How does the North Korean religion work, exactly?
Trying to build a new pantheon. Not sure how this whole "juche" thing works. What is Glorious Leader's sphere(s) of influence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
>>46773349
"juche" is roughly translated to "self-sufficiency, except when we need handouts from China, which is 100% of the time"
Do people believe all the outrageous clam about their Glorious Leader, or do they take it as metaphors and allusions?
>>46773349
> What is Glorious Leader's sphere(s) of influence?
Brilliant Comrade Kim Jong-un, Deity
Alignment: LG
Sphere(s): War, Domination, Famine
>>46773793
As I've heard from refugees, it's sort of a thing where you accept it but don't believe it. You just nod your head and smile.
>>46773869
Sounds a lot like the soviet bloc
>>46773349
Basically imagine the WH40K Imperium, only with a triad of dead Emperors and God-Emperors with working dicks.
The cult of purity, the isolationism and the caste-system are all present in Norkia.
>>46774295
The same refugee who said that in an interview, said something along the lines of: "the scariest part was that, when I escaped, I realized I'd begun to believe these things, even knowing they were lies all the while". North Korea is almost literally Oceania.
>>46774457
And it's more or less the same situation. Imagine believing the rest of the world is a morally bankrupt and post apocalyptic nightmare world, and that where you live is the only good place left in the world. It sucks, but it's all there is. And you have no reason to believe anything else because you have absolutely no exposure, at all, to the outside world.
How do you know you are not the one living a lie?
>>46774498
>North Korea is almost literally Oceania.
What the fuck does Australia and New Zealand have done to be worse than North Korea?
>>46774498
Which is the point. By telling outrageous lies-- and making it so that everyone knows it's a lie but feel like they can't speak up to say so, and sees everyone else not saying anything either-- they're driving home their power the futility of resistance.
It's a fear tactic masquerading as a propaganda tactic.
But don't worry. Saying things that are obviously false and having everyone be afraid to call them on it for fear of retribution by those in power is something that could never happen here. Especially not on college campuses.
>>46774700
We're on the Brave New World end of the spectrum, as opposed to DPRK's 1984. Here, you can say out loud that the president is knowingly and willfully killing American citizens via airstrike with no charges levied and not even a kangaroo trial; it's just that nobody fucking cares.
>>46774686
Oceania, not Oceana.
Or am I getting the two mixed up? Whatever, the nation that the book 1984 focuses on is what I meant.
>>46773866
>War, Domination, Famine
>not war, famine, pestilence and death
>>46774686
Read a book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four
>>46774686
It's the name of one of the three dictatorships in George Orwell's book 1984. Which is itself modeled on the propaganda used by the national socialists in Germany/Italy/Spain and the international socialists in Russia.
(In fact several key events in Orwell's book comes straight out of history. Room 101 was a real office at the BBC where Orwell had to sit through boring meetings. Emmanuel Goldstein was based on Leon Trotsky. The "we have always been at war with oceania" is based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement where the communists allied with the Nazis and communists worldwide went overnight from hating fascism and demanding war against it to agreeing with it and demanding neutrality in WW2. Vanishing someone was something done by Stalin-- he'd have Party officers shoop photos in encyclopedias to erase people from existence who'd fallen out of favor. The theories of total war as a means of subjugation comes a little out of Marx's theories about capitalism, but mostly from observations about the nationalist socialists. IngSoc is obviously a reference to both.)
Remember, Orwell was writing a critique of fascism and communism as they were actually practiced.
>>46774746
You clearly haven't been on a college campus lately. And what about the SWAT raids in Wisconsin? States attorneys general recently met to coordinate prosecutions against people engaging in crimethink about global warming. "you will be made to care" I think is the term.
>>46774746
>Here, you can say out loud that the president is knowingly and willfully killing American citizens via airstrike
Nonwhite citizens, Anon.
>>46774854
>crimethink
"Thoughtcrime" is the newspeak term, but yeah.
>>46774854
>thinking about global warming is a crime
>>46773349
OK to get back to OP.
The idea is that you create a mythology. People in the propaganda ministry will be jailed or killed for saying the wrong thing, and promoted for saying something nice about the leader. So what does everyone do? Go way fucking overboard competing with one another.
Which is good for the ruling clique because again "preference falsification"-- it prevents people from doing anything but accepting the regime because they don't feel free enough to say anything but the party line. They can't organize. They can't see that other people think the same way they do. They don't want to be that one guy who stands up and gets cut down to size.
