The Gaming Den

Stahlseele wrote:

And then the tragedy being brewed here is that Bolsonaro, despite sounding like a bona-fide fascist, has his economic policy drawn by ultra-liberals (using the word in the European sense) who already promised to keep and increase the savage cuts on welfare and social security that the current illegitimate government has started.

wait . . what?
i thought it was supposed to be the conservatives doing that kind of stuff? O.o

Fascists are always conservative. There's a reason we do so much work to install fascist dictators like Pinochet and shit, it's because they are so fucking hardcore in favor of capitalist exploitation of the workers.

Liberal Conservatism and Conservative Liberalism are different things.

In this case, Liberalism refers to minimal government intervention in the economy.

The United States is weird because we have a winner-take-all election where a majority is not required. If 10 candidates espousing the exact same policy positions each get 9% of the vote, and one candidate that expresses the opposite position gets 10% of the vote, everybody is represented by that person. Effectively, it means that you can't have a candidate who represents your nuanced views - if you agree with one party about some issues and another party about others, you're kinda screwed. Supporting a 3rd party that exactly represents your views is most likely to draw support away from the closest major candidate to your views, resulting in the person you like least actually getting elected.

These are problems that could be fixed. Ranked voting would go a long way to address that. So would requiring a winner to have 50% + 1 vote (ie, in a 48%/47% split, you'd have to have a run-off (without the 3rd party candidate that took 5% of the vote). We could also do a lot to make sure every eligible voter was represented by giving people the day off for National Elections. But some people don't want everyone to vote. And since they may not appeal to majorities, they don't want to require actual majorities for major elections.

So, we're stuck with a system where over time, the parties literally switch positions.

The US is weird.

But we're also the first modern democracy (or oldest continuous democracy) so it makes sense that we're weird. A lot of the anti-democratic issues we had have already been fixed. It might seem weird to you, but there was a time when people didn't vote for Senators - they were elected by your State House of Representatives. That only happened in 1913. The idea that the Constitution is unalterable and/or that the Founding Fathers were perfect is really modern and only used to defend the 2nd Amendment. The most recent amendment to the Constitution went into effect in 1992 (202 years after it was first proposed).

So American Democracy could get better. Some of the recent assaults on Democracy might even serve as an impetus to enshrine more Democratic ideals into the Constitution. Probably not, but maybe.

deaddmwalking wrote: But we're also the first modern democracy (or oldest continuous democracy) so it makes sense that we're weird.

There are very few definitions of these words that can make this sentance true.

But I guess you only need one.

There are older, more democratic democracies. One can argue the American rebelion was against one such.

Also, democracy was not a priority of american democracy. The branding as democracy was.

The uk doesnt have a constitution and people usuallu append constitutional to democracy to make that statement true. It was also not very democratic at the time.

Meanwhile, a black bolsanaro voter was beat up in the street by the military police who shouted as they were beating him "bolsanaro is I'm charge now" and afterwords said that he looked like a drug dealer.

In case you were wondering if there was a racial component.

He apparently regrets his vote already, cant imagine why.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ja ... 06391.html
Seriously wondering when it's the right time to request political asylum.

And when you find out the when, you have to wonder about the where . .
Most of europe seems to be moving to the right as well, with germany smack dab in the center of it all, trying to not do that . . but elections here seem to indicate germany also sliding further right . .

Stahlseele wrote:And when you find out the when, you have to wonder about the where . .
Most of europe seems to be moving to the right as well, with germany smack dab in the center of it all, trying to not do that . . but elections here seem to indicate germany also sliding further right . .

Portugal is doing fine with the left right now, and has been for some years, but I have to consider if the sudden influx of brazilian refugees won't tilt that country right, too. The language barrier would be somewhat smaller there.


EDIT: Also, war (you'll have to ask your browser to translate this one)
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/201 ... duro.shtml

Why is so much of the developed world sliding toward far-right fascism? Is it an increasingly successful propaganda campaign run by Putin? The fact that it's been 70 years since WWII and society is forgetting lessons learned? Angry whites are decreasingly prepared to cope with a global economy?

It's frustrating to watch. Are they all looking at Trump, and thinking "yeah, that's what I want"?

RobbyPants wrote:Why is so much of the developed world sliding toward far-right fascism? Is it an increasingly successful propaganda campaign run by Putin? The fact that it's been 70 years since WWII and society is forgetting lessons learned? Angry whites are decreasingly prepared to cope with a global economy?

It's frustrating to watch. Are they all looking at Trump, and thinking "yeah, that's what I want"?

At least in Brazil, it was through lies. A concerted, anonymous web of lies.

A lot of (most?) Brazilians belong to several WhatsApp groups. There are groups for families, churches, clubs, neighbors, etc. With Facebook under increased scrutiny against fake news, Bolsonaro campaign simply shifted their focus to WhatsApp.

