3 ms·
Yeah, as the original commenter mentioned, all these commenters take various assumptions as facts (it's okay, all political views do this, they must or they wou
by notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Yeah, as the original commenter mentioned, all these commenters take various assumptions as facts (it's okay, all political views do this, they must or they would be too vague to be useful): that politics functions best as the executed will of the majority, that democracy and voting is the best way to gauge public support for proposals they arguably don't understand the impact of, that authoritarianism is prone to abuse and thus inevitably abused, a skeptical / secular default way of looking at things and discussing them even among the religious.
Again, none of these assumptions are wrong or bad or right or good. My point is just these are the assumptions you'll see across nearly every commenter on the blog because of its narrow, Western-educated audience. There are many popular, interesting, and dynamic political discussions happening elsewhere in the world (I think the most interesting is Islamism, discussions within the CCP might also count), but those discussions and the elites who have them don't start from these principles.
- pas 6y agoIt sounds strange, because there were/are a lot of posts/comments exactly about those problems. (Eg. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic... and https://slatestarcodex.com/tag/conworlding/page/10/ https://slatestarcodex.com/tag/conworlding/page/10/ ) And I can't find the anti-neoreactionary & in-defense-of-democracy post that goes through these problems, and tries to justify the assumptions. > (I think the most interesting is Islamism, discussions within the CCP might also count), but those discussions and the elites who have them don't start from these principles. If you could point these out I think SSC/LessWrong folks would love to ponder over them!