It's Getting Real In Libya

How much money does one person need? Honestly? In Africa, especially.

It's just crazy.

zootie wrote:

Sigh! It's incredible what a creative and visionary person could have done with that much wealth and 40 years of time. I don't expect an answer but why are SO many leaders such absolute DIPSHITS?

The way I figure it they're all sociopaths in one way or another. Some are altruists, some are megalomaniacs, but they're all "mentally ill" by public standards.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

The way I figure it they're all sociopaths in one way or another. Some are altruists, some are megalomaniacs, but they're all "mentally ill" by public standards.

Buy WHY? Why do people follow them rather than pick them up and give them therapy?

Because they have money?

Howithurts wrote:

Because they have money?

So someone had money you would follow them even if they didn't give you any? Remember he's had money for 40 years.

zootie wrote:

Howithurts wrote:

Because they have money?

So someone had money you would follow them even if they didn't give you any? Remember he's had money for 40 years.

Possibly, YES. You seem to imply people automatically have a CHOICE. You think they won't use all the buying power of their money against their citizens, even though that has clearly happened time and again? I might not follow someone 'just' because they have money, but I might if xe's hired soldiers with much better weapons than I can possibly access, then for the sake of my family, I might.

At the deepest core, Libya is a tribal society, which means Gadaffi only had to keep satisfied the heads of the tribes. No co-ordination among subordinates from different tribes was possible, because they were hostile and wary of each other. It took a foreign element to tip over the balance and make the uprising possible in the first place.

rae wrote:

zootie wrote:

Howithurts wrote:

Because they have money?

So someone had money you would follow them even if they didn't give you any? Remember he's had money for 40 years.

Possibly, YES. You seem to imply people automatically have a CHOICE. You think they won't use all the buying power of their money against their citizens, even though that has clearly happened time and again? I might not follow someone 'just' because they have money, but I might if xe's hired soldiers with much better weapons than I can possibly access, then for the sake of my family, I might.

Yup. Sure, he had money for 40 years. He had all the money for 40 years. That meant you had to play by his rules if you lived in Libya.

Gaddafi was such a lousy lame Greek anyway

And fuck Libya, it's a raghead shithole, even worse than that hellhole Greece

AFRICANS LIVE IN MUD HUTS

rae wrote:

zootie wrote:

Howithurts wrote:

Because they have money?

So someone had money you would follow them even if they didn't give you any? Remember he's had money for 40 years.

Possibly, YES. You seem to imply people automatically have a CHOICE. You think they won't use all the buying power of their money against their citizens, even though that has clearly happened time and again? I might not follow someone 'just' because they have money, but I might if xe's hired soldiers with much better weapons than I can possibly access, then for the sake of my family, I might.

Good point. It brings into question the whole concept of free will. When I was a neighborhood watch chairman it was amazing how many people in the neighborhood made the stupid excuse of not participating because 'they had the safety of their families to consider'. Our enemies were just a handful of drug dealing punk kids! They were not the Mob as shown in the movies! We the average citizens could have easily strung the lot of them up from the nearest light pole in a night if we really had the collective will.

It takes a tipping point, the last straw on the camels back to get things rolling. Like a supersaturated solution with that first tiny crystal. Of course that is when opportunist predators step in to try to shape the final result. How? With armies of bored punks who want to 'feel important' and therefore will slavishly follow some older charismatic psycho no matter how insane his rants are. Our own nation's political climate would
not look like it does without that being true.

zootie wrote:

We the average citizens could have easily strung the lot of them up from the nearest light pole in a night if we really had the collective will.

Dude.

Zoot wrote:

It brings into question the whole concept of free will. When I was a neighborhood watch chairman it was amazing how many people in the neighborhood made the stupid excuse of not participating because 'they had the safety of their families to consider'.

THE SHEEPLE LACK FREE WILL

WHY DID THEY CHOOSE TO IGNORE MY DUMB ASS?

