Gay Forum

Severelius wrote:A big problem with our political system is voter apathy, to be sure, but making government decision-making akin to jury duty isn't going to make more people engaged, it's just going to piss off the people who aren't and who don't give a shit. The people who are already politically engaged will be fine with it, but they're the ones who reliably vote on every possible thing anyway.

I can see the headline: first Citizen's Assembly rules to discontinue Citizen's Assemblies. "It was just so boring" says chairperson.

I imagine it would be most effective for issues that have already become popular talking points, or policy proposed which would benefit from a plebiscitary element. But I think you could be surprised at how many people would be willing to take part. The Irish "abortion" assembly had a drop out rate of 28/100 (replaced by their seconds), which is fairly high, but also not suggestive that people just didn't give a shit.

You guys are thinking of direct democracy as it would be if it were rolled out on a nationwide level under present day capitalism.

I am thinking of it operating within basically stateless communism.

So the political structure of this could be something like a commune made up of neighbourhood assemblies and then city or regional ones both of which are organised with direct democratic participation.

Then economically the structure would also be democratic. All of the major industries could have unions through which workers control their own work and can decide what and how much is produced no longer for capitalist profit but to meet the needs of the people.

So it means politics is local to you and you can participate in the decision making and issues which affect you and your locality.

It means a commune can decide for itself what it needs to produce and how to make use of its environment, because industry is controlled by the people and is localised.

It means that at work first of all that a lot of jobs would be abolished because they are unnecessary and of whatever remains you wouldn't be controlled, exploited and bossed about in. You would have a say in what gets done. We would probably all share necessary work and since we are sharing it there would be a lot less off it for individuals. Work would be a communal affair.

It means production for profit ends and that we instead meet human needs and live sustainability with the environment.

Only something like this arrangement I think gives us both economic and political democracy and so full control and participation over our economic and political lifes.

Only something like this ends the alienation people feel towards the political system and their work. Towards the politicians who govern over them and bosses who control them.

Noooo, if anything I’m further to the right. Yes, there’s an app through which your citizenship is effectively conferred, but I’ve since decided that citizenship will only be conferred upon those who have chosen to serve the public good, be it though military service or civil service. Only if you survive deployment to Klendathu will you be permitted to download the citizenship app and participate in democracy.

Would you like to know more?

Soz, I am actually going to read your post.

Magic J wrote:Would you like to know more?

Soz, I am actually going to read your post.

What? Here seems a good as place as any to spread my communist propaganda!

Its really that I am so boring I've not much else to talk about

I know I am a nerd! Lol

Marmaduke wrote:Noooo, if anything I’m further to the right. Yes, there’s an app through which your citizenship is effectively conferred, but I’ve since decided that citizenship will only be conferred upon those who have chosen to serve the public good, be it though military service or civil service. Only if you survive deployment to Klendathu will you be permitted to download the citizenship app and participate in democracy.

I don't like bugs. I'm out.

GaySpacePirateKing wrote:What? Here seems a good as place as any to spread my communist propaganda!

Well, if our Starship Troopers references are anything to go by, we've got you beat on the nerd front.

GaySpacePirateKing wrote:You guys are thinking of direct democracy as it would be if it were rolled out on a nationwide level under present day capitalism.

I suppose the question for me would be: "would experimenting with diverse forms of more participative or deliberative decision making, right now, be harmful towards pursuing the goals you've outlined. I happen to think not, for lots of reasons, but it doesn't seem to be a hugely popular take with most of the people I've discussed this with.

Reforming the electoral system towards a more representative option (see, I did read that discussion ) and building better forms of participation (unions, popular assemblies, etc) could be a step towards equipping us with the tools required. Maybe.

Can we get behind the "Borda Count" voting system? I know absolutely nothing about it, other than it's used for Eurovision. We've got a good track record with that, right?

Nul point! Nul point!

Magic J wrote:Can we get behind the "Borda Count" voting system? I know absolutely nothing about it, other than it's used for Eurovision. We've got a good track record with that, right?

I will get behind it only if the results are read out in French, and then translated into English in a strong French accent.

You have elected to be ruled by... *drumroll * Azerbaijan!

Severelius wrote:

PopTart wrote:I think initially yes, it would devolve in such a way as you describe as people would be excited to engage. But given time, don't you think the novelty will wear off and eventually, people with a vested interest in a given issue, will be the ones most likely to vote on them, everyone else will be too busy watching Eastenders or sending out tweets about Jodie Whittakers nipples being too visible on the latest Dr Who episode.

