Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on August 11, 2009, 06:05:53 PMQuote from: fictionpuss on August 11, 2009, 06:02:19 PM
You're an asshole.
And you're a moron who likes the sound of his own thinking too much.
They were both right

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Cainad (dec.) on August 11, 2009, 06:05:53 PMQuote from: fictionpuss on August 11, 2009, 06:02:19 PM
You're an asshole.
And you're a moron who likes the sound of his own thinking too much.
Quote from: altered on March 17, 2022, 01:10:17 AMRelatable feels. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not, and I have been pleasantly undeservedly surprised in the past, but carrying the "maybe" over time gets heavy.
I'm fine for now. I think I've burned a lot of bridges and lost most of my friends for good because I'm not whole and healthy right now,
Quote from: altered on March 17, 2022, 01:10:17 AMbut I'm alive.
Quote from: altered on March 17, 2022, 01:10:17 AM
I don't "need" anything, not really anyway.
I have passing desires, but they're expensive and pointless. They'd be nothing more than a golden bandaid over a festering gut wound. I'm fine. I appreciate it though.
Quote from: altered on March 17, 2022, 01:10:17 AM
As for sharing, well. I don't feel any special attachment to them. I just thought those two showed my face well in unusual lighting and angles. The others either don't show my face at all or aren't stuff to share with just anyone, for that person's sake more than my own. One, the new part 6, is both.
Quote from: altered on March 15, 2022, 01:14:38 PM
More like it's working on me, but yeah.
I'm worse than I've ever been these days, and "worse than I've ever been" when housed and with enough money to eat and smoke cigarettes by my standards is fucking abysmal.
Quote from: altered on March 15, 2022, 01:14:38 PM
So ... the photo series. The only outlet I have that is ... safe, for some values of safe.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PMQuote from: purpleXi on March 10, 2022, 01:26:43 AMQuote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
I would like to say, I'm intrigued by the Proxy Voting System, not as a primary form of voting, but maybe as an extremely transient and optional feature when looking to vote in Elections, and more supported when voting on actual Legislation.
If it it were more supported on actual legislative issues, and you could interact as much or little as wanted - why would we need voting?
That's a fair point.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PM
I guess my main argument is that there needs to be some form of collective consent on both Legislation AND Representation, regardless of how involved everyone is. I would say the Proxy Voting System would have the same constraints as everything else I mentioned though, via Jurisdiction/Scoping rules. Whatever we'd be Proxy Voting on, it would only apply for items and groups within the Scope/Jurisdiction of that Council.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PM
To be honest, this is more of a post-reading interpretation, as I actually forgot some of the mental context since writing this. Probably all the weed.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PMQuote from: purpleXi on March 10, 2022, 01:26:43 AMQuote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
The main concern I have with this being used in Elections (Where votes should be Anonymous),
But why? What is the maximum size of a conspiracy? How many evil power-hungry factory owners do we imagine are going to risk jail time by coercing the hundreds/thousands of people required to make a difference in the outcome? Why shouldn't the public at large be held accountable for our dumb collective decisions? Would you check out your boss' voting record before going in for an interview?
Honestly? Most of them. When people are put into a position of Power, whether their intentions are "Collective" or "Selfish"-driven, it's within their best interest to maintain that Power ("If I'm a good guy, I should keep my Power to ensure that it doesn't get into the wrong hands." (The reverse scenario for Selfish individuals is more obvious.)).
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PM
We can't make any assumptions about the percentage of people that will do things safely - We can only create a System that implements checks and balances that prevent non-safe results, or at least make them obvious and reversible by those that are affected by those results.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PM
Re: "Why shouldn't the public at large be held accountable for our dumb collective decisions?":
Sometimes, short-circuiting/preventing known, bad actions is more important than maintaining accountability for those bad actions. We could all have a stupid moment where we vote for an idiot or piece of shit, and details about their prior actions are only identified after the election.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PM
The other side could easily make the case that everyone who voted for that turd-burglar knew of those actions, and should be held accountable. Personally, I know plenty of people that voted for Trump that wouldn't have under more humane circumstances, and if they weren't feeling exploited. Society is sometimes going to have situations where a significant portion of us make the same bad decisions at the same time. We shouldn't give a Bad Populist the ammunition they need to paint a portion of our population as "The Enemy." I would rather create a system that reduces the odds of those bad decisions being difficult to overturn, than focus on ousting the people who implemented them. Rehabilitation over Punishment, if you Will.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PM
Not that Proxy Voting is the answer in this case - I just thought it was an interesting idea/feature for those who might not feel knowledgeable enough to vote directly. Personally, there are some topics I'd rather defer my votes to better experts for.
