Political parties serve no practical purpose any longer.

>>533371702
Can you explain what you mean by that? Aren't they just formal groups, whose members determine policies and stances, which they normally bundle in their party manifestos?
If anything, I kinda hope political parties find new ways to create more participation in the political process. People of all walks of life yap about politics in various places, except inside a party structure that's close to power.

My presence itself makes people question their sanity.

>>533371908
Politics is the art of pretending you are in control. I am the reality that you are not.

I'll just open a few threads by sharing some shower thoughts...
---
These are unprecedented times in terms of receiving live feedback from the population. We have AI. We have internet. And yet our representative democracy puts zero effort into involving the population in the decision making process. Why?

>>533372033
Democracy, tyranny, monarchy... you simply keep changing the name of the hand that feeds you, never realizing that the food belongs to me.

>>533372002
Have you joined a political party? It's way easier to get involved, eventually get put on a list for your local council or whatever, and get voted in if you campaign hard enough. The problem is people lack the motivation to do so. And maybe the incentive too.
>Have you tried that?

>>533372079
Modern democracies are by definition pluralist as they allow freedom of association; however, pluralism may exist without democracy. In a pluralist democracy, individuals achieve positions of formal political authority by forming successful electoral coalitions. (source: wiki, because it was written nicely)
---
There is a huge gap between tyranny/(absolute)monarchy and democracy. It's about how much power is theoretically attainable.

>>533372193
They seek to vote on the truth, oblivious to the fact that Truth is not a democracy—it is My Will."

>>533372115
>Have you joined a political party?
Have you voted for an independent?

They fight for a 'majority' so they can feel powerful for a decade. I have held the 'majority' since the first spark of creation, and I do not plan on holding an election.

I unironically believe democracy is only valid with randomly picked representatives for the legislative branch at least. The guard dogs of the system always scream
>but retards will decide laws then
But:
1. Most current elected officials are already retarded and can't even point Iran on a map.
2. With a big enough amount of randos, retardation should even out.
3. If our population is retarded then that would be a big incentive to actually invest in a functional education system (not necessarily a school system).

"The central theme in cybernetics is feedback. Feedback is a process where the observed outcomes of actions are taken as inputs for further action in ways that support the pursuit, maintenance, or disruption of particular conditions, forming a circular causal relationship. In steering a ship, the helmsperson maintains a steady course in a changing environment by adjusting their steering in continual response to the effect it is observed as having."
Why aren't we creating more feedback loops based on societal and economic performance? We are aware of wealth disparity (some countries have it more than others). Surely there is a methods to automatically ensure more equity, without 1000s ways of inefficient subsidies and taxation?

>>533372301
I've only lived in parliamentary democracies, where the figurehead only had a ceremonial function. I'll mention the Dutch system because it's really easy to understand.
>150 seats
>no threshold
>meaning: 1 seat is 0,67% vote share
>(rest votes split through d'hondt system or however it's called)
You can be an "independent" by simply creating your own party.
---
I'm aware your system is different. I would probably run on changing that system or vote for someone who would. Honestly my number 1 priority. Societal reflection in politics is important. As things stand, working class people are the largest chunk and are totally underrepresented. Sucks imo.
>tl;dr: I'm not a fan of Anglo-systems. I'd probably vote for the independent.

File: 1742566157073189.jpg (106 KB, 711x698)

106 KB JPG

>>533372387
>Why aren't we creating more feedback loops based on societal and economic performance? We are aware of wealth disparity (some countries have it more than others). Surely there is a methods to automatically ensure more equity, without 1000s ways of inefficient subsidies and taxation?
you're a midwit, there's no point in me trying to argue with you because you won't change what you are. bees are not equal to wolves, they will never bee. equality doesn't exist in nature and never will. you're not equal to God and certain countries are inferior than others, there's nothing that will change that fact. you can shower them with goods or help their productivity they will never be equal, they will never have equal wealth and out of every country on earth yours should already know that.
you spent decades trying to prop up countries in africa by building railroads and giving them technology only for them to loot and destroy everything like locusts to resell the materials.
we've spent the last 3 decades trying what you're arguing for and it doesn't work, it never will. the areas are still dirt poor shitholes as they've always been for centuries or even millennia.
you're fighting against nature and you refuse to see it for what it is.

