5 ms·

Pretty sure it's Canadian actually.

by Yoric 4y ago

gambiting 4y ago
Even the article mentions it. Edit: if this wasn't 100% crystal clear, judging by some replies - I mean "even the article mentions it [Canada being a source of mustard seeds]"
- seszett 4y ago
  I don't even care much about mustard or live in France (though I am French) and I knew it just from reading French news months ago. But I've heard so much disinformation in the last weeks when I was back at home with my family, many aging people (not especially lacking education, and of various social status but just "normal" people) who seem to get most of their information from random posts on Facebook, that I've lost any remaining trust in democracy (or at least direct democracy as many people advocate today) as a viable system for the coming years. Democracy needs a well-informed population making informed decisions, but what I see is the total opposite. If these people (who make up the majority of the population in our aging society) were to take decisions themselves, we would likely ally with Russia to finish the war against the "maybe-not-as-bad-but-still-very-bad" Ukrainians to restore mustard production and make gas flow again since there is no exceptional drought or any climate change at all, since summer last year was not so warm. Or some other nonsense. Sorry for the rant, but my reflections were actually triggered by the comments I heard back then regarding the mustard shortage. I had never realised how misinformed people were.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    My impression as well. I am not too hopeful for the future.
  - dorfsmay 4y ago
    Direct democracy would allow to discuss and debate ideas for their own sake rather than choosing one of a very few camps. A person could be pro-guns and pro-vaccination without needing to identify with a party, their people, etc... Disinformation will still exist (see brexit!),it might even be worse, but people will be able to point to it without being called a plant for the other side. The problem with current systems, representative democracy, especially with non-proportional voting systems, is that getting elected becomes the only goal, and supporting extreme views is one of the strategy, which has been pushing parties, from all sides, towards extremes. There is a self-feeding vicious circle as soon as one party supports extreme views, it reinforces the opposite party support for the party over ideas, and that now affects the first party etc... Being informed is like driving, every single person thinks they are better informed than the average! If you don't believe in democracy, can you please tell us what system is better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_a... Experiences with "sortition" has shown that a group of "average people" tend to make better decisions for the group then a few supposedly "elite". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
    - talideon 4y ago
      I think that the main benefit of sortition is that you end up with a set of people without any need to get re-elected, and that it's this that lends them the ability to make better decisions because their careers don't depend on it. Here in Ireland, we've had a number of Citizens' Assembly meetings going back just shy of a decade (if you include the 2012 Constitutional Convention, which was effectively the first one in all but name) that have been tremendously productive and have lead to a lot of positive change that would never have happened if it were left purely to professional politicians. You might find it worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_(Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_(Ireland)
    - themadturk 4y ago
      > If you don't believe in democracy, can you please tell us what system is better? Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean there's a better alternative. It simply means there may not be an alternative to believe in.
    - seszett 4y ago
      > If you don't believe in democracy, can you please tell us what system is better? None that I know of, that is the real tragedy. On the illusion of superiority, I'm well aware of that but do not forget that it does not mean that some people are not actually better or worse (at information, driving, cooking or anything) than the others. Some abilities can actually be evaluated, for example there is such a thing as truth, so even though one person can be bad at evaluating themselves, it is absolutely possible to recognise misinformation in others.
      - dorfsmay 4y ago
        > it is absolutely possible to recognise misinformation in others. And this needs to be part of the education, part of the direct democracy. Keep in mind that in many situations there isn't a single truth, compromises need to be made, different implementations of a system that should work in theory needs to be tested etc... The belief in a single great system has lead to many bad societies.
- finikytou 4y ago
  I guess you one of the well-informed french that would probably have called on chirac being a crazy man for not siding with usa when they went to bring "democracy" to irak against a bad dictator that had weapons that did not exist. because between above narrative and russian one that went there to "denazify" and fight a dictature of nazis there's not a big difference. every information is one-sided and no one can control it. it is easy to make fun of people that believe things on facebook. much harder to understand that you at your level are also one of them
  - ztrww 4y ago
    While I don't want to justify the invasion (or rather the motivation behind it and it’s actual execution), Sadam’s regime was OBJECTIVELY worse than the Ukrainian government. They are not even on the same level, the Ukrainian government may be thoroughly corrupt but they did not murder hundreds of thousands of their own people (using both conventional and chemical weapons). The real crime was propping up Sadam in the 80’s when US did not see him as a threat and living him alive in 1991 (which just prove that US had zero actual concerns about the wellbeing and freedom of the people of Iraq in 2003)
    - throwaway_4ever 4y ago
      > living him alive in 1991 what? 1991 was the same decision to make as 2003, except they chose restraint. When they flipped in 2003, almost everyone universally agrees, including you > the US war in Iraq was unjustified it was a bad decision, thus 1991 was the right move.
      - ztrww 4y ago
        > except they chose restraint No they chose to instigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings and then left the rebels out to dry. Thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis were killed by Sadam's forces. The equivalent of 1991 (obviously on a very different scale) would be the Allies stopping at the border of Germany in 1944 (after liberating France) and allowing Hitler to stay in power (while simultaneously claiming that it’s the job of the German people to remove him).
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  Not anymore? The article does not mention china at all. Maybe it was corrected in the meanwhile. As I'm reading it, Canada is named as the majority source for seeds.
  - latch 4y ago
    your parent means that even the article mentions Canada [so there's no need to just be 'pretty sure']

Pretty sure it's Canadian actually.

by Yoric 4y ago

Pretty sure it's Canadian actually.

