The Only Relevant Political Issue is Electoral Reform

[reef harbor]

I'm not too familiar with the details, I'm still developing my thoughts on the subject. I believe that the initial stay/leave vote was a direct democracy style referendum (minus the cell phone). This was a super simple vote minus all the minutia of leaving. From that the representatives took over to sort out the details.

[crisp basin]

The answer to both 1 and 2 is no. There were quite a few problems with the Brexit referendum.

The chief problem was that nobody had the faintest idea what the effect of leaving the EU would be. So it was never possible to allow people to make an informed decision on the referendum question (which is a fundamental requirement of direct democracy). In that respect, it was very irresponsible of the government at the time to create a referendum where people couldn't possibly make an informed choice.

Another flaw was the question itself. It was marketed as a simple in-out answer, but the reality of the situation was that there weren't only two choices, not by a long way. Being part of the EU means participating and cooperating with the EU on an almost infinite number of policy areas, and we had the option to work either with the EU or on our own on all of them, almost completely separately from each other in most cases. So the choice being presented was a false one, and nobody, aside from the people who wanted to remain within the EU completely, was given a choice to select the option they wanted. This had the effect of grouping the votes badly, so that people who actually wanted almost polar opposites ended up having to vote for the same option.

The referendum process was further hindered by extensive misinformation campaigns being carried out by the extreme right wing pressure groups with the aid of most of the mainstream media (who in the UK are very right wing) and social media bots. Since the government had bowed to pressure from those same groups to hold the referendum in the first place, the government did nothing to combat the misinformation being spread, choosing instead to stay out of it entirely.

The net result of nobody being able to vote for what they wanted, nor having any idea what either of the options meant in reality, was that the question itself became irrelevant and it became instead a referendum on whether people wanted stuff to stay the same, or to change. Change won, but nobody agreed on what change they wanted.

So the short answer to your second question, is that it wasn't ever possible for the final result to represent the will of the people, since nobody had a clue what the people had voted for in the first place.

The longer answer illustrates the flaws with a First Past The Post, binary approach to votes. Since there was no consensus among the Leave supporters as to what 'Leave' actually meant, remaining within the EU was more popular than any of the specific options for how to leave. So as a result, when they asked MPs to vote on the specifics of how to leave the EU, there was never a majority in favour of any of the options (it would have been the same if they had asked the public). Basically, most people thought that remaining within the EU was a better idea than leaving the EU with any of the specific plans on how to do so.

So the net result was that since no plan could be agreed, and the government was unwilling to argue with the right wing of its own party, the UK had to leave without a plan, resulting in the most extreme of all Leave options. The right-wing campaigners got their way without ever having the majority support, by gaming the system to eliminate the most popular choice at the start.

An eliminative ballot, by contrast, would have eliminated the least popular options, resulting in an overwhelming decision to stay in the EU. Because that was the most preferable option for the country as a whole.

[reef harbor]

Ty for the summary. I can barely keep up with US politics, so a nice concise summary of this is nice to read.
I know there was like a lot of back and forth with the EU in negotiating a Brexit deal, it seems to me that this can't really be captured in a pure direct democracy style electorate efficiently without electing or delagating some representatives to do these negotiations.
So like would just a second referendum after a final deal was negotiated be enough to adequately represent the will of the people? In addition to ditching the fptp yes no voting.

[hard mural]

To say the mainstream media in the UK (i.e., the BBC) is right wing is incredibly laughable. If only the government could have censored more people, all our problems could be solved. 😂

Sorry but for some reason I trust neither your interpretations of political issues or what you are calling 'democracy'.

[crisp basin]

The BBC is heavily censored by the Conservative Party now, after the government appointed a ton of new people to ensure that it only presents views the Conservative Party approves of. It basically hasn't shared a left-wing or controversial view in about a decade.

For the rest of the mainstream media, 90% of the print newspapers are owned by three companies (News Corp, DMG and Reach), all three of which are very obviously right-wing, and all of which dominate the online news market too (well, the part that isn't dominated by the tech giants like Facebook).

[reef harbor]

Ignoring like a state funded media source like BBC, but if people listen to an independent, non government affiliated conservative news source, are convinced by the conservative news source, develop genuine conservative beliefs based on that news source, and then vote according to their genuine political beliefs, democracy is working as intended.

[crisp basin]

A final referendum when the negotiated deal was known, when people could actually make an informed choice, would have corrected some of the problems, yes. But we would still have the issues about misinformation.

[reef harbor]

Like there's a ton of stuff about people voting against their own interests, especially for US elections. But the second you move away from "does this vote represent the will of the people" than you are talking about societal reform and not electoral reform

[reef harbor]

Overlap would probably be electoral systems that encourage active participation.

Maybe from this line of thinking you can reason that the overall goal of an electoral system should be to encourage active participation, and that direct democracy is just like a means to an end to achieve this, or like a tool in the toolbox

[crisp basin]

Forgive me, but that's not how it works at all.

The BBC was for a long time one of the best news organisations in the world. Before around 2000 ish it provided quality, impartial journalism, and was thus seen as a major threat by the right-wing because it enjoyed a massive market share advantage and was prepared to counter lies that were being told. The fact it was state funded meant it was immune to the most serious sources of bias that exists in the media, i.e., private interests. Until around 2000, it had a great degree of editorial independence. It was trusted and respected around the world, and was far more reliable than 99.9% of private media. It's because it was set up for public-benefit purposes, and those solid independent morals lasted for a long time. The UK was very good at doing things purely for the public benefit, but the Conservatives have been gradually destroying each part of it each time they get into government.

But these days there is no such thing as independent media. If media isn't government funded then it's owned by someone else, who will push their interests into everything that the media produces. News Corp is the play thing of Rupert Murdoch, Reach was Robert Maxwell, and DMG is the Harmsworths. Facebook and Google is anyone who can pay. The people who have the most money can pay to have their views transmitted to others. That's what mainstream media is.

People don't make choices about which news sources they listen to. They never have a fair choice about which views to listen to, because they don't choose the opinions they see first. Views are presented directly to them, especially nowadays with Facebook and other online news feeds. People who are rich, and/or own the media, can control what people see first, what people see most, and can attack other sources that do not have the same ability to fight back.

[hard mural]

So censorship when people who think differently than you are in power is bad, but censorship when you are in power is good?