Some other techniques to look at: "Thamzing" is where you have public trials where someone is accused and then the public is expected to denounce the person for his crimes (either personal or those of his class). The secret police watches, so everyone competes to be the most enthusiastic attacker against the guy singled out, lest they be arrested next. In China, even punishment was collective: you'd be harassed and ridiculed by your neighbors until you confess. Then they'd be expected to help beat you up (and many died).
Secret police organizations are critical to making sure this works. Ideally, you recruit everyone as an informer spying on everyone else. In east germany, something like one person in four was a stazi informer (see "The Lives of Others"). Most stable dictatorships have at least two secret polices that duplicate each others' functions. Otherwise the leader of a single secret police agency quickly becomes a coup threat.
Labor camps are a source of free slave labor and a way of eliminating political opponents, AND something to scare people with.
Corruption is useful, too. You *encourage* it. The idea being you always have something to blackmail your police on, and if their disloyalty is in question, you always have charges ready to go that don't make the regime look weak.
>>46774911
Thoughtcrime is an oldspeak term, but the Thought Police could get away with it because they were the Thought Police.
>>46774778
Doesn't look a thing like them.
>>46774911
>>46775030
Yeah, crimethink is the correct new speak term.
I always wondered if the North Koreans ever look a few parallels south, realize those people are NOT living in a backwater hellhole dictatorship (although they DO live with atrocious taste in games and music, but eh) and think "maybe the Kims aren't really nice people".
Cue revolution.
>>46775001
People seem to have a yearning for spirituality and mysticism. So the cult of the leader tends to slowly seep into that. The Soviets kept Lenin as a stuffed animal in a massive mausoleum/cathedral/museum complex until it collapsed. In Best Korea, the cult of Kim Il Sung continues to talk about him as a fated Keanu Reaves / Jesus type-- rather than a flunky appointed by Stalin as a puppet governor.
In sports and entertainment, notice that both the Nazis and communists loved big collective activities: marches, mass formation dancing, etc. By getting people to march together, you suppress their individual will.
(Notice also that the sports that the Soviets, communist Chinese, and other dictatorships tend to excel at include martial sports like parachuting, riflery, etc, but also include gymnastics, figure skating, and tennis. IE sports where athletic teenage girls work out in skimpy outfits. Arguably, the best ballet in the world was the bolshoi --> again, athletic teen girls in skimpy outfits.)
Rape is another (often ignored) element of the totalitarian system. Usually, it's in the form of high-pressure sex. The higher-ranked males prey upon the lower-ranked females, who are helpless to resist and face arrest and punishments for themselves and their families if they don't say yes. That's not just a perk of power, a reward for the senior comrades. It's also a way to keep high-ranking subordinates from being loved enough that they become a threat to you, and most importantly of all yet another way to force people to grit their teeth and accept their fates.
If you get people in a position where they feel no alternative to acquiescing, and do that again and again, then you sap their will to fight you in a more organized fashion, and the few who will fight their fates self-identify and can be arrested early before they can become dangerous.
>>46775134
It's a general rule of human nature that people actually don't tend to rise up against their oppressors. There are a few periods of exception but for the most part people keep their head down and try not to step out of line.
Plus, are there really any Nork towns close to the DMZ?
>>46775134
Again, North Korea let's nothing from the outside world in. Except for contraband and even then it's automatic execution.
>>46775084
Lol at that. "Death" tried to kill Londo. And of course without realizing it, Londo made himself Death by omission.
JMS was very, very clever.
>>46775088
>>46775030
>>46774911
Crimethink has always been the correct term.
>>46775134
What part of total isolation do you not get? The only people who even see south koreans on a regular basis in north korea are soldiers on the border, where they literally stare tensely at each other all day waiting for the others to bring to arms first.
>>46775203
Nah. He named his three wives as Pestilence, Famine, and Death, which very obviously means that he himself is War.
>>46775230
And sometimes journalists, mind you they don't stay for long and the state likes to breed racism.
>>46775230
Don't forget the time they actually had a firefight in the JSA (November 23, 1984, a Russian tourist ran across the MDL in order to defect to the west, KPA soldiers pursued him while firing their weapons, a 40 minute firefight ensued), or the time the NorKs axe murdered a couple dudes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident).
>>46775001
How is this any different from historical religious behaviour regarding "pagans" and "heretics?"
>>46775346
>metric fuckton of US Army, Navy and South Korean equivalents deployed at one point tocut a tree
Must've been the most badasstreeever
>>46775181
The DMZ is very well patrolled. But the border with China is less so. China's a dictatorship itself, but after Deng Xiaoping's reforms it's more like a classic monarchy in overall social control than a totalitarian system. North Koreans run to China to escape... and are usually sent back unless something exceptional happens.
