3 ms·

Why is "weak" a useful adjective?

by dalke 11y ago

Synaesthesia 11y ago
Let me be more precise, I think representative democracy is a weaker form of democracy than direct democracy, and less desirable. The amount of real democracy we have these days is virtually nil, as in say over the affairs of our daily lives.
- dalke 11y ago
  I don't think it's meaningful to use 'weaker' or 'pure' because it carries with it a moral dimension that says more about the speaker's views than the underlying social desirability or effectiveness. I do not know enough to give a meaningful view on nuances of different forms of democratic governance. I will point out that much of the affairs of our daily lives take place in command hierarchical, aka, the workplace. The pressure (from corporate media and rich people) is often to run government more like a business. It should be to run a business like a democracy.
  - Synaesthesia 11y ago
    I don't think it was the wrong adjective, my statement was maybe with too little context, but I think "weak" is correct. Perhaps meaningful democracy would be a better choice. I agree absolutely with you on the workplace, more people should start realizing that.
    - dalke 11y ago
      Yes, I think you think 'weak' is correct. Now tell a lower-r republican that their political system is weak and not meaningful, and see if the response is a knee-jerk reaction to the term 'weak' or a more thoughtful inquiry on how it might be improved. "Weak" is also a broad term. Even if you come in with the terms first, you shouldn't use definitions that can easily be transformed to mean the opposite. Many people do not think that a direct democracy can scale beyond a few thousand people. They may therefore say that direct democracy is "weak", because of that failing, and that it's "meaningless" for a large country like the US.
      - Synaesthesia 11y ago
        Ok, point taken. It depends on context, if people are in the mood for constructive discussion in the first place. What's interesting is that Lincoln and the Republican Party in the 19th century fought to democratize industry, they condemned wage labour as wage slavery.
        dalke 11y ago
        "if people are in the mood for constructive discussion in the first place" Partially, yes. But even if they are in the mood, an antagonistic first comment can change the mood. Calling a preferred form of government "weak" can easily be seen as antagonistic, and it sets up the initial discussion to be about the correct term, rather than what you want it to be.

Why is "weak" a useful adjective?

by dalke 11y ago

Why is "weak" a useful adjective?

Let me be more precise, I think representative democracy is a weaker form of democracy than direct democracy, and less desirable. The amount of real democracy we have these days is virtually nil, as in say over the affairs of our daily lives.

dalke 11y ago
I don't think it's meaningful to use 'weaker' or 'pure' because it carries with it a moral dimension that says more about the speaker's views than the underlying social desirability or effectiveness. I do not know enough to give a meaningful view on nuances of different forms of democratic governance. I will point out that much of the affairs of our daily lives take place in command hierarchical, aka, the workplace. The pressure (from corporate media and rich people) is often to run government more like a business. It should be to run a business like a democracy.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  I don't think it was the wrong adjective, my statement was maybe with too little context, but I think "weak" is correct. Perhaps meaningful democracy would be a better choice. I agree absolutely with you on the workplace, more people should start realizing that.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Yes, I think you think 'weak' is correct. Now tell a lower-r republican that their political system is weak and not meaningful, and see if the response is a knee-jerk reaction to the term 'weak' or a more thoughtful inquiry on how it might be improved. "Weak" is also a broad term. Even if you come in with the terms first, you shouldn't use definitions that can easily be transformed to mean the opposite. Many people do not think that a direct democracy can scale beyond a few thousand people. They may therefore say that direct democracy is "weak", because of that failing, and that it's "meaningless" for a large country like the US.
    - Synaesthesia 11y ago
      Ok, point taken. It depends on context, if people are in the mood for constructive discussion in the first place. What's interesting is that Lincoln and the Republican Party in the 19th century fought to democratize industry, they condemned wage labour as wage slavery.
      - dalke 11y ago
        "if people are in the mood for constructive discussion in the first place" Partially, yes. But even if they are in the mood, an antagonistic first comment can change the mood. Calling a preferred form of government "weak" can easily be seen as antagonistic, and it sets up the initial discussion to be about the correct term, rather than what you want it to be.