4 ms·

I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are ind

I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob. Otherwise, if democracy is good and votes should matter and at the same time voters are a mob subject to manipulation... democracy is what? A system of government by whoever can do better propaganda? Why would that be good for anyone except those who do propaganda? So yeah, I think many people are claiming that is not true. One question I would ask if people are just a mob, who is actually pushing the buttons? Owners of media, political leaders, are also humans, no? They have the same weaknesses, at least in principle. If you accept some people are different (those who command and control propaganda) then we must conclude that not all people are vulnerable to it, so maybe it's a spectrum. But still democracy sounds like a bad idea, as a majority are probably on the low end of the spectrum, and the majority rules.

aydyn 2y ago
> I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob. I think that is a pretty hardline interpretation, but there's another way of thinking about it: democracy has worked pretty well up to now and there hasn't been a better replacement. That doesn't mean it will continue being a good solution as technology and society change.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pantalaimon 2y ago
  > That doesn't mean it will continue being a good solution as technology and society change. Yea neo-feudalism seems to be all the rage these days. Democracy is not a given, people with power want more power and less checks - historically that’s what things converged to typically.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Not sure about what's really "typical", nor which name would best describe what direction the USA (let alone anyone else) is even heading in. The ancient Greeks had ideas about the κύκλος (cycles) of government: Plato's cycle went [aristocracy > timocracy oligarchy > democracy > tyranny]; Polybius' cycle was [ochlocracy -> monarchy -> tyranny -> aristocracy -> oligarchy -> democracy -> ochlocracy] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
- lossolo 2y ago
  Democracy is not a new concept, just current implementation is different. Democracy, in some form, dates back over 2500 years to ancient Athens (circa 5th century BCE). Around 1500 years ago (~500 CE), formal democracy as it existed in Athens had largely faded, particularly with the decline of the Roman Republic (509 BCE – 27 BCE), which had elements of representative governance. It struggled with corruption, inequality and power struggles, so all the problems that are getting stronger with time in our democratic systems. The idea of democracy reemerged during the Enlightenment (17th–18th centuries) and became formalized in modern political systems - United States (1776) and revolutionary France. We live in cycles, democracy probably will fade again, and again it will be considered anarchic and unstable until the cycle repeats itself.
Swizec 2y ago
> I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob. Both are true. We are individual agents and a mob. Democracy, as we all know, is the worst political system except for all the others. At scale people on average behave about average and make decisions perfectly aligned with their systemic incentives and available information. You (and me) are not immune to propaganda. Strong recommend watching/readingupon Manufacturing Consent and Chomsky’s life work in general.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- emptysongglass 2y ago
  I have a hard time taking Chomsky seriously after he felt his need to make his uninformed opinions on Russia's aggression and AI public. Was Chomsky ever an expert? Maybe, I wouldn't know because I haven't read what he built his legacy upon. But that he wrote so poorly on two topics he has little experience with does him no favors.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    > Was Chomsky ever an expert? Maybe, I wouldn't know because I haven't read what he built his legacy upon. My entire life anything I hear from him has been misinformed and anything I hear about him is "Chomsky disproven". I have to imagine whatever he was known for happened before I was born - which I've never been exposed to. Granted I've never sought it out either. To me he feels like an academic Kardashian: Famous for being famous, and it's not really clear how it started.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I think he just went a little loopy with old age
  - corimaith 2y ago
    >Was Chomsky ever an expert? Chomsky is a Linguistics Professor, he has no formal training in media or political theory. So yes, he is not an expert, and funnily enough he's the kind of leftist who straight up admits he is biased and selectively picks facts to support this arguments.
jaredklewis 2y ago
> I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob. Disagree. Democracy can basically be mob rule and still be “good” if mob rule is better than alternatives like “divine right of kings,” “rule by military despot” and so on.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jorvi 2y ago
You are so close to breaking through.. > Otherwise, if democracy is good and votes should matter and at the same time voters are a mob subject to manipulation... democracy is what? A system of government by whoever can do better propaganda? Why would that be good for anyone except those who do propaganda? Yes. And you are already waking up to that in your next question. > One question I would ask if people are just a mob, who is actually pushing the buttons? Owners of media, political leaders, are also humans, no? They have the same weaknesses, at least in principle. > If you accept some people are different (those who command and control propaganda) then we must conclude that not all people are vulnerable to it Why would those who do propaganda not be susceptible to disinformation, or the Dunning-Kruger or Gell-mann Amnesia effects? Every person is susceptible to disinformation. The difference is that those in power can disseminate disinformation at scale. > so maybe it's a spectrum. But still democracy sounds like a bad idea, as a majority are probably on the low end of the spectrum, and the majority rules. Hence "tyranny of democracy". Many places in the First world are now experiencing this, where 'green' programs and and social progress are being dismantled en masse because of a slight majority. Worst of it is, long term these decisions will carry a massive financial burden. The LA fires with $250 billion+ in damages are a herald of that.
ajmurmann 2y ago
I think Democracy is critically important. However, the main reason I believe this is because Democracy allows for the transfer of power without violence. That's THE value prop.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

