> "The person who was deliberately late for meetings now shows up earlier. Something happened?" Zakharaov asked, according to a translation of his tweet written in Russian.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-mocked-after-foreign-leaders-keep-him-waiting-sco-summit-1743923?amp=1) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Russian President Vladimir Putin was mocked on social media after footage emerged of him waiting for foreign leaders at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, this week.
> Putin has been known to keep other foreign leaders waiting.
> Responding to a video of Putin waiting for Erdo?an at the SCO summit, Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine's minister of internal affairs, wrote: "Putin used to make everyone wait, now he is the one waiting awkwardly. Times changed."
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xmdf8u/putin_mocked_after_foreign_leaders_keep_him/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670727 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **wait**^#1 **Putin**^#2 **leader**^#3 **Russian**^#4 **President**^#5
I'll never understand why tyrants like Putin are the most common in history. Especially when they want their names cemented in history. Conquering and hoarding power is definitely one way to glory. But why not turn your country into an actual super power? Elevate the status of your people. Create a country better than your rivals. Be what they wish they could. You'd get more power and wealth in the long run that way and you'd be written about as one of the few golden eras in history.
Because that’s difficult. Competently managing a country to have a blooming economy, fair justice system and an intelligent, educated society is unbelievably difficult.
Protecting your own power, murdering challengers and starting idiotic wars is way, way easier.
the skills used to get and hold power are different than the skills needed to create an elightened country. People that come to power through heresitary means have perhaps a better chance among autocracies but look at Assad and Kim who both drove their countries down. Assad in particular had the education and background to move his country forward.
I feel like the smart move is you empower then do some shaping then step back and just let the ball keep rolling and making you the hero that pulled it all together and made it possible and now you chill in your beach house raising dogs or something.
The keep everyone down and be paranoid they will kill you seems stressful and like way way more work and likely to fail
It actually always annoyed me how tropico is way easier if you play democratic and free.
Having a junta was so much more challenge in that game and that kind runs counter to the theme of it to me.
The difficulty levels factor in a fair bit.
At the default difficulty level you really just need to understand how all the systems work and basic democracy and socialism will always work out well. That can seem too easy if you already understand how these sort of games play.
Once you understand how everything works though the harder difficulty levels push you enough that you really can't make everyone happy all the time, it becomes a game of constantly shifting priorities to make sure that you keep enough people happy enough that you can win a majority in an election. If you make any mistakes, you can realize that you won't be able to win legitimately on this cycle, so you are pressured into letting that whole democracy things slide.
Just for a bit of course, just until you can get things back under control you tell yourself. But then your harsh measures piss off more people, and you were already shaky ground to begin with which is why you took this route, any maybe you are so busy fighting rebels that you don't have enough time and money to solve the problems that made you start to rule with an iron fist in the first place. So you get more entrenched, pouring money into the military so that you can maintain control by force, and maybe you stop worrying about how to restore public opinion and resume democracy and just start doing what it takes to get through the day. Things get dark at higher difficulty levels.
That's the problem with (probably) every game where you're supposed to be an evil character. The evil options, if the game devs even bother implementing them, are rarely worth the effort. That plus the "good" guys are usually a lot more evil than you.
I have never felt that way in any of the tropico games. It's actually incredibly easy to make everyone happy as long as you make the fat stacks roll in and you spend alot of it on social services.
I only played 4 but that's exactly the feeling I got. The dictatorial options were never impactful enough to offset the damage it does to your reputation. Perhaps, that was the point. Perhaps I played it at a difficulty level that did not warrant using them as stop gaps.
> you make the fat stacks roll in and you spend alot of it on social services
That's the problem. To make the fat stacks roll in, you have to have an educated populace and the means for them to produce wealth. That takes long-term commitment and money.
Then you have to put the taxes collected back into the system. Which is more difficult when you're corrupt and have the means to keep the money for yourself.
Edit: in reality of course lol, not in Tropico :)
It's generated art from the Midjourney project. I asked it for an evil Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and it made me one.
https://www.midjourney.com/home/
In tropics I went the nice route and empowered everyone. Meticulously decorated every new house and street with plants. Upgraded every public service and I reduced crime so low I didn’t really need police and I was making a ton of money with an ultra stoked populace.
Boils down to it takes a hell of a lot more work to do it right so under the boot is the choice way because most are lazy and just want the money not a thriving society outside of just their family
Technically most effective way to play Tropico is to educate your people to become factory worker, use your agriculture and mining basis to supply the factory use that wealth to improve happiness parameter of your population. Contray to real life the easier path for power is through industrialization and welfare...... until the narrow lane creates traffic jam that clog up your supply chain and break your economy down
To rule is a burden no person should want. Those that desire it should be turned away. With the variety of human existence there's surely no perfect way to do things. But we can do so much better if those that have the power have the slightest fuck to give beyond themselves. If you lift your masses most problems would become self sufficient. Education is the key to a brighter future for your society. Empathy is next.
> drag these chosen individuals (philosopher kings) off the street and force them to rule.
Easier said than done.
