3 ms·
At no point did "democracy" or its principles come into this discussion. Yes, it did. Just a few minutes ago when I pointed it out. Or are you the only one who
by CWuestefeld 11mo ago
At no point did "democracy" or its principles come into this discussion.
Yes, it did. Just a few minutes ago when I pointed it out. Or are you the only one who's allowed to identify what principles are implicateed in the conversation?
I have no idea what you mean by "the internet disproved that long ago". But you seem to be setting this up as a false choice fallacy.
It can be simultaneously true that, on one hand, there's no need to exhaustively publicize every fact all the time; while also true that the leadership of a democracy providing false information to its citizens subverts the very foundations of democracy.
- Arainach 11mo agoWhen full disclosure of the truth means that people will panic and cause bigger harms, you have to take the good of society into consideration. "Ducking and covering" isn't going to do anything in a nuclear strike, but if telling people that it will do something means they stay calm and don't go into a panic stockpiling guns and food (or abandoning all civilized principles altogether in a nihilistic fit), then telling them that is justified.
- CWuestefeld 10mo agoWhen full disclosure of the truth means that people will panic and cause bigger harms, you have to take the good of society into consideration. OK, so at least we're being honest now and not pretending it's a democracy anymore. But who is it that decides when it's something of sufficient severity that we must lie?