4 ms·

If this is what we think it is and it passes, I am not sure why CCP is worse than US-style democracy that just steals rights.

jmeyer2k 6y ago
The US isn't really a true democracy (representative or otherwise). In the US rural areas get higher voting power than urban areas. Trump lost the popular vote, but won the election completely because of this fact. The idea of granting voting power based on land dates back to slavery [1] where they wanted to give power to wealthy landowners. [1]: https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
- derision 6y ago
  The US was never intended to be a true democracy. So all you're saying is a car isn't really a boat and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
  - jmeyer2k 6y ago
    It was intended to be a representative democracy. It is not representative because it assigns unequal voting power to constituents based on what state they live in.
    - AnHonestComment 6y ago
      It was designed that way from the start, that’s the whole point of the Senate. It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which was the original intent and still functioning.
      - jmeyer2k 6y ago
        Why do those who live in smaller states deserve more voting power than those who live in larger states?
        dmoy 6y ago
        Because that was literally the only way they could convince the smaller states to join, and not have the whole thing collapse at the very beginning.
        krapp 6y ago
        Ok. That was over 200 years ago, and it seems unlikely that smaller states are going to opt out of the union at this point. Why do they still deserve more voting power than populous states?
        willcipriano 6y ago
        They aren't allowed to opt out, well except for Texas.
        krapp 6y ago
        Texas really isn't allowed to opt out either, they just like to pretend they are.
        Simulacra 6y ago
        Because Hillary Clinton lost ?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        dmoy 6y ago
        Because constitutional amendments are hard to pass, by design. You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now). There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this. There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution#creating-a-nation https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-re...
- dekhn 6y ago
  It's also not a true democracy because individuals don't vote on all measures. Instead, we elect representatives who do the voting for us, typically in line with, or in a more educated fashion than, we would on our own (well, at least that's what my social studies teacher said back in the day). I don't think there are any major countries which are true direct democracies although if you like the idea see the Demarchists in Alastair Reynolds science fiction. Everybody votes on everything.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- glennvtx 6y ago
  Straight democracy is a disaster, rightly avoided whenever possible. Allowing "the masses" to dictate policy such as you propose results in giant unsustainable welfare states, where the masses in cities vote themselves the property of those who produce, based on sheer numbers. It is an appeal to the masses, a fallacy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
It... passes? Trump has no power here and he isn't the legislative branch. The best he can do is try to reinterpret Section 230 and get Barr embarrassed in court trying to defend his nonsense. Twitter should just ban him in response so he can go on gab with his racist and incel supporters, which is where he would already be if he didn't believe that Twitter was the superior forum for direct celebrity access.
- nine_zeros 6y ago
  > It... passes? Passes the inevitable Supreme court test. Are you confident that this supreme court will hold your rights?
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    There won't be a Supreme Court test. The law is explicit and so is the First Amendment. They can appeal it all they like, the Court won't hear it because it's idiotic.
  - thrill 6y ago
    Yes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Did you just assume their gender?
downerending 6y ago
We're far more alike than we'd like to admit. We can point and laugh (so to speak) at struggle sessions, but in 2020 US, we have plenty of our own.
leira 6y ago
When I left China 9 years ago, I used to think the internet with social media is a great democratizing power. It opens information to common Chinese to the extent that the government cannot control all the narratives anymore, especially with social medias like Twitter. Now after staying in US for 9 years, I'm not sure if the internet is such a positive power any more. It might actually just be the opposite. With internet and social media, it enables information bubble to form. It enables people to live in totally isolated worlds. And it is almost impossible to penetrate through the bubbles to reach the other side. In US, it fueled the ever growing polarization in the society, essentially created 2 or more totally different US'. While in China, the government creates its narrative bubble through its propaganda machine and censorship. Rather than the liberation of people's mind we hoped to see, we actually seeing people's opinion more converged to the official narrative. I'm afraid, even someday CCP loosens it's iron grip of censorship, we still won't see the information freedom we hoped for. But rather bubbles like US, just with one giant bubble of official narrative, and many tiny bubbles of other opinions, which can never penetrate the giant bubble.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  The world in general is more bubbled than the web, and most people spend their whole lives not having substantive experience with people from other countries. And where does a gay individual find alternative stories in a world without the web? The world before the web was a terrible fishbowl for anyone who didn't have money or access. The web gives people choice where before you either had the money to live a "broad" lifestyle or you didn't. That some people choose to stay within little boundaries is the way the world has always worked, but at least they have a choice.

