/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16240473]

Why can't we find a fair ruling system after 12000 years of recorded history
>muh plato philosopherino king
didn't work

[Anonymous No.16240476]

>>16240473
Use logic and debates. Best debater wins and their ability is judged by a logic

[Anonymous No.16240482]

>>16240473
>>muh plato philosopherino king
>didn't work
Are you sure about that? That just shows you missed the idealistic reflection of the dialogue on reality, or the current time, or perhaps the nature of man and whatnot.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16240484]

>>16240473
The family of the rape victim and the family of the rapists would like to have a vote

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16240489]

Here. Now it’s about books

[Anonymous No.16240493]

>>16240484
shut up woman, the men are talking

[Anonymous No.16240500]

>>16240484
Fuck off

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16240503]

>>16240493
Aristotle and the males in the victim’s and the rapists families would like to put this assault to a vote.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16240505]

>>16240500
See now. He would not like his property gang raped.

[Anonymous No.16240525]

>>16240476
>debates
Go away, sophist

[Anonymous No.16240526]

>>16240473
But that would only be true when the society they inhabit solely consists of the victim and the assailants.
In the real world, democracy envelops an entire nation of which the majority would no doubt vote in favour of outlawing non-consensual intercourse if you are living in a civilised society.

[Anonymous No.16240553]

>>16240525
It assumes truth isn't from man but instead from reality. The literal opposite of sophism. You have a yt understanding of debating. The Swedish Court system uses analytic debating.

[Anonymous No.16240569]

>>16240473
Most people dont want to be gangraped, therefor gangrape is not the will of the majority.

[Anonymous No.16240628]

The problem is that humanity is split up into people who are dignified and people who aren‘t. This presents an insurmountable issue in managing them. The people with dignity will feel violated by too much (in their case) unnecessary restrictions and speak up against it. However if the rules get less restrictive, the people with no dignity will start to fuck everything up since you can not execute or lock them up as easily. Both options will result in chaos. There‘s only one solution and it is to divide humans into the dignified class that can be left pretty much on their own and the undignified that should be herded together and kept under tight control. There‘s several options to filter the two classes, none of which undignified people will accept since one of the issues of lack of dignity is not knowing what real dignity looks and feels like, thus everyone thinks he definitely belongs in the dignified class.

[Anonymous No.16240644]

>>16240628
Forgot to add, there‘s another long term solution. It‘s to stop fucking people‘s dignity up in childhood so we will one day reach a point where all undignified people simply die off from old age and then we can finally take up a society that doesn‘t need rulers since those are only necessary to keep the undignified in check.

[Anonymous No.16240681]

lol legalistic caste hierarchy is for pussies

[Anonymous No.16240685]

>>16240681
Why?

[Anonymous No.16240706]

>>16240473
People only want a society that's fair for them.

>>16240476
Winning debates is about confusing, misdirecting, goading, taunting, interrupting and otherwise bullshitting your opponent. It has nothing to do with being right.

[Anonymous No.16240716]

>>16240569
Not true. All men instinctively want to rape and women be raped. Haven’t you read feminism/MGTOW?

[Anonymous No.16240724]

>>16240716
You seem to fail to see the distinction between undignified men and women, for which your statement is very true and the dignified minority that you do not belong to. If you would, you knew that this isn‘t the truth for everyone.

[Anonymous No.16240735]

>>16240473
Most of the value in democracy isn't in fairness, it's in establishing legitimacy.
If you know a majority likes the other guy and most of the rest has committed to honoring a fair election even if they don't like the outcome there's no reason to start fighting. Succession is ridiculously uneventful nowadays. I'll take an election season over a civil war.
Any replacement system would need to perform that function at least as well as democracy does. Otherwise you get bigger problems than unfairness and it'll probably end up overthrown anyway.
Trying to fix democracy might be more fruitful, even if you can never get it to the point where it's satisfyingly fair.

[Anonymous No.16240739]

Large democracies aren't possible. Isonomia is the best form of government and existed in Ionia before they got fucked by the Persians and then the Athenians. Too bad is only possible in city-states and towns.

