Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Knit tie]

Many Russians also think that Putin's Russia really could use more oppression and death directed onto thieves of national wealth, i.e. almost all oligarchs and most government officials.

Only mass executions can save the Motherland, comrade!

[Sergarr]

There's not that many of these people for it to be labeled "mass".

Also, I don't think that executions of any kind will ultimately change the system. You need to remove the very foundation of power for these people in order to make a true revolution.

[Helgoland]

Many Russians also think that Putin's Russia really could use more oppression and death directed onto thieves of national wealth, i.e. almost all oligarchs and most government officials.

Only mass executions can save the Motherland, comrade!

Had you said 'mass killings' and quoted the entire post, that could've been a fusion joke D:

[Knit tie]

There's not that many of these people for it to be labeled "mass".

Joke.

[Sergarr]

Ya I know it's a joke...

[Knit tie]

Ya I know it's a joke...

Well you've replied to it in a completely straight way, so...

[Sergarr]

My bad, I should've added a smiley back there 

[mainiac]

It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.

[Comrade P.]

It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.

Wrong country, buddy.

[Sergarr]

Yeah, that.

There's a considerable lack of alternative political force in Russia that doesn't suck major donkey balls.

[Comrade P.]

You know, that is the thing that bugs me about democracy.

IF we assume the following:
1) There is no Ultimate Problem Solving Party;
2) Each party has a set of problems it can deal with, list of problems it doesn't care about and a list of problems it creates while in power;

The democracy only allows to change the set of current problems, giving an illusion of power to people while actually keeping it to those who people delegated it.

[Guardian G.I.]

It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.

Russia's foray into liberal democracy in the 1990s shows the ballot box alone can't improve anything - no matter how low and single-digit Yeltsin's approval rating was and how many Communist MPs were elected into parliament, it didn't change a damn thing and didn't solve any of Russia's problems.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You know, that is the thing that bugs me about democracy.

IF we assume the following:
1) There is no Ultimate Problem Solving Party;
2) Each party has a set of problems it can deal with, list of problems it doesn't care about and a list of problems it creates while in power;

The democracy only allows to change the set of current problems, giving an illusion of power to people while actually keeping it to those who people delegated it.

Point 2 isn't valid, as parties are made up of individuals with different skills and focuses, and "problem solving" as a set isn't well defined. Further, the statement can be made more readily about autocracy, as the permanence of a singular political order means that specific problems that are not seen as problems by the regime or outside context issues will both go either unaddressed or be addressed badly.

Diversification of politics and non-coercion for the public to support those politics is the best way we have to ensure that our changing situations are recognized and considered rationally.

It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.

Russia's foray into liberal democracy in the 1990s shows the ballot box alone can't improve things - no matter how low and single-digit Yeltsin's approval rating was and how many Communist MPs were elected into parliament, it didn't change a damn thing and didn't solve any of Russia's problems.

Russia did something in the 90's, but liberal democracy isn't a good description of it. Oligarchic mob politics coupled with economic insolvency do not a liberal regime make.

[Sergarr]

You know, that is the thing that bugs me about democracy.

IF we assume the following:
1) There is no Ultimate Problem Solving Party;
2) Each party has a set of problems it can deal with, list of problems it doesn't care about and a list of problems it creates while in power;

The democracy only allows to change the set of current problems, giving an illusion of power to people while actually keeping it to those who people delegated it.

Point 2 isn't valid, as parties are made up of individuals with different skills and focuses, and "problem solving" as a set isn't well defined. Further, the statement can be made more readily about autocracy, as the permanence of a singular political order means that specific problems that are not seen as problems by the regime or outside context issues will both go either unaddressed or be addressed badly.

Diversification of politics and non-coercion for the public to support those politics is the best way we have to ensure that our changing situations are recognized and considered rationally.

It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.

Russia's foray into liberal democracy in the 1990s shows the ballot box alone can't improve things - no matter how low and single-digit Yeltsin's approval rating was and how many Communist MPs were elected into parliament, it didn't change a damn thing and didn't solve any of Russia's problems.

Russia did something in the 90's, but liberal democracy isn't a good description of it. Oligarchic mob politics coupled with economic insolvency do not a liberal regime make.

No, the best way to do that is to educate people to not vote based on superficial factors, like "how funny is that person" or "how beneficial to me I find their promises", which do not correlate at all with "how well can this person rule the country".

Sadly a population voting rationally is not in the plan of modern politicians. It's much easier to keep a population which buys into funny jokes, promises and hype.

Hype is cheap and sells, well-done work is hard and doesn't sell. True in video game industry, true in politics as well.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, the best way to do that is to educate people to not vote based on superficial factors, like "how funny is that person" or "how beneficial to me I find their promises", which do not correlate at all with "how well can this person rule the country".

Coercion isn't just force, this kind of beguiling would fall under it.

Sadly a population voting rationally is not in the plan of modern politicians. It's much easier to keep a population which buys into funny jokes, promises and hype.

Hype is cheap and sells, well-done work is hard and doesn't sell. True in video game industry, true in politics as well.

Very true. The struggle never really dies, I'm afraid.