[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1569885911207.jpg (75.75 KB, 960x534, 160:89, https___blogs-images.forbe….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Imagine you were to discover, with certainty, that the world you are currenty living in is fake.  Everything in it, including all the people, were artificially created.  Whether what you're experiencing is a VR simulation or the dream of a sleeping god, this isn't the real world.  Further, as part of this discovery, you've figured out how to end it.  You'll return to the real world and everything about the fake world will cease to exist.

What do you do?  Stay in the fake world?  Or destroy the fake world to return to the real world?  Does your answer change if the world is particularly good or bad to live in?
18 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



It doesnt say that in the OP.

Its not fun for you to shoot down responses.


End the simulation, probably.
Presuming this is something that's pretty obvious, anyway. More than just "put bullet to head".

Way I see it, better to break the cycle. I've no problem not worrying about whether or not it's possible the world we live in is fake, but if I do know, then I think I'd want to make effort to escape that reality.



Is your response the suggestion that we're currently living in a simulation?  'cause that seems like a whole separate thread, and also a question we've been asking since ancient Rome was a world power.  From here, there's no way to tell that the shadows on the wall aren't the extent of reality.  That's why I specified as part of the question that somehow you did know.

 No.2458[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1569643638637.png (249.17 KB, 675x683, 675:683, 1456910454539.png) ImgOps Google

(Continuing the conversation started at >>>/pony/987947 here in /townhall/ at moderator request.)

>the oldest trick in the nazi apologist book is to pit the onus on those reacting to the nazi and paint them as the real problem.
I'm not saying that Nazis are fine.  I think Naziism is a terrible ideology.  But two wrongs don't make a right.  And freedom of thought and speech is very important.  Just because people hold bad beliefs don't give anyone the right to physically attack them.  I'm honestly confused at how anyone could think otherwise.
97 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Well, i wasn't understanding your words accurately.  Especially when we get into the words of common law, its easy to fail to communicate.

And, people here like to hear absurd strawman extremeness so they can feel justified to ad hominem.  Dont take it personally.


I would just like to point out that telling other posters not to target specific people when Mint is the only one actively going out of his way to accompany posts with images of Lyra, specifically so that people can identify that they're his, is incredibly hypocritical


Um, are are you saying that in response to something specific?  I'm having a hard time seeing how what you said fits in with the rest of this thread.  And what do you mean by "target"?  


I'm feeling very conflicted.

I like this creator, but some of the things they poke fun at in the video are things that sound similar to how my friends express themselves.

Can you guys please give me your honest and detailed opinion about both the video and what you think of genders and identity?
25 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Well, not as direct as a punch. Or just insulting you to your face. This is a more indirect "look at this person and laugh" kind of bullying.

Not saying one is any less hurtful or better or worse than the other. Just men and women use different flavors of bullying.


I definitely never experienced this! For me, bullying was always quite elaborate. It was clever name-calling, imitation and recurring gags. All the stuff that you see in this video.

You're very keen to stereotype this as male or female behavior, but I think really it's just culture.


Well, many of the differences between men and women ARE societal (or "cultural" if you wanna use that word) so I can't say I completely disagree.


File: 1569437347807.png (146.67 KB, 749x311, 749:311, Untitled.png) ImgOps Google

As you may be aware, Dave Chappelle's recent Netflix comedy special made news headlines for the massive disconnect between the Rotten Tomatoes critics, who initially gave the special a 0% rating, and the audience score of 99%.  As of now, just 1/3 of critics consider it to be "fresh", while only 1 in 100 audience members marked it down.

In the special, Chappelle targets cancel culture itself, in both the title "Sticks & Stones" as well as by joking about every major so-called "marginalized" group without reservation.  No one is safe, so to speak.

Some consider it an example of a comedian punching down at groups he has no right to criticize.  Others consider it to be among the most important comedic acts of a generation, on par with George Carlin's critiques of society and especially political correctness.

As far as the low critic score, there is speculation that Rotten Tomatoes is not only seeking out and onboarding woke reviewers, but also that reviewers who actually liked the special are afraid to voice their support for fear of being targeted and cancelled themselves.  This theory is supported by the politically charged documentary "Knock Down The House" - a.k.a. the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex Movie - receiving a perfect 100% critic score compared to an audience score of 17%.

