#the problem of democracy

[kemetic-dreams]

In 1830 a newspaper in North Carolina, the Newbern Sentinel, ran an article about an unpublished dictionary, titled The Cracker Dictionary. The work appears to have remained unpublished (perhaps the title had something to do with this), but in reporting on the words contained in the book’s nascent form the article provides early written evidence of a number of 19th century Americanisms. Among these is absquatulate, which is spelled with an initial O, rather than A, and defined as “to mosey, or to abscond.”

In addition to absquatulate, the reader is informed of the meaning of a number of other similar terms, many of which have retained some degree of currency in our language; flustrated (“frustrated and prostrated, greatly agitated”), rip-roarious, (“ripping and tearing”), and fitified (“subject to fits”) have seen enough continued use that we define them in our Unabridged Dictionary. Other words contained in this never-realized dictionary, such as ramsquaddled (“rowed up salt river”) and spontinaceously (“of one’s own accord”) appear to have been lost with the passage of time.

Two of the loafers, we understand, were yesterday taken and committed to prison; the other has absquatulated. — The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana), 13 June 1837

Cracker, sometimes cracka or white cracker, is a racial epithet directed towards white people, used especially with regard to poor rural whites in the Southern United States. Although commonly a pejorative, it is also used in a neutral context, particularly in reference to a native of Florida or Georgia (see Florida cracker and Georgia cracker)

The exact history and etymology of the word is debated.

The term is "probably an agent noun  from the word crack. The word crack was later adopted into Gaelic as the word craic meaning a "loud conversation, bragging talk" where this interpretation of the word is still in use in Ireland, Scotland, and Northern England today.

The historical derivative of the word craic and its meaning can be seen as far back as the Elizabethan era (1558–1603) where the term crack could be used to refer to "entertaining conversation" (one may be said to "crack" a joke or to be "cracking wise") The word cracker could be used to describe loud braggarts; An example of this can be seen in William Shakespeare's King John (c. 1595) "What cracker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?"

The word was later documented describing a group of "Celtic immigrants, Scotch-Irish people who came to America running from political circumstances in the old world". This usage is illustrated in a 1766 letter to the Earl of Dartmouth which reads:

I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode.

The label followed the Scotch-Irish American immigrants, who were often seen by officials as "unruly and ill-mannered" The use of the word is further demonstrated in official documents, where the Governor of Florida said,

'We don't know what to do with these crackers—we tell them to settle this area and they don't; we tell them not to settle this area and they do'

By the early 1800s, those immigrants "started to refer to themselves that way as a badge of honor" as is the case with other events of linguistical reappropriation.

The compound corn-cracker was used of poor white farmers (by 1808), especially from Georgia, but also extended to residents of northern Florida, from the cracked kernels of corn which formed a staple food of this class of people. This possibility is given in the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, but the Oxford English Dictionary says a derivation of the 18th-century simplex cracker from the 19th-century compound corn-cracker is doubtful. A "cracker cowboy" with his Florida Cracker Horse and dog by Frederic Remington, 1895

It has been suggested that white slave foremen in the antebellum South were called "crackers" owing to their practice of "cracking the whip" to drive and punish slaves. Whips were also cracked over pack animals, so "cracker" may have referred to whip-cracking more generally. According to An American Glossary (1912):

The whips used by some of these people are called 'crackers', from their having a piece of buckskin at the end. Hence the people who cracked the whips came to be thus named.

Another possibility, which may be a modern folk etymology, supposes that the term derives from "soda cracker", a type of light wheat biscuit which dates in the Southern US to at least the Civil War. The idea has possibly been influenced by "whitebread", a similar term for white people. "Soda cracker" and even "white soda cracker" have become extended versions of "cracker" as an epithet

A 1783 pejorative use of crackers specified men who "descended from convicts that were transported from Great Britain to Virginia at different times, and inherit so much profligacy from their ancestors, that they are the most abandoned set of men on earth".

Benjamin Franklin, in his memoirs (1790), referred to "a race of runnagates and crackers, equally wild and savage as the Indians" who inhabit the "desert[ed] woods and mountains".