And now Libya's transitional leader declares Sharia law is the basis of the new government.
Well, Libya, you've just jumped from the frying pan into the fire. After all, imposing religious law has worked so well in other countries.

Good thing we spent so much money on this.

It's king of funny. Qaddafi's convoy was originally hit by a remote controlled drone with some fancy missile. We've used spiffy technology like that all over Libya and other places.

The R&D programs dipshit hippy liberal pussies kept whining about saying they were useless gadgets for war mongering generals to masturbate with are the only things that fucking work anymore, while all of the hand out programs liberals love are fucked up beyond all recognition.

ETA:

Zoot wrote:

Sigh! It's incredible what a creative and visionary person could have done with that much wealth and 40 years of time. I don't expect an answer but why are SO many leaders such absolute DIPSHITS?

In despotic shit holes like Libya, the "visionaries" aren't typically ruthless enough to seize power.

In democratic countries, the visionaries have a choice between going through the utter hell of a political bloodbath only to be undone by wishing someone a happy birthday, or make $$$$ (and frankly, do a hell of a lot more good) in the private sector.

Sigh.

I don't know if this analogy has occurred to anyone else here, but when I first saw the videos of Khadafy's execution I was reminded of old newsreel footage of crowds in Milan mutilating the bodies of Benito Mussolini and Clara Petacci after they were executed. After comparing those clips to the footage of Khadafy getting shot, my first thought was: "His Ukrainian nurse got out just in time." I don't know for sure whether the rebels would have shot her if they'd been able to get hold of her, but by the same token I can't entirely rule it out of the realm of possibility either.

Howithurts wrote:

zootie wrote:

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

The way I figure it they're all sociopaths in one way or another. Some are altruists, some are megalomaniacs, but they're all "mentally ill" by public standards.

Buy WHY? Why do people follow them rather than pick them up and give them therapy?

Because they have money?

Seriously, guys?

It's like the OMG AMAZING MYSTERY of psychopaths often being popular. It's actually neither amazing nor mysterious when you think about it; psychopaths can try different behaviors and choose the one that makes life easiest for them (and this usually means acting in a way that makes people like them) without silly things like empathy or a conscience getting in the way. They have an easier time of acting in a way that makes them popular.

Likewise, the need for power is often an addiction of sorts, a number of politicians have even admitted to this (why do you think people keep coming back after they quit? Even for jobs that are a serious demotion compared to where they quit?) and obviously political power appeals to people who want the "perks" as well- the attention, being important, the chance to parade around and show off. I would even go as far as saying I'm pretty sure that some people with serious narcissistic tendencies are only drawn to political offices because of that.

It is actually no coincidence that the best leaders are often those who end up in the job by accident- because those who scramble to to get there, who would do anything to be important, they are not going to be all about a job well done. They are going to be all about themselves. These people know exactly how to feed their addiction- in more democratic societies, via manipulation and the song and dance of politics; in more corrupt countries they often find that they can be a little more straightforward. In either case, they know all to well how to influence people and how to manipulate the masses.

We tend to call that "charisma", because we are the manipulated sheeple. But like the Shirt said, it's actually an affliction.

zootie wrote:

Our enemies were just a handful of drug dealing punk kids! They were not the Mob as shown in the movies! We the average citizens could have easily strung the lot of them up from the nearest light pole in a night if we really had the collective will.

Reminds me of some video footage from a police helicopter I saw of a mini-riot in Tottenham. A teenager and his friends were smashing stuff up, making bonfires out of fences etc.. until the ringleader decided to smash his way into a car, loot it and set it alight. No sooner had he smashed the window when a group of middle-aged men came running out of the houses nearby, smacked him around the head and told him to bog off. I never understood the term "ran away with his tail between his legs" until I saw that.

grmblfjx wrote:

It's like the OMG AMAZING MYSTERY of psychopaths often being popular. It's actually neither amazing nor mysterious when you think about it; psychopaths can try different behaviors and choose the one that makes life easiest for them (and this usually means acting in a way that makes people like them) without silly things like empathy or a conscience getting in the way. They have an easier time of acting in a way that makes them popular.

