this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
1249 points (96.8% liked)

Political Memes

5484 readers
2587 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (2 children)

. I also think that attempting to get anything done in the house with 1,000 members may also be unproductive however

Kind of the opposite.

The less people, the more power each one has.

So if you need a couple votes you add some things people personally want that are completely unrelated to get them on board.

With twice the people, that becomes twice as hard. So the strategy would have to pivot to actual bipartisan legislation and not just cramming bribes and personal enrichments in there till it passes.

The thing about our political system, it's been held together with duct tape so long, there's nothing left but duct tape. We can keep slapping more on there and hoping for the best, at some point we're gonna have to replace it with a system that actually works.

We might have been one of the first democracies, but lots of other countries took what we did and improved on it. It makes no logical sense to insist we stick with a bad system because we have a bad system.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If America gets a chance to rebuild it will probably make some changes to be more democratic.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, the good news is regardless of what you thought of accelerationists plans a couple weeks ago...

We're all about to find out if they were right or not.

So we got that going for us.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yup. We get to be the data points in an experiment to test a hypothesis that has no historical data to support it and whose majority of subjects have not consented to participate in.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that has no historical data to support it and whose majority of subjects have not consented to participate in.

What?

America is already the result of accelerationism...

What do you think the Boston Tea party was?

England seized smuggled tea, it would have put smugglers out of business.

Smugglers threw legal tea off British ships in response. Now the colonies had to choose expensive legal tea or expensive smuggled tea.

And that was used as a way to make people made at the King, when if the smugglers hadn't of destroyed the legal tea, colonist would be paying the same price they always had, except instead of a small group of smugglers, the taxes went to the government that ensured the colonists safety (somewhat).

Our country is fucking built on accelerationism, there's tons of historical data from here and all over, like France obviously.

Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 week ago

And what countries not ruled by a wealthy oligarchy as well as providing sustained increased levels of equality and justice to all peoples compared to before have resulted from accelerationism? The US has never not been a slave state, unlike other nations that did not see violent revolutions or wars of independence.

In addition, tea, while a staple at the time, is a bit incomparable to freedom from violent repression, self-determination, and general human right to live, all of which and more have been offered up, without regard for the people who will involuntarily see great harms because of it. It's the ideological equivalent of "Some of you are going to die but that's a sacrifice that I'm willing to make."

It really bears repeating that destruction of non-essential foodstuffs is not anywhere near equivalent to willingly sacrificing the lives and well-being of vulnerable populations. Even if the Boston Tea Party can be concretely tied to US independence, there is no evidence to suggest that increased levels of negative pressure would correlate to increased levels of resistance or embrace of revolutionary ideals. Especially in a populace conditioned to be anti-revolutionary.

Don't get me wrong, at this point the train is already in motion so, I hope that the accelerationists' unproven ideas pan out with minimal human suffering. But, with the Palestinian and Ukrainian peoples, as well as women and LGBTGQ+ already being fed into the hopper of the Genocide-Machine-That-Will-Totally-Result-In-A-Better-World-Trust-Me™, I'm not confident that it's holds any more plausibility than other "Pie in the Sky when you die" ideas offered by major religions. Add the impending acceleration of damage to the biosphere and I must say that I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of the human species and suspect that accelerationism will only make the end of the species more filled with unnecessary misery and suffering.

The silver lining though, is that it is extremely unlikely that humans can end all life - there are too many resilient little beasties on the planet that can survive everything short of atomization of all matter on Earth.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Nice application of the selectorate theory.