In his 1964 speech "The Ballot or the Bullet", Malcolm X used the term "cracker" in reference to white people in a pejorative context. In one passage, he remarked, "It's time for you and me to stop sitting in this country, letting some cracker senators, Northern crackers and Southern crackers, sit there in Washington, D.C., and come to a conclusion in their mind that you and I are supposed to have civil rights. There's no white man going to tell me anything about my rights."

[writerbuddha]

Some people just cannot think outside of the oppressed-oppressor binary: you’re either “the Man” the obvious villain or you’re “kept down by the Man” who is “sticking it to the Man,” the obvious hero. As a writer/illustrator put it, criticizing George Lucas’ work: “the OT films were the little guys fighting an oppressor… but in the PT, the Jedi had all the power. They were the oppressors. That “fight the power” spirit was gone.” The Jedi Knights are cool as long as they’re hunted by the Empire of the Sith, because they’re “sticking it to the Man.” But if they’re respected by people, if they’re working with the Senate of the Galactic Republic, they’re “the Man” and the Sith and Anakin Skywalker (or somebody else, this Underdog or Little Guy who is supposedly oppressed by guardians of peace and justice is never properly identified, in order to avoid the easily disprovable specifics) are the one who’re “kept down by the Man,” and by default, they’re the ones who’re “sticking it to the Man,” because in their heads, empowered and respected are the characteristics of Evil. And this reveals a deeply troubling mindset: “fight the power” and being victimized by “the power” is what makes you a moral, ethical, good person, even if that power is held by democratically elected officials with checks and balances or fairy tale monks who dedicate their lives to psychological and spiritual progress and to make sure that everyone is protected and there’s peace and justice in the world.

And herein lies the problem: people who only feel secure in their identity as "Good People" if they're fighting against an oppressive power cannot function without it and sooner or later, their desperate yearning for it will create it - and then, they will never be motivated enough to demolish it.

[sher-ee]

“Christian white men”.

[psycohousecat]

UT oh... Your handler is callin Marj..

[zvaigzdelasas]

"A lot of people who miss Eastern Bloc socialism are those who actually lived it most of their lives, and have to experience what Enlightened Liberal Democracy does to old people. This somehow self-evidently discredits their opinions" - standard english-speaking eastern european liberal

(Correction - 42% of Czechs don't think the new govt is better than the old govt, not that they necessarily believe the old was better - 17% think theyre about the same - for the purposes of complicating 'obviously the old govt was worse' little material difference)

[isawthismeme]

[bonefall]

naruto as a whole is a fucking mess and i say thisas somebody whos read the entireseries 3 times over. “naruto is going to change the system! haha teehee never mind hes not doing anytning about the child soldiers and slave castes and the genocides.” “sasuke can be upset at his brother for committing a genocide but actually genocide against an oppressed bloodline is good if theyre getting uppity and its sanctioned by the government and also have a genetic predisposition to be evil so he should just get over it and be okay with it” “sakura needs to stop obsessing over a guy whos not even interested and become strong for her own sake. actually shes a housewife now”

kishimoto im going to blow you up with my mind

YOU GET IT

For real though I think what they did with Sasuke's arc was one of the most baffling fucking things I've ever seen. "Actually. Your brother who carried out a genocide loved you :( he only put you in the Torment Nexus for several days because uhhh he wanted you to hate him and not find out about the government who ordered it. Everything he ever did was actually to protect you. And Uchihas are actually kinda rotten anyway so it's good an entire GROUP OF PEOPLE died. Don't think about any babies or children who were also slaughtered btw uhh nope all of them were bad."

Sasuke: "Yes I understand. I will now rule the world through fear. Actually nvm Naruto won our fight so, my philosophy is gone now."

Thank goodness that Evil Sasuke killed the three Bad Government Officials before that point, though. We had this whole theme going about toxic structures, cycles of abuse, and how oppressive regimes can propagate themselves even when a leader is well-meaning... but, like, Naruto REALLY wants to be Hokage, so actually if you just kill these Three Bad Governors it's gonna be fine.

