this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
-21 points (37.0% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4579 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

why do they need more than 150 people? but if you insist, you can look into northern madagascar or exarcheia

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Greece and Madagascar are both places with actual governments...

That doesn't help your brain-dead arguments at all. And again, the 150 people mark is due to the very structure of your brain. It cannot handle anything more than 150 relationships.

That's you, me, and every living human on the planet. 150 is the mean maximum number of social relationships that anyone can have.

To get around this maximum number of relationships and still get things done, we as a species invented organization and governance.

If you try to run a community without taking this physiological limitation into account, your community will fail. Sometimes to bears.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i'll accept your apologies for insulting me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And I'll not do that.

Although I do sort of feel like I'm arguing with a child obsessed with Santa Claus while I'm pointing out that the North Pole is fucking melting.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You have fairly thin skin. Although the second was closer to an actual insult than the first. The first was calling your argument stupid. As in, it is, me telling you to do better.

The second was saying that I feel like I'm arguing with someone whose arguments so far are akin to believing in Santa Claus. Closer to an actual insult, but still not making it personal or actually attacking you.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

And you'll not get them, because your arguments so far have been stupid. Do better.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

ignoring evidence against your position indicates a lack of intellectual honesty. are you moving the goalposts toward your very own no-true-scotsman?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've been very upfront about the 150 number. You've just been too caught up in your make believe world of nonsense to notice.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i cited two societies that passed it, but you found some other reason to dismiss them. if that's not moving the goal posts or setting up a no-true-scotsman then i guess i should get a refund for my degree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Two that you claim rule by consensus, but two places that, in fact, do not.

Both places have actual national governments and hold actual elections.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

those societies don't recognize the rule of the people you claim rule them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

House cats don't recognize their owners ruling over them, but they're 100% dependent regardless.

And that's what you remind me of the most, a house cat who has never eaten anything except the food put into your bowl, but completely convinced that you're the best hunter in the world, not understanding anything about where the food comes from or how any of it actually works.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

>And that's what you remind me of the most, a house cat

dehumanizing me indicates that this has gone beyond mere insults, and undercut any claims you might have to intellectual honesty or moral highground.

the bar for your apology has risen significantly, and you've already indicated you wouldn't meet a much lower standard.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

You are obsessed with an apology that you will never get.

I've not directly insulted you, but have repeatedly insulted your narrow ideas of governance, but if that's all you are, then you might need hobbies.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

calling the freedom fighters of exarcheia or the sheep farmers of madagascar "house cats" who depend on others to feed them is dehumanizing and inaccurate. they fought for every inch of land and every scrap of food.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Squatters and farmers, both are dependent on the larger societies around them, even if they outwardly claim otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, squatting is cool as fuck, but even when sticking it to the man, you're still dependent on his world.

Hell, Exarcheia even goes against your own picture of a perfect society, they used a form of direct democracy with actual voting on policy.

Policy that was enforced throughout the camps.


Circling back to farmers, again, you hit that 150-person limit on community size without some form of policy abstraction. i.e. some form, any form, of governance and policy.