If that’s what you got from what I said then your reading comprehension levels are non existent.

This isn’t reddit, you can simply just scroll through my account history and see. It seems like you can’t comprehend that someone exists on here who isn’t irrational or bloodthirsty

However, killing them is the accountability and we’ll keep doing so untill they accept jail instead. It is the punishment for what they have done. I’m willing to settle for jail. But I don’t know about the rest of the world. Because remember they are killing us because it hurt thier bottom line and we’re undesirable.

I think you’re missing the point here. The difference between tyranny and justice is the means of delivering accountability. I’m in favor of the rich and powerful facing justice, however, it has to be done in an extremely principled way. We have to give to hold them accountable for breaking laws that apply to everyone else, and those laws have to be based on universally applicable principles. Not only that, but they need to be given fair trials and appropriate punishments.

In simpler words, you can’t punish billionaires on misguided emotions, justice has to be just at every level. For example, you can’t just grab a random billionaire and execute them for being a billionaire. Why? Because we would be condemning a person for what is essentially a lawful act. If we were to do that then the law would lose meaning and we would create a slippery slope to tyranny. Therefore, you have to punish the specific billionaires for specific acts that violated the law. Just like anybody else they have to go through trial, they’ll have the right to a defense, and the court shall judge them appropriately based on the evidence provided by the prosecution. If they are deemed guilty then they have to punished within the confines of the law.

Again, it sounds boring and unsexy compared to movie styled executions, but these technicalities matter a lot as they are the very foundations of society. If they are not taken seriously, then you’ll be creating a fragile society that’s prone to collapse because it stands on nothing.

But I will fight you on the hierarchy bs. It may be “nature” but, we do things that go against nature all the time to benifit others. Vaccination, antibiotics, gmos, and other similar items. Going down that nature argument is a slippery slope that leads directly into thinking that others are lesser, the lie that you and the right belive.

You have fundamental misunderstanding of what hierarchies are. They are NOT optional. They are our innate biological mechanism that allows us to socialize in large groups. In order to have a functional society, you need to have large groups of people to specialize in different thing and coordinate to deliver common goals. Hierarchies do this by breaking up complex tasks into smaller chunks via labor division, streamlining abstract processes like coordination efforts and decision making, and by providing a clear social structure like a chain of command. Societal organization like this require leadership on multiple levels. Leadership positions by definition are a supreme as they have special privileges that grant them more power than the positions below them.

However, this type of supremacy has nothing to do with the supremacy that you’re talking about. Position based supremacy is completely different from the idea of inherent supremacy. For example, take a country like France. The president has the most supreme governmental power of any individual in the country. That person stands at the top of the political hierarchy. However, they are not superior or inferior to anybody else. They’re just a normal citizen that’s equal to all others who was voted in by society to serve as a leader by holding this position for a period of time. An individual being the president of France does not make them superior or inferior to other French people. The idea of inherent supremacy, aka, where people think they’re born superior to others, is the problem, but that’s a very specific type of supremacy that is demonstrably false.

Ideologies like anarchy have a completely misinformed understanding of what hierarchies are, and thus they treat all hierarchies as evil because they think they’re the source of inherent supremacy because they have positional supremacy based on vertical social organization. That’s just a flawed understanding of many different topics.

“What death toll is good enough to satisfy you?” the number of deaths to that provides a deteriant to prevent any one from having that much power again. And that number, will be surprisingly low. Mark my words. Especially if we kill them in ways that they beg for death and make them stay alive through every ounce of pain they have caused.

That’s just… unhinged. History has shown that cruelty is one of the weakest long term deterrents because resentment and desperation are much stronger drivers in humans than fear. Cruelty is tyranny, and tyranny never stops where it was originally intended. The goalposts will always move and there will always be new targets, pushing the populace in to a corner where they will eventually lash out and destroy it.

If you think that the violence would stop at the billionaires then you’re greatly mistaken. It will quickly expand to include critics of these policies, multimillionaires, people who propped up billionaires (lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc), and so on eventually expanding all the way out to the common people where a new reign of terror will take place.

Again, what you’re saying here has already happened in recent history, more than once to. I’ll once again, bring up Mao as an example. He killed every capitalist, every businessman, every lawyer, every intellectual, every critic, he killed so many people that his reign of terror has become the standard example of democide… and has it worked? Nope, the cruelty he employed was supposed to be a strong deterrent, but China literally readopting capitalism shortly after he died because his economic policies almost brought the country to collapse again.

You will be useful in the end, you will be one of the few that will be a guardian of the innocent.