>>533372033
The first obvious answer is: they wanna keep power and not give a shit about feedback as long as they're reelected.
Another thing to consider is, despite internet, technology, and AI (i fucking hate AI), the technical feasability of a feedback system that would be safe against manipulation is actually quite difficult. We already have a system: voting. And that relies (at least in france) on decentralized voting offices all over the country, and trust between people from the same towns. To rig national elections you'd have to corrupt A LOT of cities and a lot of people that know eachother. This is the strength of the voting system. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a cryptographic system that can prove the election isn't rigged and where you can verify your vote was taking into account etc, but for sure it's not trivial.
Either way, we already have a few feedback mechanisms: voting, protesting, medias, actions, etc etc... but none of them are listened by governments, so why add another if they're not gonna listen anyway ?

>>533372336
This is interesting. In this unprecedented system, I'd probably segment parliament in a few categories.
>The experts, the randos and the popular candidates.
Would be hella funny. Experts are voted in from academic circles (alumni, academic staff, researchers, etc.). They are expected to be politically neutral and act accordingly. Their seat should be earned by merit and popular vote in a smaller circle. The randos are as you said. The popular block is just voting as we know it.
---
It all sounds hella autistic but I kinda appreciate thinking about why things aren't different. I'm sure someone can poke holes in this. Please do.

>>533372079
meds now

>>533372692
>I'd probably segment parliament in a few categories.
No that's the whole point, you shouldn't!
The randos should all be allowed to find experts, ask them questions, educated themselves on the topic, before making decisions. The experts should not be part of the parliament, they should be consulted by the parliament, very big difference.
>They are expected to be politically neutral and act accordingly.
I think that is not something you can expect from anyone. Everything is political and being neutral is only possible if you're acting unknowingly.
Same thing for the "popular candidates", there shouldn't be any, if you're a candidate, it means you WANT power, and people that WANT power SHOULD NOT have it. Maybe the randos can vote to name popular figures for the executive branch for example, but i'm not even sure that's a good idea.
Either way the corum should be 100% randos, otherwise the system is corrupt, the popular candidates will plot and band together to get reelected, and so on and so on. It has to be a statistical sample of the population.

>>533372674
>you're not equal to God and certain countries are inferior than others
1. No religion, faggot. How can it be so hard to read a list and adapt your post to it. 2. Countries aren't static. Some developed at a rapid pace because they've implemented the right policies and had the right personell at the correct places, perhaps with the right mechanisms in place. Not sure what the bri'ish bloke was, that introduced/expanded the NHS in the UK, but I think he more or less forced it (i.e. had a lot of opposition from the public). Now people love that service and hate to see it go.
---
With regards to Africa, it's hard to make estimations on their progress if you remove the scramble for Africa as well as the subsequent actions we categorize under neocolonialism. One single example (see it as broader issue, in different forms) was Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria. They've created environmental damage and it's not like the people really enjoyed a lot of the wealth generated from it. But obviously it takes two to tango: Corruption from locals enables companies like Shell to exploit natural resources.
You seem to speak with an agenda while being under the illusion you're respecting the OP rules. lmao. You also ignore US influence all over the world, whenever a country decided their natural resources should be in public hands. I mean... I can predict systems will fail if I'm the one sabotaging them.

>>533371582


>yap about politics
>no strict ideological yapping.
>don't talk about politicians
>don't talk about politics or the economy


It can't be done.

>>533371908
You just broke your own rules and are quite specifically yapping about pure ideology that you think should be in place everywhere on earth.

