Senran Kagura Live Action Trailer “Absolutely Cringe-worthy”
Tales of The Rays PV
Charming Aegis Yukata Figure
Shoujo Kara Shoujo e Rather Tame
Nozomi Ero-Cosplay by Rin Higurashi Highly Cheeky
Icy-nee-san said:And thats how I would make the world shut the fuck up, because IT REALLY NEEDS TO SHUT THE FUCK UP
:D
:D
Sankaku Complex Forums » General
-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Our ideal otaku nation summarized....
Posted 6 years ago # -
Firetribe said:
Our ideal otaku nation summarized....Wow how could I forget about that?
Posted 6 years ago # -
LunarSD, that was awesome, although fairly long for a post on a forum... for me to read it to the end, I must say that I was truly captivated.
First, the best points:
- Your idea of a test to earn "independence" was something I thought about long ago. In fact, I had an idea close to it around 12 or 13. I believe that it would be one of the greatest improvements any society could make, be it conservative or liberal.
- I am also quite fond of your way of managing information, art and "licensing". It is undeniably superior to that of any utopia project I've read before.
Now, onto the critics:
* I'll add a potential way to solve the problem pointed out in each critic, in italicised characters.
Section 1 -- Political
- As Tzion pointed out, having one single police for all the states would be next to impossible, and as for the military, I might be even worse.
The police could be left to the matters of the state, while the military would be simply non-existent, since such a country would have no other use for it than that of «prevention», which could be done by the combined efforts of all the state polices for such matters that would obviously benefit to all states.
- Having three distinct states is a poor attempt to categorise people that have views significantly more disparate than merely "conservative", "liberal" and "extreme liberal".
That is one major flaw. I see two ways to fix it, the "soft" and the "hard". The soft one would be to have only one state with more flexible laws that could encompass both extremes to a certain extent. The hard one, on the other hand, would be to submit the entire state to nothing but the "absolute rules" described in the constitution, while all other legislations would be the matter of individuals in the case of private property (thus reaching your idea of private rulesets), and public property divided into "districts" where every independent individual would have a voice in the jury that defines laws in his own region.
Section 2 -- Philosophical
- Objective... Subjective... aren't these subjective concepts in themselves?
Defining what level of certainty - according to the current knowledge - is necessary to accept something as "truth", and how to judge that level, should be left to the people of the entire nation, regardless of their beliefs. That could allow for an uniform definition of "objectivity" that could then be used as basis for the constitution.
- The choice of judges, "scientific experts" and authority figures of the like would create a deep bias in the very core of the system. Who decides whether one is enough of a "respectable expert" to be in a position to decide for others? Of course, since you are a scientist (or a believer of science), you will tend to think that scientists would be the best decision-makers, but another person will most likely think according to his own beliefs.
Since your system bears significant likeliness to Marxism, why not adopt at least part of the concept of "proletarian dictatorship"? The council in charge of the important decisions would be picked by the population without any volunteers - every citizen would be de facto - or "electoral" campaigns, and representative of the entire population (and therefore proportionally composed of scientists, artists, etc.) The members would be payed equally by donations from the population (thus in reaction to achievements), and they would exert these functions only for a very short period. A single person could not donate more than a small amount during a mandate, to avoid the "richest" from being further favoured by the government.
- Would people that view, for example, recreational consumption of marijuana as pure evil be willing to live side-to-side with people that think the very opposite? I highly doubt it, and history has proven these doubts to be founded.
That might be the point that most makes your idea an utopia: lack of consideration for human nature itself. However, if only a little of the dream is sacrificed, it becomes incomparably more plausible. By including to the constitution the basic rules of living in respect and harmony, and by applying the second measure of the political section, most of the problem could be solved.
Of course, extremists, especially conservatives, would be unlikely to adhere to such a nation then.Finally, as I like your overall idea, if you wish to turn this into a more legible (^^) pseudo-constitution, I'm willing to offer my keyboard and as little time I have.
/edit
LOL @ "mindfuck" tag...
Posted 6 years ago # -
I would definitely like this nation founded to be Narutard free,
that's for sure.Posted 6 years ago # -
did someone say thinktank?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Fatty said:
did someone say thinktank?Posted 6 years ago # -
I didn't read LunarSd's very long post.
but without reading it i can already derail the idea.
it's called Individual Will, the simple idea that what you want is not what i want. :Palso Ignorance and Stupidity. you underestimate the power of people not to care. and the power of people who make a different conclusion than you.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Just make me the king.
Posted 6 years ago # -
muteKi said:
Just make me the king.I'm the King. Invest now and I can make you an Earl, though. Or a Jarl, if that's your thing.
Posted 6 years ago # -
sycamore said:
Alot of otaku fail to get to the stage where they lose all interest in women. Also there is EMP shielding avaliable, to my knowledge we have the technology to at least with stand the EMP from a nuke.