Even the article mentions it. Edit: if this wasn't 100% crystal clear, judging by some replies - I mean "even the article mentions it [Canada being a source of mustard seeds]"

seszett 4y ago
I don't even care much about mustard or live in France (though I am French) and I knew it just from reading French news months ago. But I've heard so much disinformation in the last weeks when I was back at home with my family, many aging people (not especially lacking education, and of various social status but just "normal" people) who seem to get most of their information from random posts on Facebook, that I've lost any remaining trust in democracy (or at least direct democracy as many people advocate today) as a viable system for the coming years. Democracy needs a well-informed population making informed decisions, but what I see is the total opposite. If these people (who make up the majority of the population in our aging society) were to take decisions themselves, we would likely ally with Russia to finish the war against the "maybe-not-as-bad-but-still-very-bad" Ukrainians to restore mustard production and make gas flow again since there is no exceptional drought or any climate change at all, since summer last year was not so warm. Or some other nonsense. Sorry for the rant, but my reflections were actually triggered by the comments I heard back then regarding the mustard shortage. I had never realised how misinformed people were.
- kergonath 4y ago
  My impression as well. I am not too hopeful for the future.
- dorfsmay 4y ago
  Direct democracy would allow to discuss and debate ideas for their own sake rather than choosing one of a very few camps. A person could be pro-guns and pro-vaccination without needing to identify with a party, their people, etc... Disinformation will still exist (see brexit!),it might even be worse, but people will be able to point to it without being called a plant for the other side. The problem with current systems, representative democracy, especially with non-proportional voting systems, is that getting elected becomes the only goal, and supporting extreme views is one of the strategy, which has been pushing parties, from all sides, towards extremes. There is a self-feeding vicious circle as soon as one party supports extreme views, it reinforces the opposite party support for the party over ideas, and that now affects the first party etc... Being informed is like driving, every single person thinks they are better informed than the average! If you don't believe in democracy, can you please tell us what system is better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_a... Experiences with "sortition" has shown that a group of "average people" tend to make better decisions for the group then a few supposedly "elite". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
  - talideon 4y ago
    I think that the main benefit of sortition is that you end up with a set of people without any need to get re-elected, and that it's this that lends them the ability to make better decisions because their careers don't depend on it. Here in Ireland, we've had a number of Citizens' Assembly meetings going back just shy of a decade (if you include the 2012 Constitutional Convention, which was effectively the first one in all but name) that have been tremendously productive and have lead to a lot of positive change that would never have happened if it were left purely to professional politicians. You might find it worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_(Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_(Ireland)
  - themadturk 4y ago
    > If you don't believe in democracy, can you please tell us what system is better? Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean there's a better alternative. It simply means there may not be an alternative to believe in.
  - seszett 4y ago
    > If you don't believe in democracy, can you please tell us what system is better? None that I know of, that is the real tragedy. On the illusion of superiority, I'm well aware of that but do not forget that it does not mean that some people are not actually better or worse (at information, driving, cooking or anything) than the others. Some abilities can actually be evaluated, for example there is such a thing as truth, so even though one person can be bad at evaluating themselves, it is absolutely possible to recognise misinformation in others.
    - dorfsmay 4y ago
      > it is absolutely possible to recognise misinformation in others. And this needs to be part of the education, part of the direct democracy. Keep in mind that in many situations there isn't a single truth, compromises need to be made, different implementations of a system that should work in theory needs to be tested etc... The belief in a single great system has lead to many bad societies.
finikytou 4y ago
I guess you one of the well-informed french that would probably have called on chirac being a crazy man for not siding with usa when they went to bring "democracy" to irak against a bad dictator that had weapons that did not exist. because between above narrative and russian one that went there to "denazify" and fight a dictature of nazis there's not a big difference. every information is one-sided and no one can control it. it is easy to make fun of people that believe things on facebook. much harder to understand that you at your level are also one of them
- ztrww 4y ago
  While I don't want to justify the invasion (or rather the motivation behind it and it’s actual execution), Sadam’s regime was OBJECTIVELY worse than the Ukrainian government. They are not even on the same level, the Ukrainian government may be thoroughly corrupt but they did not murder hundreds of thousands of their own people (using both conventional and chemical weapons). The real crime was propping up Sadam in the 80’s when US did not see him as a threat and living him alive in 1991 (which just prove that US had zero actual concerns about the wellbeing and freedom of the people of Iraq in 2003)
  - throwaway_4ever 4y ago
    > living him alive in 1991 what? 1991 was the same decision to make as 2003, except they chose restraint. When they flipped in 2003, almost everyone universally agrees, including you > the US war in Iraq was unjustified it was a bad decision, thus 1991 was the right move.
    - ztrww 4y ago
      > except they chose restraint No they chose to instigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings and then left the rebels out to dry. Thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis were killed by Sadam's forces. The equivalent of 1991 (obviously on a very different scale) would be the Allies stopping at the border of Germany in 1944 (after liberating France) and allowing Hitler to stay in power (while simultaneously claiming that it’s the job of the German people to remove him).
PurpleRamen 4y ago
Not anymore? The article does not mention china at all. Maybe it was corrected in the meanwhile. As I'm reading it, Canada is named as the majority source for seeds.
- latch 4y ago
  your parent means that even the article mentions Canada [so there's no need to just be 'pretty sure']