[Mort]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XzNQarkk95Q

A new proposal by the UN would supposedly lead to better regulation of the internet. It sounds nice until you hear that Russia, China and Iran are some of the strongest backers for it. It's like SOPA all over again except this goes beyond the USA.

Google has set up a website to contest this: http://www.whatistheitu.org/

[yuezhi]

china i kind of understand. they must be getting tired of censoring words. but russia?

[SpardaSon21]

Vladimir Putin has his own internal dissenters he'd love to crack down on with UN consent.

[deathfun]

*Rolls eyes*

Here we go again
How does one regulate the internet? It's a compilation of everything you can't regulate

[Nuke]

in soviet russia internet controls you

[BritishShivans]

It is only when people finally realize that we need to purge all currently existing forms of government and establish a evolving system based on analysis, rationality, and humanism that discriminates against and punishes the aforementioned stupid people, bigots, and extremists, that the collective stupidity and attempts to control the future of other human beings and strip them of their rights will stop.

One might call me callous. I however simply understand that democracy is a laughably outdated system of government, that while possessing merit, is too naive and ancient to be reasonably effective. I also understand that politicians will say anything to become more famous or liked in the eyes of people who they have not even met.

Of course however, it is no doubt that most people, *"most people" are stupid, anyway* will continue to scream nonsense along the lines of "HOMOBORTIONISTS!!1" and "THOSE GODDAMN TERRORIZERS!11", and completely fail to notice that the oppression of human beings by politicians is their own fault.

On the other note, I personally believe that if you consistently abuse your rights as a human being to excuse or get away with taking away human rights from another human being, I think that you deserve to have them revoked, or at least some of it, until you are able to demonstrate that you are deserving of them.

Thus concludes this maybe partially off-topic post.

[Nuke]

now youre just being intellegenceist

[BritishShivans]

Perhaps. But I like to point this out, even if people do not read it.

Modern "politicians" cannot be trusted with long-term goals. Modern "politicians" have also forgotten that the place of a prime minister, president, hooqwibba or whatever the hell they call their leader, is to lead the government and maintain it's functions and insure that it works properly. Not to earn fame and power, and perhaps respect.

Needless to say, however, this is sadly the majority of politics. Nonsense and ****-throwing. 

[The E]

It is only when people finally realize that we need to purge all currently existing forms of government and establish a evolving system based on analysis, rationality, and humanism that discriminates against and punishes the aforementioned stupid people, bigots, and extremists, that the collective stupidity and attempts to control the future of other human beings and strip them of their rights will stop.

Not going to happen, unless someone can invite a Culture Mind over and convince us all that we should let it run things.

One might call me callous.

Or misguided.

I however simply understand that democracy is a laughably outdated system of government, that while possessing merit, is too naive and ancient to be reasonably effective.

Democracy (as in true democracy, not the various forms of republican governments we have) is a perfectly valid form of government but not for large nation states. It works on the City level, but not the state one. Republics are subject to a variety of reasonably well-defined failure modes (Most notably, an inherent risk of devolving into an Oligarchy); but these can be accounted for and corrected by a reasonably well-informed public.

I also understand that politicians will say anything to become more famous or liked in the eyes of people who they have not even met.

Yes, since they're not robots.

Of course however, it is no doubt that most people, *"most people" are stupid, anyway* will continue to scream nonsense along the lines of "HOMOBORTIONISTS!!1" and "THOSE GODDAMN TERRORIZERS!11", and completely fail to notice that the oppression of human beings by politicians is their own fault.

You have been spending too much time listening to american news.

On the other note, I personally believe that if you consistently abuse your rights as a human being to excuse or get away with taking away human rights from another human being, I think that you deserve to have them revoked, or at least some of it, until you are able to demonstrate that you are deserving of them.

Thus ensuring that nothing will ever get done. Democratic governments will always do wrong for a minority of all voters, there is no way around that (Well, there is. It's called a single-party state, which arguably fixes the issue by doing wrong for the majority). Introducing penalties for infractions against something as flexibly defined as human rights will just result in the most conservative, ass-covering bull**** imaginable.

Modern "politicians"humans cannot be trusted with long-term goals. Modern "politicians"Humans have also forgotten that the place of a prime minister, president, hooqwibba or whatever the hell they call their leader, is to lead the government and maintain it's functions and insure that it works properly. Not to earn fame and power, and perhaps respect.

Needless to say, however, this is sadly the majority of politicssociety. Nonsense and ****-throwing. 

FTFY

[deathfun]

Not going to happen, unless someone can invite a Culture Mind over and convince us all that we should let it run things.

