A post about it that's in the middle of a Bluesky thread - https://subium.com/profile/figgityfigs.bsky.social/post/3kuk2hjgo3k2x

The start of the thread - https://subium.com/profile/figgityfigs.bsky.social/post/3kujzuo6shk26

  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Baby's first political thought

    "What if people make a bad decision? We should have one really smart guy in charge instead"

    Wow fucking groundbreaking who needs the last few thousand years of political thought about the shortcomings of exactly that idea

    • 7bicycles [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      The odd thing is usually the "Well why don't we do the correct thing?" dumbasses just go for some sort of technocracy where the experts (TM) are in charge.

      How do those experts get decided? Listen, that's for other experts to figure out, I just want shit to work.

      • TheDoctor [they/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        The existing experts are able to define what expertise is for the incoming potential experts. It’s a pure meritocracy where merit is defined by those already in power. Tying this to money, prestige, and power will have no unintended consequences.

    • Greenleaf [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      The Romans almost pulled it off, for a couple centuries at least. The emperor of Rome would name his adopted son as successor, but usually this “adoption” would take place well into adulthood of the adoptee, and usually after they had displayed their talent and abilities, i.e. like Mao “adopting” Deng or something.

      And it only took one emperor to screw it up. Marcus Aurelius - of Gladiator fame and favorite of chud pfps everywhere - named his bio son Commodus as his heir. And kinda like how the movie shows, Commodus was pretty fucked up. From then on emperors often chose their bio kids as successors with the expected results.

  • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Imagine knowing that voting is dumb when people can just vote for bad things and also knowing what good things actually look like and then saying that instead of a materialist restructuring of the human condition around collective good instead of capitalism, she breaks out an argument that was kind of off-putting and weird when Socrates did it.

  • SUPAVILLAIN@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    2 months ago

    Which lord? Cause uh, Becky's doin' coke if she thinks I'd allow some Bronze Age storm god from a desert that has nothing to do with me establish who's gonna 'rule' me lmfao.

  • Barx [none/use name]
    ·
    2 months ago

    When your entire political education is introductory Plato and The Bible.

  • 2Password2Remember [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    being christian publicly is so embarrassing. either go all the way and convert to islam or keep it to yourself

    Death to America

    • Meh [comrade/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      By that logic all of the Muslim world should convert to the Baháʼí faith.

      Keeping it to themselves would be great though

  • Monk3brain3 [any, he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Religion just stops analysis and rational thinking dead in its tracks. This isn't new lol

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Isn't Elizabeth Bruening a Catholic? She already has a dumb theocracy run by a goofball in robes and it sucks ass. "hey what if the Vatican ruled the whole world" wow what a concept, guess they'll give anyone a Pulitzer these days huh

  • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hear me out, so what we do is this:

    • Humans are naturally fallible and even smart ones are prone to snap judgment on partial or biased information or emotional entanglement
    • So let's create a decisionmaking AI - we can teach it how to govern fairly and it will make the best decisions
    • But wait, any AI we create is naturally going to be programmed with our limited point of view in mind and may end up making a weird choice due to a programming flaw or edge case it wasn't trained to handle
    • So what we do is create two more AIs, with slightly different parameterizations and randomized training scenarios
    • The three AIs will act as checks and balances on one another
    • We can even try to embody different aspects of how humans approach problems and make decisions, using something like Jungian archetypes to help choose among difficult tradeoffs
    • Everything will be fine
    spoiler

    unless
    angel-biblical-shh

  • FlakesBongler [they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Which Lord?

    Because S'pht-Kr, The Grand Compiler would probably take too long to make a decision

  • Awoo [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Hear me out.

    What we do is we have a school, let's call it philosophy school, and anyone can join it!

    This philosophy school teaches a philosophy to everyone that makes legislation in society commits to.

    These people come out of philosophy school and then spend some of their time listening to the concerns of the people in their district and some of their time solving those problems, perhaps around tables where other members of the philosophy school also weigh-in with ideas.

    People with the most experience sit at higher up tables in the hierarchy and make more widespread decisions together.

    These people regularly sit around a very large table and choose a core leadership group who make the most importantist of decisions and set the overall direction of the group.

    We can call it philosophyism.