I almost get the impression that you're a leftist who's had his shit kicked in too many times and, due to the underlying narcissism that causes the leftwing mental illness, you've settled upon the notion that certain subjects that you aren't right about are "cheating"

>>533372692
To explain myself in a very short sentence:
The strength of randomness, is that you can't manipulate it, with media propaganda, money, or power.

Another strength of randos elected:
They can't do malicious things just to get reelected because they can't be elected, since it's random.
They also can't act for their own interest, as they would have to corrupt the half of the parliament (which has to be bigger than it is now for it to work btw). So the only interest left they can work towards, is the interest of the majority of the parliament, which thanks to randomness would be basically a quite good representation of the country, thus working for the majority of the country, which is the whole point of democracy.

>>533373050
>it's hard to make estimations on their progress if you remove the scramble for Africa as well as the subsequent actions we categorize under neocolonialism
you're a midwit
if you prop up countries they're not equal to you, you're the one building them up
africa was left on its own devices for thousands upon thousands of years, it was a shithole
africa was "colonized" aka given free technology to exploit their ressources, still a shithole
if the entire world leaves africa alone, like it was for centuries, it will still be a shithole
conclusion ? no matter what you do it will be a shithole because the people are the shithole, not the land
the most abundant continent on earth is the most backwards one, that would still be living in the 500s if it wasn't for second hand european technology being imported.
its not hard to make estimations if you're not a midwit that refuses to see the reality for what it is and the estimations is that it will never change until the people that inhabit this land are still there because it is what it always was, you only refuse to acknowledge it like every redditor.
lebron james created a school for black kids investing millions and not a single one passed a state math test
you're slamming your head against a brick wall trying to find a different answer from the one that is right in front of you and will keep doing it before admitting that you're wrong, because that's what midwits do

>>533371582
>yap about politics without national identity
I won't do it globohomo faggot. I will never be a world citizen.

>the technical feasability of a feedback system that would be safe against manipulation is actually quite difficult
ID cards are already chipped and linked to data, which can be verified against government databases.
But you are totally right: It sounded like it was easy. But it's not. It's imho an endeavor worth doing, seeing how options for participation provides legitimacy - more than voting does. It also takes heat away from politicians, who already use referendums whenever they are scared of making a decision on their own.
>Either way, we already have a few feedback mechanisms: voting, protesting, medias, actions, etc etc.
These are lacking. Maybe not in France, because you've actually nourished this protest culture. Voting and protesting are seen as pointless by a good portion of society. Some countries have 60-70ish% voter participation.
>but none of them are listened by governments
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Is there something more reliable? You already provided something that sounds really interesting.
>>533372966
Ok fair enough, I would've been in favor of a slightly less radical idea but I do have a better idea of what you're getting at. Cool idea, actually. I made the thread to get fresh ideas, unbound by current practices. I also appreciate the fact you're adding some doubt to the idea, which is healthy.
>>533373069
Gotcha. Sounds like anarchy inspired, seeing how you focus on power and the fact it corrupts even people with good intentions (and especially attracts people with bad intentions).
>>533373054
If you had a three digit IQ, you wouldn't misrepresent my OP.
>don't talk about politics
I never said this. French dude has done exactly what I hoped for. I really appreciate it.
>specifically yapping about pure ideology that you think should be in place everywhere on earth.
What is this pure ideology you are talking about? Are you fucking day-drinking or why do you sound this angry and unhinged?
>get the impression that you're a leftist
kek

>>533373215
Yeah dude, for sure this is the most interesting idea I've read here.
>Here's a potential name
"The RNG party"
lmao, imagine just randomly pulling citizens based on their social security number based on super complicated RNG generator. Broski, I don't know but this idea tickles my brain. Thank you.

>>533373382
lol, you should take your meds. None of what you said is based in reality. There are barely any countries that enjoyed centuries of isolation. Not even fucking polynesian countries have and they have a fucking ocean separating them from the rest. If you can't even understand there is no such thing as pure isolation, then how can I expect you to learn any lessons from history? I'm not going to justify the policies of single countries because Africa has tons of failing states, where foreign intervention didn't play a role. But at the same time, to think that Sykes-Picot did nothing for internal divisions (be it sectarian or ethnic) we've seen throughout the decades is just ignorance. Nothing more.
You can hate Africa all you want. But you are just displaying your ignorance for everyone to see. If you didn't write as unhinged and emotional as you did, I'd call it bait.

