3 ms·

Do you want a real answer to this, or one that self-congratulates us, by playing to our biases and cultural myths, and generally poor understanding of how socie

by vkou 4y ago

Do you want a real answer to this, or one that self-congratulates us, by playing to our biases and cultural myths, and generally poor understanding of how societies work? The same options that any people have. Soft power. Every government, be it formally representative or not, multi-party or dual-party, or single-party is ultimately only able to govern with the consent of the governed. There are always levers for people to push, and they do, and sometimes government responds and sometimes it does not, and this happens in every country. China has in most ways a worse system for responding to these demands than a system of fair elections, but it does have a system. Its leaders steer public opinion, but have to, in turn, also be steered by it - because their mandate doesn't come from a 4-year election (where they can do whatever the hell they want in the intervening years), it comes from a fear that unpopular dictators end up swinging from lamp posts (while unpopular elected representatives end up, at worst, in retirement). And even a system of fair elections will not protect a repressed minority that everyone wants to crap on. African or native Americans can protest and vote[1] all they want, but if the political zeitgeist sees them as a second-class minority, elections and getting tear-gassed and shot in the face with rubber-coated bullets isn't something that's going to bring about meaningful change. Meaningful change will only happen when they convince the people who hold political capital that they need to be treated like human beings. That doesn't happen at the polls, that happens through culture. There's a reason why the American right has declared a war against 'wokeness', and 'crt', and is trying to convince anyone that will listen that it is actually the underdog, the victim of unparalleled historic repression. It's not afraid of losing the culture war at the polls[2], it's afraid of losing the culture war in people's minds. The loss at the polls comes after. [1] Well, at least, in states that don't actively try to suppress and disenfranchise them. [2] Well, it is, hence gerrymandering, voter suppression, and all the rest.

verdverm 4y ago
There is a lot of bias and emotion to unpack from your comment. It's not like one side is more manipulative than the other in the US, both are equally guilty of this, it's part of politics in a democracy, especially given the hyper-media. The "wokeness" movement went to far and we as a country are now self correcting, not the first time it happened, last time it was called PC for short. And it's not just a "right" side issue, many of us left leaning also feel it went too far, to the point that the DEI initiatives violate out equality rules by encouraging preference for some groups over others. It's a fallacy to think your team is right and has all the correct answers.
- vkou 4y ago
  You've entirely missed the point that I'm making - which is that elections are in themselves not sufficient to address a minority concern (In the US[1], because of the particularly perverse mechanism for districting, the electoral college, and disproportionate regional representation, they often aren't even sufficient to address a majority concern[2]!). By definition, a minority is going to be marginalized in a representative system. Mindshare of the majority is the real battleground, and mindshare is just as relevant in China as it is here, and it's why mindshare is fought over so bitterly across the world. You ask how politically weak minorities in China can get what they want, I point an answer that, for contrast, provides a litany of ways for how politically weak minorities in the US can't get what they want, and you accuse me of being biased and political. I can only assume that the problems of how minority rights can be asserted in practice in the two systems wasn't actually what we were interested in discussing? 'We have elections' isn't a conversation-terminator. It's a conversation-opener, because it isn't actually the trump card that you think it is. [1] And in other countries, but usually for other reasons. [2] And I'm not talking about normal parliamentary checks and balances that allow a minority to hold legislature in stasis. That's to be expected from any political system that requires a more-than-50% consensus in order to deviate from the status quo. [3] I'm talking about a minority actually managing to impose its will, through new legislature, against a majority. [3] Which is often a desirable requirement.

by vkou 4y ago

verdverm 4y ago

There is a lot of bias and emotion to unpack from your comment. It's not like one side is more manipulative than the other in the US, both are equally guilty of this, it's part of politics in a democracy, especially given the hyper-media. The "wokeness" movement went to far and we as a country are now self correcting, not the first time it happened, last time it was called PC for short. And it's not just a "right" side issue, many of us left leaning also feel it went too far, to the point that the DEI initiatives violate out equality rules by encouraging preference for some groups over others. It's a fallacy to think your team is right and has all the correct answers.

vkou 4y ago
You've entirely missed the point that I'm making - which is that elections are in themselves not sufficient to address a minority concern (In the US[1], because of the particularly perverse mechanism for districting, the electoral college, and disproportionate regional representation, they often aren't even sufficient to address a majority concern[2]!). By definition, a minority is going to be marginalized in a representative system. Mindshare of the majority is the real battleground, and mindshare is just as relevant in China as it is here, and it's why mindshare is fought over so bitterly across the world. You ask how politically weak minorities in China can get what they want, I point an answer that, for contrast, provides a litany of ways for how politically weak minorities in the US can't get what they want, and you accuse me of being biased and political. I can only assume that the problems of how minority rights can be asserted in practice in the two systems wasn't actually what we were interested in discussing? 'We have elections' isn't a conversation-terminator. It's a conversation-opener, because it isn't actually the trump card that you think it is. [1] And in other countries, but usually for other reasons. [2] And I'm not talking about normal parliamentary checks and balances that allow a minority to hold legislature in stasis. That's to be expected from any political system that requires a more-than-50% consensus in order to deviate from the status quo. [3] I'm talking about a minority actually managing to impose its will, through new legislature, against a majority. [3] Which is often a desirable requirement.