[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[Koumei]

K and Kaelik are both lawyers, presumably in different fields. I am an unemployed student, going into social work so my field of expertise will be "ways the Australian Government is trying to fuck with you and cut your benefits" and "how to lie, cheat and steal your way into getting a job".

You shouldn't look to me for legal advice unless you like to live life dangerously.

Maybe I need to change my name to not have a K at the start.

[Thaluikhain]

so my field of expertise will be "ways the Australian Government is trying to fuck with you and cut your benefits" and "how to lie, cheat and steal your way into getting a job".

I have a k in my username, and some experience with that.

[OgreBattle]

K and Kaelik are both lawyers, presumably in different fields. I am an unemployed student, going into social work so my field of expertise will be "ways the Australian Government is trying to fuck with you and cut your benefits" and "how to lie, cheat and steal your way into getting a job".

You shouldn't look to me for legal advice unless you like to live life dangerously.

Maybe I need to change my name to not have a K at the start.

the three of you can then start a law firm called KKK

[TiaC]

K and Kaelik are both lawyers, presumably in different fields. I am an unemployed student, going into social work so my field of expertise will be "ways the Australian Government is trying to fuck with you and cut your benefits" and "how to lie, cheat and steal your way into getting a job".

You shouldn't look to me for legal advice unless you like to live life dangerously.

Maybe I need to change my name to not have a K at the start.

the three of you can then start a law firm called KKK

Specializing in civil rights law?

[zugschef]

If you call a country where black people weren't allowed to vote a democracy, then, yes, the USA are the oldest continuous democracy.

You can certainly take the position that the US still isn't a democracy, but if you take the position that it is NOW then it probably fits whatever criteria you have for democracy in the 1700s.

And since most people will literally fly into an uncontrollable rage if you tell them the US isn't currently a democracy, it's understandable to use weaker definitions.

I was just being a little provocative. I actually question most democracies since they are all undermined by (corporation) lobbyism, which is a nice euphemism for corruption.

[Chamomile]

Res Publica in fact advocated for a city-state led by a Philosopher-King, an enlightened but ultimately authoritarian leader. That's the goddamn original source material.

No, it isn't. Res publica is a Roman term invented by Rome to describe how Roman politics worked. That's the origin of the word "republic." Politeia was translated as "Res Publica" because it was a specific treatise on how one specific guy thought res publica should be handled. The concept of res publica predates the book. It is almost literally like someone today writing a book called "Politics" and you acting like this is now the source material for all of politics because they called it politics.

Spoiler alert: After Plato died and Rome began to love all things Greek, they turned into an Empire. Gee I wonder where they got those ideas from?

Rome's descent into despotism had nothing to do with Greek influence and everything to do with the rise of a powerful elite shadow government that eventually stepped into the light after a series of vicious civil wars left the people of Rome - traditionally extremely opposed to kings - willing to accept strongman authoritarians if it meant the empire wouldn't be split by civil war every generation. Augustus and his immediate successors nominally deferred to the Senate and used their control of the legions to secure de facto unilateral power. If "res publica" really had its origins in Plato's philosopher kings the way you're so desperately claiming, this would've been completely unnecessary, because Romans had been referring to their politics as res publica for centuries at this point.

Moreover unlike your fanfiction the Romans didn't call their country a "Republic". The proper term had always been "The Senate and People of Rome" or just "Rome". "Republic" was applied to them by later historians, especially English speaking ones.

Congratulations on figuring out how etymology works? "Republic" is an English word derived from similar Roman words. Therefore Romans did not use the word "republic" because they used the word "res publica," which was not usable as a noun in the same way as the English republic. English speakers still referred to Senate-having, consul-electing Rome as a republic and, notably, to monarchial Europe as not a republic.

And in any case pretty much everyone agrees it was an oligarchy and not a democracy.

Citation needed. Roman citizens voted for representatives who had significant legal powers, and by the time they were historically significant just about every man in Rome had a vote. Now, non-Romans couldn't vote and women couldn't vote and there are other imperfections in Roman democracy, and towards the end of the life of the Republic its politics did get dominated by wealthy elites. But, so? Nobody uses "democracy" to refer only to perfectly democratic states free of any and all corruption. Roman democracy eroded bit by bit and not all at once and it wasn't an egalitarian utopia in the first place, but this is not what "democracy" means in colloquial use and you know it.

Also, also, also, do you have any evidence that anyone thinks Americans invented the concept of republic

Bull-fucking-shit. You don't get to pretend that when you're off posturing that Madison-Jefferson always intended America to be a democratic republic.

You skipped the part where you actually related these ideas together. You claimed that someone believed that America invented the concept of republic, and then you start going off about how much you hate the Constitution. Those ideas aren't related. One does not lead to the other. This is seriously just gibberish.

Also, also, also, also, what made you think I'm a lawyer?

The last time you lied about knowing international law when you were again fucking clueless? Glad you finally cleared up yet another one of your lies.

