Politicians are puppets… so what does that mean for you? What do you think the world is controlled by a secret cabal of women and feminine men?
You made me laugh. Russia is all about macho men? Then why is a representative of sexual minorities in power?
He’s sure worth reading and he’s a summing up of his ideas on power:
“The microphysics of power,” a concept developed by Michel Foucault, refers to the subtle, often invisible, ways power operates in everyday life, rather than through large, overt institutions. It focuses on the specific techniques, practices, and mechanisms through which power is exercised and internalized by individuals. Instead of viewing power as a top-down force, Foucault’s microphysics explores how power is embedded in social structures, discourses, and even individual subjectivities.
Here’s a breakdown of key aspects:
Beyond Institutions:
Foucault argues that power isn’t solely located in大 institutions like the state or the church. It’s also present in seemingly mundane settings like schools, hospitals, and even our own bodies.
Disciplinary Power:
A core component of the microphysics of power is disciplinary power, which uses techniques like surveillance, normalization, and examination to shape individuals and their behaviors.
Knowledge and Power:
Foucault famously stated that “knowledge and power are not opposites – they are co-constitutive,” meaning that power produces knowledge, and knowledge, in turn, shapes power relations.
Subtle Mechanisms:
The microphysics of power examines how power operates through seemingly small, everyday actions, like the way a teacher addresses a student, the design of a classroom, or the language used in a particular context.
Resistance:
While Foucault’s work highlights the pervasiveness of power, he also emphasizes that power is not absolute and that resistance is always possible. Individuals and groups can challenge and subvert power through various means.
In essence, the microphysics of power encourages a critical examination of how power operates in the details of our lives, rather than just in grand political structures.
Now I think you’re mistaking me for Silenus.
What are you talking about?
This is like when someone said that Africa is more full of wealth than Europe.
I asked the Ai to verify, so it said this:
There is no evidence that Russia currently has an openly LGBT representative in power. In fact, the situation for LGBT people in Russian politics and public life is extremely repressive:
In late 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court declared the so-called “international LGBT movement” an extremist organization, effectively criminalizing any form of LGBT activism or public expression.
Public displays of queerness, advocacy, or even symbols can be prosecuted as extremist activity, with penalties including imprisonment and being barred from running for public office.
Many LGBT people in Russia now live in fear, often hiding their identities and avoiding any public expression due to the risk of arrest or violence.
There are no known openly LGBT politicians or officials in Russian government, and the legal environment makes it essentially impossible for anyone openly identifying as LGBT to hold or run for public office.
In summary, not only is there no evidence of an LGBT representative in power in Russia, but the current legal and social climate makes such representation virtually impossible.
In addition to that, the world knows Russia has a very masculine culture. It is like America warmongering culture except you aren’t allowed to question the wars or question Putin and facts aren’t allowed.
Since you are Russian, I’m giving you one chance to defend your position and tell me the Ai made an error or something
Thanks. Always happy for knowledge. But I easily spot mistakes. Actually, “knowledge = power” works differently. Knowledge is strength, while ignorance is weakness. Much more accurate than Foucault.
Conclusion: Knowledge is a tool of power. It’s hidden and restricted for subordinates to maintain the power’s strength.
And by the way, what “microphysics” are we talking about when everything fits in one small definition? Power is a system of prohibitions, followed by temporary permissions, in favor of those who set the prohibitions. That’s all the “macro and micro” physics. 
Make a laugh. And you did not learn from AI, why people with LGBT with the inclinations of the psyche, but have no opportunity to realize them, are extremely aggressive and not tolerant, to those who are not embarrassed to call themselves LGBT? By the way, this is the proof that you were looking for. However, here is the present to you. Not a single military, policeman or employee of the USSR, took up the weapon and did not remember the oath of Koga of the USSR. What does it say? Yes, they are all- LGBT. Are you funny? Yes, all, without exception, the servants are trading in their ass for the salary and are ready to substitute this ass to anyone, if only they would pay more. Are you dumbfounded? But after all, the fact of the Red Army is many times superior to the Wehrmacht of drapal to the cattle of Moscow and surrendered in thousands. Another fact? Easily. When the Crimea was “contacted”, not a single one was observed- LGBT, sweetly, forgetting about the oath.
Funny thing to say. Russia is notorious for its openly anti-LGBT culture.
Now, if you’re implying that, behind all the homophobia there lies well hidden psychological motivations, such as self-hatred and self-denial, I think you may have a point. Otherwise, this sounds pretty paranoid.
I see lol. Topic closed. The Demon spake. Let’s just thank Him for the opportunity of sharing His knowledge.
There’s a bit of humor in your attitude here.