[crisp basin]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying that we have to trust that the outcome of a vote by the people represents the views of the people? I agree that is the case with many very simple votes with a very limited number of options, but it wasn't the case with Brexit for the reasons I mentioned. When nobody understands the options, the vote doesn't represent anything.

Also, I would argue that electoral reform is a part of societal reform. It's one big system, you can't really change any one part of it in isolation.

[crisp basin]

What are you talking about?

[hard mural]

About your critique of the 'right-wing agenda' to censor left-leaning content while simultaneously promoting censorship of 'misinformation', which by simple extrapolation would be anything that is not to the left.

[crisp basin]

I don't understand where you get that extrapolation from. When I've talked about censoring misinformation, I've been talking about trying to stop the spread of information that cannot be verified with evidential support. That applies equally to everyone, it's not left or right wing censorship.

[hard mural]

Just happening to align with left-leaning positions when it comes to censoring 'misinformation' then eh?

Point is, we all have bias and you might as well admit to your own. Don't feign objectivity. With such biases, how can you ever hope to fairly discern misinformation from simply that which you don't agree with. Censorship is not a quality of any form of democracy.

[crisp basin]

How do we discern misinformation from information we just disagree with? Simple. We create a minimum bar of supporting evidence that something must meet, and check that the language being used matches what the evidence says. We do it all the time with published research. I'm really just suggesting we should subject all published works to an equal degree of checking.

As I think I explained in the Adblockers thread, censorship exists in practice in any system. It's just a question about who has oversight of it. If the government doesn't control it, then someone else does.

[junior cave]

The problem is that everyone wants electoral reform because we don't trust the government.

The government being able to censor evidence to silence the people is the opposite of pointing out evidence that has been censored or muddled.

For instance, no one questions Open Tanyao's assessment that an effective fearmongering campaign by those in power (meaning the government) can ban practices that put their influence in danger.

The only reason censorship would exist in practice, as you claim is because the those in power (meaning the government) are the ones allowing it.

We don't need to flood this thread about censorship. If I have spoken out of line on anyone's behalf, they can speak up about it.

[crisp basin]

My reason for campaigning for electoral reform is nothing to do with not trusting the government. I want electoral reform first and foremost so that we can consistently get a government that actually represents the people in the country (as opposed to never, with the current system). I regard that as a more fundamental problem.

[junior cave]

I don't trust that the government represents me either. I don't trust that the system represents me as well.

That's what fundamental trust in the government is.

But we don't have to flood this thread with that disagreement either. We can just disagree about it. You trust the government but not the system or whatever definitions you have on the subject. We are cool.

[neon plaza]

I mean, it's not Arklar's fault that the right wing is censoring stuff like being or talking about LGBT+, while the left wing is censoring misinformation like "The Jews did 9/11". It's just what it is.

And most of that left wing censoring is actually adding notes that say "Be careful with misinformation, click here to find more info about the subject"

[hard mural]

What does a 'minimum bar of supporting evidence' constitute exactly? Who collects this evidence and who reports on it? As a scientist myself, these are very important questions. And to pretend that those involved in the review process are all unbiased observers is naive and incorrect. With an establishment in media, in public administration, and in academia that leans a little too far in either direction, you run the risk of having information suppressed based on its opposition to the narrative rather than on the basis of it's own validity.

Honesty is not an attribute of power and giving more power to the government by allowing censorship and expecting them to be honest is foolish.

It just so happens that in the three entities I mentioned earlier, the left is heavily in control. This is how talks of censorship are being propagated once again even after a century of evidence pointing to the tyranny of such a policy.

[hard mural]

Okay, we can all cherry-pick and pretend like it's the other guys who are doing all the bad and it's my side that are the angels. My point is censorship is not a quality of democracy and should not be trusted in the hands of either side.

Do you feel comfortable deciding what is truth and what is not? I know many on this thread believe truth is unattainable (the skeptic view). Thus, how can you remove your bias of what you take to be true from what is actually truth?

A policy of censorship necessitates having a standard of what is considered correct (i.e., politically correct) without needing to be factually correct. Naturally what ends up being considered politically correct is whatever keeps those in power from being removed from power. Control the narrative and you control the ignorant populace...the basic strategy taken by every communist authority since the early 20th century.

If you ever think you need to suppress other people's thoughts, speech or whatever else, then maybe it is because you feel your thoughts are not quite as great as you originally thought.

[neon plaza]

You don't get to defend antisemitic conspiracy theories by saying "Lol is truth even real?" and fake calling out cherry-picking.

Epistemologically, there's no way to get to ultimate knowledge, I agree.

But there are ways to separate accurate information (aka very high likelihood of being true) from inaccurate information (aka low likelihood of being true).

Now when the latter is actually harmful, people should be corrected and warned about misinformation. At least, if you want to prevent said harm.

I didn't choose to be left leaning politically. I follow the path that leads me to the most accurate information, and that path happens to line up with what we would traditionally call left wing.

I'm not hyped about another authoritarian douchebag calling themself "communist" killing millions in a famine again. Maybe there should've been someone who checked the fucking truth value of what their "scientists" were saying and correct them. To prevent all the deaths.

Instead of letting them believe whatever they wanted because "truth is unattainable".

Jfc.

[crisp basin]

I'm not talking about having trust in the people you elect to represent you in government. I'm talking about not being able to elect people to represent you in government in the first place. In the UK, for example, the government consists of the representatives chosen by about 14% of the country. 86% of the country doesn't have someone who's job it is to represent their view in government. So that's 86% of the country who is just flat out ignored even before you get to the issue about whether elected representatives can be trusted to represent the views of the people who chose them.

[junior cave]

Famines that kill millions are not overnight. The truth of death was known by the government apart from experts. It was the control despite the death that was attainable. To give the control of information to a government that will be ruled by a party is in error. What the wrong party does with the control is the long term view of evidence.

[crisp basin]

Like I said, the system exists already in academic research. It's easy to look up how the system of peer review works. It works really well there.

Public administration and academia tend to be left-leaning because they are both providing a service to others. Both are areas of work that require people to understand the necessity of helping others. Media, on the other hand, tends to be a mixture, because although there are a few journalists who see accurate reporting as public service, there are also those who just want to influence other people's opinions. The overall balance in the media is then heavily shifted to the right, because the rich owners filter out views they don't agree with. Censorship exists already, it's just currently being done without any public oversight.