[Anonymous No.16240741]

>>16240473
we did it's called capitalism now fuck off commie faggot

[Anonymous No.16240775]

>>16240706
holy shit you're brainwashed. The Swedish justice system requires the prosecutor to operate like this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor

[Anonymous No.16240862]

>>16240489
Your liberalism disgusts me
Seriously repent
>>16240473
Things get worse not better.

[Anonymous No.16240881]

>>16240553
Logic derives from man and is not present anywhere in reality

[Anonymous No.16240889]

>>16240775
You are completely delusional if you believe this works in practice the way you think it does
>t. Work in law in a country with a similar system
What's next, do you believe we enforce good Samaritan laws?

[Anonymous No.16240894]

>>16240644
not gonna happen capitalism wouldn't allow it

[Anonymous No.16240905]

>>16240473
Read Derrida

[Anonymous No.16240909]

>>16240553
Analytics can't categorise itself as analytics

[Anonymous No.16240914]

>>16240894
This is why the first stage would need a cast system to remove the indignity from society.

[Anonymous No.16240925]

>>16240881
Yeech, then that means syntax doesn't matter and it also means reality isn't logical. Yikes

>>16240889
>works the way I think it does
I'm saying what it is is what works. It's better than antagonism but I think it doesn't need a defense attorney. I'm just saying debating style exists.

>>16240909
Now what is this supposed to mean anon? Are you ontologizing Goedel's incompleteness theorem? I'm not particularly sure how that relates. We call math, math but we don't clarify that math can't categorize itself as math. I'm sure you had an interesting point anon.

[Anonymous No.16240949]

>>16240473
>fair
found your problem

[Anonymous No.16241115]

A 'ruling' system is inherently unfair, and will always involve the suppression of an exploited class by its exploiters. We need the DOTP because only the liquidation of the bourgeoisie through the expropriation of their property can we establish a classless society which will have no 'rulers' nor any need for them. The largest barrier to accomplishing this is the tendency for a bureaucracy to emerge as the nascent form of a new bourgeoisie. The collective political education and participation of the proletariat is therefore necessary to thwart reaction.

[Anonymous No.16241126]

>>16241115
low quality bait

[Anonymous No.16241134]

>>16240473
because no one agrees on the definition of "fair"

[Anonymous No.16241138]

>>16240775
>>16240553
sweden? you mean the country that apologizes to muslim rapists for oppressing them?

[Anonymous No.16241163]

>>16240473

Gang rape is not the will of the majority as the majority is clearly against it since it is illegal. Democracy does not mean "the will of the majority for any random subset of the population present in one place at a given time". It means that the whole demos gets a vote.

[Anonymous No.16241206]

>>16240473
Im fine with gang rape as long as it its a two thirds majority decision.

[Anonymous No.16241225]

>>16241206

[Anonymous No.16241260]

>>16240473
As opposed to the Levithan raping whoever he wants.

[Anonymous No.16241268]

>>16240473
Cause it wasn't about finding a fair ruling system, it was about finding a system that could work for the illuminati to govern happily without worrying if the world would get overwhelmed by the plebs.
So far they haven't found one. And as things stand right now, it's probably looking pretty grim for them since the masses are just too much of a powerful force, you have no idea how dangerous a person who needs to eat and reproduce is for this planet's elite's continuous oppulent existence
reminder that the union of egoists already exists and they are at war with us
the shadow government, the illuminati, the secret society of the myster schoosl, etc. are the union of egoists and they are trying to exterminate us with all their might (and will probably succeed)

[Anonymous No.16241277]

>>16241138
idc about politics, they're all retarded but this method of debating is grand.

[Anonymous No.16241287]

>>16241277
shut up

[Anonymous No.16241292]

>>16241268

How about you post some proof

[Anonymous No.16241295]

>>16241206
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.16241299]

>>16241292
No

[Anonymous No.16241308]

>>16240476
>Use logic and debates. Best debater wins and their ability is judged by a logic
this is what secular humanists believe

[Anonymous No.16241314]

>>16241308
logic dictates that people who are incapable of being uncivilized have no business living among those that do but secular humanist keep flooding europe and usa with niggers and spics???????????

[Anonymous No.16241337]

>>16241299

So why believe you then?