aydyn 2y ago

> I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob. I think that is a pretty hardline interpretation, but there's another way of thinking about it: democracy has worked pretty well up to now and there hasn't been a better replacement. That doesn't mean it will continue being a good solution as technology and society change.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pantalaimon 2y ago
> That doesn't mean it will continue being a good solution as technology and society change. Yea neo-feudalism seems to be all the rage these days. Democracy is not a given, people with power want more power and less checks - historically that’s what things converged to typically.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Not sure about what's really "typical", nor which name would best describe what direction the USA (let alone anyone else) is even heading in. The ancient Greeks had ideas about the κύκλος (cycles) of government: Plato's cycle went [aristocracy > timocracy oligarchy > democracy > tyranny]; Polybius' cycle was [ochlocracy -> monarchy -> tyranny -> aristocracy -> oligarchy -> democracy -> ochlocracy] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
lossolo 2y ago
Democracy is not a new concept, just current implementation is different. Democracy, in some form, dates back over 2500 years to ancient Athens (circa 5th century BCE). Around 1500 years ago (~500 CE), formal democracy as it existed in Athens had largely faded, particularly with the decline of the Roman Republic (509 BCE – 27 BCE), which had elements of representative governance. It struggled with corruption, inequality and power struggles, so all the problems that are getting stronger with time in our democratic systems. The idea of democracy reemerged during the Enlightenment (17th–18th centuries) and became formalized in modern political systems - United States (1776) and revolutionary France. We live in cycles, democracy probably will fade again, and again it will be considered anarchic and unstable until the cycle repeats itself.

Swizec 2y ago

> I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob. Both are true. We are individual agents and a mob. Democracy, as we all know, is the worst political system except for all the others. At scale people on average behave about average and make decisions perfectly aligned with their systemic incentives and available information. You (and me) are not immune to propaganda. Strong recommend watching/readingupon Manufacturing Consent and Chomsky’s life work in general.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
emptysongglass 2y ago
I have a hard time taking Chomsky seriously after he felt his need to make his uninformed opinions on Russia's aggression and AI public. Was Chomsky ever an expert? Maybe, I wouldn't know because I haven't read what he built his legacy upon. But that he wrote so poorly on two topics he has little experience with does him no favors.
- Izkata 2y ago
  > Was Chomsky ever an expert? Maybe, I wouldn't know because I haven't read what he built his legacy upon. My entire life anything I hear from him has been misinformed and anything I hear about him is "Chomsky disproven". I have to imagine whatever he was known for happened before I was born - which I've never been exposed to. Granted I've never sought it out either. To me he feels like an academic Kardashian: Famous for being famous, and it's not really clear how it started.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I think he just went a little loopy with old age
- corimaith 2y ago
  >Was Chomsky ever an expert? Chomsky is a Linguistics Professor, he has no formal training in media or political theory. So yes, he is not an expert, and funnily enough he's the kind of leftist who straight up admits he is biased and selectively picks facts to support this arguments.

jaredklewis 2y ago

> I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob. Disagree. Democracy can basically be mob rule and still be “good” if mob rule is better than alternatives like “divine right of kings,” “rule by military despot” and so on.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jorvi 2y ago

You are so close to breaking through.. > Otherwise, if democracy is good and votes should matter and at the same time voters are a mob subject to manipulation... democracy is what? A system of government by whoever can do better propaganda? Why would that be good for anyone except those who do propaganda? Yes. And you are already waking up to that in your next question. > One question I would ask if people are just a mob, who is actually pushing the buttons? Owners of media, political leaders, are also humans, no? They have the same weaknesses, at least in principle. > If you accept some people are different (those who command and control propaganda) then we must conclude that not all people are vulnerable to it Why would those who do propaganda not be susceptible to disinformation, or the Dunning-Kruger or Gell-mann Amnesia effects? Every person is susceptible to disinformation. The difference is that those in power can disseminate disinformation at scale. > so maybe it's a spectrum. But still democracy sounds like a bad idea, as a majority are probably on the low end of the spectrum, and the majority rules. Hence "tyranny of democracy". Many places in the First world are now experiencing this, where 'green' programs and and social progress are being dismantled en masse because of a slight majority. Worst of it is, long term these decisions will carry a massive financial burden. The LA fires with $250 billion+ in damages are a herald of that.

ajmurmann 2y ago

I think Democracy is critically important. However, the main reason I believe this is because Democracy allows for the transfer of power without violence. That's THE value prop.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]