[junior cave]

Accountability should be inserted into the government using the device in our pockets as a prelude to possible direct democracy if that becomes viable through that test rather than a revolution is my position. I am totally open to any other practical ideas to move forward against power (whether you define power as the government or the system or whatever).

[hard mural]

Okay, couple things. I chose not to respond to your examples before because I did not want to detail the conversation. You did that by insinuating I was a defender of antisemitic conspiracy theories, when I am not in the slightest. Just to clarify, antisemitism is very much a problem on the left side of the aisle at the moment (considering the example of the Israel-Hamas war).

Secondly, I brought the example of skepticism in to point out the contradiction between the skeptic's view of epistemology versus the policy of knowing the truth for certain and being willing to censor anything that is not that supposed truth. I am very much a believer of an objective truth, so this does not apply to me. That said I feel no need to censor information that is contrary to what I hold to be true. That is what someone who is insecure of their ideas does to make their bad ideas dominant. Truth will prevail on its own.

[neon plaza]

That just confirms what I said, that there should be experts checking whether the information is correct.

[neon plaza]

Being against a genocide does not make you antisemitic. Do you think being against the holocaust makes people anti-German?

That is absolutely ridiculous.

[hard mural]

I am familiar with the process very well as I am familiar with it's weaknesses. Anything that leads to there being a notion of 'settled science' where any contrary evidence is forbidden is completely antithetical to the concept of science.

[junior cave]

I get you. But in the conversation of censorship, the governmental parties amplify evidence to support their side and mute evidence that doesn't. Examples abound in history for this and this should be a side thread. Its come up enough with enough people to justify its own thread.

[neon plaza]

Yeah, that's why governments shouldn't have that much power.

[hard mural]

This deserves a separate thread to discuss this topic. But I'll respond briefly. Would you consider what happened on October 7th an effort towards genocide? If so, then would an appropriate response be to eliminate those attempting genocide?

[hard mural]

Exactly my point on censorship

[neon plaza]

It was not an effort towards genocide, but it was a horrible act by religious fanatic lunatics.

And using that as an excuse for a genocide is not an appropriate response.

[crisp basin]

I think you're wrong on all accounts, but I think there's no way to get into that discussion here without derailing the thread.

[hard mural]

Again this is off-topic, but if you believe the demonstrations across the world in favor of Hamas and against the free state of Israel are not anti-Semitic. I encourage you to reconsider your position.

[neon plaza]

I have seen zero demonstrations in favor of Hamas, only demonstrations against the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

I don't see a reasonable link between the jewish people and the government of the state of Israel. That government is making choices that are widely regarded as crimes against humanity, while the vast majority of jews have nothing to do with that.

[hard mural]

All I can say is you ought to change your channel every once in a while.

[neon plaza]

I don't watch any channels lol

[crisp basin]

Shall we start a new thread on this if we all want to keep discussing it?

(Since it's totally irrelevant to this thread)

[hard mural]

Speaking figuratively of course.

[neon plaza]

Yeah, you're assuming I don't follow the fascists and I don't make sure I know all their talking points and dogwhistles.

Know your enemy.

[hard mural]

Agreed, but I don't particularly think we're going to get anywhere on this platform. This is a philosophy forum that almost always gets into a debate into politics. This kind of platform is one of the worst ways to discuss those kinds of things.

It is so easy to assume the one you're chatting with is some evil Internet troll.

[hard mural]

Wrong attitude to seek better understanding.

[neon plaza]

Are you saying fascism is not the enemy?

[native mason]

Loving this conversation right now.

[hard mural]

Haha, is that what I said? Stop being disingenuous.

[neon plaza]

Don't defend fascism.

[hard mural]

Quote me where I defended fascism

[neon plaza]

"Wrong attitude to seek better understanding".

Fascists are the enemy, and we have to know what they're up to, to better understand how to prevent harm.

[hard mural]

Depends on who you're calling a fascist. If you are calling me who has been against censorship, government tyranny, etc for the entirety of this thread a fascist, then I'd say your definition of fascism is wrong.

[hard mural]

Happy to entertain

[neon plaza]

I'm not calling you a fascist.

[native mason]

Just curious, but what part of the world do you live in?

[tardy patio]

I initially disagreed with the prompt of the thread purely based on the phrasing of it. However, when I watched the video, Pete stated that electoral reform was the most important issue when it comes to the general population. I agree with this. While there are decisions that I believe could positively effect society, the bigger issue comes from how these decisions are implemented.

While there can be objectively good policies that generate from the structure we currently have, the reasoning behind said decisions don't come from a place of understanding the well-being of society and wanting to improve it. Rather, these decisions are made out of self-interest. Only making decisions that'll benefit the person or group they represent, whether said benefit is monetary or in the form of general influence.

While I believe there're numerous decisions that could benefit society as a collective, these decisions can't be made with this in mind, thus it will never be made. I'm not trying to say that good things can't come from time to time, but I believe that reforming the current system will yield a more positive impact for all of us.

[neon plaza]

Also the most important aspect of fascism is ultranationalism. Then it's the authoritarianism and militarism. Then it's the practical applications, like censorship and mass violence.

[tardy patio]

Yea, facism kinda mid.

Ngl

[hard mural]

From the US

[native mason]

Support white nationalist groups?

[neon plaza]

Hold on, do you think American liberals are left wing? Because that adds context to your statement that the left controls the media.

Looking at their actual policies, the Dems aren't left wing at all.

[hard mural]

Does it sound like I do?

[neon plaza]

That depends whether you say yes or no.

[native mason]

I don’t know, it’s why I’m asking.

[tardy patio]

Tanyao quick, ask if I'm a white nationalist.

[neon plaza]

Do you support white nationalist groups?

[tardy patio]

No I do not.

See? Very straight-forward.

[hard mural]

Then no

[native mason]

Do you think there are any white nationalists that may live in your general vicinity? Perhaps in your state or county?

[junior cave]

Wait, what? This thread has turned into a political platform rather than discussion on political reform. Starting to accuse people of supporting white nationalist groups is extremely counter productive. Who keeps talking about dog whistles, authoritarianism, militarism, censorship and mass violence? People are not asking if you support Hamas because we don't know if you do. Its assumed that you don't. If you do, that is a problem.

[native mason]

It’s a line of questioning, there’s a conclusion, but you’ll have to wait and see how it unfolds.