Is it not concerning for you that you don’t view yourself as such?

You are right that more rich people will replace them, but, if those rich that replace are not evil and do things that truly benifit humanity and are looser with thier wallets and willing to be accountable, then maybe, just maybe we can have a better world. Untill then, death to evil rich and thier loyal servants.

The issue here is that evil is an inherently subjective term. It’s not something that can be quantified or measured. In other words, your entire view here is not based on something that’s grounded in reality. The idea of inherent evil has the same exact problems as the idea of inherent supremacy. They both make the assumption that there are people that fundamentally different from others, which is not true. We’re all the same regardless of wealth, status, or race. If all people are the same then that means your conclusion has to be false, and something else is at play… which is in fact the case. The issues with our current society is entirely systematic, not individualistic. Things are what they are because of flaws in the systems we use to structure our society. That’s something that has to be fixed by legislation based on data and reasoning, not violence.

And using history as a lense, the system changes came about only after a large number of deaths.

This is not true. History is full of peaceful power transitions, system reforms, and revolutions.

Im proposing to limit death to those who are rich, racist, and currently hold the reigns of power for evil. Simple as that.

But this is literally the mentality of the most evil people in history. Like I said before, all the most evil people have the mentality that the world would be a better place if they just killed the people they didn’t like. They all thought that they’ll restrain themselves to only what’s necessary and that history would look kindly on them once they see the results. However, that’s never the case, for a reason.

Just an FYI, it originated in India. It’s called Arabic because it was introduced to Europe via the Arabs, however, both of the numeral system that are widely used in the Arab world came from India.

The point that I made completely flew over your head. I didn’t ask you what you thought the appropriate punishment should be, I specifically criticized the notion that you think that the world’s problems can be solved by a quick fix, which in this case is getting rid of the billionaires.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why this shallow line of thought is flawed. It oversimplifies all the world problems to a single source, which is never the case, and it tries to sell a one time silver bullet solution that promises to immediately fix a lot of the world’s problems quickly, which also never happens. For all your talk about Nazis, this mentality is ironically one of the biggest drivers of evil ideologies in history. All the most bloodthirsty dictators have the same idea of “if we just get rid of all the people we don’t like, the world will surely be a better place”. They all think that history will look kindly on them for doing what they’re doing, but that’s never the case.

Take Mao as an example. He did exactly what you want down to the letter, and the result was the worst man made catastrophe in recorded history. He is responsible for the single highest death toll of any state leader ever, and he is globally recognized as a monster. All of that, and his original goal of getting rid of social classes failed. Despite all the killings and deaths, it changed nothing. China has the highest number of billionaires in the world.

Do you know why Mao failed and why your wish here will fail in the same exact way? It’s because it’s not based on grounded reality. Billionaires just represent a tip of an iceberg. They’re just the top of the economic hierarchy. If you kill them all, they will be immediately replaced by the people right under them, and if you kill those, they will be replaced the people under them, and so on and so forth. In a hierarchal system, vacant positions at the top will always be filled by the next in line. So what is your master plan? To keep killing people until there is no one left? What death toll is good enough to satisfy you?

The next thought for people with beliefs like this is they think that if they can’t solve problems by killing people then they’ll just destroy the system that enables the current hierarchies… but that’s also stupid because you’ll just replace them with a different set of hierarchies. Take a look at the Soviet Union. They tried to get rid of the capitalist hierarchies based on economic wealth by having the state seize and redistribute private wealth. While they got rid of their economic classes, they introduced new political classes that took over as the new elite. The power and wealth that was with the tycoons transferred over to government and party elites. It’s the same problem just reskinned, that’s actually why the USSR collapsed.

This is because you can’t actually get rid of hierarchies. Inequality is literally one of the definition hallmarks of civilization. We are social animals, and all social animals are hierarchal. That’s how we organize ourselves and our societies. It’s a part of our DNA, so trying to get rid of it is a battle lost before it started. That’s why any serious ideology needs to factor this in order to be pass the bare minimum of being considered pragmatic.

As it turns out, history has shown how we can fix the issues we’re seeing today. The reason why Germany, Italy, and Japan were able to rebuild and move past their fascist chapters is because they were forced to rebuild their system from the ground up based on liberal values, not by killing all the Nazis… that’s just historical illiteracy. Things like secularism, democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, equality of opportunity, and most importantly, check and balances is what transformed those societies into the advanced and open nations that they are today.