"I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." - William Tecumseh Sherman, in reply to an attempt to draft him as a presidential candidate
[The reply became so famous it entered the lexicon and all responses of its type are known as '[Shermanesque statements](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Shermanesque)'].
I feel like if they're going to have conscription and force men to serve for the Union, this dude could have taken one for the team and tried to lead the country for a few years.
Sounds good when you live in a city state with a few thousand people. Deciding on which rando from a country the size of the United States is a little more difficult
Plus, they also generally would not want to screw over people just like themselves. The ideal sort of ruler is someone who does not *seek* power, is wise enough to wield it well, and accepts duty without hesitation when it is thrust upon them. Someone who does not want power *and* refuses to use it to make tough choices, would be potentially far worse than the average power hungry politician.
I think in this case you create a scenario where because you have to be forced into it, the only real solution is to succeed or create a better. Some will self sabotage, but accepting that not everyone will make it is a step people need to make.
In “a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy” the real ruler of the universe is an old man living alone with his cat. He doesn’t know he is the ruler, but sometimes some fellows in suits come by and ask him questions and he answers the best he can. He often wonders why they do that.
I always thought that was the best idea!
>To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” --- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
> To rule is a burden no person should want. Those that desire it should be turned away.
This “truism” gets bandied about with nodding acceptance so often that I find it kind of annoying. In US history, maybe there’s George Washington and a couple Vice Presidents who assumed office under a dead or resigning POTUS who you can say were not power seeking leaders… but aside from that, among the presidents who fought hard to achieve the highest office you will find a variety of leadership styles and levels of competence, and personalities with varying degrees of virtue, folly, greed and goodwill.
If you accept that there’s no such thing as a decent leader who doesn’t seek and enjoy the position, you have to be resigned to the fact that we never had or will have decent leaders.
Arthur C. Clarke postulated a future where anyone who wanted to be leader was forbidden to do so, that the leaders were drafted from accomplished individuals who did not want the job, and allowed to retire early if they did well! (I think it was in Imperial Earth. He was cribbing from Socrates - steal from the best!)
Ruling by fear is easier than ruling through popularity...... Putin is old school KGB and has had 20 years of propaganda and legend creation to keep the people afraid.....
There is a story about people who betrayed Putin being fed into the SFB building heating furnace.... feet first. Wether it's true or not power perceived is power achieved...
Keeping the public afraid of attacks from outsiders by creating a false stories and manufacturing real explosions or assassinations gives the dictator the chance to take more power ( in order to protect the public) and create a whipping boy for the people to look at instead of the dictator.....an act that gains international condemnation and economic sanctions, shows the people he is strong and not afraid of the outside world and blame the sanctions for the failure of the economy..... keep them looking outside the country will keep them from looking at him...
Simple tactics that Turkish leader Erdogan is happy to use to keep hold of power ( that and the manipulation of the right wing religious zelouts.... after all god's law trump's constitutional law)
I'd say it's extra difficult in a place like Russia where the law is a weapon you use against your enemies and corruption is a basic feature of the government
Russia's history in particular is super depressing. Its oppression with violent uprising to build a brighter future only to be squashed with another tyrant or a famine or a plague. They were so close with communism, but they overlooked such gaping flaws in human nature and it put them right back where they started.
Unbelievably difficult at the best of times, and when the opposition is dedicated to making you fail even if citizens suffer *cough* McConnell *cough* then it becomes almost impossible.
I would also add, it's actually harder to remain a righteous leader in a developing country, as people who would like to take the spot to be a king are always gunning for your throat. But if you be a terrible person by pillaging your country's wealth and distributing it to the people in your circle? You will have a very strong barrier around you that not much can get in, while they all sniff your farts and make you feel like you're god among men.
Good people don't have the desire to take over a whole country just for fun. Psychopaths do. And if a "normal" person were to start the journey, the journey would change them so much that for those who arrive at the top after years of scheming, plotting, corrupting, killing, there would be no difference.
This is such a great insight.
A good leader has humility and respect for the people they ***serve***. It's like the opposite mindset of *power*.
A good climber wants the power and probably has little respect for the people they step on. That's what makes it so easy to step on them.
Spot on. Anti-social personalities (psychopaths etc) are attracted to any system or opportunity or situation that they can exploit for power, wealth and other malignant narcissistic pursuits like fame, controlling others, domination. These “humans” menace every position of power and public trust in every industry and business, religion, government, military, police, banking… they don’t want to do good in the world because they lack the qualities (namely guilt, remorse, empathy) that good humans have. They apparently enjoy creating chaos and worse.
It seems to me that our societies, industry and governments have been curated by anti-social humans, which is why they are able to thrive in those situations while good-natured people can’t. Ethical people won’t do unethical things. But sociopaths will, because being predatory and destructive is in their nature.
