Cliches you can't stand

[Comrade Future]

You do not see anything wrong in going "they look like a slut" at a random woman they have never met?
Like, i would consider that pretty, shitty, behaviour no matter what the woman is wearing.

Click to shrink...

In fact, I have a rule - never use in relation to a woman words that begin with "S, B, and W" and their counterparts in other languages (except when I quote the text or sing someone else's song - but this applies to all foul language). I decided to skip this point because I thought it sounded weird, and moved on to my second thought... However, given the circumstances, I was wrong.

 

[spiritualatheist]

I can't stand it when an author starts going on about how women are inscrutable and unknowable, it's misogynistic bullshit. Similarly, I absolutely despise performative furry hate. It's not fucking funny, and it never was.

 

[Comrade Future]

I can't stand it when an author starts going on about how women are inscrutable and unknowable, it's misogynistic bullshit.

Click to shrink...

To make matters worse, this phrase usually means capitulation in an attempt to establish communication between the sexes. In principle, there are still specific differences in social life, but you should at least ask and listen carefully! By Jove - Divorces were less common if people just discussed their problems and needs.

 

[Valmond]

"I'm a field agent, not a paper pusher"
This idea that people going out and "doing things" are more important than people in administrative positions.
It would not be such a problem if it was treated as one individuals personal opinion (and yes, some people are not suited for paperwork), but it more often than not seems to come of as the narrative agreeing and treating anykind of bureaucracy as a hindrance at best, if not an outright punishment, and anyone who does the paperwork as being useless outside of being a fact/gear vending machine for the actual heroes.

 

[Mandemon]

I would expand that to in fiction there being general "why do we need oversight and paperwork when we can just do things and worry about consequences later".

You rarely, if ever, see any bureaucrat presented in good light unless they are willing to break the rules. You are lucky if you even get a neutral potrayal.

 

[Comrade Future]

You rarely, if ever, see any bureaucrat presented in good light unless they are willing to break the rules. You are lucky if you even get a neutral potrayal.

Click to shrink...

Well, actually we are talking about a social group, because of which my parents' country turned into a set of states at war with each other.

But seriously, I don't know anyone who would love bureaucracy. Marx didn't like bureaucrats, Ayn Rand didn't like bureaucrats...only in Soviet films of the thirties they are portrayed positively - and then for every positive party secretary there are two or three stupid or corrupt directors. Even bureaucrats don't like their jobs.

 

[Uncle]

I think part of the reason for disdain for so called paper pushers is that often in real life these are the people who make the major decisions for an organization and it's not uncommon for them to make decisions that negatively affect those "in the field" without the experience in that field or consulting those people. So, those attitudes end up translating into fiction.

Not to say that the disdain is always justified, or that behind-the-scenes work isn't important, just that I think there's a bit of nuance there. It may also be that audiences tend to view occupations in the field as more engaging than those that aren't. I don't think it's a coincidence that 90% of all military fiction focuses on those doing the fighting, particularly the infantryman, rather than the mechanic who has to keep the supply trucks in working order.

 

[Valmond]

I challenge you to run anykind of large organization without bureaucracy.
Paperwork is how we organize, well, everything.

 

[Comrade Future]

rather than the mechanic who has to keep the supply trucks in working order

Click to shrink...

To be fair, it's not uncommon for a mechanic to become an attention-grabbing secondary character - like a witty friend, or a pretty girl who is sociable in communication. And in the end, it is the mechanics who make all these cool things.

I challenge you to run anykind of large organization without bureaucracy.
Paperwork is how we organize, well, everything.

Click to shrink...

However, it does not negate the fact that a legitimate complaint may be rejected due to an incorrectly executed signature, or get stuck at the second and third instances (when there are only five of them). The growth of the bureaucratic stratum leads to an increase in corruption and a slowdown in the work of public regulation mechanisms.
Therefore, following Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin, I believe that bureaucracy should be abolished.