[hard mural]

Haha this conversation has gotten so crooked. Suddenly I'm being interrogated by the KGB

[junior cave]

How is that relevant or productive to political reform? I don't have to wait to know that its not.

[hard mural]

I know of none and I live in a pretty conservative state

[native mason]

No, I’m just wondering if you believe that a member/supporter of a white nationalist group may live in your general vicinity.

[hard mural]

Are there any communists living in your general vicinity

This thread needs a reset

[junior cave]

Who cares what someone believes about their neighbors? Other than the media, that is.

[native mason]

What do you think we should do about those people who support white nationalism?

[junior cave]

Shut them down with free speech.

[hard mural]

I think you guys should continue to go off the rails here

[native mason]

Naturally, you’re under no obligation to answer, but then we’ll never reach the conclusion, and the point.

[neon plaza]

Honestly, for a subject this complex, you cannot keep the discussion on 1 simple topic.

[native mason]

I’d agree, ebbs and flows

[junior cave]

Wait, how is support for Hamas part of the complexity of political reform?

[neon plaza]

Because of censorship of antisemitism, which led to Hamas in about 1 step. Because Hamas calls for the elimination of israel

And censorship was directly related to the political reform.

[hard mural]

If you think white nationalism is the root of all the worlds problems, you may be looking in the wrong direction

[neon plaza]

True

[crisp basin]

At risk of derailing the derailing of the thread, I don't know where the idea of 'settled science' comes into a discussion about censoring out misinformation. I don't think anyone's saying that censorship should be done on the basis of issues that are considered 'settled science'. Like you said, science itself doesn't recognise the existence of 'settled science'. Politics needs healthy debate and so does science, and so I don't think there is a problem with using a system that works well with scientific publications for political publications as well. But we need to do something in order to have a functional democracy, because whatever form of democracy we choose, we need people to be able to make informed decisions, and we can't do that in a world where people can't access accurate and truthful information. Without some form of fact checking and censorship, democracy doesn't exist.

[junior cave]

And direct democracy of western nations is not relevant to extreme beliefs.

[native mason]

I agree, but if you could read the question again and revise your answer to fit the inquiry, that would help move things along.

[neon plaza]

I would say that beliefs have an effect on the functioning of a direct democracy, because beliefs inform actions.

[neon plaza]

Which makes extreme beliefs extremely relevant

[junior cave]

Unless your against direct democracy (I should have added). I mean you can make the argument that direct democracy will have a serious adverse effect on society because of what the people of that society wants.

[tardy patio]

I guess to build onto that, actions always have reasoning behind them, whether it's just or unjust. This reasoning often stems from the perspective they hold and the beliefs that come with it. So in a way, the beliefs someone holds will be a direct cause of actions they perform or the words they say.

[hard mural]

Let them support it, what do I care. I can think it's a dumb philosophy and at the same time allow them to speak and believe whatever nonsense they want. Same goes for BLM, Antifa, etc.

Any call to action or violence is wrong.

[neon plaza]

Beliefs inform actions, regardless whether you're for or against direct democracy.

[native mason]

And when there is a call to action by a white nationalist group, what do you believe should be done?

[crisp basin]

OK, but do you recognise the importance of imposing some beliefs on others in order to maintain a functioning society? For example, the belief that it is wrong to murder innocent people?

[junior cave]

That still has nothing to do with dog whistles to the conversation of direct democracy. That is a conversation of the harm of direct democracy. Which has been conversations within the formation of our western governments. If you are arguing against direct democracy, I can understand where your coming from.

[reef harbor]

We should apply the Brandenburg test to determine if that kind of speech warrants restrictions.

The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

[neon plaza]

Do you not think that a conversation about direct democracy includes a conversation about the negative aspects of direct democracy?

[hard mural]

Obviously, but to conflate speech with violence is where you are wrong

[crisp basin]

Do you not think that some forms of speech cause more harm than some forms of violence? I mean, speech can incite violence. It seems silly to ignore the cause of the problem.

[junior cave]

Yes, for sure. That is why I propose testing the devices in our pockets as actually viable to make change. My proposal is to make the first step accountability (both of the government representative we have now and of the population).

[reef harbor]

Direct democracy is not a silver bullet to solving all of our government issues.

1. It (probably) increases voter participation and involvement in government.
2. It (probably) follows the will of the people a bit better, without having to filter through a representative.
3. It (probably) doesn't fix any issues with voter education, misinformation, and control of narratives, which would greatly impact the effectiveness of ANY democracy

[tardy patio]

I agree. While I think electoral reform is the most important issue, it won't solve all of the problems we currently face. In fact, I would say it's only step one of the process to a better society.

[native mason]

@hard mural Lots of stuff going on currently, and many sidetracks…but consider my last question and perhaps we can pick it up later.

[tardy patio]

There would still need to be a lot more work to be done.

[hard mural]

Bad ideas can indirectly cause violence as well. Would you lock someone up for having a bad idea?

[junior cave]

Sure. I was going with Pete's declaration that all hope is not lost and I look for a solution that has possibilities to move forward with that view in mind, as productive thought.

[neon plaza]

Oh god, the Dred Pirate is typing

[junior cave]

I am not suggesting we jump into direct democracy without looking first.

[crisp basin]

I'm not suggesting we lock people up for communicating misinformation. I'm just suggesting we recognise where the responsibility for actions lies, and don't ignore the fact that speech has consequences.

The law recognises a difference between mistakes and deliberate acts.

[last stirrup]

No that would be a bad idea… oh wait… shit… I had a bad idea in my head and you put it there. Now we both belong in prison.

[hard mural]

Oops haha

[reef harbor]

Two examples of direct democracy that I'm a fan of.

1. States signing onto this, which makes the winner of the popular vote the presendental nominee. They currently have 205/270 electoral seats needed to enforce it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
2. Stateside referendum, recall initiative ballots. Here's California's implementation. This is what got us gay marriage, abortion, and weed legalization.
   https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2021-007

[junior cave]

You belonging in prison is the worse idea. Stranded on a desert island would be the better of the bad ideas.

[last stirrup]

I lost weight when I left my booty on a desert island.

[junior cave]

A boot to the head or a head in the boot? Oh, wait... that is a NZ thing.

[last stirrup]

Apparently some people think that the only relevant political issue is something other than electoral reform and they are demonstrating that by discussing it here.

[junior cave]

Its worse than that.

