3 ms·
Was this intended to be a rebuttal? It's really just an unrelated tangent phrased in an misleading way.
by oldmanjay 11y ago
Was this intended to be a rebuttal? It's really just an unrelated tangent phrased in an misleading way.
- baghira 11y agoIt is a rebuttal to the implication that the possibility of the community electing some nefarious personality should be considered valid ground for denying said community any representation. By the same token a bunch of corporations should be denied one. I didn't interpret the post as call for reformed governance, unless you consider 1. Deny individual representation 2. ??? 3. Governance problems fixed! a plan (yeah, I'm being snarky, sorry).