Votes Matter ... or Do They?

[crfriend]

If humans are so untrustworthy that they must be watched and controlled, then how can giving a subset of those untrustworthy humans the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the rest improve matters?

Concentrated stupidity, corruption, greed, and avarice. What a lovely concept.

I haven't yet seen any answers good enough to bolster my faith in any government composed of humans.

What's the alternative? "Who shall we hassle today, Siri?" Colossus, The Forbin Project?

Getting the workings out of the hands of humans (or humanoids) has been mooted in the past, mostly in speculative fiction, and the outcomes have not been glorious. Probably the very best we could do in that regard is use a "benevolent dictator" type of government, but the key is finding the right person to play the role who is compassionate, incorruptible, and bullet-proof. I fear we are stuck with humans for the moment.

[Tor]

If humans are so untrustworthy that they must be watched and controlled, then how can giving a subset of those untrustworthy humans the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the rest improve matters?

Concentrated stupidity, corruption, greed, and avarice. What a lovely concept.

Near as I can tell, all governments are a subset of humans. They have the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the other humans around. Thus:

Government is concentrated stupidity, corruption, greed, and avarice. What a lovely concept.


I haven't found anything other than humans to put power in the "hands" of, but I think it would be an improvement if the chief of every nation could appropriately say something akin to this on taking office:

"I'm the head wizard now. I've only got to give an order and a thousand wizards will ... uh ... disobey, come to think of it, or say 'What?', or start to argue. But they have to take notice." — Archchancellor (Terry Pratchett: Lords and Ladies)

Who needs a law saying you can do so to stop someone from murdering you? You have that right by virtue of being human.

Where does anyone get the right to tell a random stranger they can't smoke a plant or the order-issuer will bring armed thugs to barge into their house, kidnap them, and throw them into a cage?

I can't find the individual with the right to do the latter, and once you've given some group that right than none of its members possess, then it's a very slippery and very steep slope to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

All that said, I'm nervous about how the implications of this would play out, and positively scared about the transition and how current imbalances would play out. However, I'm already scared of where things are headed, so I'm not sure this could be any worse.

[Elisabetta]

-

[Uncle Al]

JennC03 -


Uncle Al

[Elisabetta]

JennC03 -


Uncle Al

Thanks

[Fred in Skirts]

I'd like to know why the discussion of Politics is discussed on this forum when it has no barring in regards to men wearing skirts. I'm not trying to be rude or start anything but I do recall reading in the rules about politics being brought to this forum so why are we talking about them? I completely hate POLITICS and thought this site was strictly about skirts, men who wear skirts and the different types and styles that each wear. Can we go back to that?

I too must agree with JennCO3 on this point!!!

Fred

[Elisabetta]

I'd like to know why the discussion of Politics is discussed on this forum when it has no barring in regards to men wearing skirts. I'm not trying to be rude or start anything but I do recall reading in the rules about politics being brought to this forum so why are we talking about them? I completely hate POLITICS and thought this site was strictly about skirts, men who wear skirts and the different types and styles that each wear. Can we go back to that?

I too must agree with JennCO3 on this point!!!

Fred

Thanks Fred

[Tor]

From the start I've never understood why this thread was in In the News rather than Off Topic. Perhaps it's a little late now, but maybe it should be moved there.

[Elisabetta]

-

[Fred in Skirts]

There are only a few rules here at the SkirtCafe

1. ABOVE ALL: Respect for others at all times. No profanity/swearing. No personal insults.
2. No politics, unless related to skirts/kilts. No religion, unless related to skirts/kilts. These topics were banned because they lead to endless flame wars.
3. SkirtCafe is a family-friendly fashion forum. No adult material. No discussion of clothing not meant to be seen in public, unless it affects clothing that IS meant to be seen. Underwear is NOT public fashion.
4. Feel free to post pictures suitable for public display. Indecent or immodest pictures will be removed, regardless of intent.
5. No female screen names (unless you are a woman). We are committed to gender honesty.
6. No discussion of artificial body parts or pieces of clothing meant for body parts that men do not have. That is not men's fashion.
7. Please, posts need to be in English. We unfortunately do not have the resources to deal with non-English language posts. There are a variety of skirted men's on-line communities in other languages.
8. If you think another member has broken the rules or has otherwise done something out of line, please consider sending email or a private message a moderator. Moderators have the final say on what is or is not appropriate on SkirtCafe. Moderators are: Bob, crfriend, Uncle Al, and Milfmog.

Fred

[Disaffected.citizen]

From the start I've never understood why this thread was in In the News rather than Off Topic. Perhaps it's a little late now, but maybe it should be moved there.