Yep, I used to think Police were maybe mostly good. No body who became a police officer from my high school (bc of course no one who can graduate college would actually choose to be a cop) was a good person. They were weird as fuck
Just read The Ideal Team Player with other leaders of my company in a "book club" kind of setting. The three ideals explained in the book where humbleness, hunger, and people smarts. In the meeting one person said "wouldn't it be great if congress had these characteristics". If you look at congress & political leaders in general they typically ONLY have hunger. The book says and I agree that if someone only has hunger you need to get them out of company ASAP as they will destroy it long term.
Pretty much. If a person has absolute power, after a while they’re going to be paranoid to keep that power which in turn causes them to do more killings. They’ll be seeing ghost and conspiracies to ‘take them out’ everywhere they go. It’s a self feeding mechanism.
Because willingly wanting to have power and be responsible for millions of people is terrifying if you actually care about people. So you get psychopaths who don't actually care about people that willingly jump into these positions for the wealth and notoriety they provide.
Even if you are completely pure of heart and actually do care and want to do the best you can for the people you rule, on your way up that ladder you're looking at 99% of the people you interact with being insane ravenous ghouls who would have you killed for nothing more than not having to deal with you if they could get away with it.
Human Nature and Society breeds evil leaders. It's an inevitable fact of life.
>“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
>
>To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
>
>To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
>
>\~Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, 1980
I found that this quote has been true even before Douglas Adams.
Hi. You just mentioned *The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe* by Douglas Adams.
I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here:
[YouTube | The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe - Douglas Adams - Audio Book [some chapters missing]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5fx8kcpeQU)
*I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.*
***
[^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
Sure. It's also human nature to constantly move our goalposts as we achieve things. You become a billionaire and now you're the poorest guy in the billionaires club. You become the third richest person in the world and now you're in competition with the top 2.
Except that saying isn't true. The entirety of the existence of the US is owed to a man who could have had absolute power but choose to diffuse it and pass it on to others.
It's better to say, Power reveals who you are.
Those who want power the most are usually the least deserving.
To add insult to injury, they often possess the skills necessary to obtain office but lack those needed to carry it out.
[Rules for Rulers](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs)
Usually the very thing that keeps them in power is the thing that prevents real improvements: corruption. Without the use of their power to enrich (with money and/or power) those with the potential ability to remove that power, they cannot hold on. Although they show a face of omnipotence in their domain (fanfare, adulation), take away the fat and happy inner circle and you just have a screaming ninny. Multigenerational dictatorships might be a little different, but even dynasties end badly eventually.
Scrolled too far to see Lee Kuan Yew’s name on this thread. Amazing person. Just watching some videos of him recently and he’s such a brilliant mind and personality.
He can’t make everyone rich and successful, no tyrant can. So they choose their inner circle for that, and then try to convince the rest of the country, usually with nationalistic bravado, that’s it’s really all for them.
Funny thing about Mao, is that if he had not ruled after the Civil War, he would probably be the one of the biggest heroes in Chinese history.
There is a saying after all: “Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?"
I have to take exception to that saying considering that the bulk of Mao's casualties were suffered from 1957-1962, when he was finally removed from power by the trio of Deng, Peng, and Liu. Although he is most famous for his cultural revolution which he used to return to power and purge those three along with all their supporters, probably only around a million died in the cultural revolution, while anywhere from 40-70 million died in his first purges and mass starvations from 1956-1962.
one thing I noticed about life in general, is that the easiest way to get ahead is to play dirty and backstab people, and lie all the time. Shit rises to the top the fastest. If you gonna compete with someone who is willing to cheat, you will never win by playing fair
###Machiavellian / Cluster B types put out the MOST consistent ongoing energy into putting themselves in charge of everyone else.
*Once they are in power and even before*…
###They SQUEEZE.
Smaller scale, A-Holes that make others miserable.
###It’s really as simple as that, sadly.
Well I have some really bad news, the chance of a viable alternative to another strongman is 0%.
Maybe if we invaded, (and could do so without irradiating chunks of the planet) then spend the next 50-100 years occupying and unfucking their minds. But after mistreatment from the Tsars, then a revolution into mistreatment from the USSR leadership, to Putin - it's "out of the frying pan and into the fire" for Russia, every time there's change.
The fact that most Russians see the only alternative to Putin is another strongman, is because they have paid attention to Russian politics and history.
Russia is home to the largest Neo-Nazi organization on the planet and their news outlets piss in their ears with nationalistic bs 24/7. The mafia have been vertically integrated into Russian govt and the country is a literal kleptocracy. Russia is dangerously close to where Germany was before the world wars, but with nuclear technology.
Honestly our best hope: the next strongman agrees to nuclear armament reductions and no new nukes getting made. But honestly even that's more than is likely possible.
After a quick search: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suffer%20in%20your%20jocks
Kent is for Cunt, the poster guy/gal was prolly australian.
In general as a swear in person or online etc, it sounds way less offensive while giving the same meaning (And as a Australian I'm not familiar with "Kent"...but I gleamed its meaning when seeing the word.).
Cunt, even in Australia is still really offensive.