Have you seen the Chappelle special?  If so, what did you think about it?
Do you think comedians should be cancelled for making offensive jokes?  Why or why not?
Where do you think this fits into the broader context of the Culture War?
What is your opinion on the usefulness of aggregated critic scores?
30 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Some people are in a position to ignore harmful words, and others aren't. I don't support Cancel Culture, but I do think criticizing people for poor word choices is perfectly fair. Representation and dialogue affects the way society perceives groups of people



There's a big gap between telling someone their language choices are bad and campaigning to have them fired.


I'm in agreement with this post.

It's so easy to look at something from the outside and decide that you know it intimately enough to make fun of it, without actually understanding it well enough to really hit at something truthful or valuable.

The majority of the time, a comedian is not a good source of information about the world of experiences they haven't had themselves. I think there's value in sticking to putting funny spins on things they are intimately familiar with themselves. I think in this way it's very natural that this leaving no sacred cow unslaughtered, is no apt way to go about comedy. You might get a few shocked laughs or some claps, but at the end of the day, what are you really doing?


File: 1567986393069.png (334.54 KB, 2441x1650, 2441:1650, ponyvill pony 1st page 9-8….png) ImgOps Google


Hey, ponyville. This is your independently-sourced review of your current level of consciousness. Or in other words - I have independently measured how happy of a town you are. You know this is reliable because I have no affiliation or other ties with any official on this site or the other sites that appear in this review.

For more information on the rating system I'm using, see http://www.mapofspirituality.org/map-of-spirituality/

But basically, the bigger the number, the better. And on to the review:


I measured the level of consciousness of four well-known imageboards: ponyville/pony, ponychan/oat, 4chan/mlp, and 4chan/b.


I viewed each post as it appeared on the front page of each website and rated it according to the descriptions of each level of consciousness in http://www.mapofspirituality.org/map-of-spirituality/ and https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/04/levels-of-consciousness/, as well as my own understanding of the post and the person behind the post's intent, as well as the community's likely reaction (cultural considerations.)
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
13 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I'd agree with Koala. There's a point where you're repressing things, and then there's a point where you're failing to cope.



I agree. I think having a time and place for all your various emotions is the way to go, personally. Personally, i'm a fan of just feeling alone by yourself with various media that will fit the bill for that mood. Think the tub of ice cream sad movie cliche, but for more than just sadness.


Declaring people as just being "emotional" because they say some shit that challenges your views is a very easy handwave. The core human condition of having feelings isn't a good enough reason to shrug off someone's points as irrelevant. If you can disconnect your personal feelings from an issue, good for you: that doesn't mean everyone should be expected to do the same, especially not when they have a personal experience with said issue.


I would absolutely also have to agree that this website has a serious fear of confrontation. The fact it was deemed needed to make an entire anon board as a place to compactly store any disagreements as opposed to letting them naturally end or intervening at the point of necessity speaks volumes



I don’t even know how to begin to reply to this.
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Yeah, but what's wrong/interesting with the quotes?

Yeah, I think it died because not enough people are familiar with the UK's politics on this board.


Most of the quotes are very extreme.


File: 1569609587848.jpg (7.75 KB, 225x225, 1:1, redpill.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Redpill Here: Realization of your political objectives will not bring you and especially others, happiness.

 No.2304[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Thread evidently disappeared for some reason. Who knows why. It's gone after all. But, if it's "up for debate", then it's "up for debate".

I believe it is a fact that President Trump did not say white supremacists are "very fine people". I believe this because he explicitly states that, at 1:55, he is not referring to white supremacists.
I believe that claims which say Trump said that white supremacists are "very fine people" is an objectively false statement.
89 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I am trying to understand for myself. And what I come up with is what I genuinely believe you are trying to say.

Tell you what, how about you stay out of my threads then, if this is going to be your attitude. It's only fair.



It also only happens when you are talking to him, so while I can't lay blame entirely on you, clearly it isn't just some flaw on his part, because everyone else he talks to results in ordinary conversation.

And what's more, he isn't the half of the equation that's so easily frustrated that they flip out over a misunderstood forum post and start a big argument about it in every single thread.  I'm banning you from /townhall/ for like a week because I don't even remember how many times I've had to ban you recently.


>because everyone else he talks to results in ordinary conversation.
Well that's mostly because other people have a higher tolerance for Manley's shit and/or know to walk away before their patience gives up.  I have certainly been exasperated at him before, and the only reason why I didn't blow up like Noonim did is I guess I have better self-control.