 

[DestinyPlayer]

However, it does not negate the fact that a legitimate complaint may be rejected due to an incorrectly executed signature, or get stuck at the second and third instances (when there are only five of them). The growth of the bureaucratic stratum leads to an increase in corruption and a slowdown in the work of public regulation mechanisms.

Click to shrink...

The problem is that removing bureaucracy would, in fact, increase corruption, not decrease it. The slowdown is arguably one of the primary purposes of bureaucracy, as it helps actually catch people engaging in corruption, along with preventing mistakes, like an innocent person getting convicted.

 

[Vyslanté]

If there's a specific rule for something, it's because some wise-ass previously tried to do without, and that failed.

 

[Comrade Future]

The problem is that removing bureaucracy would, in fact, increase corruption, not decrease it. The slowdown is arguably one of the primary purposes of bureaucracy, as it helps actually catch people engaging in corruption, along with preventing mistakes, like an innocent person getting convicted.

Click to shrink...

However, in a communist society there will be neither private property nor money. Thus the revolution will open the way to a world without bureaucrats and corruption.

 

[DestinyPlayer]

However, in a communist society there will be neither private property nor money. Thus the revolution will open the way to a world without bureaucrats and corruption.

Click to shrink...

It won't, because private property and money aren't the only things that you can be corrupt with. Far from it, in fact.

At the core, corruption is an issue with people, not material wealth. Blackmailing someone to do something for you is corruption.

 

[Valmond]

However, it does not negate the fact that a legitimate complaint may be rejected due to an incorrectly executed signature, or get stuck at the second and third instances (when there are only five of them). The growth of the bureaucratic stratum leads to an increase in corruption and a slowdown in the work of public regulation mechanisms.
Therefore, following Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin, I believe that bureaucracy should be abolished.

Click to shrink...

Do you enjoy running water and electricity? Then you are not getting rid of bureaucracy.

Corrupt bureaucrat is not some weird outcome of bureaucracy, it is a problem of people, and of insufficient oversight.
One of the most common examples of disdain towards paper pushers tends to come from cop dramas, yet somehow while outcrying corrupt or inefficient paper pushers, they consistently fail to talk about the rampant abuse by the people going out and getting things done.

However, in a communist society there will be neither private property nor money. Thus the revolution will open the way to a world without bureaucrats and corruption.

Click to shrink...

Or phones or road networks.
Assuming your wish of getting rid of bureaucracies comes to pass.

 

[Mandemon]

But seriously, I don't know anyone who would love bureaucracy. Marx didn't like bureaucrats, Ayn Rand didn't like bureaucrats...only in Soviet films of the thirties they are portrayed positively - and then for every positive party secretary there are two or three stupid or corrupt directors. Even bureaucrats don't like their jobs.

Click to shrink...

Nobody likes them.

But nobody likes rules either and yet we need those to make sure stuff runs. Just because Marx or Ayn Rand didn't like them doesn't mean they are somehow unneeded

 

[Kadmus]

I'm honestly perplexed by the idea people don't like bureaucracy? I love it! I love being able to buy food from a shop and knowing that it has minimum safety guarantees baked in. I love being able to know that my medicine is strictly controlled and that it should actually contain the things it says it does. I love knowing that people have to be qualified to do all sorts of things that could easily kill me or others.

None of that happens without bureaucracy.

 

[Comrade Future]

At the core, corruption is an issue with people, not material wealth. Blackmailing someone to do something for you is corruption.

Click to shrink...

If there is no inequality, there will be no corruption - there will be no means by which the rich and privileged can bribe the right people. Exactly the same as there will be no need to sell.

Or phones or road networks.
Assuming your wish of getting rid of bureaucracies comes to pass.

Click to shrink...

First, we have computers. They are more accurate and accurate than people, and there is just enough reason for optimism. In addition, Lenin put forward the third condition for preparing for the liquidation of professional officials - not only election and turnover, but also the redistribution of the functions of accounting and control between all participants in production. If everyone were "temporary bureaucrats", then there would be no need for a bloated and clumsy bureaucracy.