jmeyer2k 6y ago

The US isn't really a true democracy (representative or otherwise). In the US rural areas get higher voting power than urban areas. Trump lost the popular vote, but won the election completely because of this fact. The idea of granting voting power based on land dates back to slavery [1] where they wanted to give power to wealthy landowners. [1]: https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

derision 6y ago
The US was never intended to be a true democracy. So all you're saying is a car isn't really a boat and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
- jmeyer2k 6y ago
  It was intended to be a representative democracy. It is not representative because it assigns unequal voting power to constituents based on what state they live in.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    It was designed that way from the start, that’s the whole point of the Senate. It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which was the original intent and still functioning.
    - jmeyer2k 6y ago
      Why do those who live in smaller states deserve more voting power than those who live in larger states?
      - dmoy 6y ago
        Because that was literally the only way they could convince the smaller states to join, and not have the whole thing collapse at the very beginning.
        krapp 6y ago
        Ok. That was over 200 years ago, and it seems unlikely that smaller states are going to opt out of the union at this point. Why do they still deserve more voting power than populous states?
        willcipriano 6y ago
        They aren't allowed to opt out, well except for Texas.
        krapp 6y ago
        Texas really isn't allowed to opt out either, they just like to pretend they are.
        Simulacra 6y ago
        Because Hillary Clinton lost ?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        dmoy 6y ago
        Because constitutional amendments are hard to pass, by design. You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now). There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this. There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution#creating-a-nation https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-re...
dekhn 6y ago
It's also not a true democracy because individuals don't vote on all measures. Instead, we elect representatives who do the voting for us, typically in line with, or in a more educated fashion than, we would on our own (well, at least that's what my social studies teacher said back in the day). I don't think there are any major countries which are true direct democracies although if you like the idea see the Demarchists in Alastair Reynolds science fiction. Everybody votes on everything.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
glennvtx 6y ago
Straight democracy is a disaster, rightly avoided whenever possible. Allowing "the masses" to dictate policy such as you propose results in giant unsustainable welfare states, where the masses in cities vote themselves the property of those who produce, based on sheer numbers. It is an appeal to the masses, a fallacy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

It... passes? Trump has no power here and he isn't the legislative branch. The best he can do is try to reinterpret Section 230 and get Barr embarrassed in court trying to defend his nonsense. Twitter should just ban him in response so he can go on gab with his racist and incel supporters, which is where he would already be if he didn't believe that Twitter was the superior forum for direct celebrity access.

nine_zeros 6y ago
> It... passes? Passes the inevitable Supreme court test. Are you confident that this supreme court will hold your rights?
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  There won't be a Supreme Court test. The law is explicit and so is the First Amendment. They can appeal it all they like, the Court won't hear it because it's idiotic.
- thrill 6y ago
  Yes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Did you just assume their gender?

downerending 6y ago

We're far more alike than we'd like to admit. We can point and laugh (so to speak) at struggle sessions, but in 2020 US, we have plenty of our own.

leira 6y ago

When I left China 9 years ago, I used to think the internet with social media is a great democratizing power. It opens information to common Chinese to the extent that the government cannot control all the narratives anymore, especially with social medias like Twitter. Now after staying in US for 9 years, I'm not sure if the internet is such a positive power any more. It might actually just be the opposite. With internet and social media, it enables information bubble to form. It enables people to live in totally isolated worlds. And it is almost impossible to penetrate through the bubbles to reach the other side. In US, it fueled the ever growing polarization in the society, essentially created 2 or more totally different US'. While in China, the government creates its narrative bubble through its propaganda machine and censorship. Rather than the liberation of people's mind we hoped to see, we actually seeing people's opinion more converged to the official narrative. I'm afraid, even someday CCP loosens it's iron grip of censorship, we still won't see the information freedom we hoped for. But rather bubbles like US, just with one giant bubble of official narrative, and many tiny bubbles of other opinions, which can never penetrate the giant bubble.

threatofrain 6y ago
The world in general is more bubbled than the web, and most people spend their whole lives not having substantive experience with people from other countries. And where does a gay individual find alternative stories in a world without the web? The world before the web was a terrible fishbowl for anyone who didn't have money or access. The web gives people choice where before you either had the money to live a "broad" lifestyle or you didn't. That some people choose to stay within little boundaries is the way the world has always worked, but at least they have a choice.