Official Thimbleweed Park Forums

WARNING: dangerous topic (politics!)


OK, but how many citizens really want to get rid of weapons?
If their were more than just a vague ambition, if they were absolutely determined to ban the weapons… there’s no way the lobbies could prevent them.


In Ace Attorney, trials last 3 days at max. We should learn from videogames! :slight_smile:


Yes I agree, if the majority wants that then it would eventually happen (democracy is still hanging). But the country is really split on that matter. I’m an outsider here in the US and I still can’t get around how beeping obsess are with guns.

Have you seen this? You can laugh and cry at the same time, it’s OK:


Incidentally, CDA was advocating more and longer prison sentences, which we know does not work. The VVD had a similar issue.

Wilders’ election program literally fit on an A4. It was preposterous.

There was this awful joke when I was in elementary school.

What’s English for “I love the truth”?

“I love the truth.”

Haha, you said “I love Dutroux!”

(No… not really. In full-on Dutch pronunciation that’s something closer to “I luf de troof”… but that aside. Also I could already say th like in the back then, just not like in breathe.)


Man, I had removed that horrible story.
I was told that story through the TV news, I was a child back then. I was scared to death.


To me, it’s inconceivable.


I would be better at lying to the EU about the deficit!


Anyway… probably our contrast seems more dramatical than it actually is.

In fact, I think the core idea is the non-obligatoriness and continuity of such treatments known as chemical castration.
I mean: if the person is capable of discernment, then he/she is able to undergo a psychological treatment (which instead has to be obligatory). Then if the person is able to understand that he/she has to respect the will of other people in society, and he/she is able to control his/her sexual urge, then he/she hasn’t the need for chemical drugs. If he/she understands that he/she is not able to control him/herself and wants to live in society, psychiatrists could propose him/her to take drugs. But he/she should decide.
But… No illusions. No drug will help people in their road to bring instincts to coscience (bring Es to Ego, in Freudian terms). Furthermore, those drugs cannot be taken for long periods of time without counter-effects. It’s the same for other conditions like depression.
On the other side, if the person is not capable of discernement, the idea of such chemical treatments is totally useless, since they cannoy return to society.


If I were in the position, I’d love to reduce the influence of lobbyists on politics. For a start, I’d mandate absolute transparency when it comes to dealings with lobbyists. Make meeting transcripts and all communication open for public scrutiny.

Other things on my agenda:

  • fairer distribution of wealth. Higher taxes on property (Germany abandoned its property tax altogether in 1997) and speculation, and decreased income and consumption taxes.
  • a re-evaluation of crimes and their respective punishment. It seems you’re better off murdering someone than “stealing” somebodies “intellectual property” (on which they do not even pay taxes).
  • reducing the scope and duration of patents, trademarks and copyrights.

Unfortunately, I guess even if the leader of any one country would even remotely try to work on some of those issues, as long as there are plenty of countries with better terms for corporations and the rich, the attempt would likely backfire. Honestly, I don’t think we’ll get corruption and inequality under control until we have a single world government. The EU is a pretty good start, in my book, even with all its flaws.


I would fully concur, were it not for

Though I also think that what you have been suggesting is leading us down a really slippery slope.

Definitely an issue. I guess the problem is that people get criminalized and thrown in jail for petty things at times, while retributions for severe offences aren’t severe enough.


Ok, i just read this, then I’ve read the PERFECT reply of @Gffp. Sorry, I couldn’t go on reading the debate about this. It isn’t worthy, in my opinion.

I mean: if we have to discuss politics, please let’s do that seriously. I don’t think any political leader would claim chemical castration seriously. They wouldn’t, if not to get votes from the sliming crowd. Maybe I’m too optimistic and naive, but I think such a law couldn’t pass in any country which has a strong tradition based on roman law and all its evolution.

After all, a prime minister can’t simply “make laws”. Luckily.

But, if the sense of Zak’s game is “you are a half-god who can decide laws and what is wrong and what is right, with no need of a congress to approve your ideas”, well… why not to dream big?

Why should I merely dream gruesome punishments for sex offenders when I can dream a society in which nobody is a sex offender? Why not starting with the basis? Changing culture, changing people’s mind? For too many people, in too many cultures, abusing women is simply normal. And even in western societies, there’s a lot of men who have a distorted idea of women, and they are not sex offenders only because they fear the consequences. But I don’t want this! I don’t want to have a society of frustrated potential offenders!

An exemplary punishment has an immediate, but ephemeral effect. So it’s perfect if you need votes.

But if you need to make a better world, you’ll need something more profound. Something that doesn’t show immediately its effect, but that can change things forever.

Probably we won’t benefit of this, but we must do it. Now. If we want at least our children (or maybe the children of our children) benefit from this.

