- 45 Posts
- 142 Comments
37·3 days ago“the only side that targets civilians is Iran.”
Ehmm… What’s Israel been doing for the past 3 years?
1·5 days agoYeah, I must have deleted the other links when I was adding in the quote by mistake. It was more to point out that he is sticking to it, and the link to the UN site was to refer to the main link on the BBC site and also the Guardian link (now added back in) but I messed it up trying out another Lemmy app. I am now back on PC and Raccoon.
21·10 days agoMakes sense.
The actual act of what they did wouldn’t even register with them.
3·10 days agoI’m not the OP, but thanks for that. It’s something that I’m interested in.
Israeli military bombs another school (wtf is their hard on for schools in general. They either want to kill them or fiddle with them)
Trump (the biggest terrorist in the world at the minute) declares that he wants to take out the terrorists.
And the UK joins in. On their side.
Fuck off.
The EU commission are being heavily lobbied by the big tech, as they already have the sway that they need in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/17/technology/europe-big-tech.html
Whether or not that’s the main reason that there has been a change in the wind for many politicians about our privacy and data, or whether or not they have seen other monetary gains from it is unknown. But there are many, many articles covering the lobbying and the push against GDPR etc.
The digital rights movement itself was enormous throughout the campaign, but these were all big players too.
Have you read the article? Why would they need to rollback to a previous ruling in the first place?
I’ll leave that one with you and expect to hear the loud clang when the penny drops.
- Hint: look up weak spot exploitation.
621·14 days agoPity it took Grok making child porn before they left it.
Lemmy barely scratches the surface. Most people don’t even know it exists.
It’s how they plan to collect our data after the massive pushback so far against chat control. They’re trying to break GDPR and at the moment they are just performing weak spot exploitation.
1·18 days agoYour points? You haven’t been making any! All you’ve been doing is treating the assertions that democracy is susceptible to corruption and anarchism less so as almost axiomatic, backing it with little more than “look at how bad things are!” (while ignoring all other factors that created the current state of things) and a need for an alternative, while being dishonest about what democracy is.
My point remains the same. Democracy. Is. Not working. It’s not working. You can dress it up, blame all sorts of external factors and claim that others are being dishonest all you want. It’s not working. We need to look at options.
All forms of governance, with no exceptions, require delegation. But as soon as you delegate, there is room for corruption, and therefore a need to prevent it. In other words, there is always going to be a minority of people mandated with authority and a need for mechanisms to ensure that they don’t abuse that authority. And any system of accountability that involves fewer people than the public, is going to be more corruptible than one that does involve the public.
All forms require delegation. That’s obvious without pointing to something like a dictatorship. Also obvious that delegating leads to opening up room for corruption, that is why the term ‘agreement’ is used when referring to anarchism as one possible solution to look at. There is not always going to be a minority of people mandated with authority. I am assuming that you are referring to the people who police those rules? They follow the instructions. Then you repeat yourself and continue to describe democracy.
Even anarchism would, without a democratic core, inevitably decay into a dictatorship in all but name. By insisting that anarchism is distinct from democracy, you’re contributing to undermining the very thing you’re trying to achieve.If you’re trying to say that there are some very fundamental problems with current implementations of democracy, I wholeheartedly agree. But do put it that way, then. Democracy is entirely too important to be reduced to a lure for replies.
No, you are just theorising, hypothesizing and comparing anarchy with democracy too much. It has a democratic core, sure, but only in the sense that the majority rule (of everyone, not a small majority) decides on issues.
I never stated that anarchy was the solution…I said it is one possibility to look at. Neither am I stating that there is one universal solution. I am simply putting it that your beloved democracy is not working. Not now. Not in its current form. An overhaul is badly needed, solutions should be looked at and not ignored. The flaws are being ignored by those benefiting from it.
It’s not working.
Again, you have skipped over the principal point or points that i am making.
