Print

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

mobsters

31 (83.8%)

supremacists

6 (16.2%)

Total Members Voted: 35

[Bohandas]

Mobsters over supremicists definitely.

EDIT:
When you think about it, this is basically the question posed by most American electi9ns, except the eoections use the word "Democrat" instead of "mobster" and "Republican" instead of "supremicist" or "fanatic"

[Xantalos]

The Non-Supremacist Supremacists seem the best fit for me.

[Phmcw]

I think it'll be more easy to deal with supremacists than mobsters. Supremacists will mellow out like America did, mobster states are hell to clean.


In the end supremacism is false and disprovable, and once you disprove it and improve living conditions it disapear. The mob stay powerfull for a long, long time, and you have to wipe out whole famillies to destroy it.

[Graknorke]

In the end supremacism is false and disprovable, and once you disprove it and improve lining conditions it disapear.

[FearfulJesuit]

Do I get to choose what sort of supremacists?

[pisskop]

Mobsters will only break your legs a little.

What if they're Peace, Equality, and Justice Supremacists^tm?

I suppose those guys are alright.

Those are the worst kinds, who think they're oppressing you for your own good.  They have all the moral justification they need to commit all manner of atrocities. 

[Phmcw]

In the end supremacism is false and disprovable, and once you disprove it and improve lining conditions it disapear.

You can prove that a race isn't superior to another, and supremacism is often a way to use other as scapgegoats. If you treat the root causes, you can make it disapear.

eg : skinhead in Russia would be best fought by raising the average Russian standard of living and is a reaction to Russian misery.

[MDFification]

What if they're Peace, Equality, and Justice Supremacists^tm?

The Peace supremacists deny the existence of all conflicts. Attempting to change the status quo gets you sent to the death camps. If you're smarter, richer, or stronger than your average citizen, or substantially weaker, stupider or more poor, you're off to the death camps in the name of equality. As for justice - expect for a lot of arbitrarily righting historical wrongs via punishing the descendants of the perpetrators a la North Korean multi-generational internment camps.

[Graknorke]

You can prove that a race isn't superior to another

No, you can't. Supremacist stuff is basically a glorified opinion. They're not interested in objective reasons why they're right.

[Knit tie]

When you think about it, this is basically the question posed by most American elections.

You are adorable.

[Zangi]

In the end supremacism is false and disprovable, and once you disprove it and improve lining conditions it disapear.

You can prove that a race isn't superior to another, and supremacism is often a way to use other as scapgegoats. If you treat the root causes, you can make it disapear.

eg : skinhead in Russia would be best fought by raising the average Russian standard of living and is a reaction to Russian misery.

Wut?  They'll be more likely to skin you for heresy rather then allow you to tell them that they are wrong.

Personally, I'm going for mobsters.  Rational actors with a goal.  They may even have standards for how underlings and 'family' conduct themselves in the public and be quite willing to string em up.

Though really, this poll elaborates on nothing, so it is all about how each individual here interprets what a 'mobster' run gov't is and a 'supremacist' run gov't is.

If for example you said 'cartel' or 'gang' run gov't... I'd be more willing to pick supremacists.  Given that in my opinion, people under those would not have any leash what-so-ever... Other then bring in the money.

[MDFification]

If for example you said 'cartel' or 'gang' run gov't... I'd be more willing to pick supremacists.  Given that in my opinion, people under those would not have any leash what-so-ever... Other then bring in the money.

Arguably the gang/cartel is the precursor to government though. It's very conceivable that the first governments evolved from power structures similar to that of a cartel/gang.

[WealthyRadish]

The closest examples of a 'mobster' government that I can think of would be the shoddy anti-communist governments propped up by the US during the cold war in places like Indonesia and across Central/South America, or the political machines that developed in major American cities in the 19th century (lovingly forming the basis for our modern political parties).

In the former case, genocide was still often the order of the day (and still is in some places). The two really aren't exclusive in the least, especially in places with existing ethnic tensions. When one of the fundamental qualities of the controlling authority is a disrespect for any shred of legality, people are subjected to some of the most arbitrary, cruel, and undeserved acts of violence/hatred, not just from that authority but throughout society. In the latter case, it probably didn't get that bad just because it was a localized part of a greater national system that organized crime and politics were working into from below, rather than above.

The most famous example of a racial supremacist government is of course Nazi Germany, but I think that Nazi ideology is bizarre and muddled enough that you couldn't really extrapolate much from them without bringing along a degree of their unique aspects. It's also worth keeping in mind that many of the ideas that fascists later loosely consolidated into an ideology were already widely accepted and mainstream before the end of WWI, and retained some popularity until the end of WWII. There's tons of writing out there from the period going on about "national races" going out and asserting their dominance with war and colonies and all that. The Nazis just happen to be a case where racial supremacy was a primary characteristic, but it was something that had long been accepted prior anyway.

It's like, in either case if you're a threatened minority you're probably just screwed, and if you aren't, it's picking between dying in the next war or waiting to fail a diceroll during a random encounter.

[King Kravoka]

Mobsters over supremicists definitely.

EDIT:
When you think about it, this is basically the question posed by most American electi9ns, except the eoections use the word "Democrat" instead of "mobster" and "Republican" instead of "supremicist" or "fanatic"

I don't know, Republicans are corrupt and violent while Democrats have insane beliefs that make no sense to people who actually think about them.

[LordBucket]

I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about.

When I think "mobster" the mental image I get is of a guy in a business suit engaging in technically illegal business. Al Capone, the Italian mafia, the yakuza. Streetcrime is bad for business. Customers go to a speakeasy to drink and have a good time. They don't do that if they're afraid of being mugged. In Japan, yakuza openly walk the streets and it's one of the safest places in the world. Just don't cross them, and it's not necessarily an unpleasant proposition. And in a case like Al Capone during prohibition, his primary business was alcohol. Which, personally, I'm probably going to go drinking tonight. And I'm not about to feel guilty about it. The fact of making a profit of off illegal activity doesn't necessarily make someone a bad human being out to create problems for others. Or are we talking about mobsters abducting women for the sex trade? I don't think living in Al Capone's neighborhood would necessarily be so terrible, but I don't think I'd want the people stealing little girls in charge. It really depends.

As for supremacists, I see most everyone leaping to race, and defending the politically correct status quo. Which I'm not about to do. Like with mobsters, we need more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism

"Supremacism is the world view that a particular age, race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, class, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not."

Ok. So...what kind of supremacists are we talking about? Just like it matters whether we're talking prohibition era alcohol mobsters or Russian sex trade mobsters...it matters what kind of supremacists we're talking about. Checking the list of things that could qualify one as a supremacist, "belief system" and "culture' for example, I could point out that probably most of us currently right now live under supremacist rule. And probably most everyone reading this thread is themselves personally a supremacist. Do you believe that a culture where people are nice to each other and engage in honest, open trade and are kind to animals is fundamentally superior to a culture where people rape and kill and murder each other and mutilate animals as sacrifices to their gods?

If you say yes, then guess what: you're a supremacist.

Would it be so terrible to live in a society ruled by people who believed that being nice is superior to rampant rape and murder? Probably not. Or what if we're talking about people who believe that everyone born with birth defects is an inferior abomination that needs to be immediately put to death to avoid contaminating the gene pool? Well, that's kind of a mixed bag. You might dislike the method but the results are probably not unpleasant to live with.


So, yeah. Not really enough information in the OP to give a solid answer. It's like asking whether you'd rather live under the rule of people who engage in trade or people who have beliefs. It really depends on the specific trades and beliefs.