5 ms·

so essentially: "because you only have worse choices"

marcyb5st 3y ago
Except that in one I can say "my president is an idiot. We need a leadership change" without wiping my credit score or being detained.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  Ha, you can say that in China too (about the US president lol).
  - kube-system 3y ago
    A classic joke! https://youtu.be/9qh-1_tXeuQ?t=30 https://youtu.be/9qh-1_tXeuQ?t=30
  - lsofzz 3y ago
    United States of China. Peoples Republic of United States. Sounds the same.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  True. But it's important to note that it is likely that, given the requirements of creating large, functioning systems of administration, it might be true that all governing systems are trying to solve the same types of problems. And it's worth remembering that, even in the US there exist examples of people who pushed for real change to these systems, and ended up detained, dead or simply disappeared. It might also be worthwhile to consider the following well known allegations: revolving door appointments between bureaucracy and companies that it interfaces with and regulates; compromise of politicians by various interest groups using bribery or blackmail; the effects of corporate lobbying and donations to distort the legislative and electoral processes; the powers of unelected career bureaucrats whose tenures often outlast elected officials. It's important to recall that the US is not alone is allegedly suffering from these maladies, but that it might suffer from them ought be a cause for concern. Such considerations seem to raise the question of whether the president (and associated democratic and elected apparatuses) are in some way figureheads designed to provide a focus and an outlet, but may also function to protect the overall system against substantial reforms. Such a description may help explain why processes in democracies often stagnate. The is not to say that the Chinese system is "better" in any sense (our first consideration indicates that perhaps all large governing systems must essentially be the same), but it might be more honest about what it is. This gives rise to the sense that democracy, at least in part, may be a deception that usefully provides people the illusion of a voice for change, while at the same time protecting the governing system by ensuring people do not seek more disruptive methods to alter it. Of course, the flipside is, without such less disruptive avenues, people are then without peaceful recourse. This means that in the Chinese system, the government knows it faces the threat of revolution, which, while it could be thought to function as a kind of guidance of, or check-and-balance on, its power, is also responded to by the system itself becoming more draconian and authoritarian, in order to protect itself, if that makes sense? So in the US, the system protects itself with what may be described as a generally more peaceful and free society, with what be a somewhat deceptive democracy (of course more authoritarian exceptions are occasionally made to neutralize true rabble rousers), whereas in China, the system protects itself more overtly, with a generally more authoritarian and restrictive society, which is more open about what it is. The point of this comparison is to foster more mutual understanding and less false-differences that fuel unnecessary divisions and distort discussions with fallacies, in an attempt to try to guide discussions along more productive directions, based on realities.
  - Roark66 3y ago
    >This gives rise to the sense that democracy, at least in part, may be a deception that usefully provides people the illusion of a voice for change, while at the same time protecting the governing system by ensuring people do not seek more disruptive methods to alter it. As Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all others". Are there elements in democracies that entrench the status quo? Of course, especially in countries like the UK and the US with single member district, first past the post systems that favor huge parties that never change. Here we have a pretty complex party list based system that is often critiqued as "too difficult to understand for the average voter", but when people want to change who rules the country they have more than 1 viable choice of opposition. You may say, nah, it is not about the system of voting, duopoly is a feature of "mature" democracies that have been around for 400 years. To which I'll give an example of Poland where the lower chamber of parliament (Sejm) is voted for party lists proportionally and it always has a mix of many parties, and the upper chamber (Senat) that uses the classic "first past the post" system and in the senate 2 major parties(the biggest party and the current biggest opposition party) always get 95%+ of the seats.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      I'm not an electoral mechanics geek but I appreciate the details, even if much of it flies over my head. Do you perchance have any resources where I could better understand such things? Also, I think your points are very interesting but may benefit from some paragraphing for added clarity and coherence. Another point of note is that, while interesting, it may be the case that no matter how much a government optimizes its electoral systems, it may still be subject to the other vulnerabilities listed above, which sadly might subsume any gains from such optimization.
- friendzis 3y ago
  Half seriously, what's the difference between your career ruined via social credit being wiped by government or your career ruined via social credit being wiped on Twitter?
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    It's pretty simple to not be on Twitter. It's comparably hard to evade governments.
    - Detrytus 3y ago
      Just because you are not on Twitter (or Facebook, or whatever) won't stop other people from tweeting lies about you. And the public image that you have on social media matters a lot in this society. See also: "Cancel culture".
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > or your career ruined via social credit being wiped on Twitter? Whose career got ruined actually? Johnny Depp is still making movies, Rammstein just announced a 2024 tour, JKR still is making millions upon millions every year with Harry Potter, Trump is likely to be the Republican candidate in 2024. "Cancel culture" isn't real.
  - xcdzvyn 3y ago
    One's a repressive government and one's some number of people choosing not to like you very much anymore?
  - garba_dlm 3y ago
    "due process"??? but we've gotta update this now that the law will turn to software
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  So I guess the op was right, why does the rest of the world use American standards, since we can't choose your president either (I don't actually believe that we shouldn't use NIST standards, but my point is that's a pretty weak argument for non Americans. )

