"The World's Constitution" - your review?

[coprolite]

11 minutes ago, TheNavigateur said:

Views = opinions. Decide = decide. Heard = read or heard. The established pattern is those with the most power get the most prominent voice. If this is acceptable to you, why? If not, what do you think should be done about it?

You've implied a causality from a correlation between power and "prominent voice" and treated that as axiomatic. 

Maybe it’s at least partly true that power can derive from a "prominent voice" as it was in the bolsheveik revolution, to take one high profile example. 

Your definitions haven't exactly helped clarify the issue that you're looking for an answer for. 

In particular your definition of "heard" still suggests that you would mandate something based on the reception of a message rather than, for example, providing a platform to publish on. 

There are for sure some aspects of regulation of some forms of media that i'd change, but i can't specify any rules that could reasonably apply to any situation in such a complex system at least not without taking months, probably years. 

The fact that you are asking such a broadly scoped question so glibly strongly implies that you've not put any work into understanding what you're taliking about. 

[welshbairn]

The freedom to post shite on here is made more tolerable by judicious use of the ignore function.

[Satoshi]

The world being governed by a single entity (whether that is called a government or something else) is a matter of when not if.

So many of the challenges the world face such as global warming, tax evasion, cybersecurity and pandemics have to be tackled globally. Nation states alone cannot (and will not) solve any of these issues.

The world of international finance is the first to be truly global. Doesn't matter how much sovereignty a country wants or has, everyone has to follow the international laws of finance. That's why USD is popular even in North Korean, and why Chileans new 35 year old student protest president is trying not to spook investors.

The ultra rich already live a life wiithout borders, I hope in my lifetime that extends to far more people.

[Antlion]

On 31/12/2021 at 14:42, ICTJohnboy said:

 

His many posts (very many) are becoming almost instantly recognisable, no matter the alias, the thread or the timing. Does he seriously believe he'll influence anyone with his incessant racist and sectarian bile, and garner support for all the deeply offensive causes he so clearly believes in?

I suspect influencing folk is a distant second to getting negative attention from strangers. Makes you wonder if his family (I think we can discount the possibility of friends) know about this bizarre behaviour.

[Scott Steiner]

On 31/12/2021 at 14:27, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Nor will there ever be.

But what more would we expect from the the guy that, not only condoned Arlene Foster's participation in a bigoted  orange walk in Cowdenbeath last year, he actually applauded her involvement.

 

I'm afraid Arlene didn't participate in any bigoted orange walk.  She didn't participate in the orange parade either, as she's not a member of our fine organisation.

She was a visitor, having been invited to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the County Grade Lodge of the East.

Does this upset you?

[coprolite]

40 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I suspect influencing folk is a distant second to getting negative attention from strangers. Makes you wonder if his family (I think we can discount the possibility of friends) know about this bizarre behaviour.

Yeah, it's a slightly advanced version of a toddler asking "why?.... Why?...." to every answer they get until you eventually stop playing and tell them to stop it. Then they go "why?" and laugh at you for being irritated by their juvenile shit. In fact it's not all that far advanced from that. 

[Scott Steiner]

42 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I suspect influencing folk is a distant second to getting negative attention from strangers. Makes you wonder if his family (I think we can discount the possibility of friends) know about this bizarre behaviour.

As previously stated, I was made aware of how the land lies on here before I signed up.  I doubt many come on here to be influenced.

As for influencing people like you.. well that's impossible.  It's impossible to influence a bigoted mind.  You're too far gone, I'm afraid.  A lost cause.

[Scott Steiner]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Yeah, it's a slightly advanced version of a toddler asking "why?.... Why?...." to every answer they get until you eventually stop playing and tell them to stop it. Then they go "why?" and laugh at you for being irritated by their juvenile shit. In fact it's not all that far advanced from that. 

Have you even considered engaging reasonably?  You might actually get somewhere.

Far from dishing out juvenile shit, I actually just respond with contempt to attacks.  Try behaving like a normal human being (no sniggering at the back) and you'll get a reasonable response.