File: 1569130010519.jpg (400.85 KB, 984x1138, 492:569, John_Locke.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What is the nature of rights, and where do they come from?
25 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Like I said, I'd build it off of property rights.
it seems the most straight forward way to go.
Though, I'm not a philosopher, that's why I go that way.

>I think that having the right to do as you please with your life follows from having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not follow from having the right to do as you please with your life.
More or less. You can have a free life, a happy life, and a  long life. But, you aren't necessitated to have that, is more or less what I'm looking at.

>There is no contradiction. You have the right to pursue whatever you think will make you happy.
Ah, but it wouldn't be a life of "liberty", would it?
I suppose you could argue that you'd always have the right to end up saying "I no longer want this", though, to be fair.
So, in that respect, I suppose "liberty" could still apply.

>So the question is whether or not a person can revoke their own rights. I think that this requires a deeper moral and ethical framework than rights can provide, in order to answer.
Alternatively, you could figure that the 'right' there is not logically consistent enough to justify being a right on its own.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


More or less, yes. The big thing with rights is that they apply to everyone, equally.
Otherwise, you can't really claim they're just.

I think my outlook on rights shouldn't be too far from the average. At least here in the US. Though I know a lot of people believe in "God given" rights around here, which is a bit more complicated.
Personally, I believe in God, but, I'm functionally agnostic, in that I refuse to look to God for answers on morality or my own standards of decency.
These rights are essentially how I work to refine my view on what is "good" without simply giving in to some unknown power.


File: 1569435933430.png (432.68 KB, 2933x2200, 2933:2200, 2151929.png) ImgOps Google

The natural rights of man are what men agree for them to be, and they come from men. Or women. Doesn't really matter if they got an innie or an outie, unless social convention says otherwise.

But yeah. The rights of man are a collection of tacit agreements that are sacrosanct up until the moment that they aren't.



File: 1567379306438.png (953.33 KB, 1280x905, 256:181, war.png) ImgOps Google

Can science decide questions of morals?

The current method of deciding moral questions seems to be might, accepting that people fight for what they believe, so might relates to how well moral ideas resonate.  The problem, if you value life and property, is incompatible moral ideas can resonate with different populations or individuals and the result can be unpleasant.  

Science has done a great job of confirming and rejecting models of physical systems based on objective tests, so is it possible to borrow any of these tools for questions closer to the heart?

(You might reject the use of the term science for that, so if you have a better word, that's fine.)
27 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>i highly doubt any of these billionaires want to work 15 hour work days sitting in board meetings all day, and yet that's exactly what they do! Why not retire in luxury?

Some well-known tech entrepreneurs are workaholics -- Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos.  At some point Elon Musk became aware his work hours were probably effecting his health, I think he did end up cutting back.  I think it can be hard to do nothing, though.

>donate to a cause you care about?

Bill Gates transitioned to fighting tropical diseases, and I think most of the super-rich are donating to various causes.

>(make money to make money to make money....) loop.
Yeah, the Ebenezer Scrooge thing.

>been used as a legal defense before.

Huh, really?  I mean, not that I'm to judge the powers that be, but taking the stance in some official capacity that wealth can render people...sociopathic criminals, I mean, rational minds might come to some deductions about excessive wealth's value in society that the wealthy wouldn't care for.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Some well-known tech entrepreneurs are workaholics -- Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos.  At some point Elon Musk became aware his work hours were probably effecting his health, I think he did end up cutting back.  I think it can be hard to do nothing, though.

Elon musk i get. He actually has a vision. He has goals he wants to achieve related to pushing tech forward and improving humanity. He's spent a ton of money on developing cutting-edge tech, so i see him as doing rich correctly!

Jeff Bezos, i don't get him nearly as much. Amazon is convenient and all, but it hardly strikes me as moving the world forward in the same way ol' musky is. I don't get at all why bezos doesn't retire.

>Bill Gates transitioned to fighting tropical diseases, and I think most of the super-rich are donating to various causes.

It's hard for me to quite tell where legitimate interest ends and tax break incentives begin in these cases.

>Huh, really?  I mean, not that I'm to judge the powers that be, but taking the stance in some official capacity that wealth can render people...sociopathic criminals, I mean, rational minds might come to some deductions about excessive wealth's value in society that the wealthy wouldn't care for.

