4 ms·

I think you completely missed the point. Which was that while democracy is the best system we have, most implementations are crap. Remember that on paper even c

I think you completely missed the point. Which was that while democracy is the best system we have, most implementations are crap. Remember that on paper even communism sounds good. Although while hotly debating the Brexit topic with whataboutism you just made my point without realizing. Not only are most people easily manipulated into believing they want something when they actually need something else or their votes are simply bought with "trinkets", sometimes they are also not even being offered those trinkets in the end. Their vote is worth nothing the second they cast it. You're focusing too much on Brexit, it was just an example. Politicians fooled people into thinking they vote for (among others) more money to the NHS only to turn around right after the vote and say "that's not happening". The vote was heavily based on misdirection and manipulation. All perfectly democratic but without actually giving any power to the people. What happens after a promise is broken? Nothing. Somewhere else in the world people might be told that "I'm sure education is important but the war against terror...". So they vote for the war without even realizing that they're losing twice: they have to fight a war and miss out on education. Again, perfectly democratic. Democracy as it stands now is actually the business of selling promises. If you vote for a promise that's never fulfilled what exactly is your power other than to try again?

coldtea 8y ago
>Remember that on paper even communism sounds good. Although while hotly debating the Brexit topic with whataboutism you just made my point without realizing. Sorry, but I consider accusations of whataboutism an easy cop-out from the duty to put things in perspective. It's predominantly one-sided too, those accusing people of bringing up Y in a critique of X seldom or never critique Y. But even if they did, both critiques would be bogus without whataboutism anyway. Things can only make sense and can be understood in comparison, not in some abstract pure critique that ignores what happens in parallel and what the alternatives were. But I digress. Let's get back to the comment. >You're focusing too much on Brexit, it was just an example. Politicians fooled people into thinking they vote for (among others) more money to the NHS only to turn around right after the vote and say "that's not happening". The vote was heavily based on misdirection and manipulation. All perfectly democratic but without actually giving any power to the people. What happens after a promise is broken? Nothing. Sure. But that's neither here not there -- that's a common with politics. I'm focusing on Brexit because it's the perfect example of this contempt for democracy (and the "unwashed masses") when it involves a choice the 10% doesn't like. As if one choice or the other was objectively good and the other objectively bad -- which misunderstands and diminishes the role of democracy to always choosing the objectively good. Instead, democracy is about balancing opposing interests, as individuals see them. Saying that those that voted opposite to what one would want are "voting against their interests" etc, is putting one's position above politics, and into the realm of inherently good. That's not democracy, that's TINA. >Democracy as it stands now is actually the business of selling promises. If you vote for a promise that's never fulfilled what exactly is your power other than to try again? Mass protests? Mass participation to party meetings and conferences? Grassroots emergence of new candidates? All of those have been tried with various degrees of success (including toppling governments). Not all of them are guaranteed to work all the time of course, but that's life. It's all up to the vigilance of the citizenry (or lack thereof).
- close04 8y ago
  > Sorry, but I consider accusations of whataboutism an easy cop-out from the duty to put things in perspective Well, that may be your duty, to be "the defender" regardless of the topic. But from my perspective not only is it one of the most useless techniques if you want to contradict someone, it's also irrelevant to the discussion. Which was about democracy in general, with a particular example of Brexit. Telling me others (FR, IT, DE) do the same presumably to make the UK (or the people) look... less bad is a pathetic way to provide an excuse for Brexit. An excuse that nobody asked for. I don't care whether it'll turn out well as long as I could prove "democracy" meant people getting tricked with false promises. A point you don't really want to address I see. You also just manage to strengthen my point with it: democracy may be the best thing we have but it's still so fragile and screaming to be manipulated that in real life most implementations only give the impression that you as "the people" have any power.

coldtea 8y ago

>Remember that on paper even communism sounds good. Although while hotly debating the Brexit topic with whataboutism you just made my point without realizing. Sorry, but I consider accusations of whataboutism an easy cop-out from the duty to put things in perspective. It's predominantly one-sided too, those accusing people of bringing up Y in a critique of X seldom or never critique Y. But even if they did, both critiques would be bogus without whataboutism anyway. Things can only make sense and can be understood in comparison, not in some abstract pure critique that ignores what happens in parallel and what the alternatives were. But I digress. Let's get back to the comment. >You're focusing too much on Brexit, it was just an example. Politicians fooled people into thinking they vote for (among others) more money to the NHS only to turn around right after the vote and say "that's not happening". The vote was heavily based on misdirection and manipulation. All perfectly democratic but without actually giving any power to the people. What happens after a promise is broken? Nothing. Sure. But that's neither here not there -- that's a common with politics. I'm focusing on Brexit because it's the perfect example of this contempt for democracy (and the "unwashed masses") when it involves a choice the 10% doesn't like. As if one choice or the other was objectively good and the other objectively bad -- which misunderstands and diminishes the role of democracy to always choosing the objectively good. Instead, democracy is about balancing opposing interests, as individuals see them. Saying that those that voted opposite to what one would want are "voting against their interests" etc, is putting one's position above politics, and into the realm of inherently good. That's not democracy, that's TINA. >Democracy as it stands now is actually the business of selling promises. If you vote for a promise that's never fulfilled what exactly is your power other than to try again? Mass protests? Mass participation to party meetings and conferences? Grassroots emergence of new candidates? All of those have been tried with various degrees of success (including toppling governments). Not all of them are guaranteed to work all the time of course, but that's life. It's all up to the vigilance of the citizenry (or lack thereof).

close04 8y ago
> Sorry, but I consider accusations of whataboutism an easy cop-out from the duty to put things in perspective Well, that may be your duty, to be "the defender" regardless of the topic. But from my perspective not only is it one of the most useless techniques if you want to contradict someone, it's also irrelevant to the discussion. Which was about democracy in general, with a particular example of Brexit. Telling me others (FR, IT, DE) do the same presumably to make the UK (or the people) look... less bad is a pathetic way to provide an excuse for Brexit. An excuse that nobody asked for. I don't care whether it'll turn out well as long as I could prove "democracy" meant people getting tricked with false promises. A point you don't really want to address I see. You also just manage to strengthen my point with it: democracy may be the best thing we have but it's still so fragile and screaming to be manipulated that in real life most implementations only give the impression that you as "the people" have any power.