4 ms·

My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible. Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In d

by valval 2y ago

My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible. Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.

mdp2021 2y ago
«Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordinary protection. And you are also resolving "bestiality" with "dislike", as if arbitrary, as if relativistic. Hilariousness not fitting.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  You are demonstrating what I joked(?) in another comment ("It ain't democracy if you ain't won.") perfectly. Thanks.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".) Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates that appeal to the guts are disqualified from office" has strong grounds.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      I mean, you're still bitching strictly because you didn't win.
      - mdp2021 2y ago
        Is that supposed to be funny? I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect. I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it is not a universal value and that the "win" you mention seems a very childish idea ("win" is a working system, not the chanceful temporary result of a confrontation as if of sporting teams). And I will add another related point, also in light of the other poster: systems which just substantially resemble confrontations as if of sporting teams are gravely inadequate. (And there exists no "win" there.) And I will add a further one to try and dissipate any misunderstanding: whether the administration in the territory I happen to be in is or is not the one which I could have judged as that I would have picked from the pool, that remains unsharable information, but it is also irrelevant: inadequate administrators are a transversal presence.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        >we require that administrators be decent Translation: "My guy didn't win so I'm bitching."
        mdp2021 2y ago
        Dalewyn, are you aware you are trolling? Low effort, unmanageable statements, assumptions, insinuations, deafness... -- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»". -- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot be attempts to cover objective faults with personal taste. -- The statement (reconstructed) "the losing part rejects the system" is irrelevant: the system is rejected when faulty, regardless of side taking, which may not happen at all. -- It's not that there "ain't no democracy": it is that "ain't no society", in face of division where scum can be confused for normal candidates. For your information, we had seen societies in which an attempt was made to restrict candidacy to presentable figures - in my lifetime. You cannot take a picture and make of it a kindergarten sketch depicting something different.
- valval 2y ago
  You’re either way too smart or way too stupid for me to understand. In any case, there must be at least a 40 IQ point difference between the two of us.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    My measurements are very, very high. But I believe that effort plays a role: train yourself to see better.

by valval 2y ago

mdp2021 2y ago

«Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordinary protection. And you are also resolving "bestiality" with "dislike", as if arbitrary, as if relativistic. Hilariousness not fitting.

Dalewyn 2y ago
You are demonstrating what I joked(?) in another comment ("It ain't democracy if you ain't won.") perfectly. Thanks.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".) Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates that appeal to the guts are disqualified from office" has strong grounds.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I mean, you're still bitching strictly because you didn't win.
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      Is that supposed to be funny? I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect. I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it is not a universal value and that the "win" you mention seems a very childish idea ("win" is a working system, not the chanceful temporary result of a confrontation as if of sporting teams). And I will add another related point, also in light of the other poster: systems which just substantially resemble confrontations as if of sporting teams are gravely inadequate. (And there exists no "win" there.) And I will add a further one to try and dissipate any misunderstanding: whether the administration in the territory I happen to be in is or is not the one which I could have judged as that I would have picked from the pool, that remains unsharable information, but it is also irrelevant: inadequate administrators are a transversal presence.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >we require that administrators be decent Translation: "My guy didn't win so I'm bitching."
        mdp2021 2y ago
        Dalewyn, are you aware you are trolling? Low effort, unmanageable statements, assumptions, insinuations, deafness... -- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»". -- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot be attempts to cover objective faults with personal taste. -- The statement (reconstructed) "the losing part rejects the system" is irrelevant: the system is rejected when faulty, regardless of side taking, which may not happen at all. -- It's not that there "ain't no democracy": it is that "ain't no society", in face of division where scum can be confused for normal candidates. For your information, we had seen societies in which an attempt was made to restrict candidacy to presentable figures - in my lifetime. You cannot take a picture and make of it a kindergarten sketch depicting something different.
valval 2y ago
You’re either way too smart or way too stupid for me to understand. In any case, there must be at least a 40 IQ point difference between the two of us.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  My measurements are very, very high. But I believe that effort plays a role: train yourself to see better.