[Anonymous No.16241345]

>>16241337
because want me to

[Anonymous No.16241351]

>>16241337
The protocols of the learned elders of zion and then go down the rabbit hole of bill cooper's content together with yuri (whenever he mentions global communist conspiracy look deeper into it than the economic system or ideology behind it), or alternatively go read a history of central banking and the enslavement of the human race

[Anonymous No.16241365]

>>16241314
That‘s because they are uncivilized themselves so they see no issue with doing that.

[Anonymous No.16241372]

>>16240473
Read "Against Democracy", it puts forward a very strong argument for an epistocratic system involving voter licenses

[Anonymous No.16241377]

none of this shit matters anyway cause Christ is coming back to reign for 1000 years soon.

[Anonymous No.16241379]

Unironically to act as a subversive agent and distraction.

[Anonymous No.16241385]

>>16240473

Because man is a flawed and sinful creature and any system he creates is flawed by both his nature and the realities of this world.

But just because man is flawed doesn't mean we shouldn't have an ideal to strive towards even if it's impossible to attain. It's better to live in almost perfection rather than debasement.

[Anonymous No.16241388]

>>16241377
Any day now.

[Anonymous No.16241393]

>>16241377
You mean Antichrist, right?

[Anonymous No.16241458]

>>16240628
Interesting take, on the surface this seems valid. Inspired by Evola?

[Anonymous No.16241527]

>>16240473
>12000 years of recorded history
Come on, it's like 8000 and I'm being very generous

[Anonymous No.16241533]

>>16240473
It was perfected thousands of years ago.

[Anonymous No.16241556]

>>16241527
its 6000 corresponding with the six days of creation, the next thousand years is the millennial sabbath aka sunday where Christ will return and reign for 1000 years. no i am not a schizo

[Anonymous No.16241574]

>>16241533
where is this explained?

[Anonymous No.16241576]

>>16241458
It‘s possible he has similar ideas. I‘ve never read him. Maybe i should if this is how he thinks. It‘s just my own theory, not inspired by anything in particular other than three decades of observing humans.

[Anonymous No.16241592]

>>16240894
Capitalism is nothing more than the material manifestation of mimetic desire, the problem of human desire and violence will not be eradicated with capitalism (although the destruction of the systematic manifestation embodied by capital is a step in the right direction).

[Anonymous No.16241622]

>>16240553
>The Swedish Court system uses analytic debating.
The famous court system that excuses rape as "sexual emergencies"? Yeah, seems to work great.

[Anonymous No.16241634]

>>16240473
Democracy always devolves into mob rule, it only works when it's limited.

[Anonymous No.16241641]

>>16241634
Democracy literally is mob rule.

[Anonymous No.16241653]

>>16240473
>Why can't we find a fair ruling system after 12000 years of recorded history
Duh. Such a thing can never exist because of human nature.

It's all about getting as close to that ideal as possible.

The best solution I can come up with, apart from fascism (which is the best solution by far (and that's obvious if you understand what it is)), is a form of democracy where people of a higher intelligence have a more valuable vote.

[Anonymous No.16241751]

>>16241653
>is a form of democracy where people of a higher intelligence have a more valuable vote.
In our society, this would mean the disenfranchisement of almost every single Republican voter and the total domination of university-educated liberals. Is that what you want?
>>16240735
>Any replacement system would need to perform that function at least as well as democracy does
Why? I don't see why that should be the case.

[Anonymous No.16241793]

>>16241751
I didn't want to write an essay but I've already thought about that. I'll be as brief as possible here:

You can only vote if you are >24 yo
Your vote is worth:
1 if you're >24
2 if you're >24, have been married 3 years and have two children
3 if you're >24 and pass the intelligence test
4 if you're >24, have been married 3 years, have two children and pass the intelligence test.

Something like that.

The intelligence test will be a simple objective questionnaire about what exactly the specifics are on what you're voting on.

[Anonymous No.16241809]

>>16240473
Because people's flaw is not an unified problem. Some people are disabled, others being ignorant, some being so biased it changes their view on reality. If every people has the same flaw, the same level of intellegence, by nature there will be a fair system.