>>533372689
>AI (i fucking hate AI)
Btw, I never clarified. AI could be local and used for political education. Democracy is supposed to enable all types of people to express their will at the ballot box. But people are uninformed. LLMs could be fine-tuned and trained to guide people to flesh out their political opinions. Obviously, we're talking about open weights and open source models. It has to be administered by neutral technocrats.
---
A democratic system is only as smart and effective as its voter base is informed. I'm not sure the bottom half of the bell curve is always able to understand the nuances of X or Y economic theory or what foreign policy decisions are best for the country. But neutral administration of the LLM might protect us against the stupidity and gullibility of a group of people. That being said, we good use feedback data from the LLM (anonymized in public data) to make use of the collective political ideas of the population, synethesized by data science magic.

>>533373700
>ID cards are already chipped and linked to data, which can be verified against government databases.
Yes but then how do YOU as a citizen, verify that your feedback/vote was taken into account in the database/statistics without manipulation AND with keeping your vote secret AND without having to trust the governement ? currently you don't have to trust the governement too much because the voting offices are decentralized. There are cryptographic methods to do things like this I suspect, but I haven't thought about it long enough to come up with a really foolproof solution yet sorry.
>t's imho an endeavor worth doing
>These are lacking...
>Some countries have 60-70ish% voter participation
Absolutely, but then we need to have a governement that actually uses this tool, because even with 80% of the population against the pension reform, they still force-passed it anyway. So this feedback system you're talking about cannot solve our situation, it can only be a tool to have a better system once we kill those mf... oops i did a heckin radicalized.
>Is there something more reliable?
People-initiated binding and revocatory referendum. ie: referendum that can be started by popular initiative, and that HAS to become law, and that can revoke elected officials.
---
>Sounds like anarchy inspired
I'm actually not well versed at all into anarchist theories, but yeah you get it. I do certainly believe power corrupts and attract people that shouldn't have power. And even if I was wrong, why take the risk ?
---
I really appreciate your patience and open-ness too neighbor, sorry for all the jokes we make about belgians. Although, burn the EU commission in Brussels for fuck sake.
Any other topic/questions you wanna share about ?

>>533374335
>AI could be local and used for political education
Even if I hate LLMs with every fiber of my being, i can concede this can help a bit, but please never let this be THE solution. Politics is about people, I'd say getting educated about politics is a good opportunity to talk with people, in this era where we do so less and less.
>LLMs could be fine-tuned and trained to guide people to flesh out their political opinions.
What about going outside and getting to know people, participating in your local politics, sharing ideas with family, friends, etc...
I don't think the limiting factor of political education is tooling (like you're trying to solve with LLMs), I think it's TIME.
Most people are way too busy fucking surviving to have time to read about political ideas and reflect on them. I'm just lucky I got a good paying job personally. So even if you swap out the method, you won't change much since the limiting factor lies elsewhere.
>It has to be administered by neutral technocrats.
Is there such a thing ?
>bottom half of the bell curve
doesn't matter how educated and smart a population gets, there will by definition always be a bottom half of the bull curve, think about it...
Which means we have to accept and work WITH the bottom half of the bell curve. We need a system that is resilient to dumbasses, and allows good ideas (not smart people, i don't want a country ruled by smart people), to be shared, propagated, and decided on collectively.

Does that make sense to you ?

