BF2S Forums First World Problems

rdx-fx wrote:

The larger the Leviathan of a bureaucratic government, the bigger the asshole needed to lead it.

Fundamental problem of large government.
Look at Russia.
You need a ruthless asshole like Putin (or Stalin) to keep that mess of corrupt self-serving bureaucrats in order.

This, to me, explains why the US ends up with a parade of egotistical megalomaniacs for President.
Last time we elected a 'nice guy', the DC political sharks ate him up like he was chum in the water.

Also explains why the only functional governments in the middle east are centered on individuals.
Their social structure needs a strong dictator, or strong monarch to lead their inevitably corrupt (bak'shish driven) governments.
A weaker head of state ends in stagnantly ineffective government, and a horribly corrupt patchwork of petty feifdoms based on bribery and influence peddling.

sounds to me like you're asking us to re-invade you

god save the queen!

Russia doesn't need a ruthless asshole. They need a leader who will actually make it not-ok to be corrupt.

Superior Mind wrote:

Russia doesn't need a ruthless asshole. They need a leader who will actually make it not-ok to be corrupt.

not gonna happen.  there are probably less than 10 people who own like 90% of russias wealth

rdx-fx wrote:

Also explains why the only functional governments in the middle east are centered on individuals.
Their social structure needs a strong dictator, or strong monarch to lead their inevitably corrupt (bak'shish driven) governments.

That comes off as a little racist. Just a little.

Corruption was so rampant under the USSR that is seemingly part of the culture now. But it is not. You are probably right, they do need another revolution. Russian superstitions shouldn't affect this.

I'm not exactly envisioning the rural poor to emerge from the steppe with pitch fork and rifle in hand. Surely the modern urban populace is somewhat removed from the rite of spring.

removed from the rite of spring but entranced by the rites of capital. as if they give a fuck about their poor people. they want a bentley!

Urbanites aren't all rich, nor do they all seek extravagant riches. Some families are just happy to have an apartment.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-04-10 09:06:26)

russia has a great middle-class journalistic group of citizens that are all about using their newfound social and cultural capital to try and effect change. the problem is they keep ending up getting poisoned or shot.

think you're in a chicken and egg situation. where's shahter when you need him? he'll tell us it's all perfect and we are the corrupted ones - morally, spiritually, financially, socially, ethically, philosophically, scientifically, literally, figuratively, metaphorically, entirely

rdx-fx wrote:

Also explains why the only functional governments in the middle east are centered on individuals.
Their social structure needs a strong dictator, or strong monarch to lead their inevitably corrupt (bak'shish driven) governments.

Macbeth wrote:

That comes off as a little racist. Just a little.

Not intentionally.

Different social norms.

Western society reflexively follows the written word of law.
Even if the laws are obviously stupid, we tend to obey.
Western mind is trained to follow rules.
The Western military model is an extreme example of this.

Middle Eastern society follows the word of the man in charge.
"because it's the law, written down on paper" doesn't mean shit there.
"because the man in charge wants it that way" works.

Westerners tend to follow rules that are written down.
Middle Easterners follow rules that flow from a clear authority.

Western Bible is quoted "as written",
Middle Eastern Koran is the word of the Prophet Mohammed, as passed down by his 'boss', Allah.
Being written down doesn't mean shit - coming from a clear, distinct authority gives meaning.

rdx-fx wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Also explains why the only functional governments in the middle east are centered on individuals.
Their social structure needs a strong dictator, or strong monarch to lead their inevitably corrupt (bak'shish driven) governments.

Macbeth wrote:

That comes off as a little racist. Just a little.

Not intentionally.

Different social norms.

Western society reflexively follows the written word of law.
Even if the laws are obviously stupid, we tend to obey.
Western mind is trained to follow rules.
The Western military model is an extreme example of this.

Middle Eastern society follows the word of the man in charge.
"because it's the law, written down on paper" doesn't mean shit there.
"because the man in charge wants it that way" works.

Westerners tend to follow rules that are written down.
Middle Easterners follow rules that flow from a clear authority.

Western Bible is quoted "as written",
Middle Eastern Koran is the word of the Prophet Mohammed, as passed down by his 'boss', Allah.
Being written down doesn't mean shit - coming from a clear, distinct authority gives meaning.

it's not the word of law that western society is bound to - though the law is pretty much a synecdoche for what we are truly bound to.

western society is bound to a religious reverence for Reason. to the point of ir-reason. we think everything can be dealt with within the realms of the reasonable, the rational, the logical. we have very little time since the enlightenment for irrationalism (or romanticism if you will), despite the evidence that is it clearly a large force in our economic-market system and everyday life. law is just an extension of our blind following of so-called reason (to the point where the laws and orders we follow are perversely irrational).

if you were continuing the generalisation, you could just simply say that the middle-east hasn't had a giant enlightenment philosophic tradition that places reason at the centre of human experience. thus they're far more comfortable with spiritualism and forms of social norm and government rule that don't follow western reason's handmaid, individualism*.

* a handmaid because an extension of our thought is that the rational, enlightened individual will do good. we're optimistic about reason being the answer to everything. educate a man and make him rational and he can be completely individual in a system and the system will still work. this is the overall ambit of systems such as utilitarianism (social and moral) and early free-market capitalism (economic). whether or not it works better than a system that is frankly suspicious of individualism's capacity to do good is another debate.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-10 09:23:42)

i was being facetious with that comment. i guess the "degenerate" part didn't give the joke away.