[Anonymous No.16241812]

>>16241751
>I don't see why that should be the case.
I meant it in a normative sense, not a positive sense.
If your system is fair but leads to civil war because it doesn't provide credible legitimacy it's probably a step back.

[Anonymous No.16241818]

>>16241793
add land

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16241824]

>>16241574
If not this book than in others by the author

>>16241634
>>16241641
Why are people afraid of majority rules?

[Anonymous No.16241833]

>>16241812
>If your system is fair but leads to civil war because it doesn't provide credible legitimacy it's probably a step back.
Does monarchical succession necessarily lead to civil war? Also, can you say that the democratic era has seen fewer civil wars than the pre-democratic era? And have the civil wars of our era been more or less brutal than those of prior eras?
>>16241793
>The intelligence test will be a simple objective questionnaire about what exactly the specifics are on what you're voting on.
What will this look like? Why do the specifics matter? Who will actually be informed of the specifics, how, and why? And why not just get rid of democracy altogether if you care so much about whether or not voters are informed?

[Anonymous No.16241870]

>>16240473
>Why can't we find a fair ruling system

You have food on your table, electricity, a roof over your head, and the stove works. Plumbing runs almost without hickup, you have videogames that span continents, you can fly to the other side of the world for a months worth of work at a gas station. You have people risking their lives patrolling the Streets to keep you safe, a military to defend your borders.

And if youre american im sure most of these still apply. What is your criteria for a working system?

[Anonymous No.16241871]

>>16240476
Most humans are not rational, debates a re a waste of time

[Anonymous No.16241889]

>>16241833
Retard listen, I'm not here to think for you. If you can't answer those questions by yourself, there was no point talking to you in the first place.

>Transparency
>The illusion of control

I told you I wasn't in the mood to write an essay. Don't be lazy, it makes you worthless.

[Anonymous No.16241901]

>>16241653
>democracy where people of a higher intelligence have a more valuable vote.
I'd rather have a system where only net taxpayers can vote

[Anonymous No.16241910]

>>16241889
What you're proposing is outlandish and requires explanation. I don't see the point of preserving democracy if all you're going to do is flip the side that's in control. The present situation is, after all, the logical conclusion of all the doctrines of popular sovereignty and individual freedom created during the Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.16241921]

>>16241901
Right lets give bankers the vote and take it from over worked nurses. Been reading Ayn Rand recently?

[Anonymous No.16241924]

>>16240473
Just have an absolute hereditary monarchy, it's actually rather simple.

[Anonymous No.16241929]

>>16241910
You
>Nothing has worked before
Me
>Let's try something new
You
>...But we have never done that before!

>I don't see the point of preserving democracy if all you'r....
This is my last response, you need to think a little more before you post.
>if all you're going to do is flip the side that's in control.
You've missed the entire point. It's still democracy.

[Anonymous No.16241937]

>>16241910
It's simply a better form of democracy.

>I'm sick, it's partly why I'm being curt with you.

[Anonymous No.16241946]

>>16241921
Last time it happened bankers gave votes to nurses.

[Anonymous No.16241981]

>>16241556
Interesting, but why would God care so much about things like that - each thousand year being like one day of the week? Seems like some sort of Kabbalah or Byzantine mysticism to me.

[Anonymous No.16241987]

>>16240473
The only system that is fair and efficient is monarchy. However it has one big problem, that is, what to do with incompetent kings? If only there was an easy solution for that.

[Anonymous No.16241993]

>>16240473
it's not THAT bad, guys, c'mon haha

[Anonymous No.16242000]

>>16241929
>>16241937
But why is it better? For instance, what knowledge is necessary to make the numerous value judgments that politics consists of? What questions would you put on a test to determine the value of votes in presidential elections? How about congressional or mayoral elections? What questions would you require voters to answer before casting their votes for or against the legality of abortion? What about issues like no-fault divorce? What role does knowledge play in the formation of values?

[Anonymous No.16242001]

>>16241824
Anyone here wants to rape Butterfly with me? Let's have a vote over it.

[Anonymous No.16242003]

>>16241987
Maybe the King could be voted out, what if we held elections say every 4 years to decide wether to keep the King or not.