Except that in one I can say "my president is an idiot. We need a leadership change" without wiping my credit score or being detained.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Ha, you can say that in China too (about the US president lol).
- kube-system 3y ago
  A classic joke! https://youtu.be/9qh-1_tXeuQ?t=30 https://youtu.be/9qh-1_tXeuQ?t=30
- lsofzz 3y ago
  United States of China. Peoples Republic of United States. Sounds the same.
keepamovin 3y ago
True. But it's important to note that it is likely that, given the requirements of creating large, functioning systems of administration, it might be true that all governing systems are trying to solve the same types of problems. And it's worth remembering that, even in the US there exist examples of people who pushed for real change to these systems, and ended up detained, dead or simply disappeared. It might also be worthwhile to consider the following well known allegations: revolving door appointments between bureaucracy and companies that it interfaces with and regulates; compromise of politicians by various interest groups using bribery or blackmail; the effects of corporate lobbying and donations to distort the legislative and electoral processes; the powers of unelected career bureaucrats whose tenures often outlast elected officials. It's important to recall that the US is not alone is allegedly suffering from these maladies, but that it might suffer from them ought be a cause for concern. Such considerations seem to raise the question of whether the president (and associated democratic and elected apparatuses) are in some way figureheads designed to provide a focus and an outlet, but may also function to protect the overall system against substantial reforms. Such a description may help explain why processes in democracies often stagnate. The is not to say that the Chinese system is "better" in any sense (our first consideration indicates that perhaps all large governing systems must essentially be the same), but it might be more honest about what it is. This gives rise to the sense that democracy, at least in part, may be a deception that usefully provides people the illusion of a voice for change, while at the same time protecting the governing system by ensuring people do not seek more disruptive methods to alter it. Of course, the flipside is, without such less disruptive avenues, people are then without peaceful recourse. This means that in the Chinese system, the government knows it faces the threat of revolution, which, while it could be thought to function as a kind of guidance of, or check-and-balance on, its power, is also responded to by the system itself becoming more draconian and authoritarian, in order to protect itself, if that makes sense? So in the US, the system protects itself with what may be described as a generally more peaceful and free society, with what be a somewhat deceptive democracy (of course more authoritarian exceptions are occasionally made to neutralize true rabble rousers), whereas in China, the system protects itself more overtly, with a generally more authoritarian and restrictive society, which is more open about what it is. The point of this comparison is to foster more mutual understanding and less false-differences that fuel unnecessary divisions and distort discussions with fallacies, in an attempt to try to guide discussions along more productive directions, based on realities.
- Roark66 3y ago
  >This gives rise to the sense that democracy, at least in part, may be a deception that usefully provides people the illusion of a voice for change, while at the same time protecting the governing system by ensuring people do not seek more disruptive methods to alter it. As Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all others". Are there elements in democracies that entrench the status quo? Of course, especially in countries like the UK and the US with single member district, first past the post systems that favor huge parties that never change. Here we have a pretty complex party list based system that is often critiqued as "too difficult to understand for the average voter", but when people want to change who rules the country they have more than 1 viable choice of opposition. You may say, nah, it is not about the system of voting, duopoly is a feature of "mature" democracies that have been around for 400 years. To which I'll give an example of Poland where the lower chamber of parliament (Sejm) is voted for party lists proportionally and it always has a mix of many parties, and the upper chamber (Senat) that uses the classic "first past the post" system and in the senate 2 major parties(the biggest party and the current biggest opposition party) always get 95%+ of the seats.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    I'm not an electoral mechanics geek but I appreciate the details, even if much of it flies over my head. Do you perchance have any resources where I could better understand such things? Also, I think your points are very interesting but may benefit from some paragraphing for added clarity and coherence. Another point of note is that, while interesting, it may be the case that no matter how much a government optimizes its electoral systems, it may still be subject to the other vulnerabilities listed above, which sadly might subsume any gains from such optimization.
friendzis 3y ago
Half seriously, what's the difference between your career ruined via social credit being wiped by government or your career ruined via social credit being wiped on Twitter?
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  It's pretty simple to not be on Twitter. It's comparably hard to evade governments.
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    Just because you are not on Twitter (or Facebook, or whatever) won't stop other people from tweeting lies about you. And the public image that you have on social media matters a lot in this society. See also: "Cancel culture".
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > or your career ruined via social credit being wiped on Twitter? Whose career got ruined actually? Johnny Depp is still making movies, Rammstein just announced a 2024 tour, JKR still is making millions upon millions every year with Harry Potter, Trump is likely to be the Republican candidate in 2024. "Cancel culture" isn't real.
- xcdzvyn 3y ago
  One's a repressive government and one's some number of people choosing not to like you very much anymore?
- garba_dlm 3y ago
  "due process"??? but we've gotta update this now that the law will turn to software
mardifoufs 3y ago
So I guess the op was right, why does the rest of the world use American standards, since we can't choose your president either (I don't actually believe that we shouldn't use NIST standards, but my point is that's a pretty weak argument for non Americans. )