Politics are not to be brought to the forums it's in the forums rules. I don't know why people keep starting these threads it steers away from the topics that others are discussing and brings a bunch of drama and hot headed tempers on the matter because we all know how people get when politics go out in the open to speak on. Just saying!

Although the "rules" state politics should not be discussed, it's almost impossible not to do so; like it or not, skirt wearing by men, is a political statement in itself.

The general reason most fora state "no discussion of politics or religion" are that the subjects often degenerate into "flame wars". We are generally quite lucky here; it is a rarity for the "mods" to have to intervene.

[Sinned]

I have been posting here for over 4 years and I can only think of three, maybe four occasions when the mods have had to step in and I thank them overall for their tolerance. That's a pretty good record for such a disparate group of individuals living in so many different countries. As long as we can keep a reasoned debate going why not have the odd exception to the rule. I must admit that as a Brexiter much of what has been discussed in this thread has little obvious relevance to me and most has gone completely over my head BUT I have learned a lot about current thoughts on the internal tensions within the US and why there are the sudden interruptions of violence from time to time. So whereas, Jenn, Fred and others, it may be a bit tedious or irrelevant to you and to skirting there is a modicum of fascination for those of us sitting outside the boxing ring.

Remember also that religion is also one of the so-called banned topics but we have had some really good discussions/threads about that as well and I have learnt loads and realise that we have some really learned members on the topics of the OT and Hebrew customs/language.

[Tor]

1. ABOVE ALL: Respect for others at all times. No profanity/swearing. No personal insults.

I think this pretty much covers how the forum operates. It seems the second sentence isn't always observed, but I appreciate that it mostly is.

Like Sinned, I've appreciated learning from the discussions that bend or even outright flout the second rule, thanks in large part to the calibre of gentlemen (and ladies) we have here. I can think of one recent case where a comparatively on-topic post might have had the mods intervening, but it settled itself amicably before they got the chance to do so.

In the reposting of the rules, I happened to note that Bob is mentioned as a moderator (which he technically is), but it seems he's last visited over five years ago, so messaging him as a moderator might not be a useful thing to do. On the other hand, IIUC, he's still got a notable hand in keeping the lights on here, so it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie.

[crfriend]

In this, I am writing with a rather odd mix of moderator and individual contributor, so beware.

Generally speaking, religion and politics are two topics that a typically "banned" from places where a level of decorum is desired. This is not because broaching either will cause a donnybrook, but because there are reasonable probabilities that they will because they hit close to home. The odds that fights/flame-wars will erupt are directly correlated with the quality of individual involved. Note that we have done quite well here -- and that speaks to who we are, as individuals and as a community.

This thread, while it has gotten a bit heated, has remained very much on the rails, and whilst direct challenges have been made, those challenges were on the topic material and not questioning an individual's integrity or intelligence. Slagging off on politicians is an age-old sport (they do it to themselves all the time, and compare that to the "quality of individual" assertion above) and may well be because they are more "objects" than "people" when in politician-persona.

As far as it being off-topic for everybody on the planet who doesn't dwell in the USA, that's largely true -- save for the fact that the USA remains militarily powerful and can still do a whole lot of damage to the planet beyond what it's doing already to the environment. Part of my concern in the upcoming "election" is which candidate is least likely to take out the planet if they "win". So, part of that makes it "on topic" as far as "news" goes.

We shall see what happens in another couple of weeks.

[Stevie D]

I also think that the 'Votes Matter...' thread has so far been largely conducted with extraordinary restraint and decorum, so full marks to all contributors and also the admins who have let the clearly-named thread continue. Because it is such a well-defined thread, it is easy to avoid it altogether for those who don't wish to read or post in it.

But we seem to be a well behaved and thoughtful bunch on here these days and there is a lot of good community spirit. In that light, I don't why we should not discuss potentially contentious issues: we are grown-up enough to do so properly and in the hope of learning things from each other, especially when we are sometimes separated by half the globe.

Whilst the main focus of the Cafe continues (as it should) to be about men wearing skirts, I get the feeling that the forum is much more relaxed about subject matter these days - we are discussing potentially taboo subjects such as politics, religion and gender issues, and by and large we are doing it well. Yes, there are forum rules, but I would hope these are not set in stone to be immutable for ever more. Invoking them should be a fairly late-on last resort, and the fact that the mods/admins have generally tacitly allowed a lot of flexibility is a tribute to their trust in Cafe members to behave well and our trustworthiness to keep things civil and wise. I hope it continues.