What followed was a torrent of outrageous, outrageous fake news, distortions and lies. I don't have idea of the exact numbers, but a part, probably a significant part of Bolsonaro voters thought they were saving the country from a godless party that wanted to turn their children gay and then have sex with them. The last week before election had Haddad being a rapist on WhatsApp memes.

Investigating the spread of hate memes through WhatsApp looks like hell, even assuming an impartial, truth seeking Federal Police, because people just spread salacious, inflammatory memes without thinking, prepaid phone numbers are cheap and once people buy into conspiracy thinking, they just start to spread and repeat false opinions without orders, anyway.

This probably works best on low education countries, so it's absolutely no surprise that among their platforms to save Brazil is to "End Communist Indoctrination on Schools", which is code for "Starting to teach Creationism and Historical Revisionism and ending any form of Sexual Ed", the latter of which being one of the few known ways to actually address child abuse (since abused children can express themselves more safely if they understand what has or is being done to them).

This memetic warfare through WhatsApp seems designed to make people impervious to critical thought.

TL;DR: The extreme right got adept at using modern channels and memes to get blood libel grade lies rolling again. While Americans still need to decide to watch Fox News, Brazilians were just bombarded right through WhatsApp with Pizzagate.

Fuck.

Stahlseele wrote:And when you find out the when, you have to wonder about the where . .
Most of europe seems to be moving to the right as well, with germany smack dab in the center of it all, trying to not do that . . but elections here seem to indicate germany also sliding further right . .

The green party gained more votes than the ADF in the last election and has a higher total.

Don't go off the deep end believeing that "everyone is moving right everywhere" thing. There's plenty of right movement, but it's not everywhere.

RobbyPants wrote:Why is so much of the developed world sliding toward far-right fascism? Is it an increasingly successful propaganda campaign run by Putin? The fact that it's been 70 years since WWII and society is forgetting lessons learned? Angry whites are decreasingly prepared to cope with a global economy?

It's frustrating to watch. Are they all looking at Trump, and thinking "yeah, that's what I want"?

Corporations and ultra-rich people (like the Kochs and Murdochs) being able to push their ideas more and more. "For some reason" rich authoritarians who want just enough government to protect them from the proles are always far-right. Forcing more requirements on education, changing text books to push their ideology, and cutting funding for education has been a huge boon in controlling people.

[redacted]

Kaelik wrote:

Stahlseele wrote:And when you find out the when, you have to wonder about the where . .
Most of europe seems to be moving to the right as well, with germany smack dab in the center of it all, trying to not do that . . but elections here seem to indicate germany also sliding further right . .

The green party gained more votes than the ADF in the last election and has a higher total.

Don't go off the deep end believeing that "everyone is moving right everywhere" thing. There's plenty of right movement, but it's not everywhere.

While AfD can't claim victory yet, they are woefully gaining power. But what's worse is that other German parties adopt parts of AfD policies in a bid to steal voters from AfD. For example, AFAIK starting this year you can only take a driving license exam in German, a change from previous policy that allowed 11 different languages.

Another factor is that Merkel claims she's not going to participate in the next chancellor elections, ending her 16 year-long reign. And like with presidentship in Russia, there's no clear popular successor to Merkel in Germany. Which is a big fat opportunity for AfD to promise everything and grab a seat.

Plus this year Merkel is leaving the position of the head of CDU and explicitly refuses to support either of the candidates. This could crack the ruling coalition which, again, plays into the AfD's hands.

LargePrime wrote:

deaddmwalking wrote: But we're also the first modern democracy (or oldest continuous democracy) so it makes sense that we're weird.

There are very few definitions of these words that can make this sentance true.

But I guess you only need one.

There are older, more democratic democracies. One can argue the American rebelion was against one such.

There's literally only one country in the world that is older than the United States, and it's the United Kingdom. The United States was the third oldest country in the world until 2008, when the Kingdom of Nepal was overthrown by Maoist revolutionaries.

The idea that there are older, more democratic democracies is patently absurd. There aren't even countries (plural) that are older than the United States. There's literally just the one other country that has been in continuous existence since the 18th century. Every other country in the world got its start in the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.

-Username17

If you call a country where black people weren't allowed to vote a democracy, then, yes, the USA are the oldest continuous democracy.

zugschef wrote:If you call a country where black people weren't allowed to vote a democracy, then, yes, the USA are the oldest continuous democracy.

There's only one older fucking country on the whole fucking planet. Name any quality that the United Kingdom did not have in 1785 and the United States is the oldest country to have that quality. So if you care about countries without a hereditary head of state who serves until death, for example, the United States is the oldest country that doesn't have one of those. Or having a constitution, the United States had one and the United Kingdom still doesn't.