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PMQuote from: purpleXi on March 10, 2022, 01:26:43 AMQuote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
however, is potential bad actors saying one thing to gain Proxy Votes in order to actually direct them at the exact opposite Nominee that the Proxiers expected. Destabilization of the structure would be extremely easy in this case. Proxying should be extremely restricted or not allowed for Elections. This is not an issue when voting on Legislation, however, since Legislation Votes should be Public, just as they are now
That problem is removed when proxy-voting isn't anoymous. I can't think of a non-tedious non-gamificationable solution otherwise.
That's also fair. I suppose
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PM
the Proxy could act as a Broker, in that they could distribute votes between a set of choices, maybe in a sort of ranking, and those who had their votes proxied should be able to see where their votes actually went. But the Proxy/Broker's individual vote, that was their choice, could remain anonymous. I guess, some degree of accountability must be facilitated for Proxies/Brokers, since that comes with quite a degree of Power.
Good point here
Quote from: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:27:04 PMQuote from: purpleXi on March 10, 2022, 01:26:43 AMQuote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
(When cast by Representatives of course - Not in the case of Direct Democracy, which I don't agree with for reasons Dok et al have already clarified.).
The difference between Direct Democracy and Proxy Voting is the difference between good dental hygiene and just chewing gum before a date.
If I recall, the Proxy Voting in my view was more of a Feature, and less the primary form of Voting.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
Considering voting, and much more sensitive communication-based Structures in government now rely on the Internet and various Software-based technologies anyways, I don't see any issues with Democracy (Representative) existing on a more instantaneous medium like the Internet. There are plenty of standard security practices that are effective enough at that scale, it's not that big of a deal. With the right Software design, it could even make the governmental Architecture easier to understand for the layman.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
I would like to say, I'm intrigued by the Proxy Voting System, not as a primary form of voting, but maybe as an extremely transient and optional feature when looking to vote in Elections, and more supported when voting on actual Legislation.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
The main concern I have with this being used in Elections (Where votes should be Anonymous),
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
however, is potential bad actors saying one thing to gain Proxy Votes in order to actually direct them at the exact opposite Nominee that the Proxiers expected. Destabilization of the structure would be extremely easy in this case. Proxying should be extremely restricted or not allowed for Elections. This is not an issue when voting on Legislation, however, since Legislation Votes should be Public, just as they are now
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
(When cast by Representatives of course - Not in the case of Direct Democracy, which I don't agree with for reasons Dok et al have already clarified.).
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
Personally, I think this thread has been looking at the Voting and Legislative process problems from the wrong angle (To be fair, I only read the first few pages, some pages in the middle, and the last few pages, so some of this may have been brought up here or other places already.). The problems in today's society are generally caused by Legal/Late Stage Capitalism's (Different from Free Market Capitalism, in that the State has formalized and blessed its natural failures and Monopolies.) natural support for Hierarchical, Bureaucratic Organizational Structures through:
- Overcomplication of legal and business processes
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
- Hoarding/Gatekeeping of knowledge of these processes within highly specialized Domains of the Private Sector
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
We solve these problems by enforcing simplification of Legislation through standardization of its
language, and through the use of Encapsulation (Often used in Programming and other linguistics
fields to establish intuitive Abstraction Layers within written Instruction that allow you to reference
groups of smaller instructions with simpler high-level instructions.).
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
Basically, if you can't represent your legislation in a recursive drop-down tree of standardized, reusable instructions, conditions, and ideas, it's not structured enough to be acceptable. Object/Domain-orientation can also be applied for further high-level organization.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
Why treat legislation like Software? Because Legislation is a formal, syntactically specific form of instruction, and because States all over are already starting to do this (kind of) as they've begun transcribing legislation and legal codes into websites. Recursive linking is already implemented through the Article, Section, etc. Structure. This should be extrapolated out into the fundamental syntax of legal language. The establishment of a structured syntax standard that specializes in Object/Domain Orientation and Encapsulation would make it easier for the Layman to understand the Legislation being voted on without requiring a Law Degree or special training. It also increases re-usability of Legislation Components in the same way it makes Software Modules reusable. It would facilitate the average Citizen's ability to drag and drop high-level Legislative snippets and ideas into a proposed bill as high-level components (That still contain all the low-level, expanded legalese that make up those components) and submit the full proposals in almost no time at all, even using popular/preferres components from existing and successful pieces of Legislation. If done properly, it should be possible for someone in the Electorate to identify a problem and submit fully functional, repeatable Legislation in a day that can be quickly assessed and amended by the Legislature before going to a vote.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
This Architecture, of course, would require collaboration between teams of Linguistics experts, Software Architects and Engineers, Lawyers, Teachers, and Community Organizers to ensure that current Local, State, and National Legislation is properly transcribed ("Properly" meaning, it meets the suggested criteria of being modular, while also being linguistically inclusive of the layman and internationalized with accurate translations to other languages.), and we would need to standardize the Software Solution and open the Source for transparency and Community-based Hardening. But it wouldn't be as expensive or time consuming to implement as you might think.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
The next problem, after you've made Legislation uniform and accessible, is the distribution of Democratic Power, and destruction of unnecessary Bureaucracy. No more of this City Manager + City Council + Cabinet + Department Head Appointee, stretch each layer of Hierarchy between elected positions upward as much as possible bullshit. If we want a Meritocracy, we need to structure the Democracy in the same way that Meritocratic Domain Specialization naturally occurs, and we need to make sure each layer in the Hierarchy is subject to Democratic oversight by the layer below AND the layer above (Above -> Merely by representation instead of Direct Democracy; Below -> By Election/Delegation of Members and Intent upwards to fill higher levels/tiers).