Thats a nukes EMP, (NNEMP)-StandAlone would devastate a technology based country like the usa. they say a well placed one in the middle of the united states at the right altitude, would knock out 80% of the US for up to 10 years(no deaths). leaving any u.s oversea military personals completely useless, they say.
Posted 6 years ago # -
M I N N said:
Thats a nukes EMP, (NNEMP)-StandAlone would devastate a technology based country like the usa. they say a well placed one in the middle of the united states at the right altitude, would knock out 80% of the US for up to 10 years(no deaths). leaving any u.s oversea military personals completely useless, they say.
Considering we are talking about utopias, putting a faraday cage around all your electronics would be viable. Therefore the thing that generates the EMP is irrelevant.
Posted 6 years ago # -
sycamore said:
Considering we are talking about utopias, putting a faraday cage around all your electronics would be viable. Therefore the thing that generates the EMP is irrelevant.
You would cut off all communications to your utopia if you put a faraday cage around it, if not around it even having large amounts would surly scramble a lot of signals causing internal problems. even faraday wouldnt save, you can still be hit with EMS and it can be more devastating. If faraday could really save, we wouldn't so scared of a electromagnetic attack.
Posted 6 years ago # -
My guns don't need batteries.
Posted 6 years ago # -
guns are overrated...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Azarius said:
LunarSD, that was awesome, although fairly long for a post on a forum... for me to read it to the end, I must say that I was truly captivated.First, the best points:
- Your idea of a test to earn "independence" was something I thought about long ago. In fact, I had an idea close to it around 12 or 13. I believe that it would be one of the greatest improvements any society could make, be it conservative or liberal.
- I am also quite fond of your way of managing information, art and "licensing". It is undeniably superior to that of any utopia project I've read before.
It honestly never occurred to me anyone other than myself would be willing to read the whole thing O_O I admire your fortitude!
And I must say I'm rather humbled to have a gotten a studied critique from you specifically, as I've read several of your posts and found them to be very well constructed and rationalized.
At the time I wrote this, the mucky legal state of licensing/dependency were foremost concerns on my mind. It is very satisfying to hear someone else finds their postulated solutions at least semi-practical and fair to all involved parties.
Some have mentioned similarities to a "neo"-form of communism... but if the tax-payer has the flexibility to choose which fields of science/art their moneys are being funneled into, isn't it more like the difference between ordering a pizza or eating at the salad bar (lol)? You are supporting the fields you would normally put your money into anyway, and everyone benefits from "all you can eat" free access to (non-sentient) data ^_^
Azarius said:
Now, onto the critics:Section 1 -- Political
...
- Having three distinct states is a poor attempt to categorize people that have views significantly more disparate than merely "conservative", "liberal" and "extreme liberal".That is one major flaw. I see two ways to fix it, the "soft" and the "hard". The soft one would be to have only one state with more flexible laws that could encompass both extremes to a certain extent. The hard one, on the other hand, would be to submit the entire state to nothing but the "absolute rules" described in the constitution, while all other legislations would be the matter of individuals in the case of private property (thus reaching your idea of private rulesets), and public property divided into "districts" where every independent individual would have a voice in the jury that defines laws in his own region.
...Section 2 -- Philosophical
- Objective... Subjective... aren't these subjective concepts in themselves?
...
- Would people that view, for example, recreational consumption of marijuana as pure evil be willing to live side-to-side with people that think the very opposite? I highly doubt it, and history has proven these doubts to be founded.
Side-to-side is almost asking for unrest, yes. And adding districts/sub-zones as you suggest would solve this (I envision it would cause "Red-light districts", and polar divisions settling arbitrarily into "East side"/"West side" Uptown/Downtown etc would be inevitable), but do hear out my reasoning for a more generalized structure, if you will.
I condensed it to those three major State Law categories (though it could be 5, 15, whatever number ends up best representing the emergent local minima in the populace) for what I believe to be a solid reason. Since this is a primarily State divisionism?/isolationism? system, the permutations that come out of trying to zone/district-ize for even reasonable combinations of conservative/liberal mixes becomes outrageous. Forward slashes can also appear outrageous at times, though they are actually very conceptually fulfilling, the world at large just hasn't realized it yet :)
(Note: I do like your "soft" and "hard" solutions, and am willing to believe they would function admirably; though still I feel compelled to prove a more simplified division could suffice, and help avoid the categorical prejudice that too much separatism would probably result in)
I use the words conservative and liberal, but to me, they are deceptive terms.
The very concept of a legal system (mine, America's, anyone's) can also be condensed to the Tolerance vs. Intolerance quotient inside that particular legal system's environment. I would equate this with Objectivity vs. Subjectivity.