1. It (probably) doesn't increases voter participation and involvement in government enough to be valid.
2. It (probably) follows the whim of the majority, without having a representative for stability in practical matters.
3. It (probably) doesn't fix any issues of disagreement or division techniques used to keep the population on a party narrative.

[rain mortar]

Re#1 the only reason voter participation is being measured is because representational democracy is so terribly designed that the majority of the electorate are apathetic to the process.

Re#2 this is literally the point of this entire thread so I'm glad we returned to the topic. The probably here would be the benchmark of success. If the system if direct democracy didn't follow the will of the people better than filtering through a rep. Then it would not meet my standard as democracy.

Re#3 this seems to be a conflation.
Conceded that the media becomes even more powerful in a direct democracy model but the implication that voter education/misinformation necessarily entails that we as individuals are somehow unworthy to choose for ourselves is my main criticism of the anti-direct democracy position.

If you guys believe you are unworthy to choose for yourselves then you don't need to worry about tweaks to fix democracy because you don't actually believe in it at all

I will now refer to this as the unworthy box

[junior cave]

These are extremely local examples. Which has the benefit of local populations ruling themselves. The tough part is the federal government and the push for a global government. That is where the power filters down from which will influence local populations across nations and potentially the globe. As well as the party narratives that currently rule said governments.

[junior cave]

That is a bit of a harsh critique. The purpose of a representative (classically) is so whims of the majority cannot over-rule minority opinion. The classic example is white people owning slaves or bringing back slavery. While this may not be the practical case in the present, it is a consideration. Its not just to chalk it up to not being worthy of choosing, but what a majority can undo as far as progress.

That is why I bring accountability of representatives into the picture before, say, a revolution.

[rain mortar]

While that may be the classic purpose the defacto purpose is to ensure and maintain an upper class of wealthy business interests.

I dislike slavery in all its forms. Including the current one where I'm told I'm free to choose but I'm given a non choice

[junior cave]

No, I get you. Just saying that is a bit harsh to lump thoughts into.

[rain mortar]

The way I like to do philosophy is by not wasting my time typing out unecessary words. It's harsh, but is it also true?

[junior cave]

I get the frustration.

[reef harbor]

Reading your response to 3, I believe we are mostly in agreement, with it being a conflation, as direct democracy isn't even trying to address these problems. My initial point wasn't trying to discredit direct democracy, but to argue against it being a silver bullet.

The issues of education/misinformation apply to any democracy system. If anything, point 1 will nudge the electorate in the right direction with increased voter participation. Anything is better than the current apathy punctuated by rampant factionalism every election cycle.

[junior cave]

The example that I used before is that if the majority deems that you need to let people live in your house for free because of the housing situation, then you have no representative to defend your minority opinion that your house is your house. Its a consideration. So its not completely true.

[rain mortar]

I think of voter apathy as a good thing in the sense that it's a very strong indication that the system is garbage.

So that's a problem that fixes itself with better design

[rain mortar]

I'm resisting the urge to not go down the private ownership rabbit hole

[tardy patio]

While it is harsh, I do agree with that. The whole purpose of representatives is that these people are seen as the professionals that will make the best decisions for everyone as a whole. I for one don't think this system represents the entire scope of perspectives and ideas that are present in our society. A democracy that only accounts for the interests of a select group of people and only those people isn't really a democratic society at all.

I think people are more than capable to make decisions they see as the best one. I have faith that if everyone is represented within this new system, that it'll have the best outcome. I'll like to think people can do good if they work together to bring about change. While I see electoral reform as the first step, it's still important nonetheless.

[reef harbor]

I would add this in the "benchmark of success" that you talked about earlier. Increased voter participation will have tons of positive effects for any democracy.

Ideally the "feedback" time between voters voting on something and seeing the change in society should be as short as possible.

[junior cave]

Its just a hypothetical that a majority has the power to change. One that would impact you directly. Not saying its going to happen. Just that careful considerations are not unworthy in a box.

[rain mortar]

Maybe I don't see it the same way as you.
If the majority of people want something that equals democracy

so do we want democracy or not?

do we want to put our thumb on the scale? and if so where?

[junior cave]

A repeat here: Accountability should be inserted into the government using the device in our pockets as a prelude to possible direct democracy if that becomes viable through that test rather than a revolution is my position. I am totally open to any other practical ideas to move forward against power (whether you define power as the government or the system or whatever).

[tardy patio]

Yes.

That is all.

[reef harbor]

~ Here's a second hypothetical. What if it's more than a majority? Like a super majority? Of what if literally everyone else agrees on this one single thing except you? ~

On second thought I don't really see this thread of conversation going anywhere productive or fun so nevermind

[hard mural]

Are there any flaws with democracy? And if so could we have a system that limits the negatives of democracy?

[crisp basin]

I don't understand why you think representatives ensure minority opinions cannot be overruled. Representative democracy not only ensures that minority opinions can be overruled, but also that majority opinions can be overruled.

Any time you make a generalisation to elect a representative, there is a rounding error which eliminates minority views.

[junior cave]

You mean under the current system if representatives are held accountable or a direct democracy? Because the results would be the same. Fun is not part of political reform. In fact, direct democracy and the mundane task of voting on every item is not fun to the general population. That is why participation is one of the keys to a valid government under direct democracy rule.

[junior cave]

There is nothing ensured without accountability. All opinions can be overruled with unaccountable governmental powers in charge. Accountability is the largest problem within the current system.

[crisp basin]

I agree accountability is essential for representative democracy. But how does a minority hold an elected representative accountable?

They can't vote them out

[junior cave]

In the present? It really doesn't. In the past representatives had more direct communication with their constituents and option to vote on issues because of merit was way more common.

[rain mortar]

I think the most obvious flaw might be that we are unworthy to make our own decisions.
Which is why I want to give that line of thinking it's own category because it undermines the rest of the conversation fundamentally.

[crisp basin]

I'm not sure that was ever a reality. It would be asking representatives to vote against their own self-interest, which is a very difficult ask in any democratic society.

[last stirrup]

If giving people what they want is democracy then No we don’t want democracy.

I think the analogy with a thumb on the scale is flawed. A society choosing to trust systems of best decision making rather than their own uninformed opinions does not equal a thumb on the scale.