Yea, the logical endpoint of that is not something to be taken lightly. It'll be interesting to see if that goes anywhere moving forward. I mean that might legitimately be a mental disorder though. Maybe being that spoiled warps your perception to the point of actual crippling mental illness. It might actually be cool if we could treat these people. Maybe that's been the secret Achilles  heel to capitalism and we can actually find and fix it. How cool could that be?!


>actually has a vision
Right, getting humanity to Mars so humanity survives if all those on Earth die.

>Jeff Bezos
An obsession with customer service and creating the everything store.  Does sound a bit more pedestrian than Musk's vision.  Like Walmart before, trying to help people live better by exploiting economies of scale, pushing out inefficient small scale shops, to deliver products cheaper...so when you work at Walmart you can still buy things.

>tax break incentives begin in these cases
On the small scale, deducting donations from taxable income means you pay less taxes, but still leaves you with less money overall since you remove the donation from your wealth.  But I am...not rich, and it may be different there.

>being that spoiled warps your perception
My understanding is that mental illness is usually biological and it takes extremes to  induce it through experience.  An often studied case involves children severely neglected in Romanian orphanages, some developing autism like symptoms.  PTSD from war zones is another case of experience giving rise to illness.  It's hard to think getting expensive presents on your birthday or living in an extra big house is trauma in the same league.

I do think the mechanisms of creating and maintaining social hierarchy are poorly understood, partly because it's a sensitive topic.

 No.1993[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

>Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15

Would you consider voting for a candidate who supports the idea of confiscation of AR-15 rifles?  Do you believe that AR-15s are protected arms under the Second Amendment (and therefore that it would be illegal for the government to confiscate them)?  Is there a chance that disrespect for the Second Amendment might cost the Democrats the 2020 presidential election?
276 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Annoyingly, all my results are MSM dicks, who don't bother to show long-form videos of the event, so it's hard to find the guy I was thinking of. When it was going down, there was a wonderful video of a black man in a Confederate uniform talking to protesters screaming all sorts of obscenities about history and its importance.
I really liked that. It was a cool thing to do.
I do have this, at least. I'll see if I can find one of the old streams I used to have of the whole thing, from a fairly long form video. Had a lot of people talking and expressing themselves, and a fair few were not white. It's possible the reason I'm not finding them, though, is that Youtube pulled them, unfortunately.

>And I didn't say they were white supremacists. I said they were OK with the white supremacy on display. Which is true, of anyone who was there. Even if they were black.
Well that's a group that could absolutely contain "very fine people", couldn't it?
I'm a free speech absolutist. I'd defend the right for these people to assemble, and speak their views. Regardless of who they are.
It's why I'm not in favor of communists being locked up, for example.
People who'd defend that belief, I'd frame as great people, yeah. It takes a pretty strong guy to stand up for people's rights to say what they wish to, despite how terrible they are.

I'm OK with white supremacy on display. It's better that way, since I can directly engage with them, and tell them why their beliefs are backwards, dumb, and more importantly, point to them to show others why their beliefs are backwards and dumb.
It's why I support everyone's right to free speech so heavily.



This isn't even remotely a strawman, but it is a bit uncalled for.  There's no need to make claims about someone's opinion of what an argument is, that doesn't contribute to the topic.  A lot of what's happening in the thread at this point isn't really "debate" in any manner, in fact, so I'm gonna lock the thread for now.


File: 1569135560526.jpg (86.93 KB, 750x500, 3:2, free speech.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Good morning, dear friends. So surprised to see us still at it, at this hour.

The team received two reports in this thread; one for "strawmanning" and one for this post, here.

The team did not identify strawmanning, and as such chose to dismiss that report.

That said, we encourage our users to conduct themselves with civility, and there was some implication of insult in that post.

Hold yourselves, please, to a higher level of candor


As to the "very fine people" issue, research determines that there is context that requires explaining.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.1866[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

I want to make a couple threads discussing immigrants an/or immigration soon, and I noticed that Last Week Tonight recently did a segment on the topic of legal immigration on their show. I'd like to share it so we can all be on the same page about this topic.

I'd prefer it if you watched the entire video, but in short summary, the segment discusses the difficulties and roadblocks people face when trying to legally immigrate to the United States. It's not a completely comprehensive detailing of those issues, but it does give one a basic overview of the difficulties faced by someone trying to become a legal immigrant. The segment also calls out the hypocrisy of the current presidential administration and its talk about supporting legal immigration while simultaneously taking steps to reduce it as much as possible.

