3 ms·

Sorry, you obviously don't live in a totalitarian country. Democracy is never ideal, it's always full of crooks, lies, hypocrisy. Especially when most people h

Sorry, you obviously don't live in a totalitarian country. Democracy is never ideal, it's always full of crooks, lies, hypocrisy. Especially when most people have more interesting things to do than participating in politics. But it's not even close to anything totalitarian. I've lived in both, and have the perspective.

Funes- 3y ago
[flagged]
- skhunted 3y ago
  The word “democracy” has a colloquial meaning that is used in common speech. In the U.S. we have a “democracy” as that term is used by most people. You sound like the people who say communism has never been tried. Talk about straw man!
  - Intermernet 3y ago
    I'd say he's illustrating the nuance intended by people who say communism has never been tried. On paper, both democracy and communism have been tried. In reality, both have been ham-strung by human greed, corruption, propaganda and good-old apathy.
    - slothtrop 3y ago
      Those elements don't nullify the existence of democracy.
      - Intermernet 3y ago
        No, just the effectiveness of democracy.
        slothtrop 3y ago
        Diminish is the word. Perfect effectiveness is impossible.
    - skhunted 3y ago
      In an academic setting where people are using precise terminology these nuances are worth debating and are important. But in a forum such as this one where it is clear what one means by “democracies” this is not appropriate. Clearly there is a distinction between Russia/China and the U.S./most of Europe in terms of freedom/elected representation where one side is called “democratic” and the other authoritarian. Pedantically quibbling over precise definitions is useless in this context.
- arp242 3y ago
  Try posting more than a short line of dismissive cynicism that can be interpreted any number of ways next time. And in the context of the comment you're replying to, "drawing an equivalence between totalitarianism and Western democracy (whether that's "democracy" or not)" is very much the common meaning. If you intended to say something else with more nuance then you should have said something else with more nuance. I do my best to give the best possible interpretations to what people are saying, but don't expect people to bend over backwards to tease out a good faith interpretation of such brief and dismissive comments. You reap what you sow.
  - Funes- 3y ago
    [flagged]
- mind-blight 3y ago
  I'm still not sure what point your trying to make. Are you arguing that the US is a republic but not a democracy? That it's controlled by corporations and therefore shouldn't be called a democracy? That first past the post voting and the two party system prevent a "true" democracy from flourishing? You made a very contrarian statement (totally fine!) but left all the work to figure out what you meant up to the reader. Your response is full of as hominem (ironically what you're complaining about), and it still doesn't explain anything about your position
_cenw 3y ago
The person above didn't claim that? It's just the difference between ideal democracy where the interests of most people are reflected in policy and US democracy (and most others, to different degrees) where choice is limited and corporate interests weigh much more heavy, it's hard to tell if it's closer to a more openly top-down form of government than it is from the ideal.
- deepsun 3y ago
  Yet the person above didn't get arrested and tortured for that comment. Or for a wrong "like" on Facebook. I'm not exaggerating, it really happens every day.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    Democracy is defined by direct or indirect control of government by people, not the presence or absence of coercion or how violent that coercion is. This is not a binary choice. Both can be present. Both can be absent. The US arguably has a degree of both.
soco 3y ago
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Funes- 3y ago

[flagged]

skhunted 3y ago
The word “democracy” has a colloquial meaning that is used in common speech. In the U.S. we have a “democracy” as that term is used by most people. You sound like the people who say communism has never been tried. Talk about straw man!
- Intermernet 3y ago
  I'd say he's illustrating the nuance intended by people who say communism has never been tried. On paper, both democracy and communism have been tried. In reality, both have been ham-strung by human greed, corruption, propaganda and good-old apathy.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    Those elements don't nullify the existence of democracy.
    - Intermernet 3y ago
      No, just the effectiveness of democracy.
      - slothtrop 3y ago
        Diminish is the word. Perfect effectiveness is impossible.
  - skhunted 3y ago
    In an academic setting where people are using precise terminology these nuances are worth debating and are important. But in a forum such as this one where it is clear what one means by “democracies” this is not appropriate. Clearly there is a distinction between Russia/China and the U.S./most of Europe in terms of freedom/elected representation where one side is called “democratic” and the other authoritarian. Pedantically quibbling over precise definitions is useless in this context.
arp242 3y ago
Try posting more than a short line of dismissive cynicism that can be interpreted any number of ways next time. And in the context of the comment you're replying to, "drawing an equivalence between totalitarianism and Western democracy (whether that's "democracy" or not)" is very much the common meaning. If you intended to say something else with more nuance then you should have said something else with more nuance. I do my best to give the best possible interpretations to what people are saying, but don't expect people to bend over backwards to tease out a good faith interpretation of such brief and dismissive comments. You reap what you sow.
- Funes- 3y ago
  [flagged]
mind-blight 3y ago
I'm still not sure what point your trying to make. Are you arguing that the US is a republic but not a democracy? That it's controlled by corporations and therefore shouldn't be called a democracy? That first past the post voting and the two party system prevent a "true" democracy from flourishing? You made a very contrarian statement (totally fine!) but left all the work to figure out what you meant up to the reader. Your response is full of as hominem (ironically what you're complaining about), and it still doesn't explain anything about your position

_cenw 3y ago

The person above didn't claim that? It's just the difference between ideal democracy where the interests of most people are reflected in policy and US democracy (and most others, to different degrees) where choice is limited and corporate interests weigh much more heavy, it's hard to tell if it's closer to a more openly top-down form of government than it is from the ideal.

deepsun 3y ago
Yet the person above didn't get arrested and tortured for that comment. Or for a wrong "like" on Facebook. I'm not exaggerating, it really happens every day.
- _cenw 3y ago
  Democracy is defined by direct or indirect control of government by people, not the presence or absence of coercion or how violent that coercion is. This is not a binary choice. Both can be present. Both can be absent. The US arguably has a degree of both.

soco 3y ago

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947