Democracy is not working. An important difference to distinguish between anarchism and democracy is how easy it is to coerce and/or corrupt the central body in charge. That is what is happening now on a massive scale, it was always happening on a large scale we can assume, but now it’s leaps and bounds above anything that we have seen before, just look at what is happening in South America as a result, for example.
My main point is still that democracy is not working now, and ANY alternative could help, if not least, to reset the whole thing.
A governing body made up of a very small minority easily corrupt with many career political families only benefits those already with the power and money.
You’re looking at it wrong. If your understanding of theocracy has never been seen in history, that only means that your understanding of theocracy is flawed.
Give me an example of true theocracy being used in history. One where the governments ruled by a holy scripture or Bible, and the citizens lived by the same script…
More generally, we need to accept that all systems evolve and change, and account for that.
Yes, and democracy has evolved even moreso into a one sided scales. Other options have not been attempted in a modern westernised world and we already know that they have evolved.
So the solution is to prevent that - either prevent people becoming that rich in the first place, or, as a compromise, regulate political donations, media ownership and the assets of judges and other regulators.
Aren’t those things already in place, to a degree, yet proven to be easily circumvented, as those same people create and uphold the laws regulating them. - Not working.
Anarchism is the removal of such regulations, and any public authority that can enforce them. As such, it will only make things worse.
No. Anarchism is not the removal of regulations, it does remove central authority, the coercive and corruptible bodies in control. It is based on the belief that we can govern ourselves as a whole. So rather than then being imposed regulations, they would be agreements that communities as a whole have planned together through natural occurring issues as they come up. So universal agreements would become a law through mutual respect and cooperation with each other.
Before you go any further into this, I want to reiterate my point from the beginning.
Democracy in all of its current forms, in the world that we live in today, is not working. It is badly broken. There is far too much to fix, even by your own admittance. It has grown into the very ugly behemoth that we see today.
I am not saying that any and every other system is better or perfect, I am saying we need change to fix the things that are broken. That will not happen within the democracy that we currently have.
Come back where? To text at somebody stuck in their ways? Why would I do that?
We do know it doesn’t work.
Look up arrows impossibility theorem.
Anarchism is one of many, and while it is in some ways similar to democracy, it is less open to corruption and it doesn’t have a handful of people deciding everything for us because they got the most votes based on a minority number of issues that they (at the time) claim they will fix.
That you want to stick with democracy and aren’t willing to even be open to the suggestions of anything else, but surely that in itself goes against your beloved democracy, by just assuming that democracy is the best option. Many have thought that their ‘solutions’ were the best option for them in centuries gone by. Feel free to look up quite a few religions for example.
We also know what is causing most of the problems, corporatism and capitalism has been allowed to run limitless and therefore allow them to overspend their crazy profits on controlling the politicians. It’s an endless loop, and it’s a good enough reason to try something else. It’s only going to get worse when all of the politicians are being paid by corporations to get what they want to unblock any other barriers that limit their wealth or earnings.
India is still holding remnants of feudalism since their independence, which can be seen in certain areas and way of thinking throughout India. India is also a far, far poorer country than USA, per capita especially, there’s no competition.
Poorer countries are easier to corrupt and India will find it very hard to dig itself out of the hole it’s in without outside interference and a lot of prosecutions.
But, corruption exists in (I would argue) every democratic country. They make up stats and skew them in their own favour in an attempt to hide it, but the people on the street aren’t blind to what is happening and are very much aware of the corruption regardless of any statistics.
Trump has just taken a highlighter to everything and lit it up for those that haven’t seen or didn’t believe the extent it was happening.
In that sense (and I’m pretty sure it’s the only sense), Trump is actually doing something good.
But we already know that democracy doesn’t work. What it sounds like you are describing in much of that post is anarchism (yes, I know I have mentioned it a few times, before I read your post), and with technology, which we heavily already rely on, I see no reason to attempt to try it again. Obviously on a much smaller scale so that we can easily see where lies flaws and boundaries, but we should also be doing that with democracy on a daily basis.
It’s not oil, it’s soot in the rain. A very crazy bit of scaremongering there.