But, seriously, Foucault’s ideas are spot on as far as power relations are concerned. Power is in everything, and solely exists when it’s actually put to practice, not merely as a “concept”, it exists as a process. Whenever two guys deal with each other, a relation of power is established- who’s the powerful [strong] one and who’s the powerless [weak]? Who gives the commands, who obeys them? We can’t think of any type of human society or civilization where there are no power relations.
But this will lead me back to analyzing the [dare I say, comedic] solution to man’s social problems presented by Futureone here. Let me try.
Here we are, Futureone. First, let me repeat again that I do believe you’re much more intelligent than your “plan” for the future of humankind would lead some to believe.
It’s hard to tell where the science fiction ends and the comedy begins with you. Or when you give up on reason in favor of an irrational belief. The long [revealing] comment you made on the “Pornography” thread gave you away, actually, at least as far as your far-fetched theories are concerned.
Who were these politicians? You didn’t give any example. I’m aware that eunuchs used to be servants, ideal servants, as they would never touch the Lord’s women or concubines. Now, leaders? Politicians? You should offer some examples for such an extraordinary claim. Besides, why would they be preferred? The usual notion of a solid, respectable politician is that of a [manly] man with a family, a respectable wife, and respectable children. This throughout all history, both in the West and the East, from China to native Americans. What’s the society which gave you an example of people preferring eunuchs as leaders?
I deduce you took this information straight out of AI. Let’s check what Google [your best friend] says on this topic:
Eunuchs, castrated men, historically held varied roles in royal courts and other institutions across many cultures. They were often employed in harems, as guards, servants, and even as trusted advisors or officials. Their castration, often performed before puberty, removed their ability to reproduce, which was seen as a way to ensure the legitimacy of royal heirs and allow them to rise to positions of power.
Historical Roles and Significance:
- Harem Guardians and Servants:
Eunuchs were commonly employed to guard and manage harems, the secluded quarters of women in royal households, due to their lack of reproductive capacity.
- Court Officials and Advisors:
In various empires, including the Byzantine, Ottoman, and Chinese empires, eunuchs rose to positions of influence as advisors, administrators, and even military commanders.
- Religious Figures:
In some cultures, eunuchs played roles in religious institutions, such as the Buddhist monasteries in China.
- Gender Ambiguity:
Eunuchs often exhibited physical characteristics and social roles that blurred traditional gender lines, leading to societal perceptions that sometimes included both stigma and respect.
- Specific Examples:
Eunuchs were prominent in the Byzantine Empire, Imperial China (with a history spanning 2000 years), the Ottoman Empire, and various Middle Eastern cultures. In India, the hijra community, with its roots in eunuchs, is recognized as a distinct gender identity.
Historical Context and Practices:
- Origins:
The practice of employing eunuchs dates back to ancient times, with evidence found in the Middle East, Egypt, and China.
- Methods of Castration:
While some were castrated as adults, castration before puberty was often preferred, especially for those intended for positions of trust, as it was believed to make them more pliable and pure.
- Religious and Social Views:
While castration was often a forced act, some individuals, like the hijras in India, chose it for religious or social reasons.
- Global Presence:
Eunuchs were employed in various regions across Asia, Africa, and Europe, including the Roman Empire, Persia, and Muslim societies.
In summary, eunuchs played a significant and multifaceted role throughout history, serving in various capacities, from harem guards to powerful court officials, and their existence reflects complex social, political, and cultural dynamics across different civilizations.
I see then eunuchs being described as servants and advisors, or even forming their own societies, with their own rules. I don’t see a single example of eunuchs being preferred in place of [manly] men. The advantages of eunuchs are obvious, but the disadvantages are great too. They don’t feel anything [sexually speaking] and they don’t know the biggest kind of pleasure a man can feel in life [an orgasm].Most of all, they can’t reproduce, which means they are, as Silenus says, a “genetic dead end”. Given the rational option to choose, what do you think 99,9% of men would choose, to remain manly or to be castrated?
I’d humbly add- the problem lies not in their genitals. The problem is how they see the world, egomaniacally. They’re not merely leaders, they’re egomaniac. Trump most especially. They don’t see the others around them, they only accept what they themselves see as truth. There are countless examples in history of [manly] leaders who were not egomaniac and not bloodthirsty. Only, we don’t talk much about them, we talk about the likes of Hitler and Trump. Why? Because they “make” history. Without them, history become less interesting. Many,countless books, would not even be written. “History is written by the winners”, know this saying? You believe the main problem in life is testosterone, at least as far as those in power are concerned? Offer this laughable theory to the consideration of a bunch of various experts on politics and history- most would laugh at you, others would deem you insane.
We do not need to make our leaders sterile or castrated. We need to make them rational. Men can definitely be rational. Only, most rational men don’t turn to politics. Policits is usually made by the most mediocre among men. You think we should change their sex. We’d rather change their minds. You’d say that’s hopeless. Not any more hopeless than your “plan”.
