4 ms·

I skimmed the blog and the stories and I came to the conclusion that DAG's intent is not to foster critical thinking about the social, political, cognitive, and

I skimmed the blog and the stories and I came to the conclusion that DAG's intent is not to foster critical thinking about the social, political, cognitive, and philosophical issues in governance but rather to reinforce the reader's cynical views about government as being run by "dumbasses" instead of being "of the people".

JClaussFTW 15y ago
The site never promised to be an in-depth analysis of the systemic issues that produce "dumbass government", those being the principles of power metastasis, authority-liability mismatch, and the absence of anti-dynastic measures (or more accurately, the presence of pro-dynastic mechanisms). I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or what, but the site makes no claim to be a forum of deep debate. It's a search of government screwups. It's an invaluable tool if you're an activist. Imagine if Americans were motivated enough to use DumbassGovernment to find out who is screwing up and lobby to have them fired. What if every corrupt cop that got exposed on DAG couldn't go to a restaurant without someone urinating in their food? What if the politically correct bureaucratic morons that gave $4.5 million to an illegal immigrant pedophile were totally ostracized from their community? THAT is the end purpose of DumbassGovernment: to make incompetence as corrosive to the bureaucrat as to the nation.
- bithive123 15y ago
  So it's not meant to be a thoughtful mechanism for promoting change, just a way for people to act out their fight club fantasies on deserving victims. Gotcha, sorry I was so critical of you.
  - JClaussFTW 15y ago
    Fight club? I'm talking about ostracism, not violence. It's sort of like the Perverted Justice except instead of going after pedophiles, it goes after corrupt government (which often involves pedophilia). PJ doesn't advocate violence. It's a public shaming mechanism. How is that not a mechanism for promoting change? If bureaucrats and politicians are no longer safe behind a veil of anonymity, and must fear social ostracism, they're much more likely to behave. What's wrong with that?
    - bithive123 15y ago
      "It's okay for me to urinate in someone's food as long as I'm doing it to make them a social pariah" is exactly the kind of uncritical self-serving rationalization that leads to "dumbass government". Go look in the mirror before you act like your juvenile world view is beyond reproach.

JClaussFTW 15y ago

The site never promised to be an in-depth analysis of the systemic issues that produce "dumbass government", those being the principles of power metastasis, authority-liability mismatch, and the absence of anti-dynastic measures (or more accurately, the presence of pro-dynastic mechanisms). I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or what, but the site makes no claim to be a forum of deep debate. It's a search of government screwups. It's an invaluable tool if you're an activist. Imagine if Americans were motivated enough to use DumbassGovernment to find out who is screwing up and lobby to have them fired. What if every corrupt cop that got exposed on DAG couldn't go to a restaurant without someone urinating in their food? What if the politically correct bureaucratic morons that gave $4.5 million to an illegal immigrant pedophile were totally ostracized from their community? THAT is the end purpose of DumbassGovernment: to make incompetence as corrosive to the bureaucrat as to the nation.

bithive123 15y ago
So it's not meant to be a thoughtful mechanism for promoting change, just a way for people to act out their fight club fantasies on deserving victims. Gotcha, sorry I was so critical of you.
- JClaussFTW 15y ago
  Fight club? I'm talking about ostracism, not violence. It's sort of like the Perverted Justice except instead of going after pedophiles, it goes after corrupt government (which often involves pedophilia). PJ doesn't advocate violence. It's a public shaming mechanism. How is that not a mechanism for promoting change? If bureaucrats and politicians are no longer safe behind a veil of anonymity, and must fear social ostracism, they're much more likely to behave. What's wrong with that?
  - bithive123 15y ago
    "It's okay for me to urinate in someone's food as long as I'm doing it to make them a social pariah" is exactly the kind of uncritical self-serving rationalization that leads to "dumbass government". Go look in the mirror before you act like your juvenile world view is beyond reproach.