Let me guess, this is gonna end up being another one of those "if you take this quote out of context and cut out half of the middle, it kind of implies that you claimed to be a lawyer" things? Or maybe you've just got me confused for one of the actual lawyers on this forum. I can't even remember what conversation you're referencing here, so it's anyone's guess. Books are open, place your bets.

Also, I think I deleted the specific quote at some point and you aren't worth the trouble of digging it up again, but you keep talking about me "hiding behind semantics," but dude, you have this exactly backwards. You are the one pushing your glasses up and saying well technically the literal meaning of a sentence I wrote is incorrect. I am the one telling you to fuck off with that shit because context makes it obvious that I was talking about redefinition of the word "democracy" and your rant on the definition of "republic" is tangential as well as being completely wrong.

[DSMatticus]

Just to be clear, Zinegata is being a dumbass and insofar as I can be assed to suffer through this exchange Chamomile has the right of it. I am not sure how to go about unpacking this fuckage, but I shall try.

The Roman Republic did not call itself the Roman Republic. That probably doesn't surprise you - those are all English words, and the Romans (shocker) did not speak English. What might surprise you is that the Roman Republic is not even an attempt to translate what the Roman Republic called itself - it is actually an anachronism which evolved quite literally over thousands of years. In truth, the Roman Republic called itself... nothing in particular, really. 'Roma' (for the city) and 'Romano' (for the people) could serve as needed. It is not until ~100 BC that we see "Senatus Populus que Romanus", the famous (SPQR), start finding its way onto all sorts of legal documents and the like as a sort of 'state signature," and that's pretty goddamn late in the republic.

So where in the fuck does the word republic come from? Well... that is complicated. We can say for certain that it comes from the latin phrase "res publica," and I can tell you that in the most strict, most literal sense "res publica" translates roughly to "concerning public matters." But what "res publica" actually meant to the Romans who used it is not a simple answer, because Rome is a thing a thousand years wide and the usage of Latin wider still. The "who, when, and what" are important considerations in figuring out what people meant when they wrote "res publica."

Zinegata thinks "res publica" refers to Kallipolis from Plato's Politeia. That is stupid.

~400 BC, Plato writes something he titles Politeia. Politeia translates roughly to "concerning the city-state (polis)." It is a political philosophy treatise on the various ways one might organize a city-state, hence the name. In it, Plato describes five kinds of city-states and tells you why all of them suck except Kallipolis, a hypothetical utopia that is actually a 1984-esque pseudo-meritocracy in which a ruling cabal of philosopher-kings decide everything always and forever, including who gets to be a part of the ruling cabal.

~100 BC, Cicero, having read Politeia, decides to write his own version titled De re publica, which (as I said) translates roughly to (concerning public matters). It is also a political philosophy treatise on how to organize the public, hence the name. In it, Cicero translates the Greek word politeia (concerning the city-state) with the Latin phrase res publica (concerning public matters).

By now, you should have figured out what's happening. Politeia is the Greek word for government. Res publica is the Latin phrase for government. Greece happens to have went down a cultural and linguistic path where it made the most sense to derive the word for government from references to city-states. Rome happens to have went down a cultural and linguistic path where it made the most sense to derive the word for government from a reference to the people (of Rome).

Zinegata's argument is basically that some English dude wrote a book called Government in which the author described a bunch of different governments but ultimately advocated for fascism, so any time a French person uses the French word "gouvernement" over the next thousand years they are also advocating for fascism. It's very stupid.

Depending on context, in actual Roman literature "res publica" can refer to the Roman Republic period, it can refer to the Roman Empire period, it can refer to other states entirely, it can refer to abstract concepts like public property. It is just a word which references the concept of a state and all that might entail.

[Kaelik]

While we are clearing things up. Law school doesn't teach you that the glorious founding fathers were trying to make a democracy. You either don't learn about the founding fathers whatsoever, and default to your understanding from high school, or you take Federal Courts, and you learn they were a bunch of dumbasses who had no idea what they were doing with the courts, and probably weren't much better with the rest, and you see people just trying to paper over the crack of their stupid. Or you take statutory interpretation, and learn that all public laws made by groups do not really have an intent at all, and are just the haphazard slap together of conflicting interests and people not paying attention and shit.

Basically, people come out of lawschool with either the same information they went in with, and it's your high schools fault, or with the knowledge that actually, it sucks and they were all idiots and most of them didn't care about democracy at all and were just being selfish dickwads.

[fbmf]

most of them didn't care about democracy at all and were just being selfish dickwads.

Please elaborate.

Game On,
fbmf

[Kaelik]

Basically the constitutional convention was just a bunch of rich assholes trying to get put in the constitution whatever they thought would give their economic interests the best future returns.

[Ancient History]

https://japantoday.com/category/feature ... a-hologram

[Ancient History]

https://www.newsweek.com/cannibal-turne ... ng-1215586?