In America’s case, that’s what’s missing. There is no accountability at any level. The checks and balances that used to be there aren’t being applied anymore. The branches of government aren’t keeping each other in check, the constitution isn’t being respected, the economy isn’t being regulated, the people are largely apathetic to the abuses of power, laws aren’t applied universally, and opportunity is not given equally. The lack of accountability erodes trust in the country and its institutions, which just fuels more distrust creating a vicious cycle. This isn’t an issue that can be solved overnight by killing people or destroying things. It’s a multifaceted issue that requires education, great coordination efforts, and a politically active public… which unfortunately a lot of people don’t find sexy enough of a problem or solution to do something about it and so we’re stuck with ideas like yours for the time being.

You would have to be an actual lobotomite to think that killing all the billionaires is going to change anything. All the people under them would just take their place? Are you just going to keep killing people endlessly, what’s exactly is that 200 iq play here?

This is such a shallow view of the world. No, if every single billionaire died tomorrow, literally nothing will change. The people below them will rise to the top. People who think like you also think that if they got rid of the hierarchy, then surely the problem will be solved… But no, when one hierarchy is gone another will take its place. This is because humans are social animals, and like all the other great apes, we evolved to exist in hierarchal societies.

“If we just kill all the people we don’t like, the world will surely be a better place” - All the most evil people in history

AI at the end of the day is still just a tool, and it’s only used because it makes life easier. In this case, it’s much faster, easier, and cheaper to use AI to make passable slop vs paying talented people to make something that might be better but is also way more expensive and time consuming.

People in the creative industry protest AI out of self interest, and nothing more. The issues with AI matter when it applies to them but not when it applies to others. People in general are okay with sacrificing others for the sake of their convenience. Ethical integrity has always been rare, and I don’t see that changing soon.

People today really do lack basic critical thinking to the point where it’s not just concerning, but could outright explain the decline of our society. I think it should be common sense to consume media while being mindful of its era and audience as well as being able separate the art from the artists. I think it’s ridiculous that there are people who are attacking actors for playing an outdated joke on a show 30 years ago. Like how fragile and miserable do you have to be to get that riled up while trying to watch entertainment to relax.

Idk why you’re being downvoted, you’re right. The shows first few seasons were great because the humor felt original and the chemistry between the characters felt organic.

I felt like all of the characters declined. Chandler’s sarcasm became more and more forced. Ross getting divorced again and again got repetitive, I also didn’t like how they handled him having a kid. Joey’s character was lobotomized and he went from being a funny womanizer to being a child in an adult’s body. The girls stayed more consistent, but I felt like Phoebe’s shtick kind of wore off and became annoying. I also hate the ending.

I think the first half of friends is one of the best sitcom products that American TV has produced, but the second half is just mediocre.

I mean if you understand that they’re satire, then they can be funny.

That being said American dad past season 9 and Family Guy past season 7 have severely declined in quality to the point where they’re not funny to me anymore.

I think I just worded myself poorly. What I meant is that all identities include and exclude because that’s just the nature of categorization. Identity, as a concept, only exist in the abstract. It only exists in people’s minds, and therefore, it has no rigid edges because psychology and no rigid edges. This is because identities, including collective identities, are defined subjectively by individuals. When an identity is codified and enforced, it stops being abstract and becomes an ideology because you’re trying structure society around a particular set of views. Ideologies are what rigid edges, segregate, and isolate.

For example, there’s nothing inherently wrong with defining being German as being ethnically German. That’s the standard definition of ethnic and national identity for most of human history. It only becomes a problem when an ideology comes in, boxes the identity with a strict definition, codifies this definition as the only one that’s allowed, and enforces it by trying to get rid of anybody who strays from it. That’s how you get the Nazis. The identity got stripped down to the arbitrary and subjective views of a few individuals who tried to impose them on everyone else. Somebody can identity as ethnically German and live with other ethnicities in peace.

I think some elements of the imperial flag should be used, but not its entirety, since it represents the monarchy who historically weren’t all too kind to their people for most of their reign

That goes for literally all of Russia’s flags. The Imperial flag, the Soviet flag, and the current flag all represent tyrannical regimes hated by the people. I think from a purely aesthetic point of view, that color palate of the imperial flag is pretty hard to top. It’s unique, it’s instantly recognizable, and it looks nice. I think you’re right that they need a new flag, but if they were to draw inspiration from their historical flags, I think this should be the one to look at.

The image hasn’t loaded yet, but I do need to note that the flag should be the one without the crown, as that represents the authoritarian Shah.

You’re entirely correct. I didn’t even notice that there were two variations. The non monarchist variation should absolutely be the one to get readopted.