And you could choose a new King, Maybe the King could be a repressentative instead

[Anonymous No.16242035]

>>16242003
worse in many ways
>voting is retarded in the first place
>incentivizes massive campaigns of public brainwashing
>creates perpetual hostility between artificial 'teams' created out of the public
>tyranny of the majority
>removes all incentives for representatives to care about long term health of country, actually creates incentives for him to plunder the country so that his successor, who is often on an opposing team, can't do so
>attracts power hungry psychopaths to important positions in government that would be decided hereditarily otherwise
>always creates a shadow bureaucracy that actually runs things, which is unaccountable, irresponsible, and inefficient

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242043]

>>16242001
How many in your family?
They’re voting on the topic too, or it isn’t democracy.

[Anonymous No.16242053]

>>16242003
If king could be voted out, then barrier must be very high, to give king freedom to make unpopular, but necessary decisions. And it shouldn't be every for years, king should be free to rule forever without interruption if he is doing a good job. So let's something like 500k initial signatures to have a non-confidence vote and in order to be outed, king must lose 75% of votes and 75% of provinces.

[Anonymous No.16242060]

>>16240473
>fair ruling system
Only married White men that own land and have at least one child can vote. There you go.

[Anonymous No.16242061]

>>16242003
>>16242035
The real problem is that electoral politics are inherently anti-monarchical. The point of monarchy is that all sovereignty exists in the body of the monarch, some external representative of heavenly authority, e.g. the Pope, or in the throne itself as is the case in Japan. The monarch cannot commit an act of treason against any human authority, because he is the final authority in all matters pertaining to politics. The moment you introduce electoral politics, you subvert this logic and introduce the same logic that underlies liberal democracy, i.e. the logic of popular sovereignty. Once a monarch has accepted that logic, it is only a matter of time before he and his clique are doomed.

[Anonymous No.16242154]

>>16242060
based

[Anonymous No.16242256]

>>16240628
Define "dignified". Would you call a monogamous homosexual marriage undignified?

[Anonymous No.16242283]

>>16240484
leave tranny

[Anonymous No.16242331]

>>16240473
What do you mean by fair? Also read Pareto, Mosca, Machiavelli, Michels, Schmidt

[Anonymous No.16242355]

>>16240473
>didn't work
was unironically never implemented unlike gobbunism

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242363]

>>16242283
t. Gigs of tranny porn on his HD
Leave, me alone.

[Anonymous No.16242369]

>>16240473
a fair ruling system would require perfect humans, but if humans were perfect you wouldn't need a ruling system

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242385]

>>16242369
You’d need a defused ruling system to turn out a more “perfect” human.
And you could have it.

[Anonymous No.16242392]

>>16240473
Because the only thing worse than an individual human is humans in aggregate.

[Anonymous No.16242402]

they cant be perfect in the long run, but hey existed. If it's liberal, corporations/trusts take the power and end the freedom. If it relies on authority, they tend to degenerate over tim although the process sometimes takes centuries
>>16242369
nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16242409]

>>16240862
>Your liberalism disgusts me
>anarkiddie
>liberal

[Anonymous No.16242412]

>>16241287
Seethe

[Anonymous No.16242419]

>>16242363
>saving to HD
so this is the power of room temperature IQ

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242436]

>>16242419
>everyone uses the cloud now, bitch!
Pardon.

[Anonymous No.16242447]

>>16242436
>saving to cloud
I overestimated that room temp iq, apologies

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242458]

>>16242447
What are you even saying anymore?

[Anonymous No.16242532]

>>16242458
You are sliding down into the single digit iq crowd

[Anonymous No.16242542]

As long as it's oriented upward

[Anonymous No.16242552]

>>16242043
They aren't part of the /lit/, are they? Why would you deny community right to decide it's fate without outsider influence? Not very democratic from you.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242556]

>>16242552
This clearly isn’t a community

[Anonymous No.16242558]

>>16242556
Why?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242564]

>>16242558
It’s online for one thing.

But lets say you lot went and founded a town of would be rapists. Who would stray into such a town? (Besides trans)

[Anonymous No.16242644]

>>16242564
Can't you go back to using a tripcode? You were easier to filter then.