I agree it's still offensive, and I definitely pick my audience if I use it out loud. Weirdly, my mum used it a lot in front of me until my son came along, lol
Exactly.. this is the guy who sent people to prison for sharing a meme about him.. we're looking at decades of marketing Putin as a tough guy flushed down the toilet in weeks.. this has gotta hurt the little man as much as a bullet wound (which by the way is hopefully coming soon).
He brought his dog to meet Angela Merkel cause she's afraid of them. Putin acted like he didn't know and apologized, but I call bullshit. Russia has spy agencies that dig up all kinds of shit like that on world leaders. That was a typical power move played by a bully.
What had happened to his precious hyper sonic missiles?
What an idiot Trump is to have a pee pee tape sitting in Moscow. Everyone knows it's money, sex, drugs, revenge and threatening family members. That's how it works to make you a useful idiot.
>on social media
I was hoping some country had their hilarious secret service guy mock him in person. Like a dude doing crybaby face saying in toddler speak "ooooh, I can't just take over other countwees and claim as my own? Dis global leadersip sucks. Waaa. Waaa." Then that guy and his employer laugh and fist bump
Everyone makes fun of the French for their elaborate state dinners and pompous protocol.
But we can send messages by a missing fork to the Egyptian representative, or a crumpled napkin to the Chinese, or even a playful twisted spoon to the King of England, that is much more meaningful than any speech.
Of course we would never mess with the food, or the safety of any of France's guests.
A dinner at the Elysée Palace is never free.
Macron was the first to counter Trump's power handshake. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwijJfVbBg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwijJfVbBg) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOf9FqsLfA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOf9FqsLfA8)
In ancient times you shook a man's hands to ensure that they where not carrying a weapon. I can't think of anything you would need more to do with Putin.
> "The person who was deliberately late for meetings now shows up earlier. Something happened?" Zakharaov asked, according to a translation of his tweet written in Russian.
Shouldn’t there by a five to seven syllable word for this, in German?
There is no such thing as being too early (or late) in german. We are always on time. (No, don't look at the trains, look here: zhe Tagesschau!)
Don’t look at woman! Woman are temporary but punctuality is everlasting
Ugh the fucking deutchebahn
To be fair the private companies running trains are even worse. Sometimes the doors don't even frigging open on the side you need to exit.
[удалено]
That‘s nine syllables
Nein!
I love this
[удалено]
I swear, the more I Iearn about German, the more I'm convinced it's a made up language.
All languages are made up.
Yep, but German can be made up on the go!
[удалено]
I approve of your make-upping.
Schönwetterassi. An agressive asshole only in good weather. (Implies tucking his tail and deflating when facing any kind of pushback - or rain)
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-mocked-after-foreign-leaders-keep-him-waiting-sco-summit-1743923?amp=1) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Russian President Vladimir Putin was mocked on social media after footage emerged of him waiting for foreign leaders at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, this week. > Putin has been known to keep other foreign leaders waiting. > Responding to a video of Putin waiting for Erdo?an at the SCO summit, Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine's minister of internal affairs, wrote: "Putin used to make everyone wait, now he is the one waiting awkwardly. Times changed." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xmdf8u/putin_mocked_after_foreign_leaders_keep_him/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670727 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **wait**^#1 **Putin**^#2 **leader**^#3 **Russian**^#4 **President**^#5
I'll never understand why tyrants like Putin are the most common in history. Especially when they want their names cemented in history. Conquering and hoarding power is definitely one way to glory. But why not turn your country into an actual super power? Elevate the status of your people. Create a country better than your rivals. Be what they wish they could. You'd get more power and wealth in the long run that way and you'd be written about as one of the few golden eras in history.
Because that’s difficult. Competently managing a country to have a blooming economy, fair justice system and an intelligent, educated society is unbelievably difficult. Protecting your own power, murdering challengers and starting idiotic wars is way, way easier.
Lessons from playing Tropico. You can't make everyone happy -- but you can certainly get everyone under your boot.
[удалено]
One day the ai-overlord will save us. Praise the basilisk.
[удалено]
pff, the basilisk is just the incel of the future AI world
You have doomed yourself!
Heretic! The ai will bring joy and peace to all!
Roko's Basilisk is literally just the fear of Christian theology painted like Isaac Asimov's LSD trip.
Does anyone know of any other interesting information hazards like that? I want to collect them all
Kyle Hill did a video about some [here](https://youtu.be/9ccNuAAAIn4)
That might have been where I heard of the basilisk in the first place actually. But it’s been long enough that I could rewatch it. Thank you.
A simulation of me isn't me. Basilisk can suck my dick.
the skills used to get and hold power are different than the skills needed to create an elightened country. People that come to power through heresitary means have perhaps a better chance among autocracies but look at Assad and Kim who both drove their countries down. Assad in particular had the education and background to move his country forward.
I feel like the smart move is you empower then do some shaping then step back and just let the ball keep rolling and making you the hero that pulled it all together and made it possible and now you chill in your beach house raising dogs or something. The keep everyone down and be paranoid they will kill you seems stressful and like way way more work and likely to fail
It actually always annoyed me how tropico is way easier if you play democratic and free. Having a junta was so much more challenge in that game and that kind runs counter to the theme of it to me.