That's the line between the run-of-the-mill dictatorships and monarchies that we've been experiencing for most of human history on one hand, and the nationalist socialist and communist totalitarian systems that emerged in the 20th century. Those prior systems hoarded all political control and wielded considerable economic and social power too. But the new ones try to monopolize every type of power in the political institutions, which eventually coalesce into a single man. A person who tries to control every aspect of life from politics to economics to cultural/social preferences
Part of Orwell's point was that the lower tiers of such a total society are its biggest vulnerability-- people who wield a modicum of power, enough to be able to organize but not enough that they're invested in the current system
So the Proles lived quiet lives of poverty, sex, alcohol, and misery, but weren't watched all that carefully. The Inner Party had immense privileges, but there were very few of them. The Outer Party did most of the work, had more education and authority than the proles, but were lived under the heavy boot of ruthless, constant oppression. The outer party was the one that was most closely watched and most likely to be arrested or killed
>>46775232
yeah I meant to say war. Sorry
>>46775307
Yeah, it's funny. Fascist doctrine says that every nation is in competition with every other, but in practice fascist parties coordinate across national boundaries. Communism says that nationality is a false construct... but every communist country wins power and holds power through constant exploitation of nationalist/ethnic/racial division.
>>46775346
>The incident is also known alternatively as the hatchet incident, the poplar tree incident, and the tree trimming incident.
They put like no effort into branding in the 70's.
>>46775222
Yes. Thought Crime is an old speak term used by the Thought Police.
>>46775423
Which part are you talking about?
And why does it have to be different? Many of these techniques were borrowed from historical antecedents. The difference between socialist dictatorships and the theocracies and despotic regimes of history is mostly one of degree. All the economic/history theory is mostly just part of justifying stuff that despots have done for millennia... but thanks to technology and communist ideology, it's done to a degree that's never been seen before in history.
>>46775498
I disagree. There's no movement in history that has paid more attention to its brand.
Consider, a generation after the whole thing collapsed in a mass popular revolt and the horrific crimes that communists had been denying for half a century proven beyond all doubt... you still have people believing in that system. To the point where even in the USA someone all but openly espousing those views has a serious shot of winning a major party nomination for President (after a long career in Congress).
>>46775427
At that point it was more about making a show of force. Demonstrating to the North Koreans that they weren't going to take that shit lying down.
>>46775088
>>46775222
"Crimethink" is an anarchist publishing house--don't ask me how that works--in Olympia, WA.
I suspect them of being funded by the local cops to stir shit up, but that sorta thing is really hard to prove, and anyway, I retired my tinfoil hat years ago.
>>46774854
>States attorneys general recently met to coordinate prosecutions against people engaging in crimethink about global warming.
I get a lot of Tea Party spam at my job, so this is old news.
I mean, it isn't true, but the fact that people believe it to be so is old news.
>>46774686
Read a book.
>>46776002
I'm sure CEI will be relieved to know that the subpoenas directed against them by the AG of Puerto Rico are merely hallucinations. And that statements by Kamala Harris (AG of California) and Loretta Lynch (AG of the US) didn't really happen either.
Are you going to try to say that the swat raids and john doe investigations by John Chisholm of Wisconsin were fake, too? Even a few centrist democrat groups have condemned it.
>>46776159
Look, the entire thing falls apart when you have to accept the existence of a "global warming policy agenda" in the first place.
>>46776413
Huh? How?
Look, I ought to point out that I do believe in global warming. But it's undeniable that there's a global warming policy agenda. That's the whole point of having treaties to manage carbon emissions and climate change-- to coordinate and implement such a policy agenda in law. You seriously going to argue that nobody believes in global warming, or that they don't support doing something about it?
The point isn't that people who want to control carbon emissions are wrong about the science, or even about the right policy to stop it. The point that makes it relevant to this thread is that people in a position of political power are attempting to criminalize disagreeing with them on that issue. It's irrelevant (at least here) whether they're making it illegal to be wrong or illegal to be right.
So here are the arguments about why that might be right. First, that criminalizing dissent is wrong, but that this particular issue is different because it's too important / impacts too many people / the dissenters represent evil segments of society (corporations/criminals/terrorists/bigots) / too technical for ordinary people to understand. Etc. The second approach is to argue that criminalizing dissent is right *in general*. I'll leave it to some other post to list those arguments-- they usually fall through from whatever ideology people are pushing.
If you're doing a game in a totalitarian system, you need to familiarize yourself with these arguments. And it's perfectly feasible to use these tactics to push the right policy as the wrong one-- in fact, for the leaders of dictatorships, their policies ARE the right answers.