[Anonymous No.16243111]

>>16242564
Well, apparently you, you masochistic moth.

[Anonymous No.16243396]

>>16240473
representative democracy doesn't work like that

[Anonymous No.16243418]

>>16242061
So monarchy is good and uncorrupt because there is no standard or separate will too perceive corruption?

Literally there is no corruption because corruption is ultimate

[Anonymous No.16243834]

>>16240553
>The Swedish Court system uses analytic debating.

[Anonymous No.16244224]

>>16242256
Dignified can be defined as non degeneracy, as degeneracy is defined as "something that if all society did, would result in a negative effect" so in terms of monogamous homosexual marriage the answer is that it is dignified, where as in hypergamy heterosexual or homosexual, there is no dignity

[Anonymous No.16244579]

>>16242532
kek

[Anonymous No.16245038]

>>16242043
>people organizing into groups where the majority conveniently reflects only their personal interests
>not a problem with democracy

[Anonymous No.16245139]

>>16243834
I already cited it, >>16240775

[Anonymous No.16245162]

>>16240473
we did, and then the industrial revolution and its consequences (a disaster for the human race) came along.

[Anonymous No.16245225]

>>16245162
>human race
But we are a species.

[Anonymous No.16245254]

>>16240473
Because nature is inherently unfair in but in death

[Anonymous No.16245342]

>>16245162
You cannot blame the industrial revolution for the french revolution. The french revolution ruined everything, we have gone in a downwards spiral ever since.

[Anonymous No.16245382]

Because rule isn't fair, ya dingus.

[Anonymous No.16245416]

>>16240500
Extremely based

[Anonymous No.16245606]

>>16245342
>The french revolution ruined everything, we have gone in a downwards spiral ever since
Why do you think this?

[Anonymous No.16245621]

>>16241592
Have you heard about reverse dominance hierarchy?

[Anonymous No.16245652]

>>16241824
>Why are people afraid of majority rules?
Because they prefer pedo-satanic rulers as long as it satisfy their desire for material possessions.

[Anonymous No.16245686]

>>16240473
Maybe because what happened 12000 years ago was a mistake. We should never have made such an alliance.

[Anonymous No.16245752]

>>16245652
retard take

[Anonymous No.16245880]

>>16245225
We are all one life form, the carbon lifeform

[Anonymous No.16245909]

>>16240493
inexpressibly based

[Anonymous No.16245978]

>>16240500
Holy based

[Anonymous No.16246608]

>>16245652
>Because they prefer pedo-satanic rulers as long as it satisfy their desire for material possessions.
Yeah just like what is happening in america!! wait...

[Anonymous No.16246659]

The man who solved civilization is in jail.

[Anonymous No.16246699]

because the world isn't fair

[Anonymous No.16246806]

>>16245254
This is the answer. So much of revolutionary philosophy is predicated on the idea that by changing the system you can "fix" humanity. The truth is that man and the world he inhabits are fallen.

[Anonymous No.16246844]

>>16246806
¿if nature is unjust change nature?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16246884]

>>16243111
This is my point. This isn’t a town full of rapists. This is online. The worst you could do is poll each other.
>>16245038
Implying your family wouldn’t shudder with disgust to hear you want them to vote on you and guys sexually assaulting someone

>>16245416
E x t r e m l y stupid.

>>16245652
Exactly
>>16245752
Daddy issues, anon. Why you want Trump’s pole

[Anonymous No.16246935]

>>16240741
>workplace dictatorship where you have no power and spend most of your life
yes goy, let your boss fuck your wife too

[Anonymous No.16246951]

>>16246659
>evola and guenon shit
kill yourself larper

[Anonymous No.16248172]

>>16240473
>>16240484
kek

[Anonymous No.16248221]

>>16240473
Democracy is an outdated system that was not prepared for mass social media and generaly internet.
Few individuals now have power to shape public opinion, because they produce majority of content (10% of US adults produce 70% of political tweets).
Also recommendation system reinforces biases.

[Anonymous No.16248236]

>>16240473
>12000 years of recorded history
it's half that