[Ancient History]

Today in "JFC": German politician suggest Africa allow Europe to set up colonies in Africa to discourage immigration: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-46017551

[Stahlseele]

What's JFC?
And do you know of a better way to get knowhow, capital and tech and thus workplaces to pop up?

[Iduno]

What's JFC?
And do you know of a better way to get knowhow, capital and tech and thus workplaces to pop up?

I believe "Jesus Fucking Christ."

Joke answer (sadly) to the second part: Invest in education, so you have the best minds ready to work to improve the world.

Edit: I apologize for the dishonor I brought upon myself by missing the fried chicken joke.

[Omegonthesane]

JFC = Jesus Fried Chicken Jesus Fucking Christ
Also maybe investment in emerging markets in a way that isn't colonialism where by definition you aren't investing but are rather strip mining and looting

[erik]

Jerusalem Fried Chicken.

Or Jesus Fucking Christ.

Edit. Ghostdamn double ninjad

[Stahlseele]

Yes, investments would be good.
Would take years to pay off though.
Something like that? You could be seeing effects next year.

[Omegonthesane]

I mean I'd prefer it if we straight up paid proportionate reparations for all the pillaging and murder and rape that our ancestors did to "developing" countries. Not charity, not investment, reparations

[Kaelik]

Yes, investments would be good.
Would take years to pay off though.
Something like that? You could be seeing effects next year.

The Belgian Congo had effects right away too.

Maybe the problem is that the effects are horrifically monstrous. Colonies would have the same effect they always have, of making insanely rich white guys insanely richer and developed country goods slightly cheaper at the low low cost of subjugation, exploitation, murders, and complete stripping of political freedom from the people of Africa.

The reason we don't give all the resources in the universe to Jeff Bezos and then ask him how every person in the world should act* is because his incentives are not the ones we think are actually good for everyone. Giving all the resources of Africa and the political power to exert their will, to developed countries is a sure fire way to do the exact same thing as last time, which is to make sure that Africa's resources are used to benefit the European people because the people making decisions about how they get used only have incentives to make life better for their home countries.

Capitalism sucks, but Colonialism isn't the answer. The answer is reparations, democracy, and self determination.

*Actually, we do do this, but it's really fucking stupid.

[Stahlseele]

If anybody, we should be giving all the money to Elon Musk.
At least he would make science fiction world come true <.<

[Kaelik]

If anybody, we should be giving all the money to Elon Musk.
At least he would make science fiction world come true <.<

..............


Bezos has done as much to create a future distopia as Musk, but maybe stop wanting a distopia.

[Stahlseele]

I am talking about Musks Electric Cars, Solar Panels for Houses planned, the Hyper Loop, Space-Flight, Mars-Base stuff . .
Am i missing something? O.o
If anything, Musk looks to me like somebody who is preparing for/trying to lessen the impact of no more fossil fuels and global warming apocalypse?

[Longes]

I am talking about Musks Electric Cars, Solar Panels for Houses planned, the Hyper Loop, Space-Flight, Mars-Base stuff . .
Am i missing something? O.o
If anything, Musk looks to me like somebody who is preparing for/trying to lessen the impact of no more fossil fuels and global warming apocalypse?

At best Musk is a deluded idealist who pursues an unattainable image of sleek future designed by Apple. At worst Musk is a charming conman who cleverly plays government subsidies, investors and pre-orders while abusing his workers and chasing unfeasible vanity projects.

Hyper-Loop and Mars Base are two great examples. Hyper-Loop is vaporware that so far has only produced a joke of a student contest. Mars Base includes SpaceX doing 0% of any mars base stuff and putting into fine print that they only do deliveries and actual living on mars is not part of their plans or estimated costs.

[Kaelik]

I am talking about Musks Electric Cars, Solar Panels for Houses planned, the Hyper Loop, Space-Flight, Mars-Base stuff . .
Am i missing something? O.o
If anything, Musk looks to me like somebody who is preparing for/trying to lessen the impact of no more fossil fuels and global warming apocalypse?

I'm talking about his electric LUXURY cars with "autopilot" that kills people but then he blames them for using his autopilot, and not meant for general consumption, funded by government subsidies.

I'm talking about his Hyper Loop, which literally was invented because he hates being in the same room with the filthy Poors, so he needed to invent an unsafe super expensive method of travelling that justified having one person large vehicles so he wouldn't have to ride with the poors (and also, it doesn't fucking exist and never will, because it's fucking stupid and doesn't do anything better than existing methods of travel.)

I'm talking about his plan to own mars so that if you vote for the Mars Democratic Party instead of the Mars Republican Party he turns off your air and murders you.

Also.... which do you think is more likely? Billionaires who really care about the potential long term scientific advancements of space travel? Billionaires with BILLIONS OF DOLLARS shoot big damn rockets into space because it gives them a rush, and they have infinite fucking piles of money they can't spend on their own gratification any other way?