4 ms·

It's a good thing, when a republic is constructed so that a minority still has a voice. One might perceive them as the "wrong" minority today, in the current co

It's a good thing, when a republic is constructed so that a minority still has a voice. One might perceive them as the "wrong" minority today, in the current context. In the future, they might well be the "correct" minority. (That said, I think Sweden of all places in the west, have had the best, most sane reaction to the pandemic.)

Mc_Big_G 6y ago
What minority are you even talking about?
- stcredzero 6y ago
  What minority are you even talking about Any of them. Some of them, I'm in. Some of them, I'll never be in. The principle is universal: A just society protects the minority. Any of them.
  - losteric 6y ago
    Any of them? Including groups that want to oppress others?
    - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
      "Protects" is not equivalent to "grants the political wishes of". For example, people who want to abolish free speech still have the right to argue for the abolition of free speech.
    - stcredzero 6y ago
      Including groups that want to oppress others? Of course. Rights have to be universal, even for people with such desires. Otherwise, whomever has the power to adjudge what others are "actually" thinking have the power to remove people's human rights. The dynamics where accusation is enough, guilt is assumed, and no proof is needed are often abused to have power over others. If there was ever a time when this should be obvious, it is 2020, present day. In fact, all of the above is the whole point of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.
  - sundaeofshock 6y ago
    It’s one thing to protect the minority from the majority; it’s another to allow the minority to constantly overrule the majority. At some point the US will come apart because of our current political dynamics.
    - stcredzero 6y ago
      it’s another to allow the minority to constantly overrule the majority That's the whole point of protecting the minority. Otherwise, if the majority always wins, and the minority has to be satisfied with the crumbs left by the majority, the minority has effectively zero power. It's like writing an API. You know you're doing it right, when things mostly work, but there's someone, somewhere sorely dissatisfied with not getting their way. In the words of one fictional British gentleman, "You don't have it. I don't have it. That's detente, comrade!"
oblio 6y ago
And do you think that in Sweden of all places, minorities don't have a voice? They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system. If you are American, please check out some European political systems. You'll find that politics in Europe are a lot more nuanced and minorities in general are much, much better represented.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  And do you think that in Sweden of all places, minorities don't have a voice? I don't know if you intended it that way, but the above feels like you're trying to put words in my mouth to that effect. No, I don't think I said that minorities are voiceless in Sweden. They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system. Right. Again, as Matt Easton says, "Context!" If the US were to go fully democratic, with our two parties, no electoral college, and everything done proportionally, things in the US would suck for constituencies smaller than 50%. Particularly with discourse being what it is in 2020. However, if you know of a way to do away with the US two party system, I'm all ears. Also, when I read your comment above, I tend to read it in my head as sounding angry and patronizing. Hopefully, you didn't mean it the way of, "What, you ignorant fool, do you not know...etc...?"
  - int_19h 6y ago
    The system as it is sucks for more than 50% of the population, though. With a two-party system, you're either going to have tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority. Neither is good, but the former is preferable.
    - stcredzero 6y ago
      Neither is good, but the former is preferable. This is why being gay before 1950 was so great: because the majority of society got its way. That's why there was segregation in many places in the US back then: because the majority of society got its way. It took the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's to get the in-built principles and mechanisms which are there in the US system to protect the minority to really apply. And yes, it was in part the action of the national majority which got that to happen. The usual reason why people say the majority should get its absolute way, is generally because they are in the group who would come out on top. That's a shortsighted view. Even the majority is human and gets it dead wrong sometimes. This is why certain human rights need to be inviolate. This is why every government needs some sort of mechanism which gives the minority out-sized power. The US just does it in this particular way.

Mc_Big_G 6y ago

What minority are you even talking about?

stcredzero 6y ago
What minority are you even talking about Any of them. Some of them, I'm in. Some of them, I'll never be in. The principle is universal: A just society protects the minority. Any of them.
- losteric 6y ago
  Any of them? Including groups that want to oppress others?
  - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
    "Protects" is not equivalent to "grants the political wishes of". For example, people who want to abolish free speech still have the right to argue for the abolition of free speech.
  - stcredzero 6y ago
    Including groups that want to oppress others? Of course. Rights have to be universal, even for people with such desires. Otherwise, whomever has the power to adjudge what others are "actually" thinking have the power to remove people's human rights. The dynamics where accusation is enough, guilt is assumed, and no proof is needed are often abused to have power over others. If there was ever a time when this should be obvious, it is 2020, present day. In fact, all of the above is the whole point of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.
- sundaeofshock 6y ago
  It’s one thing to protect the minority from the majority; it’s another to allow the minority to constantly overrule the majority. At some point the US will come apart because of our current political dynamics.
  - stcredzero 6y ago
    it’s another to allow the minority to constantly overrule the majority That's the whole point of protecting the minority. Otherwise, if the majority always wins, and the minority has to be satisfied with the crumbs left by the majority, the minority has effectively zero power. It's like writing an API. You know you're doing it right, when things mostly work, but there's someone, somewhere sorely dissatisfied with not getting their way. In the words of one fictional British gentleman, "You don't have it. I don't have it. That's detente, comrade!"

oblio 6y ago

And do you think that in Sweden of all places, minorities don't have a voice? They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system. If you are American, please check out some European political systems. You'll find that politics in Europe are a lot more nuanced and minorities in general are much, much better represented.

stcredzero 6y ago
And do you think that in Sweden of all places, minorities don't have a voice? I don't know if you intended it that way, but the above feels like you're trying to put words in my mouth to that effect. No, I don't think I said that minorities are voiceless in Sweden. They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system. Right. Again, as Matt Easton says, "Context!" If the US were to go fully democratic, with our two parties, no electoral college, and everything done proportionally, things in the US would suck for constituencies smaller than 50%. Particularly with discourse being what it is in 2020. However, if you know of a way to do away with the US two party system, I'm all ears. Also, when I read your comment above, I tend to read it in my head as sounding angry and patronizing. Hopefully, you didn't mean it the way of, "What, you ignorant fool, do you not know...etc...?"
- int_19h 6y ago
  The system as it is sucks for more than 50% of the population, though. With a two-party system, you're either going to have tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority. Neither is good, but the former is preferable.
  - stcredzero 6y ago
    Neither is good, but the former is preferable. This is why being gay before 1950 was so great: because the majority of society got its way. That's why there was segregation in many places in the US back then: because the majority of society got its way. It took the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's to get the in-built principles and mechanisms which are there in the US system to protect the minority to really apply. And yes, it was in part the action of the national majority which got that to happen. The usual reason why people say the majority should get its absolute way, is generally because they are in the group who would come out on top. That's a shortsighted view. Even the majority is human and gets it dead wrong sometimes. This is why certain human rights need to be inviolate. This is why every government needs some sort of mechanism which gives the minority out-sized power. The US just does it in this particular way.