If a city council is deciding where to put a new bridge and they entrust the study of the problem to road and traffic engineers and other experts instead of asking the public to make the specifics of the decision that is not a thumb on the scale. That is simply the public’s interest being best served. They will benefit from the bridge perhaps even a majority would say they want the bridge, but there is no way they would ever agree on the same spot and if they did it will be the wrong spot with many problems later that everyone would hate.

[crisp basin]

One of the few arguments for some kind of benevolent dictator is that if you give someone everything they could possibly need, then that is one of the few scenarios where someone is able to make a decision thinking about the needs of others.

[neon plaza]

The majority of Dutch people want to live the easy lives they got from their parents/grandparents. Those standards of living directly caused slavery in the third world.

I know we think similarly about national borders, but this was just to illustrate how the majority sometimes just don't know how their actions affect the minority.

So that kind of democracy is just not good enough for me.

[crisp basin]

I think that's missing the fact that the majority had to delegate power to that group in the first place. So the majority chose to have experts make the decision, which means it's still a majority decision.

[rain mortar]

But I want traffic engineers and road experts to give me safe and functioning infrastructure. Everyone does.

I have not been suggesting in this thread that decisions of that nature be put to referenda, that's a moronic position to hold and I don't hold it.

I have been suggesting that we design a system to distribute decisionmaking and put it in the hands of technical expert administrators when necessary but beholden to the group will, rather than what we have now where the decisionmaking itself is nested in tribal chieftains.

[neon plaza]

The majority isn't evil, or hopelessly lost, or untrustworthy. But it's not something that fixes itself completely.

[junior cave]

We disagree about that. I can only speak for slave states vs. free states and the representation the US got for new states. The whole thing was a mess with people moving into new states to change the majority in those states. Like I said, its a consideration. Acknowledgement of the need for change is relevant to the present. Lines of thought are not fundamentally undermining the conversation of how to move forward against power. I have stated mine as a practical way to incorporate the device in our pocket for integration into the future.

[neon plaza]

I agree with the split between technical knowledge and directional voting.

[reef harbor]

There's two conversations here that I think are worth keeping completely separate.

1. How do we implement an electoral system that accurately captures the will of the people.
2. How do we ensure the will of the people is in line with what is best for society.

[rain mortar]

We are all currently enslaved by a system that was either designed mostly by interia or not designed at all.

My we here is all humanity.

[rain mortar]

Re#2 you can't

[neon plaza]

As I said, we're on the same wavelength about that ^^

Which is exceptionally rare btw

[rain mortar]

I just think it's somewhere between ignorant and asinine to assume that representational democracy fixed that problem rather than exacerbating it.

[neon plaza]

I think it made the administrative efficiency of nations vastly more efficient.

But at the cost of freedom.

[rain mortar]

right, or possible at all

but it's archaic

and needs to be updated

which is the purpose of this thread

[neon plaza]

I always say we need to take what we learned from the administrative benefits of hierarchical systems, and drop all the power structures.

[tardy patio]

Wait, by direct democracy, are we talking about everyone voting on every issue that comes up? I was under the impression this system would operate the same way as stated by Pete.

Ideally, the issues that come up would be decided upon by people that are invested in that one subject and have a good understanding of it. I believe someone already said it in this thread but not everyone can vote on every single issue. I agree with that, which is why I picture people involving their input in the issues they A) know about the most and B) are the most invested in.

[neon plaza]

I think anyone can vote for anything if and only if the vote represents a vision/direction, instead of requiring technical knowledge about every subject.

[rain mortar]

Imagine every morning you open your phone and there are 7 options.
If you are unwilling to inform yourself or you have no opinion you can abstain on giving one.

Obviously we would still need a ton of administrators, technical experts in their field.
If they are doing a bad job they need to be able to be fired immediately. There should be a strong incentive for merit

[last stirrup]

Sorry didn’t put that very well I guess. Not suggesting that you were stating that position. I was just trying to examine what would be a thumb on the scale. Getting the bridge located where it would benefit your business while harming the best interest of society would be a thumb on the scale and disregarding the majorities many uninformed opinions to do what they would want in the future is not.

All that is assuming that the bridge is actually needed and that the correct location is knowable. If we entertain that hypothetical then placing the bridge in the correct place would be perfect balance of the scale even if the voice of the people was completely ignored in the short term.

[tardy patio]

Yea, I agree. I'm sure the technical experts would lay the ground work so people have the resources to make the decision they believe is best.

[rain mortar]

My analogy to the thumb on the scale refers to anything that offsets the true will of the people (even if that will is self destructive)
because it's fundamentally undemocratic.

I don't know that we should be given the power to destroy ourselves or if we should be protected from that power, but that immediately begs the question of which subset of us is the one protecting the rest.

And since I don't think any people are more or less worthy of their lives as any others that seems an intractable problem for democracy.

Either you believe we are worthy to decide our own fate, or you dont

[rain mortar]

One of the cardinal virtues of a healthy system as I envision it is of simplicity.
If the laws that govern us are not able to be understood by the simplest of those that they govern then they are likely unjust laws from my view.
To not do so entails a 'priest class' of legal experts to have to interpret the rules of the game for everyone else.
And at everyone else's expense of course.

[neon plaza]

I include most animals in the circle of life I want to see flourish. Animals that by definition cannot understand these laws.

I include the most mentally disabled people that cannot understand those laws.

[last stirrup]

Ah. I think of the scale as that measurement of what the people would want if they knew everything and could look back from the future. But disregarding the true will of the people is not something to be done lightly.

There are many issues on which pure democracy / live polling of the majority of the population would be very useful and might function better than representative democracy even in its idealized form.

[rain mortar]

Animals are a hard problem here for sure.
I heard recently that progress with AI has brought understanding cetacean language into possibility in the near future so that's super exciting. Imagine what we can learn from whales.

[tardy patio]

I picture having a pet rabbit I can talk about video games with but whales work too.

[neon plaza]

Yeah, that's one of the issues I have. If the human majority ultimately chooses, the animals will keep being slaves.

[rain mortar]

Yeah I don't pretend to know how to solve for that.
I tend to relativize my ethics against humanity rather than all life. Worrying about the needs of an organism you can't really communicate with seems nearly impossible.

[tardy patio]

I think that's a valid concern. However, I would say that the system we currently have will be more likely to have this outlook on animals. Even if direct democracy dictates that animals should stay as slaves, the possibility of that not happening is increased in this proposed system versus the one we have right now.

The way I see it isn't which system will solve the most problems' but rather which system will increase the likelihood of problems being addressed.