Edited January 1, 2022 by Scott Steiner

[Scott Steiner]

On 31/12/2021 at 14:42, ICTJohnboy said:

 

His many posts (very many) are becoming almost instantly recognisable, no matter the alias, the thread or the timing. Does he seriously believe he'll influence anyone with his incessant racist and sectarian bile, and garner support for all the deeply offensive causes he so clearly believes in?

**Awaits evidence of incessant racist and sectarian bile, as well as an explanation of the deeply offensive causes I support**

[ICTJohnboy]

4 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

**Awaits evidence of incessant racist and sectarian bile, as well as an explanation of the deeply offensive causes I support**

 

Just try reading this.

I'm really struggling now not to say anything abusive or offensive, but as mentioned previously, this won't last for long.

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/16345692.end-annual-shame-orange-order-marches/

[Scott Steiner]

Just now, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Just try reading this.

I'm really struggling now not to say anything abusive or offensive, but as mentioned previously, this won't last for long.

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/16345692.end-annual-shame-orange-order-marches/

I've never written anything in The National, so don't see how it can be cited as evidence of my racist and sectarian bile.  Nor is it usually the sort of publication that explains the deeply offensive causes that I support.

You'll have no problem backing up your assertions, presumably?  No sniggering at the back!

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

I'm afraid Arlene didn't participate in any bigoted orange walk.  She didn't participate in the orange parade either, as she's not a member of our fine organisation.

She was a visitor, having been invited to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the County Grade Lodge of the East.

Does this upset you?

 

So is this article another load of shite?

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-courier-advertiser-fife-edition/20180602/281500751935219

[Scott Steiner]

21 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

So is this article another load of shite?

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-courier-advertiser-fife-edition/20180602/281500751935219

I never said the previous one was, but am asking for evidence of my racist and sectarian bile, as well as an explanation of these deeply offensive causes I am alleged to support.

Are you going to provide any answers?  Or are you just going to continue to display random links regarding Arlene Foster's attendance at the Orange Walk?

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

Have you even considered engaging reasonably?  You might actually get somewhere.

Far from dishing out juvenile shit, I actually just respond with contempt to attacks.  Try behaving like a normal human being (no sniggering at the back) and you'll get a reasonable response.

I was speaking about you not to you. It's very bad manners to interrupt. 

[Scott Steiner]

10 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I was speaking about you not to you. It's very bad manners to interrupt. 

I'll take that as a No for engaging reasonably

[TheNavigateur]

On 31/12/2021 at 15:30, coprolite said:

You've implied a causality from a correlation between power and "prominent voice" and treated that as axiomatic. 

Maybe it’s at least partly true that power can derive from a "prominent voice" as it was in the bolsheveik revolution, to take one high profile example. 

Is that correlation not axiomatic without any rules to counteract it?

Do you not think that even in a capitalistic system, those with the most power (ownership) can purchase their way to being heard the most? Do you not think that this leads to actions (e.g. people voting for the propagandists' favourite political candidates, etc.) that furthers the propagandists' interests, which increases their power even more to do even more of the same, in a vicious cycle?

Even if you think this is supremely complicated to solve, can you not give one example step, that is logically sustainable, that would address this? Or at least whatever you think you'd like to be changed based on what you think the problem is in those cases, and if you'd like to share what you think the problem is if you think I've misidentified what it is?

Do you not think it's worth making at least a start on formulating that "solution" if you think an alternative approach is better?

Edited January 2, 2022 by TheNavigateur

[coprolite]

13 hours ago, TheNavigateur said:

Is that correlation not axiomatic without any rules to counteract it?

Do you not think that even in a capitalistic system, those with the most power (ownership) can purchase their way to being heard the most? Do you not think that this leads to actions (e.g. people voting for the propagandists' favourite political candidates, etc.) that furthers the propagandists' interests, which increases their power even more to do even more of the same, in a vicious cycle?

Even if you think this is supremely complicated to solve, can you not give one example step, that is logically sustainable, that would address this? Or at least whatever you think you'd like to be changed based on what you think the problem is in those cases, and if you'd like to share what you think the problem is if you think I've misidentified what it is?