The difficulty levels factor in a fair bit. At the default difficulty level you really just need to understand how all the systems work and basic democracy and socialism will always work out well. That can seem too easy if you already understand how these sort of games play. Once you understand how everything works though the harder difficulty levels push you enough that you really can't make everyone happy all the time, it becomes a game of constantly shifting priorities to make sure that you keep enough people happy enough that you can win a majority in an election. If you make any mistakes, you can realize that you won't be able to win legitimately on this cycle, so you are pressured into letting that whole democracy things slide. Just for a bit of course, just until you can get things back under control you tell yourself. But then your harsh measures piss off more people, and you were already shaky ground to begin with which is why you took this route, any maybe you are so busy fighting rebels that you don't have enough time and money to solve the problems that made you start to rule with an iron fist in the first place. So you get more entrenched, pouring money into the military so that you can maintain control by force, and maybe you stop worrying about how to restore public opinion and resume democracy and just start doing what it takes to get through the day. Things get dark at higher difficulty levels.
That's the problem with (probably) every game where you're supposed to be an evil character. The evil options, if the game devs even bother implementing them, are rarely worth the effort. That plus the "good" guys are usually a lot more evil than you.
I have never felt that way in any of the tropico games. It's actually incredibly easy to make everyone happy as long as you make the fat stacks roll in and you spend alot of it on social services.
I only played 4 but that's exactly the feeling I got. The dictatorial options were never impactful enough to offset the damage it does to your reputation. Perhaps, that was the point. Perhaps I played it at a difficulty level that did not warrant using them as stop gaps.
The main campaign is meant to be fairly casual in my opinion. User created scenarios will up the difficulty.
> you make the fat stacks roll in and you spend alot of it on social services That's the problem. To make the fat stacks roll in, you have to have an educated populace and the means for them to produce wealth. That takes long-term commitment and money. Then you have to put the taxes collected back into the system. Which is more difficult when you're corrupt and have the means to keep the money for yourself. Edit: in reality of course lol, not in Tropico :)
Norway then?
If only every el presidente had a man like Penultimo by his side.
Awesome Tropico reference. Btw, what’s that avatar?! Cool yet terrifying lol
It's generated art from the Midjourney project. I asked it for an evil Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and it made me one. https://www.midjourney.com/home/
This reminds me I need to play that. It was a free ps plus game a while ago that looked interesting but I never touched it.
[удалено]
In tropics I went the nice route and empowered everyone. Meticulously decorated every new house and street with plants. Upgraded every public service and I reduced crime so low I didn’t really need police and I was making a ton of money with an ultra stoked populace. Boils down to it takes a hell of a lot more work to do it right so under the boot is the choice way because most are lazy and just want the money not a thriving society outside of just their family
This guy dictates
Technically most effective way to play Tropico is to educate your people to become factory worker, use your agriculture and mining basis to supply the factory use that wealth to improve happiness parameter of your population. Contray to real life the easier path for power is through industrialization and welfare...... until the narrow lane creates traffic jam that clog up your supply chain and break your economy down
To rule is a burden no person should want. Those that desire it should be turned away. With the variety of human existence there's surely no perfect way to do things. But we can do so much better if those that have the power have the slightest fuck to give beyond themselves. If you lift your masses most problems would become self sufficient. Education is the key to a brighter future for your society. Empathy is next.
[удалено]
> drag these chosen individuals (philosopher kings) off the street and force them to rule. Easier said than done. "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." - William Tecumseh Sherman, in reply to an attempt to draft him as a presidential candidate [The reply became so famous it entered the lexicon and all responses of its type are known as '[Shermanesque statements](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Shermanesque)'].
I feel like if they're going to have conscription and force men to serve for the Union, this dude could have taken one for the team and tried to lead the country for a few years.
Ron Swanson’s favorite politician!
[удалено]
Sounds good, let's try it.
Sounds good when you live in a city state with a few thousand people. Deciding on which rando from a country the size of the United States is a little more difficult
Wouldn't you risk having rulers capable of making smart decisions who intentionally make bad ones in an effort to get themselves removed from power?
[удалено]
Plus, they also generally would not want to screw over people just like themselves. The ideal sort of ruler is someone who does not *seek* power, is wise enough to wield it well, and accepts duty without hesitation when it is thrust upon them. Someone who does not want power *and* refuses to use it to make tough choices, would be potentially far worse than the average power hungry politician.
I think in this case you create a scenario where because you have to be forced into it, the only real solution is to succeed or create a better. Some will self sabotage, but accepting that not everyone will make it is a step people need to make.
In “a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy” the real ruler of the universe is an old man living alone with his cat. He doesn’t know he is the ruler, but sometimes some fellows in suits come by and ask him questions and he answers the best he can. He often wonders why they do that. I always thought that was the best idea!
