Politics 2020

[Buster's Uncle]

I assume that means we should not engage, BU?

Gee - no, I don't want to step on a good argument, just, advocation of religious repression and torture in my house…

Respond please.  But his bullcrap has been irritating me for years, less because I find it disgustingly stupid than that we've got a member with a high-security job this nonsense causes trouble for.

I miss Jarlwolf; now there was a real commie you could talk to about it.

[Elok]

See, it doesn't strike me as fair if I can argue against [horrible thing] but he's not allowed to argue back.  It's not sporting.  Also, I'm not sure there's any argument to have.  I was proceeding on the assumption that he was a "The Gulag Archipelago was all made up" kind of communist.  Was planning to tell him about the time I met a priest who'd been tortured for years in a Romanian dungeon.  Instead he accepts that they did horrible things and does not condemn them.  Okay.  How does one engage with that?  We differ on an axiomatic level.  There's no common ground here.  I guess I could point out that the torture was not terribly productive, as Romania's top communist got overthrown and killed and the priest died in freedom years later.

[Buster's Uncle]

Well yeah; it's not the communism that upsets me - it's the going Stalin.

And while I've grown beyond making it my problem when someone's wrong on the internet -mostly- I feel responsible for what gets said here, where I am responsible -and paying for it.  There's lines, and I hardly have every possible line worked out in advance, but the decency line has been crossed here, and I won't continue to have that.

-I'm not necessarily averse to member feedback on the point...

[Lorizael]

I could not care less about the application of torture on heinous prisoners as long the process produces useful reintegration. My studies for my History degree indicates torture remains useful for the elicitation of compliance and horrible for the extraction of accurate information.

These are the words of someone who is extremely sure the instruments of the state will not be turned against them. Historically speaking, that's not been a great bet, especially in dictatorships.

[Geo]

I could not care less about the application of torture on heinous prisoners as long the process produces useful reintegration. My studies for my History degree indicates torture remains useful for the elicitation of compliance and horrible for the extraction of accurate information.

These are the words of someone who is extremely sure the instruments of the state will not be turned against them. Historically speaking, that's not been a great bet, especially in dictatorships.

Funny you say that. I just finished reading an article on the North-Korean infamous Kim Jong-un over his absence these last couple of weeks. It delved a bit into possible successors if something was to happen to him. Seems the list narrowed down quite a bit since the previous leader Kim Jong-il deceased back in 2011.

[E_T]

I could not care less about the application of torture on heinous prisoners as long the process produces useful reintegration. My studies for my History degree indicates torture remains useful for the elicitation of compliance and horrible for the extraction of accurate information.

These are the words of someone who is extremely sure the instruments of the state will not be turned against them. Historically speaking, that's not been a great bet, especially in dictatorships.

Whom was it, Trosky(sp) that was a compatriot of Lenin's whom Stalin had had murdered due to him being next in line after Lenin (originally).  A prime example of using the instruments of the state to kill someone they did not like...  "Will no one rid me of this d@mn Priest?"

[E_T]

In case I didn't post a link to it previously, here it is...

Frontline: China Undercover

With undercover footage and firsthand accounts from survivors of China's detention camps, FRONTLINE investigates the Communist regime’s mass imprisonment of Muslims, and its use of sophisticated surveillance technology against the Uyghur community. 

https://www.pbs.org/video/china-undercover-zqcoh2/

[Bearu]

First rule of persuasive writing/speaking: know your audience. When the majority of your posts come across as keyword-triggered propaganda pamphlets, don't expect much from people engaged in actual conversations.

Furthermore, the lame book-communism has mutated from Marx -who had a couple of good points, for all of the colossal naivete on human nature making it unworkable- to Lenin, who ended up hopelessly and forever mired in Bossman thuggery difficult to distinguish from fascism.

-Even worse, it's boring to read.  And unlike Elok, I can and have told you to cool it with this crap.  When you participate in the on-topic areas, as you have of late, the management smiles; when you escalate with your repulsive advocation of religious repression and torture, the Management considers banning you from OT permanently.

Well yeah; it's not the communism that upsets me - it's the going Stalin.

And while I've grown beyond making it my problem when someone's wrong on the internet -mostly- I feel responsible for what gets said here, where I am responsible -and paying for it.  There's lines, and I hardly have every possible line worked out in advance, but the decency line has been crossed here, and I won't continue to have that.

-I'm not necessarily averse to member feedback on the point...

I believe you place criticism on me from a position of good faith, and I accept your criticisms.

I recognize your power to implement regulations of discourse on your server, and I can comprehend the awkward position of a moderator.

The concept of decency for a moderator remains a tricky subject. Decency depends on the culture, audience, and members. The majority of historical subjects I study for my degree address issues outside the relatively strict American standard of decency, and I suspect the maintenance of decency obscures the real political issues behind 2020 American politics.

I further admit I might have been a bit aggressive in the tone of my statements on my positions.

I mention my position on these types of issues because political structures form the foundation of political issues seen in 2020 American politics. The issues of repression, censorship, and mandates for excessive powers in the current American administration and any American adminstration of the past century and half formed the foundation of modern politics and requires a resolution in modern times from the adaption and update of effective historical models from outside sources. Without a civil discussion of the political issues, a greater awareness of possible solutions among the people for these political issues remains an impossibility and generates greater political polarization.

[Bearu]

I could not care less about the application of torture on heinous prisoners as long the process produces useful reintegration. My studies for my History degree indicates torture remains useful for the elicitation of compliance and horrible for the extraction of accurate information.

