bouh

joined 1 year ago
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Your mistake is to consider an election is a rational competition. It's not. Not anymore, because medias make it impossible to know the truth. So it is more like a football match. People have the team they support, and for most nothing will change their mind because there's too much propaganda. When almost everything is propaganda, you get to choose the reality you "prefer".

So the point of the campaign is more about convincing people to vote in order to defeat the opposing team. Or to persuade the other team to concede.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

That's blatantly wrong. There is a tradition in France for all parties to ally to prevent the fascists from accessing power, but that's only an election alliance. It barely worked for the last election : the left does vote against the fascists every time, but some liberals refused to stand back in favor of some left candidates, and liberal voters largely refused to vote for the left because of the anti-left propaganda. This lead to the fascists making a third of the assemblé nationale.

Now the president must choose a prime minister, but the left arrived first, and he refuses to let them get the power. So he waits for anyone to accept an alliance with the liberals which is not happening yet.

Predictions are going that he will end choosing a PM that is fascist compatible rather than letting the left have any power in the executive.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

For the first, it can be women too. For misogyny it's harder. But there is a trend currently to attract and radicalise women into conservatism too. The trad wives movement. I don't remember the names but there are movement for spirituality and naturalism that are also linked to trad wives. That is also a slippery slope : first you hook them spirituality, and at the end you have JK Rowling who is an anti-trans activist.

Women and men are not in the same groups simply because conservatives are misogynistic so they like to separate men and women.

Overall it is a culture war lead by the far right.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's a slippery slope. First it's either a community they can share anything with, or it is a subject dear to them that they see people give solution to. Then, slowly, one idea at a time, they get litteraly corrupted. Ideas are imprinted through repetition, values are suggested. Then, or before, you imprint the idea that the others are lying. This is key because it seed doubt in everything, but as he is closer from this group, this group get to imprint its own ideas through repetition alone. Distance is built with relatives so that the group is the only group he has. Then if he starts to disagree, he will be kicked, sometimes also punished, and he'll be left alone, or at least he must be convinced of it. Once there radicalisation is a process that's hard to stop.

Doubt, distrust, and a group to be with are the key ingredients. Liberalism is a fertile ground for this because it promotes individualism when humans are social creatures. So it's very easy to find people in need of a social group that gives belonging. And racism makes the easiest pretense : you belong because of your blood, or because you're born here.

For sexism, it's mostly a reactionary backlash, and secondly this liberalism problem of promoting individualism to humans who seek belonging. Feminism did won, and the old way of treating women is being addressed. But it is a process, and while we know what's bad, we don't have much new examples to follow. Yet most people have been trained in the old way, so now they are at lost. It's not the first reason why they're alone, liberalism has this place, but it is far easier to blame it on women and feminism than to try to build a new society. And also, it again gives them belonging with men like them that understands them and give explanations and solutions to their problems. Not good ones, but that's not the point.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Nexus: the Jupiter incident. It is a now a bit old tactical space combat game with a big focus on the narrative. It's awesome, but I never see it mentioned anywhere.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 72 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Sometimes I wonder if these people understand that no player ever wanted exclusivities on a game store. Instead of providing a decent service, they're litteraly trying to kidnap customers with a choice between waiting for months for this big release or taking it on a subpar platform.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (5 children)

What's the problem with the gecko engine?

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Starfleet is not anarchist. There are admirals. There are federation laws and judges (1st directive, in strange new worlds, laws against eugenics). Those laws and positions of power are decided on a federal level. How do you do that in an anarchist organization?

I fail to see how a federation can not be a representative government (because different worlds have different political systems, representative democracy is the only one that can make them all on an equal footing).

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I certainly don't know much about anarchism, but different planets in the federation can and do have different kinds societies.

If we consider the vulcan in brace new world for example, their society seems very much aristocratic for example, where influence gives authority and power. I doubt the klingon are anarchists either. And in lower deck, the orions have a monarchy.

The federation is the government of the collection of planets, but each planet still has its own government and culture.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Because the bourgeois were happy to get power when they were excluded from it in the monarchy, but they are very much not happy to leave peasants get any power.

Francr history is very telling of this. The question of how the elections should be made was a hot topic. Representative democracy is something the bourgeoisie wants because it allows it to stay in power. Because the bourgeois are better armed to be elected than the people. Rousseau warned of this even before the first French revolution.

I'm sure the US revolution went the same way. The crazy US voting system looks very much like it was crafted for the bourgeois to stay keep all the power.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It's a federation, which means it's a group of government who decided to get some of their rules and organzations in common. Each government in the federation can be different, although there are some implications for the federation to work: they must recognize the borders and laws of the federation, and they must participate in its function.

view more: next ›