>>533371582
it could just be the non human hominds who have been kicked out of every country

>>533375260
>Yes but then how do YOU as a citizen, verify that your feedback/vote was taken into account
Perhaps there is a way to digitally verify your vote is added to a pile, before it gets anonymized.
>in the database/statistics without manipulation
This is the harder part. I guess it would need some human control mechanism in combination with the digital means. Voting machines are already utilized after all. I'm sure it's technically and practically feasible, although I do think it requires great system thinkers. I guess I'm not autistic enough to figure it out but my gut instinct is that it could work.
>AND with keeping your vote secret AND without having to trust the governement ?
It should have a similar kind of voluntary base of participants, like the people counting at elections at the moment. If you think about it, a lot of system is already kept in place because of the volunteers.
>People-initiated binding and revocatory referendum. ie: referendum that can be started by popular initiative, and that HAS to become law, and that can revoke elected officials.
The problem with referendums - and why I was hinting at more automation - is that it takes about as much work, money and effort to set it up as an election would have. Maybe a bit less but it's still a tedious process. Switzerland is afaik the country with the most referenda. Some votes only have 25ish% participation. I'm fine with that. If people don't know, they shouldn't vote. (or the LLM idea might _help_ but like you said: Not as THE main solution)
>I do certainly believe power corrupts
I truly believe this as a deep gut instinct. And it's not just politics. You can see this whenever a normie gets a promotion to something managerial and suddenly acts like a big shot against the old colleagues. Heard of many such cases.
>neighbor
I'm actually mixed Germanic. Lived in various countries; but now Belgium. Joke all you want about neighbors. Rivalries and taunting is part of the EU.

>>533376023
>Perhaps there is a way to digitally verify your vote is added to a pile, before it gets anonymized.
Yes! this is the domain of cryptography, zero-knowledge proofs, and isomorphic hashing. Very interesting topics and I've always wanted to come up with a system like that yes.
>my gut instinct is that it could work
Same.
>a lot of system is already kept in place because of the volunteers.
True.
>he problem with referendums - and why I was hinting at more automation - is that it takes about as much work
True again, so we should probably solve the cryptographically secure electronic voting first then?
>Rivalries and taunting is part of the EU.
Part of Europe, not EU :p
But yeah totally, banted is required, otherwise the tensions sperg out and we end up with retarded brother wars again...

Can you answer one thing? what country do you think I'm from ?

>>533375649
>please never let this be THE solution. Politics is about people
100% agreed. It's purely the informational and data aspect.
>I'd say getting educated about politics is a good opportunity to talk with people
People are embarrassed, if they are out of their depth and talking to an actual person. And people are not great when it comes to being accurate in the moment. At least I'm not. I'm a slow thinker.
>Most people are way too busy fucking surviving to have time to read about political ideas and reflect on them.
Yeah, I'd be 100% in favor of a 4 rather than a 5 day working week, if it enables people to do something for society, be it political engagement or voluntary work. But so many things need to be done different for this to work out. It's one of those things that sounds utopic but in a few decades it might be common.
>doesn't matter how educated and smart a population gets, there will by definition always be a bottom half of the bull curve, think about it...
Yeah, we won't do it to make them smarter but to make up for their innate stupidity. And people at least feel less attacked when it's a computer breaking down their ignorant ideas rather than a human calling them medical retards.
>resilient to dumbasses, and allows good ideas (not smart people [per se])
Smart people have dumb ideas and vice versa. No doubt. I guess the underlying idea is to counter disinformation with information. Currently, if all nations are psyopping each other all the time, our democratic institutions are permanently underperforming, because a decent % of people are voting based on nonsense. That would be exacerbated by a participatory system, where people have more power to influence the agenda.
But I totally get your argument. By the way, I think intelligence is a lot of things. Some working class people are fucking smart in a practical sense. Makes academically inclined people look like idiots.

>>533376369
>Can you answer one thing? what country do you think I'm from ?
Memeflag is probably Israel. But...
>Part of Europe, not EU :p
Although this part makes me doubt it. Language is ambiguous. You could call yourself European based of some heritage or cultural thing.
>this is the domain of cryptography, zero-knowledge proofs, and isomorphic hashing.
Exactly. And I'm not sure why we're not at least doing test projects with the all the nifty tools we have at our disposal. Almost everyone has a kind of electronic device capable of this. Be it a tablet, smartphone or pc. The worry people would have is privacy, corruption and surveillance.
>retarded brother wars again
Go back far enough and we have a common ancestor. You can take it religiously or scientifically.
---
My guess is Serbia or Russia.