A vision straight out of science fiction. Again, if you’re not putting all this down, you’re wasting time. This would definitely be some great sci-fi reading!
No sane man would ever consent to this! This is insane! You’d literally have to create an entire new race and submit all to this notion, that a man, after some time, has to remove his genitals, in order for it to even begin to sound acceptable. De-masculination is not an answer to male agressivity. You go to the exact opposite extreme to Silenus’ ideas on the feminization of man. He sees such a feminization [which may just be a hyperbole for all we know] as the reason for the decadence of the Western world. You think the opposite- men are not feminine enough. If only more men would have the best feminine qualities!!
Again, straightforward science fiction.
Obviously the cons are unknown. Has such a society ever existed, so that we could analyze the cons? Only in real societies the pros and cons can be adequately analyzed. I made a long challenge to Mr. Authoritarian some time ago which he chose to ignore. Among other things, I asked him if he knew how complicated a thing a society is. I could ask you the same question. Do you have the slightest idea of how complicated a society is? Apparently, you believe in some magic solution which will, ex abrupto, change society for the better. Only, a society is something so complex that magic solutions either work only in sci-fi or, when applied to real life, invariably leads to catastrophe. It’s funny to imagine a once and for all solution, like you did. The application of it is the real problem.
I see Silenus’ imprint on this one. Matriarchal societies are practically an aberration. Societies, mostly, are patriarchal or, as in modern countries, neutral. Oh, so the eunuchs will have wives? What for? Will they do the laundry while they do politics? Will they tell bedtime stories to them? Stories about real men and women or about happy-go-lucky eunuchs? Jesus why am I even responding to this?
In this case, I’m on the AI’s side. It’s not about platitudes. Castrating men will never be seen as something healty except for tyrants, and for their own selfish reasons. I imagine the reasons why you are formulating such a far-fetched “plan” to help humankind may not have nothing to do with society itself.
That’s the problem with all idealism. Idealists seldom take people, real people, into account, when formulating “plans” to save people. But, in order to “improve” politics, you MUST take people into account, otherwise, it’s just a matter of personal whims, of “vibes” for you. You’re feeling society is unjust, so you want to radically change it. Only, you admit, you’re incapable of changing actual society, so you idealize a radical transformation of society. This would never work. I doubt if you can find a single person capable of taking your “plan” seriously.
Man, seriously, forget AI for a while. Do you know what AI is? Software. Software like Word, Excel, like Google. AI is developed for helping humans, but its aim is not to suppress or to substitute human thinking. What AI tells you, its “predictions” are not more valid than a faux seer’s predictions on the future: it’s all guesswork. The future, which we will never see, as we are stuck in the never-ending present, is being constructed in the present. It may be catastrophical, yes, but it can also be better than today. We’ll never know. When we get there, it will be the present again. And THIS present, the present we have today, is the future many generations past have dreamed about. And THIS present is not nearly as bad as some portray it to be. There are so many pleasant things today, so many opportunities to enjoy life those who came before us didn’t and couldn’t know. However, it seems you’re stuck in a pessimistic vision, stuck with your obsession with AI, which is meant to make your life easier, but threatens to turn it into a burden if you don’t accept AI for what it is.
There are no subtle hints here.
People with non-traditional sexual preferences who can’t express them often become twice as aggressive toward those who can. That’s just a feature of human psychology.
In Russia, everyone in uniform is basically an alcoholic.
Why? Because they’re caught in a contradiction — they’re expected to uphold “honor” while constantly betraying it for a paycheck. Alcohol becomes the way out of that internal conflict.
Understand something simple: aggression is often the result of repressed desires — and in many cases, those are sexual desires of a non-traditional nature.
And yes, this is the same country where the head of state once kissed a child on the stomach in public — while divorced.
That’s a perfect example: strong desires, hard to fulfill, and so they leak out in bizarre ways.
Thanks. Always happy for knowledge. But I easily spot mistakes. Actually, “knowledge = power” works differently. Knowledge is strength, while ignorance is weakness. Much more accurate than Foucault.
Conclusion: Knowledge is a tool of power. It’s hidden and restricted for subordinates to maintain the power’s strength.
Knowledge is data. Intelligence, and mobility are the two ingredients needed to transform knowledge into action. Power, is how much action per time unit can be output.
No you are confusing rules with power. Rules, rules are a set of prohibitions. Power is used to either enforce (or break) the rules. Rules are determined by land ownership - those who own the territory set the rules. Warfare is a form of power to change the distribution and ownership of land. Money is a way to change land ownership peacefully. A nation is the primary owner of land, making the primary rules, state secondary, city third, and a human person a fourth, only making rules within rules.