I realize these suggestions will be about as successful as public election funding but here's two:

Some sort of mandatory psychological competency test for elective office, sort of like what we give police officers. Getting a low rating doesn't prohibit you from running and holding office but the results must be posted on a public internet site with instructions on how to interpret them.

Every speech (possibly only major ones defined by some mutually agreed criteria) given by an elected official will be monitored by electronic lie detectors calibrated to deal with the ability of a psychopath to lie convincingly. Data along with a video will be stored at a public internet site so the public can see when the speaker lied and what about.

Of course neither will substitute for good old CHECKING HIS DAMNNED RECORD! But I hear the excuse "I'm too busy to bother with politics." far too many times. Normally I'd go "Well screw you, go ahead and vote for a tyrant or a crook!" But I have to live in the same world with these idiots.

Seule wrote:

Reminds me of some video footage from a police helicopter I saw of a mini-riot in Tottenham. A teenager and his friends were smashing stuff up, making bonfires out of fences etc.. until the ringleader decided to smash his way into a car, loot it and set it alight. No sooner had he smashed the window when a group of middle-aged men came running out of the houses nearby, smacked him around the head and told him to bog off. I never understood the term "ran away with his tail between his legs" until I saw that.

Exactly. Street thugs depend on 'cred' to maintain their power in the minds of the public. But none of them are criminal supermen as shown in the comics. Actually they're pathetic. Their only power is inaction by the public.

zootie wrote:

Every speech (possibly only major ones defined by some mutually agreed criteria) given by an elected official will be monitored by electronic lie detectors calibrated to deal with the ability of a psychopath to lie convincingly. Data along with a video will be stored at a public internet site so the public can see when the speaker lied and what about.

Because we have lie detectors that are that reliable? Why aren't they just used in court cases?
"Did you kill your wife?"
"No, I did not."
Beep, Beep. He's lying.

And I thought Polygraphs "worked" by detecting what is basically the physiological indicators of telling something you know to be false (or being nervous enough that it sets it off anyway). If you're a psychopath, telling something false might not bother you.

William Shakespeare wrote:

And I thought Polygraphs "worked" by detecting what is basically the physiological indicators of telling something you know to be false (or being nervous enough that it sets it off anyway). If you're a psychopath, telling something false might not bother you.

Yes, this. Wildly problematic, especially combined with publishing the results- you will catch and ostracise the ones that are actually more human, this way.

grmblfjx wrote:

William Shakespeare wrote:

And I thought Polygraphs "worked" by detecting what is basically the physiological indicators of telling something you know to be false (or being nervous enough that it sets it off anyway). If you're a psychopath, telling something false might not bother you.

Yes, this. Wildly problematic, especially combined with publishing the results- you will catch and ostracise the ones that are actually more human, this way.

As the science of neurology progresses we will identify more ways of identifying aberrant behavior. There are clear differences in the PET scans of normal and sociopathic individuals who have both lived non-deprived lives. And current lie detection technology will become more sophisticated as time progresses. We will always have to watch the watchers of course. That's why the data should be public.

And as I said there will NEVER be a substitute for personal political self awareness. These are just possible tools to help people too busy shopping or downloading porn to check out the quality of their leaders. But denying there is a problem or screaming "They're all arsholes!" while you complacently munch your cheetos isn't very productive. These are just suggestions. I challenge you to think up something better.

grmblfjx wrote:

William Shakespeare wrote:

And I thought Polygraphs "worked" by detecting what is basically the physiological indicators of telling something you know to be false (or being nervous enough that it sets it off anyway). If you're a psychopath, telling something false might not bother you.

Yes, this. Wildly problematic, especially combined with publishing the results- you will catch and ostracise the ones that are actually more human, this way.

How do you beat a lie detector? By being a good liar. If you honestly don't care, then you can beat the lie detector. It's actually fairly easy.