidate is in office. It would lead to massive corruption, more than we’re already seeing, because at least without anonymity we can put names to faces and prompt some honesty.

Plus, you’d cut out so many candidates. Not everyone excels at writing. Some candidates might articulate their plans best in real time and on a stage (like JFK, or Reagan, etc.). Demanding that everyone only write and publish policy proposals removes the ability to gauge how good they’d be in office, interacting with staff and other world leaders.

Combining anonymity with a bracketed system would also create an echo chamber, where candidates learn each other’s messages every round and the survivors shift to mimic the most popular message to bolster their odds of making it into office. In the end, all 3 people will sound the same in a desperate bid to copycat the clear winner and steal votes. Which obviously creates issues for voting again, like the aforementioned Condorcet’s paradox.

Also, voter engagement. We can barely get people to turnout when they are emotionally won-over by a given personality candidate, it would probably crater if voting were a purely rational process as @lifeinmultiplechoice suggests. If you take after John Adams or Rousseau, this isn’t entirely problematic because you don’t believe in carrying out the principle of “the will of the people” in a literal sense (not to say J.A. was Rousseauian, he obviously was not, but they overlap in this area of restricted voting). But if you are interested in accurately representing “the will of the people” in a non-gnostic sense, this is obviously an unsatisfactory system.

This isn’t meant to dismiss @lifeinmultiplechoice out of hand, I admire the imagination. I think they’re onto something when they point out that technology has sort of… swapped lenses on the camera of Democracy. We can seriously reinvent Democracy in ways that overcome previous hurdles due to all our technology now… we just don’t know how exactly yet.

the link you shared is paywalled, curious about it but can’t find it anywhere else. Could you link as pdf?

this is stupid too. Democracy is mathematically impossible. Condorcet’s paradox and all that.

I live to please.

this is stupid.

no he hasn’t, this will do nothing. literally, nothing. his action was fruitless. it wasted his potential to acutally help the lower classes. it was a mentally ill bid for attention and you all know it.

I guess I can see your perspective. There are just so many posers and rich-kid revolutionary wannabes, and they all trickle down into the masses pretending to be class traitors when in reality they’re just wearing us like a letterman jacket. its all unserious to them. They get arrested at just stop oil protests, they go out and riot or join ANTIFA or shoot some CEO… but they’re just spoiled rich kids who don’t understand us.

he’s a poser, not a class traitor. if he had been a true class traitor, he would have played things smart. he would have united himself in living with the lower classes without forgoing his significant resources, and he would have dedicated his family inheritance and privilege to righting wrongs.

He comes from a rich family. And even if they refuse to pay for his defense, let the privileged brat experience a public defender for once. Jeez.

agreed. just for the record so nobody plays the “you never denied it” card: I’m totally opposed to antisemitism, I denounce discrimination on the basis of any ethnicity, race, or gender in the strongest possible terms.

I corrected it. I didn’t mean in an ethnic sense, I meant in a foreign policy sense (like, Trump is very pro-Israel, and I happen to think that Israel manipulates the U.S. and we need to stay the heck away from them).

Long but I think worth reading:

There’s this weird subliminal level of crime that exists among the upper echelons of society and yet remains below a response threshold, where the perpetrators put layers and layers between themselves and their victims, and disguise themselves in the trappings of class propriety, societal respectability, and commercial success. Then they all link arms, taking part in each others crimes, creating a diffusion of responsibility that like zebras herding together blends them and makes it difficult for we the lions of the people to find a target to blame. Who is to blame for United Healthcare’s denial A.I.? the CEO? the Board chair? other members of the board? majority stock holders? the CFO? the business strategist who came up with the idea? the engineers who designed the A.I.?.

They drench themselves in plausible deniability, and THEN they align themselves with the very systems of civilization - the legal system, the healthcare system, the industrial sector - in such ways that reduce the possible forms of retaliation to almost exclusively include those that exist above legal response thresholds (i.e., the only way to punish them is to shoot them in cold blood, as everything else requires too much sophistication and power and takes too long)… and they do this so that they can hold us hostage against ourselves, blackmail us with our own livelihoods, so that we won’t dare rise up because it could mean collapse of society as we know it, so that they can persecute us viciously if we try to punch up. They make themselves small, distant, moving targets, like trying to kill a swarm of bees with your bare hands or trying to spear a whole school of fish. Some of them even want to upset us, to provoke us to this violence, to use us to tear down and overthrow the bee hives of institutions and systems that bring power to their competitors.

And if we ever win, if we ever strike a blow, they adjust. They tighten security, deprive us of rights, imprison our supporters and spokespersons, and learn from their mistakes. They evolve. But they don’t repent. They can’t repent. Few and far between are the good men and women who as Rudyard Kipling said have the tenacity to “walk with kings and yet not lose the common touch”. All the remainder are numbed, warped, and consumed by the insatiable hunger that drove them into their seats of power. Like hardy weeds that break off at the stem, their roots are deep and they grow back rapidly, spreading everywhere.

This is the nature of the elite. And it is the reality we face as the common masses. And although Rousseau was right that man is born free but everywhere is in chains, so too was Dylan Thomas when he observed “I sang in my chains like the ocean”. I’m reminded of the Menu with Anya Taylor Joy where she accuses the angry masses of creating the very problem that has set them about in such a murderous fury: “you don’t cook with love, you cook with obsession”. We listen to the elites, we join their cults of personality, believe in them, we call them our heroes and we worship them with this petulant infatuation and fandom, all while failing to raise heroes that can deliver us! It is up to us to cultivate in our homes, our friends, and our lives people who can keep the common touch and who hunger to deliver us! We’d all rather be consumers. Ultimately, we are just as responsible for this mess as the elites who have entrenched themselves. We pay for that crappy healthcare plan rather than die in defiance to the despots. We vote for the doddering old carpet-bagging establishment fools that sniff the hair of our daughters on national television, and then we vote for the gluttonous lechers and foreign assets to take their places! We sit at home, we type away on keyboards, we let them shovel the social media slop down our throats.

And those of us who don’t engage in the fervor are merely pissed off, retreating into the intellectual to make up for their own social incompetence. Or they disguise their own insufficiency as “righteous anger” that they redirect at elites who don’t even know they exist. It is a chicken and the egg. We have created our hell, and we refuse to do the work necessary to transform it to a heaven. We exist in a binary, where we’re either victims or violent revolutionaries. Because we are insincere. We are wrong. And we are unworthy of a better world.

If there is a hell, if there is a punishment after this life, then surely we will be there along with the people we claim to hate so much to a point of exulting in their murder.

he literally IS the oligarchy. smh.

Removed by mod