3 ms·

Directly voting on laws is neither necessary nor ideal for a democracy. Again, squinting too hard. American democracy is extremely flawed, yes, but no that doe

Directly voting on laws is neither necessary nor ideal for a democracy. Again, squinting too hard. American democracy is extremely flawed, yes, but no that doesn't make every other self-proclaimed democracy actually the same. Your noteworthy note is not that noteworthy. Curricula are almost entirely controlled by state and local school boards. The federal DOE has extremely limited requirements by design to prevent the exact thing you're accusing them of doing.

guappa 3y ago
Only 23 states in USA allow referendum to take place. Being allowed to vote is a requisite for democracy.
- llamaimperative 3y ago
  Thank you for sharing your opinion! It's not a very commonly held view or intuition that directly voting on policy is a prerequisite for democracy. Of course you can use whatever exotic definitions you want to trick yourself into believing you've won an argument, but it will do nothing in terms of actually creating the type of world you'd like. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay.
mistermann 3y ago
> Directly voting on laws is neither necessary nor ideal for a democracy. a) That depends on which subjective definition you are using, and also whether you realize your definitions are subjective. b) It isn't possible for you to know what is "necessary" or "ideal", thus you are speculating. > Again, squinting too hard. Speaking (and perhaps even thinking) in popular but misinformative catchphrases may not be ideal. > American democracy is extremely flawed, yes, but no that doesn't make every other self-proclaimed democracy actually the same. This is true if considered independently (not in the context of this conversation), but what is the "but no" part referring to? > Your noteworthy note is not that noteworthy. Your subjective opinion appearing to you as an objective fact is noteworthy. > Curricula are almost entirely controlled by state and local school boards. There is how things are supposed to work, there is how things are claimed to work, and then there is how things actually work (and even this is a substantial simplification). Talking about that last one is...culturally frowned upon. > The federal DOE has extremely limited requirements by design to prevent the exact thing you're accusing them of doing. Maybe this is part of the problem! Regardless: I think it is time the public stopped taking all this nonsense lying down, and behaving as if we are helpless observers trapped in a stream of reality in which we have and can have no control over. From below: >> Thank you for sharing your opinion! Very interesting. Is this interesting to you? > I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay. When you say "that's okay", what is it you are referring to? Reality?

guappa 3y ago

Only 23 states in USA allow referendum to take place. Being allowed to vote is a requisite for democracy.

llamaimperative 3y ago
Thank you for sharing your opinion! It's not a very commonly held view or intuition that directly voting on policy is a prerequisite for democracy. Of course you can use whatever exotic definitions you want to trick yourself into believing you've won an argument, but it will do nothing in terms of actually creating the type of world you'd like. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay.

mistermann 3y ago

> Directly voting on laws is neither necessary nor ideal for a democracy. a) That depends on which subjective definition you are using, and also whether you realize your definitions are subjective. b) It isn't possible for you to know what is "necessary" or "ideal", thus you are speculating. > Again, squinting too hard. Speaking (and perhaps even thinking) in popular but misinformative catchphrases may not be ideal. > American democracy is extremely flawed, yes, but no that doesn't make every other self-proclaimed democracy actually the same. This is true if considered independently (not in the context of this conversation), but what is the "but no" part referring to? > Your noteworthy note is not that noteworthy. Your subjective opinion appearing to you as an objective fact is noteworthy. > Curricula are almost entirely controlled by state and local school boards. There is how things are supposed to work, there is how things are claimed to work, and then there is how things actually work (and even this is a substantial simplification). Talking about that last one is...culturally frowned upon. > The federal DOE has extremely limited requirements by design to prevent the exact thing you're accusing them of doing. Maybe this is part of the problem! Regardless: I think it is time the public stopped taking all this nonsense lying down, and behaving as if we are helpless observers trapped in a stream of reality in which we have and can have no control over. From below: >> Thank you for sharing your opinion! Very interesting. Is this interesting to you? > I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay. When you say "that's okay", what is it you are referring to? Reality?