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
I recommend a modified form of Participatory Politics, where Democratic Hierarchies in all branches of government are formed as needed from the ground up through Community organization around Governing Domains (Hierarchies of Categorization of Legislation topics, as well as governing jurisdiction by population density and location.). My primary concern with it's suggested implementation on Wikipedia is that everyone is required to participate as a council member at the bottom rung, at least. I think we could easily replace the structure of the current State's major components with something that resembles their proposed "Parpolity" structure without replacing it entirely with a system where every single person is directly involved, since a significant number of people won't care to be involved in government and their involvement will likely impede those who do care. Besides, I think the assumption in their proposed implementation was that anyone who wasn't involved was simply ignored by the system, either defaulting non-participants to Anarchism or surrounding State Rule, which is hilariously unrealistic. As long as the Electoral and Legislative Proposal processes are open to all citizens that fall under corresponding Jurisdictions, Agencies, Legislatures, and Courts, I think we're okay with actual Council participation being optional, but immediately accessible by the individual, if preferred. It's also important not to lose the current Organizations and Infrastructure that currently exist by rebuilding each Agency/Legislature/Court from the ground up again. It's possible to transition existing Organizations to the new Structure and re-adjust the scale afterwards as needed using the new system's predefined processes.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
The structure ultimately ensures:
- Cancellation of Mob Rule through Randomized Courts at each Council Tier, made up of individuals within the Scope of that Council's jurisdiction.
- Scope of Legislation is restricted to the Scope of the proposing Council (And all its corresponding and represented, but non-governing citizens in its jurisdiction) downward
- Hierarchy is established from the bottom up, instead of the top down, ensuring stratification is minimized to what is deemed necessary by the lower levels to ensure adequate domain specialization, representation, and specificity.
Quote from: POFP on May 24, 2021, 05:09:17 AM
It's also suggested that Parecon (Participatory Economics) is paired with this to ensure similar Democratization of the Means of Production, but I have the same concerns with this structure that I had with the other. I think we've seen enough Democratic Workplace structures succeed (Like Co-Ops, and similar structures.) that we can come up with a mix that enforces Socialization of the Means of Production without resulting in a planned economy like they suggest. Market Socialism is probably ideal, and I think it would be best implemented using concepts from Parecon - Not the whole thing. Mostly just the decentralized organization of Democratic Labor, but with Personal and Shared Ownership of Property giving way to a fully featured Market that is less likely to leave its constituents starving or dependent on Slave Labor or Planetary destruction to survive.
Happy to talk specifics, either in this thread, or in another. This was a very high-level overview.
Quote from: Exoteric on December 07, 2020, 11:08:30 PM
I feel like there are always more ways for something to go wrong than to go right.
Quote from: Fujikoma on November 17, 2020, 04:22:55 AMThat's an interesting question - can you? Like, does and should it make a difference whether:
Can I just take back all the dirty gritty shit I just said?
Quote from: Fujikoma on November 17, 2020, 04:00:59 AMI have to go wash my hair now, but if you expound upon this theory in a separate thread - I'll argue the fuck out of it later.
This is a world of force. We're edging away from that but it has always been about force. It will be about force for as long as we solve problems with ballistics. To argue otherwise is to be a victim, and who wants that? This world is hard, lonely, fucked up, and you take whatever you can get from it, because it only gets worse from here. One day, you're going to get older, and waste away and die. Nobody is going to remember Alexis the graceful soul but they will never forget Alexis the horrific savage.
Quote from: Fujikoma on November 17, 2020, 03:36:20 AMDoes it bother you that an approach where you force anything is by definition non-consensual - or am I misunderstanding you? Is this something you are aware of in the moment, or a post-event narrative?
But me and where I belong, it feels like wherever I get accepted I have to tear my way in with my teeth. It's definitely not something that's just a given, not something that happens overnight, but I really, actively have to force my personality on everyone until they get used to me,