Shark of Capitalism wrote:For example you may sign the petitions
Signing petitions won't do anything. Millions signed the petition opposing the EU's new copyright law, yet they passed it... and the EU is supposed to not only be democratic but the very model
of democracy for the world to emulate, unlike Russia, which doesn't even try to be democratic. Petitions rarely lead to action, and action rarely goes beyond sanctions, and sanctions are meaningless or even harmful. Russia, Iran and even North Korea are thriving in spite of (or because of
) all the sanctions, at least in part because the sanctions give them a justification for the nationalistic "us against them" mentality.
Shark of Capitalism wrote:Official language of Russian Federation should be French****.
If you consider France
a model for how linguistic policies should be handled, I have no words. France is one of the countries that have pulled off the most successful linguicides, and to this day continue to restrict the usage of languages other than French.
Shark of Capitalism wrote:turn every possible language into cyrillic!
I just want to point out that Cyrillic is just a writing system like any other, not some nefarious tool for Russification. Of course people, not only at the national level but much more importantly at the individual level, should be allowed to use any writing system they want; sometimes I like to write Finnish and Japanese in Cyrillic just for fun, but does that mean I support Russification? Absolutely not. Forcing people to use a writing system they don't want to use isn't much better than forcing people to use a language they don't want to use, and the former may well lead to the latter. No language or writing system should be banned.
I mean, I get the mindset that Cyrillic is dangerous; I used to have it myself back in the day. Hell, a couple of years ago I briefly thought that being able to read the Arabic script was going to somehow inevitably sooner or later make me sympathetic to radical Islamists, as if the script itself had menticidal properties, but obviously that didn't happen. I was simply extremely paranoid about Islamisation at the time, both for personal reasons and media fearmongering, and tried really hard to be a militant atheist (but that didn't work since I still believed in God and stuff, and of course my own inability to stop believing in God made me even more anti-religious), and while you may argue that because Russification is a more serious threat than Islamisation since the former is a threat even at its best while the latter is only a threat in its worst, it's not the same thing, I'd disagree because at the end of the day writing systems are just writing systems.
Most people may be blind sheep and rabid wolves, and maybe Sapir-Whorfism is the ultimate truth and people who grow up speaking one language may have radically different ways of thinking than the speakers of other languages, but that would only mean that multilingualism should be encouraged. The only imposition of languages should be that done on kids in the name of progress, and only if the new language doesn't replace the language of their parents... and the only exception to that is if the parents don't want their kids to learn their language for whatever reason, but society should encourage multilingualism and multiculturalism.
As for how society could move forward if human nature is to oppose change and to be selfish and hateful, the first step would be making sure that education is as good as it can be, and not good only in the sense that kids are taught about all the horrible things in the world and the atrocities of history but also good in the sense that it encourages them to be good people. For example, kids who make racist remarks in spite of being educated about the horrors of racism should be punished, and if their parents defended the kids' racism, the kids should be taken from the parents and adopted by non-racists. Children should have the right to be raised by people who have a positive influence on them.
Maybe you'll say "but that'd be a violation of the parents' human rights!" and you'd probably be right, but if someone wants to restrict the human rights of others in some way, then they should have no problem not having those rights (or equivalent rights) themselves: for example, if someone thinks homosexual relationships shouldn't be allowed, then they shouldn't have the right to have heterosexual relationships.
Maybe you'll say "but that's a dictatorship!" and you'd be right. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a progressive dictatorship than a conservative dictatorship, and a left-wing dictatorship rather than a right-wing dictatorship. I know Finland is never going to succumb to dictatorship again (without a new civil war, and a new civil war isn't going to happen) so for me it's all hypothetical, but I mean, even the worst left-wing dictatorship would at the very least be left-wing. The perfect society would be a multicultural melting pot where everyone is a progressive leftist and no form of discrimination exists, but human nature prevents that from ever becoming a reality. That's why it's called a utopia.
Maybe I'm just a privileged little shit who should be killed before he breeds (not that I ever will), who knows? Maybe peace and love aren't the way forward after all, maybe fascists are right, maybe God really does want people to kill each other over every little thing, blah blah blah, but if that's the case, then I don't want to be on the right side of history.