There is no need for systemic change. Slave castes and child soldiers are fine. It's ok as long as the president is blonde :)

[recklessfuture001]

Why is there so much pain in this world? It is strange when you get to thinking about it.

It seems that we shouldn't have to hurt so much. So many things could be better, and when I have expressed this in the past, there are people who seem to get offended by it. That changing anything about the horror of all this is taboo somehow.

Or that changing anything is just an idealistic dream. Sure, there will always be pain in the world, I think. There will always be hurt and abusive people that know how to operate between the cracks. However, there is so much that seems could be done to make things better. Bad things are just allowed to proliferate within this system. So much of this current mode of production feeds off of human suffering that it boggles the mind that you could call this anywhere close to a democracy. Policies that are vastly unpopular with the majority of people are made into law without much of a fight from anyone that we are told are our representatives.

All the things that were considered public goods in the past not all that long ago are cast aside as more and more are privatized. The poor and the working class have to put up with more and more being taken away and a lower quality of life. When does it stop? When do the people gather their strength as one to not just make the demand, but to assert that certain things just should not be tolerated? Things such as child labor, genocide, exploitation of natural resources for private gain, colonial wars of domination, etc. We don't support these things that our governments do, but they keep on happening anyway.

It helps to not give in to too much pessimism. There have been gains in the past that led to positive outcomes. How do we make things happen that reflect the will and desires of the majority of people. It appears to me that what appears to us through the mediums advancing today are both a blessing and a curse. I worry that it is slowly becoming more and more negative though. How do you approach epistemological certainty in a world where technology is geared more and more towards surveillance, deception, coercion, etc.?

[weedle-testaburger]

not to sound like john lennon but it would be good if people didn't kill each other so much

[thedepressedjuggalette]

Remember guys, they are totally not a cult! Definitely totally NOT a cult....

[youngpettyqueen]

I love this argument that Julian and Garak are having about Earth vs Cardassia political styles and I especially love that Garak is like. shocked at how impassioned he is about this topic

[nokingsonlyfooles]

“But dissent must never lead to disorder.”

I have too much on my plate right now. Of all the systemic failures that are eating my brain, among them deficiencies in healthcare; deficiencies in the language we use to talk about systemic racism, white privilege, and proximity to whiteness; lack of community, and all the other reasons people don't hear and respond to cries for help with actual help, this is the only one I can muster the energy to express, because it's so simple. I don't even know if it will make me feel better, but I want to SAY it.

This is not how dissent works. If you apply this rule to dissent, you are headed for a dictatorship with no brakes. If you already know that and don't need anyone to unpack it for you, you've identified the problem and you can stop reading right now. For your mental health purposes, please do.

This playbook is older than I am, and someone had a few things to say about in during the "disorder" caused by students agitating for Black rights and an end to the Vietnam War.

Internet Archive isn't exactly stable and I've had some issues getting it to load, but you should be able to find this somewhere for free. It's dated in a lot of places, but we knew. There's the evidence. We've known a long time. We decide the "disorder" was OK after the fact, as indeed we have about Vietnam and Civil Rights. But it sure wasn't OK when it was happening! We needed a Law And Order President to crack down and fix that!

We have such a person in office now, and, barring a total collapse, such a person will be in office after the election. Both candidates want to continue the genocide and both candidates want to silence the protests. Both candidates are subverting the democratic process to get into office, don't ignore the primary shenanigans and lack of choice the DNC is offering us. Both candidates are incompetent and I don't want either of them drooling on the nuclear button, but Biden has competent help, for the moment. He's actually in office, and he can actually do things. He has chosen to stake out a rhetorical middle-ground, while continuing the genocide and letting states tackle the student protests however they want - so far, that means arrests and injuries, and we'll have to wait and see if anyone gets shot.