>>46775558
Roads are the way to serfdom, yes.
>>46776585
>That's the whole point of having treaties to manage carbon emissions and climate change-- to coordinate and implement such a policy agenda in law.
The best they could pull off was to see how much cash could be made with CO2-certificate-trade and it turned out that the market could not be sufficiently manipulated to make folks with Clinton-connections rich, so the whole thing floundered. Buncha Euro nations and buncha startup companies still pretend it matters for brownie points or hipster money, but that's it.
Other than that, we got plenty of international treaties that are totally arbitrary and toothless. Human rights agreements are probably the most well-known body of those.
>>46776585
>So here are the arguments about why that might be right. First, that criminalizing dissent is wrong, but that this particular issue is different because it's too important / impacts too many people / the dissenters represent evil segments of society (corporations/criminals/terrorists/bigots) / too technical for ordinary people to understand. Etc. The second approach is to argue that criminalizing dissent is right *in general*. I'll leave it to some other post to list those arguments-- they usually fall through from whatever ideology people are pushing.
But is it criminalizing dissent, or criminalizing endangerment?
>>46775558
What horrific crimes are you referring to?
>>46776909
The argument is a bit more nebulous than, say, a regulation that you have to have handrails next to an industrial shredding machine. No stance is implied, merely the understanding that perception filters everything -- one man's "criminalizing endangerment" is another's "criminalizing dissent", along a sliding scale of necessity, efficacy, and proportionality.
>Select all images of a salad
FUCK YOU, my salads are 85% meat.
>>46776656
Oh, and if you're creating a totalitarian system for a game, then here's a great way to do it. I used to play a game w/ my friends, "violent Left-wing terrorist group or hippie preschool".
New Morning Community
People's Temple
Golden Dawn
Shining Path
True Love Community
Free Land
The Angry Brigade
Weather Collective
Sun Moon and Stars
The Foundation*
Growing Tree
Symbionese Liberation
First Foundations
Red Sun
Fair Haven
Vital Communities
ELF
Tiger Force
Just drive around looking at the SUVs and minivans with magnetic preschool decals and look up their names for good innocuous sounding names for revolutionary groups. The point of course is that both deal in utopias.
>>46776795
Ok so you're back to arguing whether or not the agenda is right or wrong, which belongs on /pol/. The point is that there IS a policy agenda, and a concerted effort to pass it, and a group of people with political power who in service to this (possibly virtuous end) are willing to criminalize disagreeing with it.
And by the way one argument sometimes advanced for criminalizing dissent on an issue is that if you don't criminalize disagreeing with a policy, then it will be watered down, corrupted, or fail to pass entirely as part of the open political process. (An argument for criminalizing dissent in general on all issues is that the open political process is intrinsically corrupt by its nature).
The fact that the agenda hasn't passed to the extent its supporters want is an explanation of why they're trying to criminalize disagreeing with it, not a way of refuting that criminalization is occurring. Ditto for responses that boil down to, "but this side is RIGHT." That may or may not be true, but it's besides the point. This thread is about means, not ends.
* That's what al Qaeda means in arabic.
>>46773793
All must believe the outrageous clam... on pain of death
Simple really; the blessed heavens allowed Kim to will himself into existence to save North Korea from the oppression of the west. Once everyone realised how amazing he is, and that his powers and faith in him are supreme, he was elected democratically as supreme eternal leader. Faith in Kim allows North Korea to prosper, knowing that he is watching over the country from the eternal heavens and guiding them through his divine offspring. That is why, while capitalist Americans starve and shoot eachother with drugs, I am able to type this on the states very own Windows 98 computer. It is called 98 because it is 98 times better than anything in America.
>>46777013
>What horrific crimes are you referring to?
Just the usual stuff that happens when you're chasing manifest destiny as a colonial power, I'd guess.
>>46777051
Fair enough.
But I live in Miami, so it strikes close to home for me when people trot out the "I'm not a scientist" and is hard to see as anything else.
>>46776909
>>46777051
No idea what the specific incidents in question were about, but "criminalizing dissent" is usually based on the notion that particular forms of dissent are harmful, ie endangerment. Hence the US First Amendment coming about specifically because colonists were ultra pissed about the British saying you can't complain about the British saying you can't complain about the British, as that would tarnish the crown's majesty and impede the government's ability to function.