Let's be honest if direct democracy was a thing people would have already demanded a fucking referendum on whether or not to fire Jodie Whittaker and replace her with a white dude to make the Doctor 'normal' again. That's the kind of shit that would rise to the surface if we didn't have an elected Parliament who, while far from perfect in any way, are at least expected to present a modicum of not being totally insane and actually focus on important governmental shit, not just whatever populist nonsense Facebook-inspired talking point gets enough support among the lowest common denominator of ludicrous shitheels.

I had to come back to this, as I kinda missed it the first time and I felt it was worth sharing my view on, which is, while the media makes it seem like things like Jodie Whittaker being Dr Who, is a great concern to most people, who are offended and indignant about it, the reality is, that most people just don't give a fuck.

In much the same way, they don't give a fuck if you're gay, they don't give a fuck if people want to dress in other genders clothes or worship a different god, so long as everyone leaves everyone else to their own affairs. The proportion of people that are vocal on these issue, is largely misrepresented, by platforms like twitter, Facebook and the like which make it appear as if the majority care. They don't.

The media then latches onto that kind of thing as, well contentious and fractious opinions, sell. At the risk of sounding like a Trump supporter, hollering about the 'MSM' and fake news, that's not what I'm getting at, but our news media, has become incredibly irresponsible, in fanning the flames of division, for entirely financial purposes, with little real consideration, for the consequences of their actions.

I've been fortune to travel well within the UK and I'm outgoing enough to have spoken to a broad range of people, of diverse backgrounds, in my time and the vast majority of the British public, don't care about these issues, one way or the other, but care more that these are the issues being given political and social attention, when their communities are suffering, when they are facing economic hardship and social immobility, political disenfranchisement and a multitude of other concerns, that seem to play second fiddle to issues, they don't give a fig about.

The perception, that these issues are on the minds of every person, is one that is created, in large part, on an over reliance on the Internet and social media, as a litmus test, for the nations prevailing social attitudes.

There is a distorted perception of the temperament and makeup of society, if one relies only on online trends.

Are we legitimately sending in the navy? Back to gunboat diplomacy, like the good old days.

Easiest trade deal in history, remember.

Magic J wrote:Are we legitimately sending in the navy? Back to gunboat diplomacy, like the good old days.

Easiest trade deal in history, remember.

It’s also really stupid. It’s not like when we did it with Iceland in the 70s, they didn’t have a navy to speak of. The Marine Nationale has every bit as much ability to fuck our shit up as the Royal Navy has theirs. The first time we board a French fishing vessel, France is going to start “randomly” boarding any British flagged vessel in its waters for routine inspections and arresting millionaires from their yachts for the most petty of customs infractions. We’d be absolutely stupid to start that tit-for-tat waste of everyone’s time.

Marmaduke wrote:...arresting millionaires from their yachts for the most petty of customs infractions.

Silver linings and all that.

HM's Government: Picks fights with our major trading partner and close ally. "Fishing contributes literally trillions to the UK economy!"

HM's Opposition: Refuses to condemn attempted assassination on British soil by foreign power. "Putin's a nice guy and you're all just bullies!"

Good show.

I wonder if 'proxy war with France' was "exactly what everyone knew they were voting for" in 2016...

There won’t be a proxy war. Threatening naval action against French fishing vessels isn’t a communication aimed at France. Both the government and France know that following through on that threat would be absolutely retarded. It’s a cheap act of political posturing aimed at Tory xenophobes who think that Brexit is all about Britannia going back to ruling the waves. It’s tabloid dreck. It doesn’t protect fish stocks. It solidifies Tory seats in right wing shit holes.

I mean yeah they'd be utterly fucking ridiculous to actually follow through on any of this threat.

But then Boris Johnson and his cabinet of sycophantic psychopaths are nothing if not utterly fucking ridiculous and as soon as France blatantly calls their bluff who the fuck can honestly predict what dumb fucking nonsense they'll come up with to save face and pander to their xenophobic gammon base to look strong standing up to Johnny Foreigner.

Basically I put absolutely nothing past the complete fucking lunatics we have decided to let govern us for at least the next 4 years.

I thought the "we approved a vaccine first because we are the best" line to be particularly good. One half of the country derided it as quasi-nationalistic nonsense, and the other, more paranoid half, were bolstered in their belief that the vaccine will turn you inside out or something. Lots of people who're hesitant to take the vaccine haven't bought that line. It was so stupid that it made them even more suspicious. It doesn't exactly suggest cool competency, so they've decided that the government rushed it through safety checks in order to capitalise on being first and prove to the world... something. That British potential is now being realised after freeing itself from EU shackles, maybe? I don't know.

Boo.

Severelius wrote:I wonder if 'proxy war with France' was "exactly what everyone knew they were voting for" in 2016...

If watching the UK get absolutely rinsed by France was on a ballot, I'd sure as hell vote for it.