• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    234 days ago

    “The purpose of a system is what it does”. If our system consistently produces shit candidates, shit policies, shit results and demoralizes voters… Then we have a shit system and nothing will ever improve until we demand a modern multiparty democracy with proportional representation and safe guards against fascism.

    • @MutilationWave
      link
      English
      34 days ago

      Multiparty democracy would be fantastic but that’s a goal if we make it through this crisis. A more realistic (yet still fanciful) plan would be to destroy the Democratic party and create something new from the ashes. First past the post is here to stay for a long time.

      • @Jumpingspiderman
        link
        English
        34 days ago

        Going to one of the many forms of preferential voting/ Ranked Choice Voting would work. That both major parties vehemently oppose changing first past the post should tell you that such a change would be effective in breaking their power.

        • @MutilationWave
          link
          English
          13 days ago

          That’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s easier to destroy the Democrats and replace them than fix FPTP voting.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      “The purpose of a system is what it does”.

      This is certainly a viewpoint, but I don’t necessarily agree when people state it as if it’s a foregone conclusion.

      Starve the beast exists. They purposefully cripple these systems, and if you were to adhere to that statement, then it means that we should do away with the systems altogether because they’re currently broken (read: sabotaged).

      That is a bad take imo

      • @MutilationWave
        link
        English
        23 days ago

        Someone responded to me with this a while back. The purpose of a system is what it does. I shot back some shit, but then I thought about it. They’re right. The purpose of a system is what it does. It became clear to me. It literally does not matter in the real world what the creators of a system say it is for. The purpose of the system is what it does.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 days ago

          I mean… no. The purpose of the Department of Education has been very clear. Just because they fire a shitload of people, and make it so they cannot perform their function for the time being, does not mean that the purpose of the Department has changed.

          The purpose remains, the Department just needs to be fixed so that it can continue to serve its purpose.

          • @MutilationWave
            link
            English
            23 days ago

            This is how I used to think. But we need to simplify things in order to approach them with appropriate action. The original purpose of USAID, NOAA, Department of Education, those don’t matter at the moment. It’s hard to articulate, but when you get down to it, the purpose of the system is what it does. No, over arching beliefs, vision, or plans from the founders will not work right now. The purpose of a system is what it does.

            I don’t want to argue with you anymore comrade. Please give a read to the link. Just a few days ago I would have had the same response as you.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              I believe that’s wrong, sorry. At least in the case of government agencies. Maybe it applies to other types of systems, and maybe it even applied to government agencies prior to Trump’s actions, but no. Not anymore at least. I feel like maybe you don’t understand how government agencies are structured and how they function if you believe it’s that simple and lacking in nuance.

              These agencies are not monoliths. There are still people working in the Department of Education, career bureaucrats, experts in their specific field, that are still working toward the stated goals of the Department of Education. They will continue to do so until they’re forced to stop. Capitulating and just admitting defeat, just because the fascists that have seized power have made those goals far more difficult to achieve, is exactly what they want you to do. Don’t fall for the trap.

              • @MutilationWave
                link
                English
                33 days ago

                I hear you. What I’m advocating does veer into philosophy when what we need is action. I don’t claim to know every nuance of these bureaucracies, but I have worked within them, as a civilian. I do understand that this pump action shotgun approach to surgery is absurd. Believe me, you and I are on the same team here!

                I don’t advocate admitting defeat at all. In fact I think everyone 'resigning in protest ’ right now is just taking the easy way out. I do hope for an end to this madness, but it seems like the train’s just left the station.

                What I’m advocating is an approach to systems theory, nothing more. Stay safe in the months ahead.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 days ago

            the Department just needs to be fixed so that it can continue to serve its purpose.

            All this means is “don’t give up.” You acknowledge it’s not serving its purpose right now, it’s serving some other purpose.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              No. It means don’t throw out entire agencies wholesale because of some bullshit misunderstanding.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    I have. Sauerkraut was talking about voting reform. Which, I’ll point out, still does not require the complete dissolution of the voting system we have.