>>46776909
Potentially, both. That's one way of justifying criminalizing dissent. That taking the opposite position on an important issue is actually dangerous to the public at large. In fact, that's an argument that EVERYONE makes about EVERY issue-- that it's ultimately more harmful to the public if my preferred policy X doesn't pass. The line to criminalizing dissent is caused when you continue by saying, "SO bad in fact that disagreeing itself is a form of harm and therefore should be prosecuted as such."
That's the trick, and there are many general political theories and specific issue positions that argue that the opposite position will cause harm if enacted, and therefore advocating for that position causes harm.
It's not the only case you can make, but if you're going to run a story like this you'll need at least a few justifications ready to haul out.
>>46777226
>outrageous clams
The use of such dangerous mussels is why they're called "strongmen" and why they get so crabby.
>>46777217
>Ok so you're back to arguing whether or not the agenda is right or wrong, which belongs on /pol/. The point is that there IS a policy agenda, and a concerted effort to pass it, and a group of people with political power who in service to this (possibly virtuous end) are willing to criminalize disagreeing with it.
I'm pointing out that this particular interest generally is at odds with other, stronger interests, so it gets shot to pieces and deformed to the point where it's effectively harmless on an international level.
Like human rights, which generally aren't being enforced or even considered worth shit and the breaking of which isn't criminalized on the field of international politics unless that can be used as a vehicle to further other, more important policy aims.
>>46777340
My shell
>>46777217
>* That's what al Qaeda means in arabic.
Pretty sure it means "The List".
It was originally a list compiled by the CIA of people that were reliable for fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
>>46777392
Ahh ok. Well, while I agree with you, it's not really on topic.
>>46779429
It would take two minutes of your time to Google it and realize that you're wrong.
>>46773869
"Based on what I heard from an extremely small and biased source I have this stupid opinion"
>>46780127
How many other sources are available on living conditions in NK? The people don't have internet and journalists are very rarely allowed in, so we can't really ask them directly. People who've left the country are probably the best source we have.
>>46777217
>Golden Dawn
>al Qaeda
The fact that you've listed two far right groups makes me more suspicious of your point.
>>46779429
STFU hippy
>>46780127
>extremely small and biased source
I'll give you small, but Biased? Really? Are we defending NK's leadership now?
You're right anon, Kim Jung Un very well could be a unicorn riding rain bringing messiah. We should keep open minds until we have a greater scientific pool to draw from.
>>46775558
>MUH COMMUNIST BOGEYMAN
yeah because eurofag socialism is the same thing as Soviet Socialism
jesus christ people
>>46780485
>ELF
>Symbionese Liberation
>Shining Path
>"far right groups"
>>46782789
While the source in neither extremely small, nor is the 'opinion' especially stupid, it is absolutely true that North Korean defectors are a heavily biased sources on the subject of North Korea.
Thankfully, much of their reports has been validated by other sources, like ROK Intelligence, Satellite Reconnaissance and (sadly rare and sparse) accounts by foreigners, so we can probably conclude that the reports of North Korean defectors are, broadly speaking, factual.
For the past couple years I've been mulling a near-future post-apocalyptic setting that's based in the former NK.
>>46783627
How would that work? The defining feature of NK society is it's rigid hierarchy and centralized power. Those sorts of things tend to be the first to go in an apocalypse.
>>46777283
>Miami
Remind me, is it your governor who banned the use of the phrases "climate change", "global warming", and "sustainability" in any state agency?
Fuck, whatever the scenario is I still feel sorry for you guys and your inevitable fate of having very wet feet.
>>46775001
How does this lead to believing the monarch can read their minds at any moment in time and shoot lightning from his eyes?
There's not a single mention of communism in NK anymore (in works, ideology or propaganda).
>>46773349
What are the goods and bads of North Korea?
>>46782866
>right
In the EU, Right means Nationalist and Left means Socialist. In the US, Right means libertarian and Left means authoritarian. It's a 'separated by a common language' thing.
HTH
>still spreading the "Korea has low food supply" meme
I went there on holiday and was surprised I ate better than I did at a restaurant at home. Everyone was happy and healthy.
Don't believe imperialist propaganda. US needs to keep Korea as an enemy or its economy collapses.
>>46786150
North Korea is actually a good place, I knew it. Why don't we help them out with food? There's a surplus of it within the world. Enough to stop world hunger.
>>46786092
I'm an American, and that's not how it works at all here.
>>46786021
>Goods: Bliss
>Bads: Ignorance, Malnutrition, No Luxury Goods, Dissidents get sent to camps
>>46785989
They've recently had a resurgence of communist purism in the last few decades. The line about reform and mixed economies wasn't working, so they're calling for a return to the socialist fervor of the country's founding.