For those of you who watched the video, I have a few questions. What do you think of our current immigration system? Were you aware of the issues and difficulties covered in this video? How do you think the legal immigration process could be improved?
116 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>What would world domination achieve?  It'd be a pretty big accomplishment, at the least.  We'd go down in history.  Our country was so great that literally everyone in the world just said "You know what, we'd rather just be a part of your great nation."
Interesting idea.
>As essentially autonomous domestic enclaves, the way the states were supposed to be.
So, for the sake of argument, an autonomous domestic enclave with Sharia Law would be perfectly acceptable?
>I'm not sure how possible it is to just "send 200 million people", but if people are that concerned I'm open to more severe limits on the voting power of immigrants.  I already envisioned a significant wait period, at the least.
It's not that it would be easy necessarily, but given a nation with little regard for human rights (China) and a bit of imagination, it's something that could certainly be abused.
Along those lines, what's to keep America from being the rest of the world's Australia (penal colony), where they just send all their criminals here rather than jailing them, themselves?
>So having more people over here will definitely create demand, right?  We can agree on that much?
>I think what you're saying is that the market won't necessarily respond to that demand and adjust to be able to sell more supply, but I don't think that's got any historical precedent.
It will respond to the demand, but probably not in the egalitarian way you seem to envision.
>I've kinda said my piece on this already to Courteous Gorilla, but that's a problem that needs to be solved even if we never had immigrants again, and once it's solved I don't expect it to be a significant problem at all.
I think CG said something along these lines as well, but even if that is the case, I don't see why overburdening the system now is better than fixing the system first.
>Moving forward, jobs can not be a requirement for living because jobs are going to go away.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Along those lines, what's to keep America from being the rest of the world's Australia (penal colony), where they just send all their criminals here rather than jailing them, themselves?
I believe Cuba did that in the 1980s affecting a very small part of the US and with minimal real effect on wages, employment, and crime.


Cuba is a tiny country. Cuba in the 80s doesn't come close to china/russia/middle east of today in terms of population. Even today it only has 11.48 million people. America has 8 states with higher populations than that. This would be on a completely different scale.


File: 1568594645988.gif (195.86 KB, 640x1024, 5:8, large.gif) ImgOps Google

Do do special things to hide from hackers, data-gathering corporations, and perhaps cyber-enabled states?  Or are these things just an acceptable background -- part of living in the modern world, and not worth spending extra time on?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I see.  Being without money is a robust strategy to avoid theft.  Well, theft of money, anyway.

For those who don't know, such as me a few minutes ago:  Brave is a browsers that blocks ads and trackers.

"Pages load instantly. I can't really benchmark page loads since they happen faster than I can start/stop the stopwatch"

I host some websites.  While I don't use ads, I can see the motivation, so I'm OK with ads, but only to a point.  Some sites are so full of them they will basically freeze up my browser, plus as ads load, page content shifts around which make reading difficult.

OK, that's good.

uBlock -- looks interesting.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


It does a little more than that as I understand it. Also has a function for script blocking built in. Pretty nice, all in all.
I figure with it and Duck Duck Go I'll keep out most the stuff. Especially since I don't even use facebook, at all, anyway.
It is slightly bothersome now and again, since you have to manually allow some things. But, I figure it's worth it.

As it is, I've yet to get any viruses from your usual weblinks any more. Seems like it's pretty much completely solved that, so as long as I don't download an actual file I'm good.

At this point, all I really have left is the tracking IP type stuffs.
Eventually I'll get myself a VPN, just to be completely safe. Especially since your providers apparently save a lot of that data. But for now, I don't really care. I don't think it'll matter too much if Mediacom figures out I surf e621.


Not just money. I lack anything of value worth stealing.


File: 1567953620967.gif (12.72 KB, 125x125, 1:1, clap.gif) ImgOps Google

So here's a question to pose to Townhall. You find yourself suddenly in charge of a nation, and it is your duty to implement a government. The only requirement is that your people will probably murder you if you do not at least maintain the illusion of democracy. Do you implement true universal suffrage, one person one vote on every matter? Enlightened despotism where real power lies with the head of state for the good of the people? A simple autocratic dictatorship?

Let's hear some ideas. As I said, it must be some form of democracy in at least name. No kingdoms, empires, or other blatant autocracy without pretense.
52 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1568562973486.jpeg (395.2 KB, 2560x2076, 640:519, 2142381.jpeg) ImgOps Google

As long as it aligns with the culture and expectations. Otherwise I feel like meritocratic voter pools are particularly prone to external toying with.