I do not know what the Koga oath is.
Data is simply what’s given. But knowledge is more — it’s the solution, along with the answer. Action embodies reality, not intelligence, and certainly not mobility.
“When you ask, ‘How many actions can be performed per unit of time?’ — that’s work.
Rules are one of the manifestations of power. Rules aren’t just a list of prohibitions; they’re guidelines about what to do, how to do it, and what not to do.
Now, what does owning land have to do with it? And what does the land itself matter? Who owns planet Earth?
Nevertheless, according to the rules, the Earth revolves around the Sun. That’s a display of God’s power — what should revolve, and how.
Money is a credit of trust given to those who printed it or created it virtually.
Now, explain to my dog how to buy land for his kennel. (Just a joke.)
Money is a tool to control the ignorant. In other words, the government prints colorful pieces of paper, and in return, it forces the masses to work.
A nation — it’s the same as the ignorant herd who own nothing. You’re not an owner. The owner is the power. And they can easily kill, rob, humiliate, or take your property from you.
1 Like
You need intelligence and mobility in order to do something with the data! To take action! Data, knowledge has no power in of itself!
That’s a nitpick…
When you enter a nation’s land, you are expected to follow its rules. That’s the natural social agreement. Land is the primary element of rules.
National rules take priority over State rules which take priority over City rules which take priority over personal, private property rules.
When you enter a building you are expected to follow the building’s rules. Unless you don’t get caught because they lacked the power to enforce those rules.
The rules are all dependent on land and one’s physical X and Y coordinates (and Z coordinates, for private property rules, if on a tower) on that land.
Nevertheless, according to the rules, the Earth revolves around the Sun. That’s a display of God’s power — what should revolve, and how.
If it didn’t then there would be no planet and no life on Earth, and you wouldn’t be posting about it on forums. A tragedy for sure. (How I wish that every planet could have just have had an unsustainable orbit.)
That is true but its also an oversimplification. Money is just a grease to help society move smoothly. If there was no such thing as money, people would still work as slaves, in fact there might actually be more slaves. People need things like food, clothing, housing etc.
Consumption is the result of ennui, consumption is a good thing. Consumption is the result of ennui and striving for more in life. Consumption is the desire to escape ennui and escape from the internal. That is, consumption is seeking the external rather than internal. Those who do not consume are airheads who have no hobbies or wants in life, vegetables.
You call it software but it is (obviously) a mix of hardware and software, it is a brain and you need state of the art GPUs.
I think maybe what you meant (but articulate poorly) is that Ai lacks embodiment and real life experiences to garner wisdom.
Anyway, the Ai used logical axioms to support its predictions. For example, if humans become cyborgs, then human IQ will reach 300 or 400 IQ easily. And then humans can make WMDs in their garage. We already have mass shooters and looters everyday, and people are asleep at the wheel on what a 400 IQ means for society. Its like they never watched Sonic X. There will be dozens, if not hundreds, of eggmen running around society wrecking havoc and everybody is just asleep at the wheel.
Then the logical conclusion is an overreaching capitalist survellaince state where nobody has any rights, to respond after all that is happening. That is how men operate, men are harsh and merciless and greedy. They will create a megacorporation with an overreaching capitalist surveillance state with Ai enforcers. This is a logical axiom that doesn’t require lived experience to predict the trajectory of unrestricted capitalist greed combined with social paranoia.
And you, somehow, brilliantly deduced that the solution to this
is this?
Why couldn’t a “better future” be built by rational [and manly] men? Why do you put all men in the same league? Have you never known in your life examples of rational men? “All men are like this, all men are like that”, that’s dogmatism. How many examples of balanced male politicians we have today? As I said, the extremist ones are more notorious because they talk louder.
You go from what could be seen as a serious and honest concern about the future of mankind to a lunatic notion that men will, somehow, someway, accept to give up their masculinity, what make them men in the first place.
Men have ruled for 4000 years. This world is their failure. Its time for Futarani to have a turn
You’ve had 4000 years to get your (men’s) act together and what you gave us is… this world. And you ask to just “give em one more try”, “that they’ll get it right this time”. Pwomise. We won’t let you down.
Most of the men that I’ve met personally are completely irrational. But yes I believe there are rational men out there, some of which I have met briefly, none of which are politicians and ceos usually.
Also, 90% of criminals are male. But not 90% of males are criminals, you see…
You see, it doesn’t even matter if 50%, or 90% of men are rational. The rational ones are rarely the ones who take power.
Its like, if you walk into a city of poverty, full of crime, chances are the average citizen isn’t going to mug you. But you still don’t feel comfortable in a city like that.
You said you are a writer. What do you write?
Also, did you vote for Kamala?