>>46786233
Right means libertarian and everything else is socialist gommunism? Better dead than red? USA! USA! USA!!
>>46786150
> I ate better than I did at a restaurant at home
You were bringing in foreign cash and eating at a restaurant almost certainly designed to cater to tourists. Burundi and Ethiopia have some great tourist spots and tourist restaurants for tourist eats, too, but I doubt you think they're not starving as countries.
The surest proof of malnutrition is the soldiers they stick at the DMZ. North Koreans and South Koreans are ethnically the same people; yet over the past several decades it has been observed that the North Korean soldiers seem to be several inches - up to six - shorter on average than their South Korean counterparts, a tendency that didn't exist prior to the 1950s.
There are only two ways this could happen - either the Nork culture finds short men prime breeding material for some inane reason (which we have no reason to suspect), or else the South Koreans are eating better in childhood than their North Korean counterparts.
>>46786174
>Enough to stop world hunger.
America produces a lot of food, but not THAT much. However, I take your point that we could supply the Norks with plenty of food. The thing is...we do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/north-korea-food-aid/
However, North Korea has a long history of alternatively asking for food aid, and then turning away the very help they asked for.
>>46786312
Different American.
In America, "right" means conservative, and "left" means liberal. The Right encompasses libertarianism, yes (which, to an American, is confusingly named considered its position on the political spectrum), but it also encompasses a large number of other political philosophies.
While, yes, the "left" encompasses socialism and communism, but also, again, a large number of other philosophies.
>>46786421
That American. Basically, this. Right does not automatically mean Libertarian, and is used to mean a large number of authoritarian systems as well. Meanwhile, Left is used for everything from Stalin to Destiny the Hippy who wants to protect the trees and smoke pot.
>>46786092
>In the US, Right means libertarian and Left means authoritarian.
Yeahhhno. In the US, the terms "right" and "left" traditionally mean "conservative" and "liberal". "Authoritarian" and "libertarian" are a whole other spectrum. That said, the modern right is less conservative than it is reactionary, and the left less liberal than it is contentious. Then there's the corporatist-populist spectrum, a whole other kettle of fish. Oh, and the tendency to turn labels into pejoratives devoid of meaning, eg: communist, fascist, socialist, anarchist, liberal. And let's not forget the wild misapplication of labels in order to misrepresent and/or tar your opponent -- the last three Democrats have all somehow been the most liberal liberal to ever liberal.
American political positioning is a mess.
>>46786526
Reminder there's nothing wrong with being a liberal.
Democrats and Conservatives parties are not defined by a single ideology. They are massive political coalitions with everything inside. The Neocons, for example, started in the Democratic party before moving on to the Conservative side.
>>46786526
Don't forget that all American politicians are Hitler!
>>46786526
It's because we have a two-party system instead of a parliamentary system. It's actually the greatest strength of our system, but from the outside it looks like a massive weakness.
Hang on, I capped something from /his/, I think, that explained things nicely...ah, here we go.
>>46786645
>two-party system
>ever good
>>46786563
>>46786563
That depends entirely what you mean by the word "liberal". Pick one of ten thousand definitions.
>>46786669
Did you even read what I posted?
>>46786645
This poster is so out of touch with reality that it's terrifying.
>>46786700
Yes, and it doesn't make note of the fact that the reason the system is "remarkably stable" is because both parties are beholden the same outside interests that are not their constituents.
Your post is celebrating stagnation and the status quo, while ignoring what is actually wrong with American politics for the last 20 years.
>>46786716
Care to elaborate rather than just make broad statements?
>>46786645 posted a three-post cap explaining the benefits of the two-party system over the parliamentary system. You're not gonna bring that down with a single pithy remark, you're gonna have to actually explain yourself.
>>46786645
>It's actually the greatest strength of our system, but from the outside it looks like a massive weakness.
It's arguably both our greatest strength and weakness. The ship of state is slow to turn, but that also means that the ship of state is slow to correct course or react to changing conditions. It's also infinitely easier to collude amongst two similarly interested groups than it is amongst ten, or one hundred. I've personally felt that tripartite polities do well at maintaining both dynamism and stability; that said, they're rare enough to be noteworthy and the American system is inherently bipartite.
>>46786747
If you are going to post bullshit, it doesn't matter how much bullshit you post, it doesn't make it correct.
Or y'know, point out how the principle failing is that if you don't subscribe to the 2 parties in question, you automatically have a lesser voice than a fellow who does, which is an immediate failure of the democratic process.