But... but...
That's how it works in Civilizations!

[BritishShivans]

I understand what you are saying, though. I try to avoid writing "humans" a lot: It implies we're incapable of solving our problems. It's also something I find to be very annoying when talking to people who even only have an ounce of being Christian - for reason, they're found of the belief that humans are doomed forever.

[Sarafan]

all you said

Was going to reply to your post then I saw your username, now I cant stop imagining shivans with british accents and manners.

Damn you.

[MP-Ryan]

Well, this premise is rather frightening.

[Dragon]

in soviet russia internet controls you

No, in Russia you control the internet (or at least, Putin does). Internet controls you in the rest of the world. Haven't you noticed yet?

You have been spending too much time listening to american news.

Or Polish. Except Poles also get distracted by Smolensk plane crash (seriously! I know it's been two years, but they still can't shut their gobs about it) and politicians' various personal squabbles. That's what gets screentime around here, any wonder I want out?

Thus ensuring that nothing will ever get done. Democratic governments will always do wrong for a minority of all voters, there is no way around that (Well, there is. It's called a single-party state, which arguably fixes the issue by doing wrong for the majority).

How about a government that does what is right for the country in the long run instead of pandering to it's citizens' every demand? A monarchy with a smart ruler could do that (yes, I know smart rulers are hard to come by, that's the main problem with this idea).

Yes, since they're not robots.

This doesn't excuse forgoing the big picture to get people cheering for you. A member of government should first be a ruler, and human the second. Those who understand this are rare, and usually get elected only when things go south far enough that people realize pretty promises and smiles aren't going to help (and even then, people often go for an extremist instead). Unfortunately, government is run by politicians these days, whose area of expertise is usually "getting elected" and not "running a country".

[The E]

How about a government that does what is right for the country in the long run instead of pandering to it's citizens' every demand? A monarchy with a smart ruler could do that (yes, I know smart rulers are hard to come by, that's the main problem with this idea).

OMG. This has got to be the single most funny thing anyone's said in this thread so far.

(Hint: Monarchies, constitutional or otherwise, are not in any way predisposed toward doing the right thing for a society, or taking the long view.)

Also, Republics in general do not "pander to every demand of the people". They generally only pander to the demands of any entity capable of influencing public opinion or capable of offering incentives to the ruling establishments, which is not the same as "the people". Public opinion only comes in around elections. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. There's usually a disconnect there.

This doesn't excuse forgoing the big picture to get people cheering for you. A member of government should first be a ruler, and human the second. Those who understand this are rare, and usually get elected only when things go south far enough that people realize pretty promises and smiles aren't going to help (and even then, people often go for an extremist instead). Unfortunately, government is run by politicians these days, whose area of expertise is usually "getting elected" and not "running a country".

Aaaahahahahahahaahaa

Your understanding of human psyche is almost exactly 180 degrees reversed from what actual humans are like. Let's take your statements one by one, shall we?

This doesn't excuse forgoing the big picture to get people cheering for you.

Actually, yes, it does. Politicians are more or less exclusively recruited from the extrovert subset of the population. The system they are shaped by rewards making sometimes grandiose claims and disincentivises disruptions of the status quo.

A member of government should first be a ruler, and human the second. Those who understand this are rare, and usually get elected only when things go south far enough that people realize pretty promises and smiles aren't going to help (and even then, people often go for an extremist instead). Unfortunately, government is run by politicians these days, whose area of expertise is usually "getting elected" and not "running a country".

Riiiiight. I guess that explains the unbelievably competent governments running Africa these days. Or the liberties enjoyed in Russia. Or the forward-thinking social policies of Germany 1933-1945.

In a crisis, humans are hardwired to look for support, ANY support that looks as if it might offer a way out. In other words, whatever bad things you think you've seen from a democracy, they are much worse in a dictatorship.

[Aardwolf]

It's funny, cuz Dragon is talking values and ideals, and The E is talking status quo.

[An4ximandros]

What we need is an advanced AI that knows and is able to address the needs of the people, while balancing it with the best for a thede.

As a plus we need to work to get rid of intolerance and elitism, creating a balanced world in which all things can coexist in balance.

And yes, I'd rather keep daydreaming and working out kinks of a new system than keep up with the millennialy aged **** we have.

[SpardaSon21]

Helios can go blow himself.  I don't want to live in a world ruled by anyone despotic, no matter how "enlightened" they are.

[NGTM-1R]

It's funny, cuz Dragon is talking values and ideals, and The E is talking status quo.

It's fun to replace words with words that don't mean the same thing.

[Aardwolf]

Which?

Yay for one-word replies