Trump is SAYING he wants to crack down EVEN HARDER, on EVERYTHING, but your guess is as good as mine whether he'd actually pull it off. If we're caving to the idea that the protests must stop because they're too disorderly, though, that's fine. Why would that not be fine? We're just talking about the matter of degree and how much of a priority "restoring order" is. If the dissent continues (and if the genocide, and the horrors coming out of it continue, why wouldn't the dissent?), more and more people are going to be willing to throw in their lot with whoever they think will make it stop.

We're already killing lots of people for the sake or "order," at home and abroad. It's usually quieter, due to distance and method. Another trans child taking themself out of the equation is almost silent, and easily dismissed as some kind of unfixable personal problem, not a societal issue. And kids in Gaza? Well, we only see 'em in pictures. We don't hafta look. Gunning down college students on American soil is a lot scarier, that looks way more disorderly, that's harder for us to deal with. We prefer not to, but we're willing to do it. We have been and still are, that's part of our national identity, whether you want it or not. You dissent, we kill you for being "disorderly." And maybe we apologize later and give you a national holiday or something, way later. (Have a fun time admiring what's left of the Indigenous cultures that we're still trying to wipe out on this year's Indigenous People's Day!)

If dissent must never lead to disorder, we gotta give back BLM, right away. (And, conservatives, say bye-bye to January 6th and Charlottesville, and Ruby Ridge and whatever else you wanna call "patriotism" or "not as bad.") The Civil Rights movement goes back, too, with MLK and Malcom X together. And there goes Stonewall! Kent State? Justified! Armed Indigenous resistance to their own genocide? Inexcusable! (Same for Palestinian resistance and, indeed, the Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust. If you really wanted to be saved, you'd be better victims.) The Civil War? Well, the South isn't allowed to push back against the President, but neither is the North allowed to invade and infringe on states' rights. Call it a wash! And Dred Scott? Good call! You can't just be escaping from slavery all willy-nilly when it's the LAW. How 'bout that American Revolution? Oooh, yeah. Bad idea. Dredge the tea out of Boston Harbor and get right with King Charles, you freeloaders GOTTA pay your taxes, representation or no! Apologize and dissent better next time!

Ha-ha, of course, this is my autism talking. You don't mean that literally. You don't mean "never," Joe. I'm pickin up what you're layin down! You mean "not when it's inconvenient, and I get to pick."

And that's why we need to preserve the ability to dissent. (Even for the assholes who want to kill me - although I would like their ability to dissent to stop somewhat short of killing me, if we can manage that. I need to be alive to retain my ability to dissent!) If "disorder" is an arbitrary decision for the guys in charge to make, there is no check on their power. They crush what irritates them, and they may continue crushing it as long as they're able to stay on top.

Dictatorship is a fistful of M&Ms and Biden and Trump are two dogs sniffing around to see if they can snork some up when you're not looking. Biden is being a lot quieter about it, while Trump is howling and shitting and distracting. But we don't want either of them to eat the M&Ms! That's not good for them or for any of us!

Autocracy can look very, very orderly on the surface. And, in any case, it is very convenient for everyone not being crushed by it. They can just go on about their lives, knowing the tough decisions are being made for them and any voices trying to get them to think about that will be silenced. Some folks are up for it, as long as they're not the ones on the bottom. But for everyone else, dying for the convenience of others is disorderly AF.

Genocide is disorder. Saying "stop" is basic human decency. It's not stopping, so the message is going to get louder and more chaotic and more damaging, but that's not on the messengers. They can't fight fair. The people in power certainly aren't fighting fair, and they have a lot more weapons at their disposal. Don't give them more. Don't buy that everything's fine and you can quiet down and go on about your business. Don't simplify by designating a good guy and backing whatever he wants to do against the bad guy. When something is wrong, don't ask permission, SAY SO LIKE YOU MEAN IT. If you're going to wait for someone in power to tell you it's okay to push back... they never will.

[sher-ee]

31 minute listen here ⬆️

[psycohousecat]

😅🤣😂👍

[redbeardace]

I was having fun with that, until a minor thing went slightly wrong and the whole thing cascaded to ruin my night.