Probably in one generation we can improve things about the condition of women.
We’ll need two or generations to change the trend in matter of pollution (if it isn’t too late)
We’ll need more to change things about radicalism, fascism, violence in general.

We all need to back to school. And it has to be a good shool. Because it seems obvious to me that that the school we all attended was badly, badly lacking.

Ok, time to play.

If I were the half-god who could decide Italy’s fate…

  1. I would disband the actual congress.
  2. I would make an electoral law that grants STABILITY, like in any normal country
  3. I would teach politics and civics at school. Really. And, in general, I’d invest a lot on our bad educational system.
  4. I would invest a lot in the fight of tax evasion
  5. I would make laws and formation about the fact that any person IS responsible of what they say, and not only of what they do. As I wrote somewhere, people must realize that “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean “freedom of offending”. I am very glad that somebody, in these days, is heavily learning the lesson, after writing on the net some shameful things about the President of the Italian Republic.


It doesn’t mean the right to insult or to slander, but freedom of speech does mean the right to offend. It doesn’t mean the right to say whatever you want free from consequences, but anything you say can be taken as offensive by someone.


I must give you an applause for this statement. :clap: :clap:


Stability in which areas? How might this stability be ensured?
(My Italian colleague has just given me an update on the current political situation in Italy :hushed: )


Yes, the impeachment accuse was silly and almost ridiculous. I’m happy that M5S in the end had the capability to understand that fault.

And in general, after some days of despair for our political situation, I’m happy for one thing.
That’s an important thing.
I think that what we call “populism” is a facile response to great problems that traditional parties, detaching from the “base” of people, didn’t address and try to solve seriously. For example: the issues of the euro currency. It’s almost from 2004 that great distortions with the introduction of this currency appeared here, affecting price levels, cost of life, spending power, saving capability and ultimately highly increasing social inequality.
All the traditional parties refused to confront with these issues, and to bring them in a serious political debate. Then those issues and related facile solutions started to ferment in the chat and rumor of people, and in populist movements. For years. Then I’m not impressed for the political turmoil of nowadays here, since it’s like an exploding clot.
I’ve tried to talk about those thing also in some messages here. But obviously my goal has never been to bring Italy out of the common currency, but to find ways to correct those issues, together with the other countries that have high negative effects. Refusing to confront seriously with the problem, almost denying it exists, it’s the greatest help we can offer to the “populist” way of behaving from political formations.


Actual situation in a nutshell (it looks like a soap opera):

Day 1

  • Salvini & Di Maio: “We are ready do make the government!”
  • President: “No, I don’t like HIM as Ministry of Economic Affairs!”
  • Salvini: “But I want HIM!”
  • President: “I said no.”
  • Salvini: “I said YES!”
  • President: “NO!”
  • Salvini: “I’m really angry.
  • President: “Since there is no government from you, I’ll make one.”
  • Di Maio: “Let’s impeach the President for high treason!”
  • Salvini: “Let’s vote again!”

Day 2

  • President: “Cottarelli, create a new government.”
  • Cottarelli: “I’m almost ready.”
  • Salvini & Di Maio: “We never vote such a government!”
  • Berlusconi: “neither do I”
  • Democratic Party: “We’ll vote it.”
    (three hours later…)
  • Democratic Party: “We won’t vote it!”
  • Salvini & Di Maio: “Let’s vote again! Oh, the date is July 29th…”
  • Di Maio: “It’s during summer, maybe we must reconsider this…”
  • Salvini: “Let’s vote anyway!”

Day 3

  • Di Maio: “Mr. President, may I propose you a solution? We can move HIM in another Ministry. Would you like my idea?”
  • President: “But… the impea…”
  • Di Maio: “Oh, that is all water under the bridge. Can we try to make our government again?”
  • Cottarelli: “Mr. President, I’m ready!”
  • President: “Please stand by.”
  • Cottarelli: :frowning:
  • Salvini: “I don’t like your idea, Di Maio, but I don’t close the door.”

Day 4 (today)

We are waiting for news.


Yes, that’s the euro currency problem I was talking about before. The proposed minister of Economic Affairs is an economist, professor and former secretary and officer of some of important italian economic institutions and private entities, Paolo Savona. He studied in detail in the last years the problems of the common currency in our country up to describing also a B-plan to leave the currency (as a safety plan). But in the hands of Salvini and Di Maio we couldn’t be sure on how they would have used that knowledge.


I don’t suppose Di Maio gave a proper apology, did he? In my view, he’s lucky that the President is still willing to have discussions with him.


I’ve never understood this general concept. How likely is it, really, that political parties will make big changes to their original manifestoes? Or that the general public will vote in a very different way to the first time?


Every day each party makes polls. And depending on the results, they make their public statements.
Currently, Salvini (Lega) consent is increasing constantly.


We don’t know, there is no public statement about this, but we suppose he did.