Nobody likes them.
But nobody likes rules either and yet we need those to make sure stuff runs. Just because Marks or Ayn Rand didn't like them doesn't mean they are somehow unneeded

Click to shrink...

I meant that all representatives of political movements and all social strata - the bureaucratic layer creates problems. This is obvious to fascists, and communists, and liberals.
The need to perform managerial tasks does not remove the main problem of bureaucrats - parasitism. Moreover, the greater the size and influence of the bureaucracy, the more privileges (de facto or even de jure) the bureaucracy appropriates for itself, that is, the more parasitic it becomes. This is a general rule that applies to any bureaucracy in general - from the moment of the emergence of bureaucracy as a social phenomenon. John Wilson, for example, reveals exactly the same picture in such an archaic society as the ancient Egyptian: "... positions multiply, far beyond personal accountability, the goal is sinecure, providing potentially high incomes."

I meant that all representatives of political movements and all social strata - the bureaucratic layer creates problems. This is obvious to fascists, and communists, and liberals.
The need to perform managerial tasks does not remove the main problem of bureaucrats - parasitism. Moreover, the greater the size and influence of the bureaucracy, the more privileges (de facto or even de jure) the bureaucracy appropriates for itself, that is, the more parasitic it becomes. This is a general rule that applies to any bureaucracy in general - from the moment of the emergence of bureaucracy as a social phenomenon. John Wilson, for example, reveals exactly the same picture in such an archaic society as the ancient Egyptian: "... positions multiply, far beyond personal accountability, the goal is sinecure, providing potentially high incomes." It is even economically unprofitable - Ernst Mendel noted that it contradicts the principle of "increasing income and reducing expenses", because constant growth is accompanied by an increase in costs. After all, nothing better characterizes bureaucrats than this quote:

The person at the base of the pyramid believes that the people at the top know better. But they are terribly busy and believe that the issue is carefully studied in the lower echelons - there people have time for this.

Click to shrink...

 

[Hykal94]

When the Romans conquered Ptolemy Egypt, they already had an extensive bureaucracy. So much so, Egypt kept their tetradrachma instead of switching to what they're used to. When the Rashidun conquered Sassanid Persia and Byzantine Egypt, they also kept the bureaucracy because the Rashidun government was mostly kept to Arabia, and you don't change what isn't broken. When the Mongols ... you get the idea.

First, we have computers. They are more accurate and accurate than people, and there is just enough reason for optimism.

Click to shrink...

We can't have computers without bureaucracy. We can't have WiFi or the Internet, we can't have people who mine the minerals, electricians to set up power lines, drivers to haul the products, repair people to fix broken machines, software engineers to create programs, management to run said jobs, and so on and so forth.

I'mma be real with you, Comrade, you sound like the communists Disco Elysium makes fun of. And that game was made by communists!

 

[DestinyPlayer]

If there is no inequality, there will be no corruption - there will be no means by which the rich and privileged can bribe the right people. Exactly the same as there will be no need to sell.

Click to shrink...

You underestimate how many opportunities and reasons for corruption there are even without material wealth in question.

"I want that man's wife" is one of the primary causes of corruption, after all. And "I know that that man wants my wife" is a very good source of blackmail.

 

[Scooby Doo]

You underestimate how many opportunities and reasons for corruption there are even without material wealth in question.

"I want that man's wife" is one of the primary causes of corruption, after all. And "I know that that man wants my wife" is a very good source of blackmail.

Click to shrink...

Heeeey I see you commission art, sorry to interrupt but was wondering if you could draw Destiny Cabal?