>choosing of executives from within the legislative body
Strictly at the highest level! I haven't decided what to do with city aldermen and the like. Judges are often in the most crucial positions and I'm a big fan of supremacy of the law so those need to be well insulated from political hobnobery. I'm still thinking on that one but would appreciate input. But for the strict code of laws lifting an existing code would probably be best. It doesn't really matter which one.

>local and relatively small elections
Ranked voting may be appropriate for the alderman. I worry a little about such systems because they can be pretty opaque for people looking from outside. Encouraging compromise too much is a hazard in and of itself. Passion is a key element in the system. It's certainly the fairest. Sometimes people need a mechanism to get things that they don't deserve to stay engaged.

Besides. I think the popular 1 and 2 makes the inevitable partisanship more interesting, considering that they're going into a pool of legislators rather than having actual power themselves.

A triumvirate offers a degree of flexibility that an individual would lack. When the institution itself comes under assault the three would unify, and would otherwise be disparate representing maligned interests. How much partisaning should be allowed at this level... I am unsure. It's ideal for disparate factions to have a vested interest but minimal influence, but that's a balancing act.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1568771606270.png (672.12 KB, 960x1252, 240:313, Ladies and gentlemen.png) ImgOps Google

>Otherwise I feel like meritocratic voter pools are particularly prone to external toying with.
This is true.

>Judges are often in the most crucial positions and I'm a big fan of supremacy of the law so those need to be well insulated from political hobnobery.
So would they be their own independent branch perhaps? Well, mostly independent. They wouldn't be the ones passing legislation after all.

>Ranked voting may be appropriate for the alderman. I worry a little about such systems because they can be pretty opaque for people looking from outside.
Maybe some leeway for the aldermen to be chosen with a system dependent on the community? Within reason of course.

>When the institution itself comes under assault the three would unify
Well, hopefully. Unfortunately such things are not guaranteed. Not the concurrent triumvirate, but I'd be worried about The Year of Julius and Caesar repeating itself because one or two of the triumvirate decide to invite outside attack on the third. If that sort of disunity could be at least culturally distasteful it could work. That would take a lot of entrenching.

>Unless the executive chose to own and rent all of the land.
I think that would be a bit too much!


File: 1568862681216.jpeg (340.76 KB, 2560x1920, 4:3, 2137788.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>I think that would be a bit too much!
And I think that this is my government?

An independent judiciary is crucial, yes. Perhaps combine it with the military arm.

Not too much leeway. We don't want local fiefs happening without consent.

Good. As long as constitutionally the triumvirate emerges as a triumvirate after the upheaval. A little instability is good for progress. We do want things getting done despite resistance if they have *that* kind of strength behind them.


File: 1566590049287.jpg (101.84 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So the rainforest is on fire and it's all over social media.  It generally seems to be regarded as some kind of tragedy, but from what I've heard it was actually set alight on purpose in order to make room for agriculture.  Assuming that is true, is it a good idea to remove portions (or even all) of the rainforest in order to use the land for other purposes?
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Were these not the indigenous people of Brazil?  I'm unaware of the Brazillian population.


The fires are being started by outsiders and other usurpers who are trying to eliminate the indigenous population. It's something rather disturbingly close to ethnic cleansing. See: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/afraid-indigenous-guardians-brazil-amazon-190827235511318.html



No. Not at all. We need the oxygen, we need the removal of CO2. Plus the cattle are going to be C02 factories, so we're kindof fucking ourselves on both ends here.


File: 1565053792140.png (763.59 KB, 1280x536, 160:67, world.png) ImgOps Google

Just to float an idea, the greatest barriers I see to a positive future are:
1) Nuclear War
2) Regions of desperation and extermism
3) Wealth Inequality
4) Climate Change

Each would seem easiest to address with world government, or at least, each is hard if every nation puts their own local, short-term interests first.

My attitude toward state enforcement is complicated, and I don't think a world superstate would make it any simpler, but I just thought I'd ask your thoughts.  Would a world government be a good idea, do you think?
20 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


What kind of government would be best for a hypothetical world government?


Something that strongly resembles a system of treaties between sovereign countries.


File: 1568523258502.jpeg (36.24 KB, 1075x550, 43:22, 1765787.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I'm more of a Pan-American.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Next
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]