>>46786645
>two-part system
>greatest strength
Making claims like "global warming is probably occurring" or "maybe abortion shouldn't be illegal in EVERY case" gets Republican pundits tittering about unelectability, while the left keeps grappling with itself over NOT SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH, WHY DON'T YOU PANDER TO MY TERRIBLY OPPRESSED INTEREST GROUP FIRST AND FOREMOST?
If this presidential campaign cycle has shown anything, it's that trying to mash the entire spectrum of political interests and goals into two camps has turned our political system into a race to be the best namecaller.
>>46786738
>while ignoring what is actually wrong with American politics for the last 20 years.
Atrocious voter turnout. It's that. Nothing else.
I don't care how much money the NRA or Wall Street or the NAACP or Ross Perot or NAMBLA or whoever gives to various parties. A billion dollars a candidate wouldn't help if dissatisfied people went out and voted to show their dissatisfaction.
But they don't, leading the parties to make one of two conclusions:
a) The voters are satisfied; or
b) The voters, while not satisfied, simply don't care.
>>46779854
>the practical RL ways these policies are enacted are not part of the discussion
>the question whether laws should be used to punish people for harming others is not part of the discussion
So this is about... your claim that an occult international community's attempting to thought-police people worldwide?
>>46785866
Aren't sink holes going to free us from Miami anyway?
>>46786797
>Atrocious voter turnout. It's that. Nothing else.
That is a product of intentional will, not a issue with the system.
Political parties do not want the under 30 crowd voting.
>>46786778
>you automatically have a lesser voice than a fellow who does
So this is what Green/Libertarian whining looks like...
Your vote counts the same as anyone else. You just have decided to subscribe to a single-issue niche party. Even in a parliamentary system it's doubtful that whatever party you cling to would get many votes. If there were magically no parties and instead every candidate ran on his own charisma, your candidate would STILL not get any votes worth noting.
>If this presidential campaign cycle has shown anything, it's that trying to mash the entire spectrum of political interests and goals into two camps has turned our political system into a race to be the best namecaller.
Dunno how often you go to Europe, but I go quite often, and I will offer you my personal assurances that the situation is absolutely no different over there. At least not in Ireland or the UK, anyway.
>>46786645
>>46786797
>Does it matter now which one of them was right?
>Not to them. All that matters now is their hate.
>>46786860
So it's whining that if you don't align yourself to a group that doesn't carry your interests, you have less political power than the people that do?
You are trying too hard to defend >>46786645 as something good. I suspect it is a troll post you decided to trot out here.
>>46786834
>Political parties do not want the under 30 crowd voting.
It's not just the under 30 crowd. Voter turnout for the 2014 Congressional Election was the lowest since WWII (1942, specifically) at 36.4%. That's impossibly low for it to be just the under 30 crowd, or even for the under 30 crowd to be a majority of the missing 63.6% (though they're probably a plurality).
No, voter apathy isn't just a disease of the young. It's a disease of America in general.
>>46786747
Not that anon: parliamentary systems, proportional representation, and Condorcet all improve granularity. Under a two-party system, Candidate A can coincide with all, most, some, or few of your policy positions but still be the superior choice to B who supports fewer; "good" quickly shifts to "least bad". As more fractious parliamentary parties seek to distinguish themselves from their like, they focus specific issues more tightly. This gives you the opportunity to vote more strongly in line with your policy positions, and tailor your voting toward what your optimum governing body looks like.
>>46786934
People just don't realize what the power of one vote actually means. It looks small when you see it as just one, but that one vote actually allows you to participate in something bigger. You can gather other people onto your side turning your one vote into many votes which hold much more power now. Continue the cycle and eventually you can see why voting has a grand amount of power even if it's just one. People who don't vote just don't see the importance or are tied up with other business since politics can be a distracting focus when life is preoccupied with many other things.
>>46786934
And guess who turned out to the polls, anon?
Now, look at the last few presidential elections, and check out the demographics of the voters.
You are calling something apathy when it is entirely manufactured. The people who are voting are the people that are desired to vote, the people that will maintain the status quo for as long as possible until they die.
>>46786930
You have the same political power, it's just that your given cause is niche. 90% of third parties *are* third parties because they were once part of one of the big parties, but in the big party their given issue wasn't getting the attention they felt it deserved from the party's members, and so they split off to do their own thing in the theory that one divorced from the main party their niche issue could be better shown to the voters - but then they promptly discovered (or should have discovered) that the reason why their original party wasn't giving their single-issue as much focus as they wanted was because the voters simply didn't care about the issue as much as the niche party thought.