[neon plaza]

I wouldn't say all life either, just all life capable of the experience of suffering, as far as I know to be the case.

[junior cave]

Another consideration is what system is more likely to become a reality within that framework.

[tardy patio]

To be clear, I'm describing what would be the best solution in general. I agree that it's near impossible that direct democracy will become a reality but nonetheless, I enjoy thinking about what life could be.

Like if I was given the choice, I would want that system over this one but I'm well aware this wouldn't be a choice in the current environment we're in.

[crisp basin]

I think there are two issues with animals. First there is the issue of acting in self-interest. Are we allowed to do that or not? Do we need to act in the best interests of other people, or other species?

To me, the desire to improve one's own situation is pretty fundamental to human existence, and indeed, to the existence of all life. Democracy relies on that principle in fact, that people will vote for what is good for them and that you can therefore get an accurate reading of what is the best overall by looking at the overall results of the vote. We're allowed to be selfish, and it's kind of impossible to avoid to some extent.

The basis of all of human society is that it is better for all of us.

[junior cave]

Well, ya. Colonization to another galaxy is the best solution for survival. But solutions away from earth are first then solutions away from the sun is second, etc. The question is the actual practical steps and is Elon Musk taking those? Which is a bad example because someone is actually doing something rather than talking about Andromeda. Is it possible to work toward, is the point.

[crisp basin]

Second, if we decide that animals are important, they would seem to fit into the category of beings who are unable to make informed decisions about the choices we offer. So then they become a good illustration of the main problem with direct democracy, which is that most people cannot make informed choices about many issues. A democratic system that makes worse decisions overall results in a worse society, and I would definitely argue that is not an improvement. We always need to keep in mind what the ultimate goal is, in any discussion.

So, for me, animals demonstrate that a hybrid system involving elements of direct democracy and representative democracy is necessary, as the only way of achieving both aims. Both to ensure everyone's voices are equal, and to ensure that decisions can be made in an informed way.

[tardy patio]

As generic as it sounds, anything is possible if you put your mind to it. Even if the chance of the best solution happening is near zero, that doesn't mean that chance still doesn't exist.

To sort of answer your question, the practical steps would become apparent with the right perspective. If we collectively come together to figure out solutions and implement them, then I believe society as a whole will see the most benefit. To me, to say that something can't happen is nihilistic and I personally prefer to take a more optimistic approach when it comes to discussing what we can do and what it can look like. In short, giving others hope will help us discover what we can do to make our lives better.

[junior cave]

I would agree with a hybrid system if accountability is there. That is why I think accountability is the first step.

[tardy patio]

I agree. Accountability would be important and shouldn't be ignored. In direct democracy, we would have to hold ourselves accountable versus someone else since we would all directly contribute to how our society functions. It sounds like a scary thought but since people tend to hold themselves to higher standards, then I would believe that personal responsibility would increase in this proposed system.

Which of course, would make us accountable for the choices we make.

[junior cave]

Well that goes with being worthy to choose your own fate. If we are unable hold representatives accountable, we are not worthy of choosing our own fate (in an obvious sense on the surface).

[tardy patio]

I would say the reasoning behind this is because the representatives have all the power and the citizens have none. Because of that, we can't possibly hold them accountable since we the people don't have the authority to do so. Of course you could say that another representative could be elected but that only creates an artificial sense of choice and doesn't break the cycle.

Within this new system, accountability would be more common since we would all have equal say. That way, we will be able to decide our own fate. I agree we can't do that in the current system but again, that's because the population doesn't have any real power within our current state. The only reason someone would get the idea that people are incapable of choosing fate is if they had no real opportunity to demonstrate that they can.

Within direct democracy, I believe that it'll become apparent that people are more than capable to choose their own fate when given the right to do so.

[junior cave]

Oh, ok. It seems you don't know the proposal I have. What I did was take Pete's idea of the device in our pocket (as a way for direct democracy) and Open Tanyao's mention of participation as a problem and combined those ideas into a system of accountability that can be pushed for by using our phones to poll our "votes" that representatives can see and give a tally of what the votes of the representative actually did. This would be a test for direct democracy being viable (with participation) and open possibilities of solving some problems. There is more to say about that but I don't want to repeat it all. Yes, it would possibly hold the representative more accountable and make us more accountable within the current system as a way to move forward. (sorry for the repeat)

Any improvements or other practical ways is welcome.

[tardy patio]

That's fair. There's like 1,000+ comments before I even jumped in so there is a possibility I missed that.

I like the concept of this. I guess my only question would be what purpose the representatives would serve in this system? If the deciding factor of what representative votes is solely decided on the vote of the people within that area, what would their role be?

Wait, I just figured out you were trying to say that the votes of the citizens would be used to see if the vote of the representative matches what the citizens want.

[junior cave]

Their role is the same as now. For instance, if only 10% of the population ever participated in the system, it would debunk the system itself and probably any thoughts of direct democracy being viable.

[tardy patio]

But if their vote would be used solely as a way to see a conflict of interest then how would that be different than what we have now? I think we already know the interests of the representatives and the citizens don't match, it seems like an open secret at this point. If there isn't any real power given then what incentives would the citizens have to give their input using this proposed method?

[junior cave]

Ya, but its actual real published data, that would have multiple inputs, individuals see rather than general narrative about representatives being "good" or "bad" for the community or the odd person actually looking up their representative votes. It also gives hard data to the representative that they have to choose to ignore and everyone will know if they did (on a continuous basis).

The other point is that we would see what they are voting for on a daily basis and get instant results of our polls on the matter. Something only media really provides when they want.

[tardy patio]

I think the reasoning behind that is because people didn't have any real benefit in taking part in this project. The difference between this project and direct democracy is that citizens still don't have any real power when submitting those votes. If something is only a hypothetic then it's only that. I can only speculate as to why this is but I would say that if people aren't incentivized , they won't feel fulfillment in performing a task which may explain why the other 90% saw no point in taking part in this project.

To your second point, representatives already post the results of their votes. From one Google search, I already found a website that reports on this exact thing. It's not secret, if someone wanted to seek out this information they can.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes

If your point is that it should be more common, then I agree but that doesn't change the fact that said resources are available.

