4 ms·
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 kne
by 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 agoOk, 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.