3 ms·

Be that as it may, but you're misusing the term oppressive. And blaming the EU ministry in particular is also quiet misguided, as the local governments do the

Be that as it may, but you're misusing the term oppressive. And blaming the EU ministry in particular is also quiet misguided, as the local governments do the same and fuck you over much more effectively as they're actually able to significantly impact your life.

kkfx 4y ago
Part of the issue is that I'm democratic witch means I'm ready to go to the street, pretending referendums and changes, however equally ready we are few enough thanks to decades of school reforms and propaganda, so the walkout would be like a small trip outside to get a bit of fresh air no one else care of. And that's an important part: I think we can't have Democracy because we miss the Demos. Actually just around 10-15% of total population can be labeled Demos, the rest can only be labeled "subject", mentally. Given that a cameback to classic aristocratic society is a bit automatic, the modern version for Russia is named "oligarchy" (as aristò happen also to be few-ish and not necessary "the best"), the west prefer "capitalism" and unfortunately the departure of such new model is not nice for a significant slice of the said 10-15% since a very small cancer do not want to divide power with anyone else counting on tech and finance to been able to rule alone. In that sense I still fail to see something else than "oppressive". AT least in Swiss they vote every two month to approve or reject laws, here protesters have asked for RIC (Citizens demanded referendums) but such request never arrive to the be law and not enough accept to impose such change via a general strike for instance. That means again, most agree with such governance, and since such governance do not respect the People... How can I call it?
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  > In that sense I still fail to see something else than "oppressive" The point was that none of the factors you're mentioning are oppressive. You can definitely make a good argument that they're undemocratic and that the people in power do their best to sabotage democracies. But that's not what oppressive means. You're just simply misusing the word. I am not aware of any one word to describe what they're doing, but I'm not a native speaker nor particularly fluent in politics. Could be there is a word for it which I just don't know, but often meaning can't be distilled to a single term and it's fine to use sentences to properly convey the issues at hand.

kkfx 4y ago

Part of the issue is that I'm democratic witch means I'm ready to go to the street, pretending referendums and changes, however equally ready we are few enough thanks to decades of school reforms and propaganda, so the walkout would be like a small trip outside to get a bit of fresh air no one else care of. And that's an important part: I think we can't have Democracy because we miss the Demos. Actually just around 10-15% of total population can be labeled Demos, the rest can only be labeled "subject", mentally. Given that a cameback to classic aristocratic society is a bit automatic, the modern version for Russia is named "oligarchy" (as aristò happen also to be few-ish and not necessary "the best"), the west prefer "capitalism" and unfortunately the departure of such new model is not nice for a significant slice of the said 10-15% since a very small cancer do not want to divide power with anyone else counting on tech and finance to been able to rule alone. In that sense I still fail to see something else than "oppressive". AT least in Swiss they vote every two month to approve or reject laws, here protesters have asked for RIC (Citizens demanded referendums) but such request never arrive to the be law and not enough accept to impose such change via a general strike for instance. That means again, most agree with such governance, and since such governance do not respect the People... How can I call it?

411111111111111 4y ago
> In that sense I still fail to see something else than "oppressive" The point was that none of the factors you're mentioning are oppressive. You can definitely make a good argument that they're undemocratic and that the people in power do their best to sabotage democracies. But that's not what oppressive means. You're just simply misusing the word. I am not aware of any one word to describe what they're doing, but I'm not a native speaker nor particularly fluent in politics. Could be there is a word for it which I just don't know, but often meaning can't be distilled to a single term and it's fine to use sentences to properly convey the issues at hand.