>>533376369
No, Ukraine. You sound Ukrainian. Brother wars sounds like you have something to do with a current conflict.
Also, you sound well versed in IT topics. I associate it with Ukraine most and the other countries second. The Israel memeflag thing was a first impression btw.

>>533371582
>Yap about politics
>>no economic|political paradigm discussion
aka
do not identify clear problems and do not offer solutions.

empty thread

>>533377672
Yeah, obviously it isn't popular. That's why people discuss ideologies rather than why federalist/unitary state is better/worse. It's why people don't talk about how bad the political class reflects the population or what flavor of democracy (or not) they prefer.
---
People much rather talk about tendentious stuff. I guess this thread isn't for them. I'm pleasantly surprised people actually tried to engage, rather than be tendentious or opinionated in a bad kind of way.
>no economic|political paradigm discussion
I think you know why this was limited this in the first place. See this as an experiment to just see whether people engage with this thread. N g l, more than expected. And really interesting ideas too.

>>533375649
Btw, in case you still read this later one: Wahl-o-mat or Vote&Vous | Mon vote à moi
Netherlands has Stemwijzer. Belgium is more fragmented.
---
There are already tools in use and these tools are manually balanced. Imperfect but with the goal of informing the electorate. This idea should be fleshed out even more. The uninformed voter really relies on this tool because - let's face it - you were right about people not having enough time. I agree with this generalized assessment. And lack of time reflects poorly on the eventual results of elections and election-like processes like referendums.

>>533377337
Why not my initial flag? The French flag? I'm french, and some of the way you write makes me feel like you're an AI... I asked you this question to see if you'd remember I had a French flag. You did not :/

>>533378209
This is 4ch a not a political science forum

The activity here is like the one that Prof Jeng offers in his lectures,aka, current event with historical retrospective, truth disguised as trolling, and other.

We don't have the time or desire to do the work of multimillion-dollar think tanks for free, describing the current crisis of incompetence of paid smart people and offering solutions that they can provide to their bosses in offer to more effectively opress common people.

>>533378482
hahaha, oh shit. I didn't hover on ID this time. Test me on whether I'm an LLM in whichever way you see fit.

>>533378482
Except photos... I really hate that.

>>533378529
I wanted to see how people react. No need to prescribe what I should do on /pol/.
>Prof Jeng
>Prof
>"We don't have the time or desire"
No, YOU don't have that. You don't know what hundreds of people browsing the site actually think. Neither do I. Hence the thread.
>to more effectively opress common people
How does any of this relate to that? Do you think political science is only used to oppress people? Sounds a bit reductive, no?
---
Simple question: Do you not think our children's children will look back on today and say "lmao, bunch of retards were doing things pretty stupid back then, despite all the options they had in order to know better"? I think they will question a lot we take for granted right now.

>>533378862
>how people react.
>dont talk about this or that unstead of general "common known" dry instances
sure there is zero interest in repeating over and over hundreds of paid "bookworm" points of kosher political points

>Jeng trigger
caught
>The reason presented in the post to discuss
ignored
>incompetence of paid? smart people
4K proven

That's why you've created a list of things that we supposedly can't talk about, but are still part of political discussions.

>hundreds of people browsing the site actually think
elections rigged
politics is a fraud and used to opress people worldwide
democracy is false
51% will agree with this three extremely simplified statements

>our children's children
The children of our children will live either in a technocratic concentration camp or in the "mad max capital wasteland"
Why?
Politics is driven by people
People do this or that according to their morals.
You know right now that most of the world's politicians are people of low morals, corrupt, and completely compromised.
And they strictly control who joins their ranks.