Do you not think it's worth making at least a start on formulating that "solution" if you think an alternative approach is better?

I don't think you've mis-identified a problem. I pretty much share your intuition that it's harmful for a wealthy people to have disproportionate influence on some media. 

I do think that the way you've framed your understanding of both the problem and potential solution is too broad in scope,  too imprecise in your language and too vague to be of any practical use in understanding or remedying the problem. 

One measure that could help by reducing inequality of wealth in the first place is a global wealth tax. I found Piketty's arguments for this persuasive, even if his methodology was controversial. 

[TheNavigateur]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I don't think you've mis-identified a problem. I pretty much share your intuition that it's harmful for a wealthy people to have disproportionate influence on some media. 

Can you explain, then, why and how you think equal voice is worse than the current system of self-increasing power by propaganda (presuming that you agree that that is what is currently happening)? I have heard concerns about fringe nonsense getting the same weightage as insighful answers, but I don't think that's how it would play out - I think fringe opinions would be heard rarely, but heard nonetheless, whereas those fringe opinions that happen to be correct but contravene the "conventional wisdom" would have the best chance of rising to majority consciousness, eventually. That is my opinion. What is yours? How do you see it playing out? And by what metrics would you quantify this as worse than what currently exists?

[coprolite]

 

2 hours ago, TheNavigateur said:

Can you explain, then, why and how you think equal voice is worse than the current system of self-increasing power by propaganda (presuming that you agree that that is what is currently happening)? I have heard concerns about fringe nonsense getting the same weightage as insighful answers, but I don't think that's how it would play out - I think fringe opinions would be heard rarely, but heard nonetheless, whereas those fringe opinions that happen to be correct but contravene the "conventional wisdom" would have the best chance of rising to majority consciousness, eventually. That is my opinion. What is yours? How do you see it playing out? And by what metrics would you quantify this as worse than what currently exists?

Difficult to critique something that is hard to understand. 

How does "equal voice" happen? 

What media does it apply to and how? 

Who is the gatekeeper and what checks are there on their power? 

How do you think the following should play out under your rules:

A historian, lets call him David, doesn't believe in the holocaust and wants a series on the bbc to explain this to everyone. 

The Christian parents association demands that Intelligent design is taught in biology and in response the school wags request that FSM is also included. 

Steve of Essex thinks there are too many people of asian origin in the UK and starts a "send them back" campaign on twitter. 

 

I think that your faith in people to select and agree with "correct" opinions is touching but misplaced. 

[TheNavigateur]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Who is the gatekeeper and what checks are there on their power? 

The idea is that a randomized process is carried out to select participants in each political programme. The programme maker must accept those participants from a public software application, on which the programme maker will have registered their upcoming programme for members of the public to apply to be heard on. The rule for that public software application is that the algorithm must be inspectable by the public, including the record of the algorithm against the candidate "IDs" so they can verify it was done correctly.

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

A historian, lets call him David, doesn't believe in the holocaust and wants a series on the bbc to explain this to everyone. 

David would apply to be selected on the programme of his choice, and if selected he would be able to present his case. Bearing in mind that holocaust believers vastly outnumber holocaust deniers, his opinion would appear very rarely in comparison to those who believe the holocaust happened.

 

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

The Christian parents association demands that Intelligent design is taught in biology and in response the school wags request that FSM is also included. 

Given that these are currently fringe opinions when it comes to biology, then, the same as above, they would appear relatively rarely as a case being made.

 

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Steve of Essex thinks there are too many people of asian origin in the UK and starts a "send them back" campaign on twitter. 

Same as above.

 

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

I think that your faith in people to select and agree with "correct" opinions is touching but misplaced.

Interesting take. I base my faith in people to select and agree with "correct" opinions on the same basis as proof itself: that correct opinions can be substantiated (i.e. be given compelling reasoning behind them) and are hence more convincing. In fact I believe that equal voice facilitates this maximally, by placing each person's opinion on the same "starting line" (like a 100m race) to see who is the genuine winner. What do you think would happen instead? And again, are you able to explain why and by what metrics you think this would be worse than what currently exists?

Edited January 2, 2022 by TheNavigateur