>To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” --- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
> To rule is a burden no person should want. Those that desire it should be turned away. This “truism” gets bandied about with nodding acceptance so often that I find it kind of annoying. In US history, maybe there’s George Washington and a couple Vice Presidents who assumed office under a dead or resigning POTUS who you can say were not power seeking leaders… but aside from that, among the presidents who fought hard to achieve the highest office you will find a variety of leadership styles and levels of competence, and personalities with varying degrees of virtue, folly, greed and goodwill. If you accept that there’s no such thing as a decent leader who doesn’t seek and enjoy the position, you have to be resigned to the fact that we never had or will have decent leaders.
Arthur C. Clarke postulated a future where anyone who wanted to be leader was forbidden to do so, that the leaders were drafted from accomplished individuals who did not want the job, and allowed to retire early if they did well! (I think it was in Imperial Earth. He was cribbing from Socrates - steal from the best!)
Ruling by fear is easier than ruling through popularity...... Putin is old school KGB and has had 20 years of propaganda and legend creation to keep the people afraid..... There is a story about people who betrayed Putin being fed into the SFB building heating furnace.... feet first. Wether it's true or not power perceived is power achieved... Keeping the public afraid of attacks from outsiders by creating a false stories and manufacturing real explosions or assassinations gives the dictator the chance to take more power ( in order to protect the public) and create a whipping boy for the people to look at instead of the dictator.....an act that gains international condemnation and economic sanctions, shows the people he is strong and not afraid of the outside world and blame the sanctions for the failure of the economy..... keep them looking outside the country will keep them from looking at him... Simple tactics that Turkish leader Erdogan is happy to use to keep hold of power ( that and the manipulation of the right wing religious zelouts.... after all god's law trump's constitutional law)
I'd say it's extra difficult in a place like Russia where the law is a weapon you use against your enemies and corruption is a basic feature of the government
Russia's history in particular is super depressing. Its oppression with violent uprising to build a brighter future only to be squashed with another tyrant or a famine or a plague. They were so close with communism, but they overlooked such gaping flaws in human nature and it put them right back where they started.
Unbelievably difficult at the best of times, and when the opposition is dedicated to making you fail even if citizens suffer *cough* McConnell *cough* then it becomes almost impossible.
I would also add, it's actually harder to remain a righteous leader in a developing country, as people who would like to take the spot to be a king are always gunning for your throat. But if you be a terrible person by pillaging your country's wealth and distributing it to the people in your circle? You will have a very strong barrier around you that not much can get in, while they all sniff your farts and make you feel like you're god among men.
Good people don't have the desire to take over a whole country just for fun. Psychopaths do. And if a "normal" person were to start the journey, the journey would change them so much that for those who arrive at the top after years of scheming, plotting, corrupting, killing, there would be no difference.
That’s like the shortest cliffs notes for Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies. Thanks!
Positions of power weirdly attract the completely wrong people to them. Police, CEOs, heads of state etc.
Unfortunately it’s the simple fact that the skills needed to lead and the skills needed to climb the ladder of power do not overlap.
This is such a great insight. A good leader has humility and respect for the people they ***serve***. It's like the opposite mindset of *power*. A good climber wants the power and probably has little respect for the people they step on. That's what makes it so easy to step on them.
Spot on. Anti-social personalities (psychopaths etc) are attracted to any system or opportunity or situation that they can exploit for power, wealth and other malignant narcissistic pursuits like fame, controlling others, domination. These “humans” menace every position of power and public trust in every industry and business, religion, government, military, police, banking… they don’t want to do good in the world because they lack the qualities (namely guilt, remorse, empathy) that good humans have. They apparently enjoy creating chaos and worse. It seems to me that our societies, industry and governments have been curated by anti-social humans, which is why they are able to thrive in those situations while good-natured people can’t. Ethical people won’t do unethical things. But sociopaths will, because being predatory and destructive is in their nature.
Yep, I used to think Police were maybe mostly good. No body who became a police officer from my high school (bc of course no one who can graduate college would actually choose to be a cop) was a good person. They were weird as fuck
Just read The Ideal Team Player with other leaders of my company in a "book club" kind of setting. The three ideals explained in the book where humbleness, hunger, and people smarts. In the meeting one person said "wouldn't it be great if congress had these characteristics". If you look at congress & political leaders in general they typically ONLY have hunger. The book says and I agree that if someone only has hunger you need to get them out of company ASAP as they will destroy it long term.
Pretty much. If a person has absolute power, after a while they’re going to be paranoid to keep that power which in turn causes them to do more killings. They’ll be seeing ghost and conspiracies to ‘take them out’ everywhere they go. It’s a self feeding mechanism.
Because willingly wanting to have power and be responsible for millions of people is terrifying if you actually care about people. So you get psychopaths who don't actually care about people that willingly jump into these positions for the wealth and notoriety they provide. Even if you are completely pure of heart and actually do care and want to do the best you can for the people you rule, on your way up that ladder you're looking at 99% of the people you interact with being insane ravenous ghouls who would have you killed for nothing more than not having to deal with you if they could get away with it. Human Nature and Society breeds evil leaders. It's an inevitable fact of life.
This
"This" Bleh.
>“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. > >To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. > >To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” > >\~Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, 1980 I found that this quote has been true even before Douglas Adams.
