7 ms·

what you're describing is "tyranny of the majority" and not how democracy works. the minority is retaliating because they feel their rights have been violated.

what you're describing is "tyranny of the majority" and not how democracy works. the minority is retaliating because they feel their rights have been violated. i'm not taking sides and i'm not asking you to, but you're kidding yourself if you think these truckers are a greater existential threat to you and your way of life than your government with its self appointed "emergency" powers.

notacoward 5y ago
> not how democracy works. For good or ill, "tyranny of the majority" is exactly how democracy works - and it's only ever "tyranny" to those who don't like the democratic outcome. Did you mean constitutional democracy, perhaps? Most constitutions, definitely including Canada's, enumerate rights that are supposed to be beyond the reach of normal legislation or executive action, but that's the "constitutional" part rather than the "democracy" part. > i'm not taking sides ... but you're kidding yourself if you think That's taking a side.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  Given we're talking about Canada's democracy, constitutional democracy is implied. Thanks anyway for performing the tedium of explaining the differences for our fellow readers. And respectfully, no I'm unable to take sides because I don't have skin in the game.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    It's entirely possible to take a side on the ideological issue(s) without having a stake in a particular application, and it's extremely disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Don't pretend to be a disinterested observer and then selectively repeat one side's claims. The fact that you haven't supported those claims with anything but insult ("you're kidding yourself") doesn't make them neutral.
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      You're trying really hard to get this dunk but you're just completely wrong. I'm not being disingenuous and I never claimed to be a disinterested observer; in fact, an interested observer is exactly what I am. That's also very different from "picking a side". Like watching the superbowl because you care about the outcome, but don't support one team over the other. You just want to see a good, fair game. Having an ideological stance is also very different from "picking a side". I'm not automatically friends or allies with people who happen to share a view with me. I'm not automatically enemies with someone that holds different or opposite views. Further you've conflated an objective observation with an ideological one. The sky is blue. Water is wet. Executive figures with armies are a greater threat to the people than the freight labor class. This claim doesn't need "proving", it's reinforced by history. Feel free to challenge yourself to find evidence to the contrary instead of trying to saddle the burden on someone else.

notacoward 5y ago

> not how democracy works. For good or ill, "tyranny of the majority" is exactly how democracy works - and it's only ever "tyranny" to those who don't like the democratic outcome. Did you mean constitutional democracy, perhaps? Most constitutions, definitely including Canada's, enumerate rights that are supposed to be beyond the reach of normal legislation or executive action, but that's the "constitutional" part rather than the "democracy" part. > i'm not taking sides ... but you're kidding yourself if you think That's taking a side.

disambiguation 5y ago
Given we're talking about Canada's democracy, constitutional democracy is implied. Thanks anyway for performing the tedium of explaining the differences for our fellow readers. And respectfully, no I'm unable to take sides because I don't have skin in the game.
- notacoward 5y ago
  It's entirely possible to take a side on the ideological issue(s) without having a stake in a particular application, and it's extremely disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Don't pretend to be a disinterested observer and then selectively repeat one side's claims. The fact that you haven't supported those claims with anything but insult ("you're kidding yourself") doesn't make them neutral.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    You're trying really hard to get this dunk but you're just completely wrong. I'm not being disingenuous and I never claimed to be a disinterested observer; in fact, an interested observer is exactly what I am. That's also very different from "picking a side". Like watching the superbowl because you care about the outcome, but don't support one team over the other. You just want to see a good, fair game. Having an ideological stance is also very different from "picking a side". I'm not automatically friends or allies with people who happen to share a view with me. I'm not automatically enemies with someone that holds different or opposite views. Further you've conflated an objective observation with an ideological one. The sky is blue. Water is wet. Executive figures with armies are a greater threat to the people than the freight labor class. This claim doesn't need "proving", it's reinforced by history. Feel free to challenge yourself to find evidence to the contrary instead of trying to saddle the burden on someone else.