 

[Valmond]

First, we have computers. They are more accurate and accurate than people, and there is just enough reason for optimism. In addition, Lenin put forward the third condition for preparing for the liquidation of professional officials - not only election and turnover, but also the redistribution of the functions of accounting and control between all participants in production. If everyone were "temporary bureaucrats", then there would be no need for a bloated and clumsy bureaucracy.

Click to shrink...

Are you imagining some sort of super AI who rules society?
Because
A: that's just a bureaucracy of one.
and
B: Who gets to program the super AI?

Also, do you really think every person can just slot themselves into the role of an accountant and/or procurement officer whenever?
Logistics is a thing that requires actual training and experience once stuff gets more difficult than a mom and pop shops.

 

[DestinyPlayer]

Heeeey I see you commission art, sorry to interrupt but was wondering if you could draw Destiny Cabal?

Click to shrink...

Alas, if you look into the thread where I share things, my primary artform is... not well suited to straight out drawing.

I can still try but you can see where the issue lies.

Also it's offtopic so please, continue in DMs with this inquiry.

 

[Comrade Future]

None of that happens without bureaucracy.

Click to shrink...

I work in a store - and believe me, there are too late and defective products. At the same time, I was still lucky - we can quickly sort it out, and as a result, about ten expired goods can be put on in a day. In others from the same network, they look for a delay when the workers have nothing to do - because it will be in any case.

Are you imagining some sort of super AI who rules society?
Because
A: that's just a bureaucracy of one.
and
B: Who gets to program the super AI?

Also, do you really think every person can just slot themselves into the role of an accountant and/or procurement officer whenever?
Logistics is a thing that requires actual training and experience once stuff gets more difficult than a mom and pop shops.

Click to shrink...

Only the top of the bureaucratic society does little of this. The main functions fall on the lower layers, which for this are recouped on all those who do not belong to the bureaucratic hierarchy. In the end, Parkinson noticed that the bureaucracy inevitably requires its own increase, and at the same time red tape grows. So, no matter how it would be necessary to conduct management, some other system is needed, because the bureaucratic one gives rise to an increase in incompetence and red tape.

"I want that man's wife" is one of the primary causes of corruption, after all. And "I know that that man wants my wife" is a very good source of blackmail.

Click to shrink...

Probably an unsuccessful example - because it is all a product of the socio-economic structure. That is, at an early stage (when there is actually no institution of property) there are various models such as group marriage, the upbringing of children is shifted to all members of society, and in general this is not such a big deal. Then we move on to agriculture, when a woman becomes an agricultural worker, and later she is engaged in home improvement, land ownership is formed, inheritance arises, and the need to keep property in the hands of tribal groups. That is, the evolution of property gave rise to a pair marriage, which became monogamous with the final formation of a class society - which means that the desire to get someone else's wife is actually a desire to get someone else's cow or land. Not to mention that in some cases harems are possible, and this is already a matter of status.

 

[DestinyPlayer]

Probably an unsuccessful example - because it is all a product of the socio-economic structure. That is, at an early stage (when there is actually no institution of property) there are various models such as group marriage, the upbringing of children is shifted to all members of society, and in general this is not such a big deal. Then we move on to agriculture, when a woman becomes an agricultural worker, and later she is engaged in home improvement, land ownership is formed, inheritance arises, and the need to keep property in the hands of tribal groups. That is, the evolution of property gave rise to a pair marriage, which became monogamous with the final formation of a class society - which means that the desire to get someone else's wife is actually a desire to get someone else's cow or land. Not to mention that in some cases harems are possible, and this is already a matter of status.

Click to shrink...

All this shows is that you do no truly understand what actually goes on in the head of someone who desires someone's spouse. It isn't even close to being this straightforward and logical.

 

[Comrade Future]

All this shows is that you do no truly understand what actually goes on in the head of someone who desires someone's spouse.

Click to shrink...

In any case, modern marriage is a product of a specific socio-economic formation. And I don't understand what you're getting at.
If there is no need to build a line of inheritance, then this is a purely personal issue - which the parties to the conflict can discuss.