The bar for the second oldest country on Earth to be the oldest country that fulfills some arbitrary criteria is extremely low.

There are no countries at all that are still around from any time in the 18th century that allowed non-property owners to vote, allowed women to vote, or forbade people from owning slaves. The 18th century was a really shitty time and also almost every country in the world that existed at the time no longer does. Some countries have the same or similar names as countries that existed back then, but all of them have changed hands at least once and most several times except the United Kingdom and the United States. And a lot of countries are unrecognizable in terms of borders as well as name as being particularly related to any currently extant country. See: Polonia, Abissinia, Tartaria, Prussia, and Nubia.

-Username17

zugschef wrote:If you call a country where black people weren't allowed to vote a democracy, then, yes, the USA are the oldest continuous democracy.

You can certainly take the position that the US still isn't a democracy, but if you take the position that it is NOW then it probably fits whatever criteria you have for democracy in the 1700s.

And since most people will literally fly into an uncontrollable rage if you tell them the US isn't currently a democracy, it's understandable to use weaker definitions.

Isnt the US an rebublic?

A republic is a form of democracy, specifically representative democracy.

It is a Republic, and an awful lot of people say that being a Republic is not compatible with being a Democracy. They don't often give reasons for that viewpoint, though. I almost suspect Sid Meier is partially to blame.

I feel like I should point out that this is the [Non-US] News thread. Talking about US history is as far from the topic as possible.

Japan still the same unbroken family line at the top of their social structure for centuries.

Sure you may claim the god-emperor's authority is limited, but for around a millenia now Japan has always been the country of "keep the imperial family fed and alive".

maglag wrote:Japan still the same unbroken family line at the top of their social structure for centuries.

Sure you may claim the god-emperor's authority is limited, but for around a millenia now Japan has always been the country of "keep the imperial family fed and alive".

Wow.

The stupidity on display here is baffling. I'm not sure I can unpack all of it.

But let's say we define countries by their historical continuity so Italy and Germany are both the Holy Roman Empire and claim that heritage and Japan is the same country it's always been since prehistory. That's fine. And we accept that the first Emperor ascended the throne in 660 BCE so Japan has been the same country for roughly 2400 years. That's certainly make it older than the United States! That is, assuming we apply a double-standard and the United States doesn't get to lay claim to the Iriquois Confederacy or the Cherokee nation or even Jolly Old England and all the historical continuity that would provide - we'll say the United States was a 'clean break' and formed without any connection to anything ever in 1776. And then they created the Constitution in 1789. So, 228 years. Of Democracy.

Japan was not a democracy in claim or practice in 1789. Or 1889. Or 1944.

If you accept that Japan is the same country it was in 660 BC, you have to accept that its version of Democracy was implemented during occupation by the United States following World War II. You might also notice that their version of Democracy doesn't look very much like the US form of democracy.

Now, you can pick any country you want and ask yourself, 'was this country a Democracy in 1789'? And you're going to say no unless you're talking about the United States or the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. And the Netherlands ceased to be any form of Democracy in 1806.

If you define countries by an established government (and that's a pretty decent method), the 4th French Republic isn't the same country as the 5th French Republic. But even if you use a different definition that allows you to claim that Italy of the Renaissance is the same Italy as exists today, you're not going to find an older Democracy.

And this isn't weird or controversial. This is something that countries that have adopted Democracy understood. When the United States established the Constitution, other countries in the world felt threatened. Here's an Article about it.

If the United States had more examples to crib from, maybe things would have been better. Change is always happening (like with some States considering allocation of their electoral votes to the Popular Vote winner) and there's no such thing as a perfect Democracy, but any reasonable definition of country and democracy end with the US as the world's oldest democracy and India as the most populous democracy; 68% of the world's countries (~63% of people) live in some form of democracy.

Eh, I was expecting the argument to involve smaller, more obscure democratic institutions than nations. Or Sweden or possibly Denmark (despite the latter's occupation by the Third Reich for a bit) mostly evolving rather than being replaced by new countries and thus being older, if not older democracies.

Grek wrote:I feel like I should point out that this is the [Non-US] News thread. Talking about US history is as far from the topic as possible.

That's fair. But also I really really hate this "the US is a republic and not a democracy" canard and I am absolutely not going to let it fly without mentioning that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison co-founded the Democratic-Republican Party (opposed by Alexander Hamilton et al's Federalists). People who claim that republic and democracy used to be distinct are not only willfully hopping back and forth between the modern definition of democracy and their alleged historical definition in order to obfuscate the discussion in favor authoritarianism, they're also just flat-out wrong. There are zero founding fathers (unless you take the term to include "political enemies of everyone you've heard of who were technically at the Constitutional Convention") who were opposed to democracy, and any quotes to the contrary have been taken out of context.