• 4 Posts
  • 901 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle





  • In my city they have a planning commission. They take into account local studies, population patterns, future construction, and ridership data. They plan out the bus routes and stops and then they have a period of public comment. If there’s a need for a new stop, residents can petition their local representatives and join commission meetings to make suggestions. Stops are usually eliminated or consolidated when ridership data indicates they’re not necessary during annual reviews.





  • I agree with the point you’re making about moneyed interests influencing the system we live in. All I take issue with is the philosophical idea that every bad thing that happens was explicitly intended to happen by some evil “them”.

    Sometimes that’s true (prison industrial complex, for example) but more often it’s not. Often it’s bad actors undermining a system set up to do good, or taking advantage of a system that arose organically without anyone designing it.

    Basically, I think the phrase “the purpose of a system is what it does” is both objectively wrong in almost every case, and a dangerous thought-terminating philosophy. Any time I see it, I call it out. If you can be convinced that “they” are intentionally harming you through some nebulous, nefarious means…it’s only a couple more steps to convince you who “they” are. Jews, immigrants, “terrorists”.


  • I disagree slightly (maybe pedantically) about our political system. That was explicitly designed by men we can name. It has since been influenced by other forces, and much of its original intent has been subverted. But it didn’t spring into being all by itself.

    Economics I agree. While there are and have been forces attempting to guide and influence the economy, it’s always been generally out of the control of any person or group of people, short of command economies.

    Both cases put the lie to the phrase, “the purpose of a system is what it does”.


  • Well, this is a bit of a tangent, but the effectiveness of calling out disinformation actually correlates inversely with effort imo. It’s the typical sealion asymmetrical warfare thing. It’s a lot easier to say a lie than it is to disprove one. Mocking and insulting a disinfo statement is far more effective. Parity of effort.

    In terms of “the purpose of a system is what it does”, I’m not quite sure how to start. Believing such a statement requires a level of disassociation with reality that makes intelligible discussion difficult. You’re flatly disallowing the entire possibility of someone setting up a system with a purpose, and the system failing to achieve that purpose.

    The dangerous part of the theory though, is the implied malevolent intent. It’s like the evil inverse of religious “everything happens for a reason”. If a scientist comes up with a new strain of drought-resistant corn, and the corn develops a previously unknown mutation and crops fail and millions starve, well clearly that evil scientist intended to kill millions of innocent people. It’s absurd.