I think a majorly red flag would be suitable for China, and additionally, the Qing flag represents the dynasty ruled by the Manchus rather than the majority Han Chinese, so I’m sure some people (particularly the older folk) would be upset by that.

Fair enough. I only used the Qing flag as an example. The point that I was making is that China’s flag should draw from the country’s rich history and culture. I see communist flags as uncreative, unoriginal, and not representee of the people they represent. They’re ultimately just a remnant of Russian imperialism. Any of your suggestions would be fine if they come from the Chinese people to represent Chinese heritage.

I feel it’s a little bland though, maybe adding a third colour or some of the patterns would do it good?

I thought so too, which is why I used the version with the Lithuanian coat of arms on it lol. That being said, even the normal version would be a huge upgrade from the current flag.

I suppose I should not ask your opinion on color choices for Bangladesh.

You’re right lol, I don’t have favorable view of their flag. For people who partial color blindness like me, those colors are hard to look at. The issue is that I can’t think of a good alternative.

That’s the thing though, the only people who like him are people outside of Spain. He has a 33% approval rating, he’s somehow even more unpopular in his country than Trump is in America. They really hate this guy over there.

I have yet to meet a single person from Spain who doesn’t despise him, even if they’re left wing

I disagree with this analysis because I frankly don’t think it’s even accurate.

I think we need to start by acknowledging a simple reality, which is that all identities exist to include and exclude. That’s what an identity is, it’s a set of identifiers that makes something distinct to the things its compared to. So all identities can be twisted and framed as “us vs them”, but I think that’s a mischaracterization of the concept.

We also need to acknowledge that we are inherently tribalistic beings by our very nature. We are social creatures that have evolved to survive in small groups. The well being of our groups were essential to our survival, and therefore we have developed a strong sense of belonging to the groups we had ties with and we were wary of groups that weren’t because they could be hostile and could threaten the well being of the group we were in. We would like to think that we have evolved, but we really haven’t. We still have the same brains as back then and they still have the instincts. This is why tribalism is such a prominent part of our society today even if it seems counterproductive.

With that being said, you are correct that nationalism is form of tribalism, but I don’t think that’s an inherently bad thing. Ultimately different groups of people are in fact different from each other. Different geographies, cultures, histories, languages, and customs do lead to very different societies. It makes sense that people identify with the society that they’re from. Nations are ultimately just our modern civilization’s version of the small tribal groups that our prehistoric ancestors had, and because of that, nations are here to stay because they appeal to nature. It’s not something that we can get rid of.

We have to make the distinction between nations and states because I don’t think you know the difference between them. A nation, by definition, is just a community of people who share a collective identity. It’s a social concept that exclusively refers to people and exists in the minds of people. A state, by definition, is the political sovereign entity that was created to rule. These are not interchangeable. There are nations that don’t have states like Kurdistan or the Uyghurs, and there are states that don’t have a single national identity like Bosnia or the UK. The point is that you’re confusing nations with states and countries, but these are not the same thing. Nations do NOT have physical or political characteristics like sovereignty or territory.

A nation is a fluid concept that doesn’t have defined edges, its what people say it is, and it exists as long as there are people who identify with it. For example, in the case of nation states, there are different kinds. For example, Armenia is nation based on ethnic nationalism where the nation is defined by the Armenian ethnicity. If you’re ethnically Armenian then you’re a part of the Armenian nation regardless of who you are and what you believe. Likewise you got the US, which is a nation that’s based civic nationalism where the nation is defined by political citizenship and shared values. As long as you hold those values and have American citizenship then you’re an American.

The point is that your claim of nationalism being dogmatic is wrong. A nation doesn’t have rigid edges nor does it segregate nor does it isolate. A nation, at its core, is just a set of identifiers that a group of people share. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It something that has its place in our world. Like with anything else, nationalism taken to the extreme is a bad thing, but when it’s not, its simply a way for people with commonalities to associate with each other. Even if you snap your fingers and everybody forgot what nationalism is, a new but very similar concept will emerge to take its place because people will always want to be a part of a greater good.

There’s a lot of flags that annoy me and I would like to see changed, but I think these are the ones that I would change without a second thought:

Russia

Iran

Iraq

China

Belarus

Israel (changing flag after a hopeful regime change would be prudent because it’s like a symbol of genocide now.)

I actually like Israel’s flag. It’s simple, it’s bright, and it’s instantly recognizable. It’s unique and doesn’t follow a trend, it’s doesn’t have clashing colors, and the symbolism is neither absent or overloaded. It’s a really good flag. I think it’s the second best one in the Middle East after Lebanon’s flag. I think they should keep it.