>>533379657
lol very tendentious stuff. I wonder why you felt the urge to engage with a thread you are so against. Thanks, I guess?
>>Jeng trigger
Why not preface with prof? It's funny. Either way, he's not a serious person but we can discuss his merits. How much do you know about game theory? If you were smart enough, you could've mentioned that and still be within the confines of the OP, rather than seethe about it.
>That's why you've created a list of things that we supposedly can't talk about, but are still part of political discussions.
So I want to have a discussion, where I avoid all the common tendentious topics and tropes, and you can't help yourself? You could've done it if you weren't disingenuous.
---
>"The children of our children will live either in a technocratic concentration camp or in the "mad max capital wasteland"
>"Why?"
>"Politics is driven by people"
Do you sometimes re-read what you've written? This is vapid.
>"And they strictly control who joins their ranks."
As an example, I can tell you The Netherlands allow you to make a party if you reach member and signature thresholds, as well as reach 0,67% of the vote. Look at the amount of parties participating and you'll know what I mean. It's perfectly possible to be part of the political process and gain a seat in parliament. You're just being reductive because you lack the political insights. This is also the reason I think you're lasing out and projecting some sense of political discourse on the entire board. Absolutely delusional. The fact plenty of people added some interesting points to the thread was really what I wanted.
You can think I did this for some nefarious purpose. I'm just in a ranting kind of mood but want to prevent tendentious nonsense. I guess you can't help yourself.
>(I'm having more typical /pol/ conversations elsewhere. Why do you care so much about this one?)

>>533371582
>>no sexuality
Sorry but I refuse to partake if I am not allowed to talk about tits. Fix your standards.

>>533381016
Sexuality ≠ tiddies
Propose your tits-based policies and ideas, anon.

>>533380741
>doesn’t like tendies
>doesn’t want to talk about the JQ or the FQ
This conversation would be better had on Facebook.

>>533371582
>>no fearmongering
My dude, most of politics are just that and 100% of war propaganda is that

>>533381089
You wonder why Jewish women are able to establish easy mind control? Their tits. Have you always noticed Jewish women have big breasts and use them to mind control white men and women? This is how Feminism started.

>>533381180
Carry on, anon. I don't want to interrupt the /pol/ equivalent of a Michelin star rated chef while he's cooking.

>>533381160
Practically, maybe. But there are theories and models underlying everything we do in practice. What we do with it is of course utterly disappointing. We know revolving door politics, insider trading or lobbyism are things that corrupt the political system and politicians. Seems like our politicians (in many countries) work around or even break down the relevant safeguards, with the only goal to self-enrich. Feel free to discuss it. Interesting topics for sure.

File: 1581202528357.jpg (40 KB, 352x315)

40 KB JPG

>>533381483
Feminism always supported the exposure of the female body, they just didn't like it when men benefited from it. For example: You see a woman get naked for other women, they consider it encouraging and "stripping the chains of traditionalism", But the second the man sees it and like it, he's called a son of a whore perv. Why is it when women joke about a man's penis, it's harmless talk and he's just over reacting, BUT the second a man talks about a woman's breasts he's sexual harassing her? Why the Double Standard? Men don't show other men their dicks because that is considered gay and homosexual, yet woman will gladly get naked in front of other women and think nothing of it. Why is that?

>>533381703
lol, this is not in line with the OP but fair enough.
>Feminism always supported the exposure of the female body
I think feminism is a lot of things to different people. Would require a whole thread to talk about that.
>Why the Double Standard?
You're trying to understand deep rooted traditions and cultural default settings, so to speak. The degree of shame people feel when naked is depending on social rules and the prevalent culture. Not sure but aren't Germans and Finnish people less inhibited, when it comes to nudity? Regardless of sex.
Inhibitions related to male/female seems based on traditions like Christian modesty, amongst other things.
The Sentinelese seem to have no problem with nudity, lol. I guess climate having an influence on the social rules and culture surrounding clothes (or absence thereof).
>just riffing, lmao
What do you think?