For the sake of argument let's say your party is really into, I dunno, increased funding for teachers. The Teacher's Party isn't getting votes because most people simply don't care for its issue. If the Teacher's Party is weak it's because they have chosen to focus on a single issue that the voters don't care about - but that's the fault of the Teacher's Party.
As an added fault, most third parties are nearly identical to the Big Two save for their niche issue, which the majority of voters, as established, don't care about as much as the third party thought. The Green Party is for all intents and purposes the Democrat party, except with a more heavy emphasis on environmentalism. But in the balance more people favor the Democrat's more measured approach to environmentalism over the Green Party's heavy emphasis on it, and since the Green Party is otherwise largely indistinguishable from the Democrats, that naturally means that people are going to vote Democrat.
In sum, if your third party doesn't have a seat in Congress, it's not because of a flaw in the Democratic system, but rather it's because of the Democratic system working as intended: the majority of people are telling you that they do not care about your issue.
>>46787056
How do you fix the people since they're clearly the problem.
>>46787078
no one has figured that out. That's why we have governments and political parties in the first place.
>>46787078
I feel that if you're taking the view that the people need to be "fixed", then you simply don't understand the fundamental idea of democracy.
Which may be why your third party a) exists, and b) doesn't have a seat in Congress.
>>46775230
>North Korean Border soldiers
Nah, they just get K-pop blasted at them
>>46787056
That's because the US voting system is first-past-the-post, rather than using some kind of proportional or preferential voting system.
Proportional voting directly reflects the voters' choices in the number of candidates elected, and preferential voting allows voters to express their actual opinion in their vote rather than voting based on their perception of what other voters believe.
>>46786992
>when it is entirely manufactured.
The various "rock the vote" TV spots and so on would seem to suggest that the media, at least, would vastly prefer that more people voted.
>>46773349
I know we've long gone off-topic, but I think I can help answer OP if they're still looking for help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLf5EYstvw0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_12ywAEZLns
>>46787078
They need to finally shed the Manifest Destiny mentality
>>46786526
>>46786421
Where the 'authoritarians' and 'libertarians' are changes entirely depending on who is currently in power.
The next time the conservatives are in charge, those college kids whining about safe spaces will vanish - as will right-wingers worried about free speech.
Thoughts on whether or not questioning your president is 'patriotic' will also flip 180 degrees.
And so on, right down the goddamn line.
Every. Fucking. Time.
And best of all, everyone will pretend that this new political map is a permanent thing, that has always been this way, no screw you we're not all hypocrites.
>>46780127
>"Based on what I heard from an extremely small and biased source I have this stupid opinion"
Go move to DPRK and get back to us about the truth then faggot
>>46787165
The majority of America tends to lean left rather than right.
The people who lean right are generally older, but also much more loyal voters
Those who lean left are generally younger, but don't vote nearly as "well" as those who tend to lean right.
So it would make sense, than the American media who also tends to lean left would want more people to vote, thereby tipping the scales in favor of the left.
>>46787225
Everyone in the world isn't a hypocrite? What? No way.
>>46787152
US Presidential elections are first-past-the-post. Congressional elections, however, are done by raw popular vote. That raw popular vote has lead to a Congress that is overwhelmingly either Democrat or Republican - there are currently only two Congressmen that aren't either of that, and they're Independent.
Even on a State level, there are only 30 non-Big Two party seats in State legislators (the great majority of those are even Independent, not part of a third party), and only a single non-Big Two Governor.
The People have spoken. They don't like third parties. And since democracy is majority rule...
>>46787184
Those aren't even some of the best ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4iM6XP6i_A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fizf_bjlYrY
>>46787294
>including placebos which are actual placebos is disguise
>>46787370
How else could you perform a clinical trial for a placebo?
>>46786150
Why hello there Kim, you already eat all your country's food?
>>46787184
>>46787294
These are amazing. Are there any more? Because it looks like there's only 1, 2, 4, and 7.
>>46775181
>It's a general rule of human nature that people actually don't tend to rise up against their oppressors.
That depends on the cultural views of authority and the people's expectations of government. It also depends on how homogeneous the population is and how entrenched the government is. So it's not really a rule of nature, just of some cultures.
>>46775558
Communist governments in general were great at self promotion and propaganda. If they had been half as good at managing their economies they probably would have done pretty well.
>>46775430
northkorea does not claim to be a comunistig country anymore. The people have realiesed that the outside world is better of.
Insteand there claim to be the purer country.
>>46774686
Ever since we lost that war against the emus...
>>46774756
They're both called Oceania
>>46787294
>>46787184
OP here, thank you very much for these
Anybody here ever read "Nothing to Envy"?
