The system does not allow good candidates to make it through to a vote. (When it does, they are quickly either ejected or “brought in” to the system.)
There are other, more effective ways to vote than at the ballot box. Money, time, voice (depending on your reach), protest, direct action can all have a greater impact.
IMHO building parallel systems is the most important thing right now, as the primary political system is entering a period of crisis that it may not survive. Parallel systems, especially strong local systems, have a long and successful history.
That’s pre-SOPA, pre-Snowden, when the internet could still organize to fight (and win) political battles. There’s a reason the internet has become a battleground since then.
They are fully aware that website operators of popular discussion forums cannot afford it. This is effectively a mass censorship/takedown of Korea's remaining corners of free speech.
Imagine if a subreddit had to shut down because they have to now purchase expensive hardware just to vet each image shared.
These forums are popular with the young who share meme images of the current president of Korea and this new ordinance would immediately put an end to that.
Traditional labels are becoming useless anyway, liberal can mean anything from libertarian free market enjoyer to radical progressive depending on who you are talking to. And I am talking about self-identified labels!
You also have many right wingers (internationally) moving towards things like industrial policy, subsidies, and a populist labor focus (coupled with anti-immigration rhetoric of course). In some cases, even nationalization is under discussion. It’s a wild time to try and label things.
My main point was there is not a single axis. Even left and right are not strictly opposites, you can have a society that decides based on some mix of authority and democracy (individual preference). They are only opposites at the extreme, if you insist that every political problem has to be addressed in the particular way.
The labels are not useless, they represent certain values and disagreements over how society should be governed. Of course, each of the values has a failure mode, but they are different. The values are:
- Right-wing, conservative, authoritarian - society should be governed by elites, conflict should be resolved by submission to authority
- Left-wing, socialist, democratic - society should be governed by equal peers, conflict should be resolved by democratic consensus
- Liberal, individualist, pro-freedom - the question of societal governance (and the arising conflict) should be avoided if possible by giving each participant their own life independent on others
Of course it is confusing because people cheat and do not always want to state their aims clearly. The values are also not opposites, but independent; they can also be applied per problem. For example, most famously, some communists were both left (they wanted a socialist society without classes) and right (they wanted the transformation under the party authority). But each pair of these has a similar conflict like that, so (aside from the communist spectrum above) you get also capitalist spectrum between right vs liberal, and anarchist spectrum between left vs liberal. In the middle of all 3, things are roughly social-democratic.
This is the traditional view, I’m saying it’s becoming useless because ordinary people don’t make these distinctions and the labels have become useless for communication and understanding. All politics is becoming syncretic/heterodox and terms like “liberal” have been stretched to meaninglessness. The labels that political science uses no longer map to reality in a useful way. Maybe we need new labels.
I think this is also why the term “right-wing” has been misapplied to anyone who challenges the status quo, regardless of their other political positions or their nominal political orientation. Things are bad when literal Communists can be labeled “right-wing” because of their position on some issue. (Yes I have seen this happen.)
Only if you care about personally understanding how computers work, and/or if you desire to change the way that they work on your own.
If you just want to make money, there’s no need to understand it deeply. It’s more important to understand the business side of things, to identify good opportunities, to learn how to manage people, and to make good connections. You can pay people or AI to write code. It won’t necessarily be good, but if you just want money, who cares.
Computer science is a lot more than writing code. There’s a lot of theory, as well as learning how to develop and apply novel solutions to difficult problems. It may be that AI can help with that as well, but I have my doubts that it will be both economical and effective.
What’s more, you may be interested in solving problems where you don’t trust the “aligned” AI (or future versions of the AI) to investigate a problem fairly. For instance, will an AI allow you to challenge its owners with a new product? Will it let you write privacy software when the government begins cracking down on it? It all depends on your areas of interest.
His statement about war and politics is a reference to Clausewitz, the famous military strategist that apparently you have not read nor have heard referenced, which is surprising given how often this quote comes up in military-political discussions, articles, and books.
(It’s ok, nobody in the administration has read him either. And before you accuse me of partisan hackery, the prior admin was just as incompetent.)
reply