5 ms·

Education and intelligence don’t imply any particular insight into our motivations or feelings. It’s also true that an education focused on programming and tech

Education and intelligence don’t imply any particular insight into our motivations or feelings. It’s also true that an education focused on programming and tech in general is an extremely limited focus unrelated to politics. Then there’s just the reality that people understand on some level that “undemocrstic” is more emotive than “I don’t like this outcome and wish it hadn’t happened.” Finally a lot of people seem to hav a very warped idea about how the systems they live in really work, and when they find themselves on the wrong side of that system they assume the system isn’t working as intended. Now I hate this new law, I think it needs to die, but I recognize that a democratic process created it. I also recognize that “democratic process” includes cronyism, special interests, ignorant and venal politicians, and the rule of a minority of powerful people. What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. In short, people here should be given a free copy of The Dictator’s Handbook when they sign up, and s quiz on the contents before they’re allowed to comment on political threads.

anoncake 8y ago
Democracy is rule of the people. If the democratic process leads to the rule of a minority of powerful people, isnt it valid to say its actually undemocratic, or at least insufficiently democratic?
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  >What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. Again, this is where you’re running into problems. You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. The DPRK has “democratic” in the name, but so what? Even in less blatant departures from the spirit of the thing, democracy in practice takes many forms. No one (I hope) thinks they live in an Athenian democracy, so what kind of democracy are we talking about? Usually it’s a buzzword interchangeable with “free society” which is another buzzword. For example, the U.S. styles itself as the world’s leading democracy, but that’s branding again. In reality it is nominally a federated system of indirect representative republics. The U.K. also considers itself a leading democracy, but in practice we’re a constitutional monarchy where power mostly rests in a parliamentary system and civil service. In short, talking only in terms of buzzwords means that we can project whatever desires we want on “democracy” or “freedom” when the reality is complex.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. I have no idea how you got that idea considering I just wrote that the systems we call democracies may not be all that democratic in reality.
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      That’s not what I’m saying. Rather it’s a problem that “democratic” is largely an unhelpful term which obscures rather than reveals anything about a political system.
      - anoncake 8y ago
        Only if you choose to ignore its actual meaning and insist on treating it as a buzzword.
        Pharmakon 8y ago
        You’re going in circles here. You define democracy in nebulous terms that have little or no bearing on any self-styled democracy since Ancient Greece. If that’s your standard for democracy, then of course the whole world falls short and this ceases to be an interesting or productive discussion for exactly the reasons I raised in my original post. Beyond giving a demonstration of just what I’ve come to expect and dread from political “discourse” here, is there anything else you’re going for? If this boils down to Europe not being your idea of democratic now, and for the entirety of its history, then you’re making no point at all.
        anoncake 8y ago
        Apparently your idea discourse is making up stuff that I never wrote. This is indeed pointless.

anoncake 8y ago

Democracy is rule of the people. If the democratic process leads to the rule of a minority of powerful people, isnt it valid to say its actually undemocratic, or at least insufficiently democratic?

Pharmakon 8y ago
>What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. Again, this is where you’re running into problems. You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. The DPRK has “democratic” in the name, but so what? Even in less blatant departures from the spirit of the thing, democracy in practice takes many forms. No one (I hope) thinks they live in an Athenian democracy, so what kind of democracy are we talking about? Usually it’s a buzzword interchangeable with “free society” which is another buzzword. For example, the U.S. styles itself as the world’s leading democracy, but that’s branding again. In reality it is nominally a federated system of indirect representative republics. The U.K. also considers itself a leading democracy, but in practice we’re a constitutional monarchy where power mostly rests in a parliamentary system and civil service. In short, talking only in terms of buzzwords means that we can project whatever desires we want on “democracy” or “freedom” when the reality is complex.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. I have no idea how you got that idea considering I just wrote that the systems we call democracies may not be all that democratic in reality.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    That’s not what I’m saying. Rather it’s a problem that “democratic” is largely an unhelpful term which obscures rather than reveals anything about a political system.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      Only if you choose to ignore its actual meaning and insist on treating it as a buzzword.
      - Pharmakon 8y ago
        You’re going in circles here. You define democracy in nebulous terms that have little or no bearing on any self-styled democracy since Ancient Greece. If that’s your standard for democracy, then of course the whole world falls short and this ceases to be an interesting or productive discussion for exactly the reasons I raised in my original post. Beyond giving a demonstration of just what I’ve come to expect and dread from political “discourse” here, is there anything else you’re going for? If this boils down to Europe not being your idea of democratic now, and for the entirety of its history, then you’re making no point at all.
        anoncake 8y ago
        Apparently your idea discourse is making up stuff that I never wrote. This is indeed pointless.