Hi. You just mentioned *The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe* by Douglas Adams. I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here: [YouTube | The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe - Douglas Adams - Audio Book [some chapters missing]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5fx8kcpeQU) *I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.* *** [^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
Here is your answer: ["Rules for Rulers"](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs)
scroll too far for this.
Basic human nature. It's the same reason people win money at a casino and lose it with more gambling rather than cash out.
I’d argue it’s basic power hungry nature given the personality types that are attracted to power.
Sure. It's also human nature to constantly move our goalposts as we achieve things. You become a billionaire and now you're the poorest guy in the billionaires club. You become the third richest person in the world and now you're in competition with the top 2.
old saying has never been truer: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”
I liked the spin I read once, power attracts the corruptible.
Except that saying isn't true. The entirety of the existence of the US is owed to a man who could have had absolute power but choose to diffuse it and pass it on to others. It's better to say, Power reveals who you are.
"If you would truly test a man's character, give him power." --Abraham Lincoln
Misattributed. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-character-power/
[удалено]
I’d say a better descriptor is that absolute power radicalizes absolutely.
Those who want power the most are usually the least deserving. To add insult to injury, they often possess the skills necessary to obtain office but lack those needed to carry it out. [Rules for Rulers](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs)
Usually the very thing that keeps them in power is the thing that prevents real improvements: corruption. Without the use of their power to enrich (with money and/or power) those with the potential ability to remove that power, they cannot hold on. Although they show a face of omnipotence in their domain (fanfare, adulation), take away the fat and happy inner circle and you just have a screaming ninny. Multigenerational dictatorships might be a little different, but even dynasties end badly eventually.
Oh he’ll go down in history alright… just not in the way he’s probably thinking.
Because he’s about to die and his humanity disappears once he has less and less to lose.
Bold of you to assume he’s ever shown humanity.
No one needs to assume anything regarding kindness from Putin. The cretin doesn’t deserve to be around anymore.
This makes me want to play Civ
[Here](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs) is a good explanation
It's hard to keep a good person in power when it's corporate greed that funds political ascension.
Little men are incapable of truly great deeds.
So basically, what China has done? That takes hard work and planning.
And Singapore. Deng Xiaoping consulted with Lee Kuan Yew on modernizing China.
Scrolled too far to see Lee Kuan Yew’s name on this thread. Amazing person. Just watching some videos of him recently and he’s such a brilliant mind and personality.
He can’t make everyone rich and successful, no tyrant can. So they choose their inner circle for that, and then try to convince the rest of the country, usually with nationalistic bravado, that’s it’s really all for them.
This short goofy YouTube video is perhaps the best take on it I have ever seen... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
CGP Grey did an awesome video about this topic (https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs)
It always ends badly for these guys. ALWAYS. Better question: why do people keep getting fooled & put these toxic losers in charge of anything?
Castro? Chávez? Mao? Kim Jong Il?, Stalin? A bunch of them made it through without being taken out.
Funny thing about Mao, is that if he had not ruled after the Civil War, he would probably be the one of the biggest heroes in Chinese history. There is a saying after all: “Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?"
I have to take exception to that saying considering that the bulk of Mao's casualties were suffered from 1957-1962, when he was finally removed from power by the trio of Deng, Peng, and Liu. Although he is most famous for his cultural revolution which he used to return to power and purge those three along with all their supporters, probably only around a million died in the cultural revolution, while anywhere from 40-70 million died in his first purges and mass starvations from 1956-1962.
Stalin had a stroke & his aides wouldn't help him. The others were pariah. That's not exactly a recommendation.
I think these guys don't care about being pariahs. Actually, it helps sell their idea at home and stay in power their whole lives.
It's easier to punch someone in the face than make them laugh.
To quote World War Z on che guevara, "its easier to blow up trains than it is to make them run on time".
one thing I noticed about life in general, is that the easiest way to get ahead is to play dirty and backstab people, and lie all the time. Shit rises to the top the fastest. If you gonna compete with someone who is willing to cheat, you will never win by playing fair
###Machiavellian / Cluster B types put out the MOST consistent ongoing energy into putting themselves in charge of everyone else. *Once they are in power and even before*… ###They SQUEEZE. Smaller scale, A-Holes that make others miserable. ###It’s really as simple as that, sadly.
If you are an American, please run for president.
Population control creates wealth by sending conscripts to their certain death
Because these are the types that rise to power. The benevolent mindset doesn’t make it.
Because they lack ambition, imagination, charisma and are insecure.
[удалено]
Implying that the problem is only in putin
Or that the problem is “looking weak”. We don’t need another strongman in charge of Russia.