Now, as you quote here:
Azarius said:
...the point that most makes your idea an «impractical» utopia: lack of consideration for human nature itselfA human's nature, as far as any Government needs to quantify it, can also be interpreted as what they tolerate vs. what they cannot tolerate (which could be expressed mathematically using the above quotient, but that would just be pompous ^_^).
People, as a whole, have outrageously hard to account for preference-varieties (described as permutations above). Almost no single person's personal concept of "Justice" completely agrees with another's. So on what basis can one start drawing lines to make a fair, non-oppressive spectrum of isolated State Laws?
Prejudice. Law by degree of Intolerance.
The less one is willing to accept that (non-aggressive) beliefs are all objectively viewable as equal, the more they are likely to negatively impact society. Therefore, a logical template to organize States by would be essentially the degree a person is willing to tolerate the (non-aggressive) beliefs/actions of their fellow citizens.
This is also why I stick to the ideas of Objectivity vs. Subjectivity, as unlikely it is that any living being is actually capable of true objectivity. The closer a person is to being willing to tolerate all other identifiable categories of people, the more Objective we could fairly say their interests rest. The more they would feel comfortable in a laissez-faire environment.
The opposite doesn't necessarily hold true though. Grouping the intolerant people together with each other is hit-and-miss in Public (But public discrimination is a willful choice, isn't it? Something the Government must punish when it gets out of hand). Private Rulesets to suit their overactive Egos, immune as such Rulesets are to State Law (only answering to the barest most necessary National Laws), should be enough for any non-aggressive Citizen to be consoled with, even the most bigoted among them.
In short: This system essentially lets people willfully sort themselves by views on tolerance, and punishes them upon acts of intolerance.
-----
( ﾟ ヮﾟ)
Azarius said:
Since your system bears significant likeliness to Marxism, ...（ ﾟДﾟ） !
Azarius said:
...why not adopt at least part of the concept of "proletarian dictatorship"? The council in charge of the important decisions would be picked by the population without any volunteers - every citizen would be de facto - or "electoral" campaigns, and representative of the entire population (and therefore proportionally composed of scientists, artists, etc.) The members would be payed equally by donations from the population (thus in reaction to achievements), and they would exert these functions only for a very short period. A single person could not donate more than a small amount during a mandate, to avoid the "richest" from being further favoured by the government.This is interesting on several levels:
A) I named this the "Prolifian Manifesto" (awfully similar sounding to "proletarian")
B) I'm a dreamer, not a Poly Sci Major, having only sponged tidbits of politics from general life/family/articles/culture/news and personal insights; This is my first time hearing about the proletarian dictatorship.
C) If I was Karl Marx in a previous life, reborn to attempt to revise and revive communism, that would be pretty weird.I had a great-aunt who was supposedly well researched on Marx. Hmm, too bad it's too late to ask her more about it. The "dictatorship" part sounds like quite a turn-off, however, but I'll admit the term does not the philosophy make.
Azarius said:
Finally, as I like your overall idea, if you wish to turn this into a more legible (^^) pseudo-constitution, I'm willing to offer my keyboard and as little time I have.[The author hereby finds the doctrines of intellectual property to be patently absurd. Please, copy rightfully. All Fool's Day, 2009.]
--I should have published it with this at the top, but it would have made it a little harder to take seriously :)
This is a most benevolent offer you make! I did just copy&paste the text from my tl;dr storage bin ( >5 megs of raw unformatted .txt, probably a sign of early onset schizophrenia), only changing a few spots here and there to make it semi-legible.
But I wouldn't wish to burden my worst enemy with such a task, lol >_<
If the inclination does strike you, run with it. No pressure ^_^ Add your own bits, subtract my defective ones...
P.S. Also, it would seem we have a mutual acquaintance, whom I've gotten to know somewhat off-site ^_^ I wonder if you could guess who? Hint: as I've recently learned, he gets startlingly chafed when we use naughty words (≧-≦) (nothing discourteous meant by that, in case he's reading this, I'm just sayin' :P )
Posted 6 years ago # -
I read it. I liked it. Do you have more?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Your salad/pizza metaphor is fine and all, but what if I'm not hungry?
And here's the main reason your nation wouldn't work: Equals don't get along. You don't want anyone in charge, but someone's going to be. And with so many radically different "states," there's going to be fighting. And your military won't know who to protect. This isn't government, it's anarchy. And that's not a nation at all.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Otaku Girl said:
I read it. I liked it. Do you have more?LunarSD said:
Moral of the story: remember it is always unwise to deliberately request a lot of text from a tl;dr person.Posted 6 years ago # -
Tzion said:
Your salad/pizza metaphor is fine and all, but what if I'm not hungry?Then why are you in the restaurant? The exit sign is marked very clearly ^_^
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.