These are the words of someone who is extremely sure the instruments of the state will not be turned against them. Historically speaking, that's not been a great bet, especially in dictatorships.

Funny you say that. I just finished reading an article on the North-Korean infamous Kim Jong-un over his absence these last couple of weeks. It delved a bit into possible successors if something was to happen to him. Seems the list narrowed down quite a bit since the previous leader Kim Jong-il deceased back in 2011.

Stable dictatorships require legitimacy, co-option of the opposition, and repression of people. The leaders of many dictatorship from the Sumerian Kingdoms to the Roman Republics through the 20th century suffered from succession issues and legitimacy crises. Regardless of your position on issues of social incorporation, dictatorships often managed this issue through the cultivation of a chosen successor and elimination of other potential rivals. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea will likely perform a similar process under Kim Jung-un because the leadership assumed a form of monarchy.

[Bearu]

In case I didn't post a link to it previously, here it is...

Frontline: China Undercover

With undercover footage and firsthand accounts from survivors of China's detention camps, FRONTLINE investigates the Communist regime’s mass imprisonment of Muslims, and its use of sophisticated surveillance technology against the Uyghur community. 

https://www.pbs.org/video/china-undercover-zqcoh2/

From my understanding of Chinese history, some of the Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang created terror problems for the government in the 1990s and early 2000s.

The other section of the issue remains the Communist Party's stance on unregulated religion in the country. The Communist Party of China historically and currently persecutes religious groups under the influence of lessons from events like the Taiping rebellion's subversion of the political stability of the Chinese state under strong religious minorities. China's failure in the promotion of political action against the threat might have generated civil instability from the Han majority.

Furthermore, I suspect our government remains only minimally better on the issue of surveillance and the majority of Americans accept the current status quo of mass surveillance for our society in the name of "security" against alleged religious terrorists. Why would China, in its own method, perform any other action?

[Lorizael]

Stable dictatorships require legitimacy, co-option of the opposition, and repression of people. The leaders of many dictatorship from the Sumerian Kingdoms to the Roman Republics through the 20th century suffered from succession issues and legitimacy crises.

Kinda why we (humans, not the US) invented democracy. Waaaaay more stability and less repression if you just let people decide who the next leader should be. Yeah, democracy is rife with issues--corruption by special interests, demagoguery, etc.--but I'll take those over the brutal torture and killing of any opposition any day.

[Lorizael]

dp

[Bearu]

Stable dictatorships require legitimacy, co-option of the opposition, and repression of people. The leaders of many dictatorship from the Sumerian Kingdoms to the Roman Republics through the 20th century suffered from succession issues and legitimacy crises.

Kinda why we (humans, not the US) invented democracy. Waaaaay more stability and less repression if you just let people decide who the next leader should be. Yeah, democracy is rife with issues--corruption by special interests, demagoguery, etc.--but I'll take those over the brutal torture and killing of any opposition any day.

I can respect your opinion of democracy and dictatorships.
The spoiler contains a large wall of text you may or may not want to read on democracies.

(click to show/hide)

Democracies on the surface provide special benefits for the citizens. Historically, however, people developed democracy for the preservation of class interests.
1. Athens, the birthplace of modern Democracy, allowed democracy for a portion of the population under the Athenian polis.
2. The next incarnation of democracy and civil rights under the Roman Republic again granted special privileges for the Patrician family names and different rights and restrictions for the equestrian, plebeian, and slave classes.
3. Citizenship in western democracy then disappeared for the most part from history as a social form until the rise of the Italian city states in the Middle Ages. Those city states again operated mostly on oligarchic rules and  either experienced intense conflicts with the autocratic rulers of other regions or operated as merchants.
4. The modern republic under the United States of America formed in isolation from territorial conflicts in Europe after the military struggles for Europe's retention of colonies in the Americas. The United States of America's democracy mostly survived from analysis under the gift of relative physical isolation in the 1800s. Even then, the American Republic provided votes only for white wealthy landowners until the Civil War and later limited voting for specific groups into the 1960s.

5. Democracy remains limited to the elite and privileged members of society well into the 19th century, and most nations consisted of autocratic rulers globally until the end of World War I. Europe consisted mostly of absolutist monarchies and authoritarian governments until the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, Austrian Hungarian Empire, and Germany.
Democracy in the United States of America continues a downward decline in openness according to global polls, and I suspect, based on history, the world will experience a resurgence of authoritarianism. We should embrace the resurgence of authoritarianism because competent leaders in authoritarian governments have achieved spectacular results for society.

[Lorizael]

If you'll notice, my argument in favor of democracy was that it allowed for peaceful transitions of power. There are other benefits, but that might be the largest one.

But there is another very big one...

We should embrace the resurgence of authoritarianism because competent leaders in authoritarian governments have achieved spectacular results for society.

...again, spoken like someone who is veeeery certain they'll be on the side of the "competent leaders."

[Lorizael]

I don't mean that as a snide remark. I mean that as an important criticism of authoritarianism. When people favor dictatorship/autocracy/whatever, they're mostly favoring the ability to get things done. Like episode 2 Anakin flirting with Padme/tyranny.

But the thing is, when you empower the state to control people's lives absolutely, your good intentions and competency don't mean squat if you lose power and someone less good and less competent gains it. Then you've just given terrible people the power to do terrible things and say every bit of it was "legal." And if you decide the solution is to just do whatever it takes to maintain power, then, well... you end up being the terrible person doing terrible things, because you're no longer trying to use your power to help people.