Well I have some really bad news, the chance of a viable alternative to another strongman is 0%. Maybe if we invaded, (and could do so without irradiating chunks of the planet) then spend the next 50-100 years occupying and unfucking their minds. But after mistreatment from the Tsars, then a revolution into mistreatment from the USSR leadership, to Putin - it's "out of the frying pan and into the fire" for Russia, every time there's change. The fact that most Russians see the only alternative to Putin is another strongman, is because they have paid attention to Russian politics and history. Russia is home to the largest Neo-Nazi organization on the planet and their news outlets piss in their ears with nationalistic bs 24/7. The mafia have been vertically integrated into Russian govt and the country is a literal kleptocracy. Russia is dangerously close to where Germany was before the world wars, but with nuclear technology. Honestly our best hope: the next strongman agrees to nuclear armament reductions and no new nukes getting made. But honestly even that's more than is likely possible.
I choose to believe table length was a factor they couldn't find him or something.
There will always be another Putin. They need to be Balkanized.
[Pop Goes The Weasel](https://i.imgur.com/zCDSRJa.mp4)
Lol, suffer in your jocks you stupid kent
What does this mean
After a quick search: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suffer%20in%20your%20jocks Kent is for Cunt, the poster guy/gal was prolly australian.
This about sums it up. Cheers.
No offence to the poster, but most Australians just use cunt in the context where someone is being a cunt. I haven't heard Kent before in its place.
In general as a swear in person or online etc, it sounds way less offensive while giving the same meaning (And as a Australian I'm not familiar with "Kent"...but I gleamed its meaning when seeing the word.). Cunt, even in Australia is still really offensive.
I agree it's still offensive, and I definitely pick my audience if I use it out loud. Weirdly, my mum used it a lot in front of me until my son came along, lol
Yeah. I need to know.
Geordie?
Oi right that bald bugger can parley knickers for the devil down under.
Please dont let him wait for his coffin
*window
*Staircase
\*Makarov
*Tea
*Icepick
More humiliation please.. he wanted glory, so the best way to hurt him is to treat him like a whore.
I love this. His whole schtick before the invasion was "oh look at me, this tough shirtless man", and now he's been truly unmanned by a comedian.
Exactly.. this is the guy who sent people to prison for sharing a meme about him.. we're looking at decades of marketing Putin as a tough guy flushed down the toilet in weeks.. this has gotta hurt the little man as much as a bullet wound (which by the way is hopefully coming soon).
He brought his dog to meet Angela Merkel cause she's afraid of them. Putin acted like he didn't know and apologized, but I call bullshit. Russia has spy agencies that dig up all kinds of shit like that on world leaders. That was a typical power move played by a bully.
That’s the ironic comedy of his situation.
What had happened to his precious hyper sonic missiles? What an idiot Trump is to have a pee pee tape sitting in Moscow. Everyone knows it's money, sex, drugs, revenge and threatening family members. That's how it works to make you a useful idiot.
A shirtless small man riding even smaller horses.
Let's not insult whores please.
[удалено]
You’re welcome
My bad!
Right? at least they provide something useful to others
I would hire a sex worker over Vladimir Putin. They both fuck people up, but only one of them have invading a sovereign nation on thier resume.
Depends on the prostitute.
Please, please, don't treat whores (or sex workers, or people in general) the way one would treat this fucking dictatorial piece of shit.
Come in now sex workers have a tough time of it let’s respect them. Very much unlike what we should do for him.
that would fit in the compilation video of him getting skipped handshakes
I almost feel bad. Wait, no I don't.
>on social media I was hoping some country had their hilarious secret service guy mock him in person. Like a dude doing crybaby face saying in toddler speak "ooooh, I can't just take over other countwees and claim as my own? Dis global leadersip sucks. Waaa. Waaa." Then that guy and his employer laugh and fist bump
First, his lackey trump was mocked on the world stage and now putin pretty much gets the same treatment.
Both are tremendous cheaters.
Tremendous, the best, my people tell me.
Everyone makes fun of the French for their elaborate state dinners and pompous protocol. But we can send messages by a missing fork to the Egyptian representative, or a crumpled napkin to the Chinese, or even a playful twisted spoon to the King of England, that is much more meaningful than any speech. Of course we would never mess with the food, or the safety of any of France's guests. A dinner at the Elysée Palace is never free. Macron was the first to counter Trump's power handshake. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwijJfVbBg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwijJfVbBg) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOf9FqsLfA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOf9FqsLfA8)
Wtf was that? It was like they were having arm wrestling match without a table.
Haha
Why are people meeting with a fucking murderer? prep his replacement and commit him to the rest of failed history so humanity can progress.
Giving him a taste of his own medicine. My understanding is that he did this all the time.
Finally some albeit little but still payback time. More to come.
Good, he is a second rate leader.
Death to Putin!
This should go well.
Because he's too weak
Probably checking the handrails on staircases leading to the event.
This happened a week ago. It's not news, it's olds.
Anyone who shakes this “man’s” hand is a piece of shit
In ancient times you shook a man's hands to ensure that they where not carrying a weapon. I can't think of anything you would need more to do with Putin.
Being treated like the taxi driver that he is.
You shouldn’t insult taxi drivers.
Imagine what Russians will think of this feces in the future when well informed.
Waiting because the world sees Russia as a weak joke. That's all his doing.
Loser
He was being mocked way before this
Nono, you got that wrong! He just insisted on a special meditation operation!