[junior cave]

Oh ya, I agree that its not perfect but we don't get results of our opinion lined up against their votes to determine accountability. We also have zero data on what nationwide reaction to direct democracy would look like. As I said, I am open to any improvements or other practical ways to move forward. I mean, barring revolution we have to elect representatives that would hand over their power to us. Which is wishful thinking and hopeful that people will participate, both of which can be wrong. If we are not willing to push for new heights of accountability of our government we are not worthy to choose our own fate. New tools can call for new systems that make access to the public by representatives and accountability easier. But I have pitched this before so I will let others talk.

[tardy patio]

Oh of course. There's no guarantee that direct democracy will improve things but like I said earlier, I prefer betting on a system that I believe will increase the chance of problems being addressed by our society. If it doesn't then it doesn't but I personally rather try it out to see what happens.

I also fully agree with the accountability aspect and I hope to give the population the ability to do just that.

[junior cave]

Giving representatives data on the population polls and oversight of all that data and the representative vote by the population is a step to try and sets up a direct system. That system could improve things by itself or lead further into a new system of direct democracy. There would be huge resentment in the government of oversight IMO. There is no guarantee that it will be a peaceful change but there is the possibility of it. Accountability won't come easy either way.

[south ferry]

I signed up for the kpo2 but not sure how to check status

[last stirrup]

Is this an argument against or for electoral reform? I’m not sure how to take it.

😂
Try “ tourney-help “ channel

[lean abyss]

Im trying to look at this discussion optimistically and say that it is already happening simply through the expansion of the internet and the forums and multiple medias that are being created... while the way Its happening is less than ideal. I also believe there is a concerted effort almost always being made to thwart progress toward a more inclusive and (effective?) society, not to say that it impossible to overcome. (Those with power/influence who lose or dont have constructive or helpful intentions) I have high hopes for the youth of today when I set my own short sighted experiences aside. I am curious as to how rapid a transition we would require given current global circumstances.

[frigid kindle]

The United States is NOT a democracy, it is a republic however. In a democracy 51% tell 49% what to do. A republic states their are rights that God has given you and no man can take away.. it really gets to me when I hear American citizens state how awful the USA is but if asked to move somewhere better have no answer. See we aren't perfect. No one is. Person or nation go be a north korean and talk bad about your government
You'll never be seen or heard from again
.but we do the best we can. I'm tired of people and other nations telling us how horrible we are but if we moved are bases out and stop funding many it wouldn't be long before they would be asking for help again. I personally belief we pull the trillions if dollars we give other countries and use it at home let places like Ukraine get overrun for the rest the world to see. See we are many countries armed forces. Sure they have a token force but if against a true foe by themselves would have a new flag not long after. What would the world look like today if we would have kept Japan Germany France north Africa and Italy. As would be our right as the winning country. Oppressed all science because we had the atom bomb and no one could match it. We did something never seen in history. We have it all back to their people and help rebuild it.

[normal star]

@rain mortar If you want to transition without violence, it's pretty simple. You simply lie to people until you get them to do the things you desire them to do, while making them believe they are leading a revolution against you.

[rain mortar]

who is you

[neon plaza]

Lying functions similarly to violence, in the sense that giving it a main role creates a culture where it's the norm.
Change the system through violence -> The violent will be your leaders.
Change the system through lies -> The dishonest will be your leaders.

A trust based system is mutually beneficial long term.

[normal star]

That's a great question, Pete. The clearest recent examples are capitalism and covid. In both cases, people are made to hate something so much that they rush to give up their power to those who would fight against it, who turn out to be nothing but dictators. We've seen it happen over and over again in South America, Europe, and now even places like Canada, where people were thrown in prison for speaking out against their government, and anyone sympathetic had their bank accounts locked. Someone got arrested for standing quietly because they were praying in their head. I wish I was making that up. That's the reason we have the 2nd amendment in the US.

[queen fjord]

I'm not usually one for semantics, but this needs it.

Democracy is a system of government. A republic is a state.

To say that the US is not a democracy is incorrect. The US has implemented a form of representative democracy.

To say that a republic "states there are rights that God has given you" is incorrect. A constitution or other founding document of a republic would do that.

It would be more factual to say "The US has implemented representative democracy through it's status as a constitutional republic."

[normal star]

If you're going to discuss semantics, at least attempt to be accurate.

A republic is a state which is run by elected representatives. "Representative democracy" is a term for a state run by elected representatives, which makes it a republic, not a democracy.

Constitutional Republic is the most accurate designation for the USA. Democracy is not, because the designation implies majority rule, which we do not have. Even if you were to argue that participation of the majority of citizens through electing representatives means it's a democracy, now you've just muddled terms and reduced clarity. And it would still be a republic.

[normal star]

@neon plaza It's also pretty easy to change the definition of violence. For example, "words are violence." No, they aren't. But now you get to justify forceful resistance because you don't like someone's words.

Then you have throwing someone in jail, which many don't consider violence even though it is. So someone praying silently in their head gets arrested, which is violence, but everyone pretends that it's fine. People block the streets and trap hundreds in their cars, which is violence, but we call it a "peaceful, nonviolent protest."

Control definitions, control the conversation, control the people.

[neon plaza]

I'm a descriptivist when it comes to definitions. In certain contexts, certain words mean different things, depending on how these words are used.

For example, I understand people defining nonviolent protests they disagree with as violence, because that gives them a reason to discredit the entire movement.

And in those cases, I will grant their definition of violence and say thay sometimes violence is necessary. But I prefer to keep the definition of violence as physical force intended to hurt others, because that is easier to distinguish. So I don't count hurtful words as violence either.

[queen fjord]

I'm having a hard time seeing where you're disagreeing what I said.

[normal star]

@neon plaza I agree with your definition, and I tend to also include implied, threatened, or attempted physical force in that definition. You are still using violence in those cases, even if you aren't directly inflicting harm.

If I grab your person and force you into my car, would you call that non-violence? If I pull a weapon on a woman and force her to undress without touching her, have I behaved without violence? If you need to get to the hospital and I physically prevent you from moving, is that a peaceful action?

[normal star]

Fair enough, I'll try to be more specific.

"Democracy is a system of government. A republic is a state."

Democracy and republic are both terms for a system of government. They are also both terms for a state that has that form of government. Implying that democracy is a form of government but not a state is wrong. Implying that a republic is just a state is wrong, even though that is a very old usage. It is wrong to imply that a republic is a state without recognizing that it is a state with a specific type of government. It is wrong to imply that republic is not a form of government.

"To say that the US is not a democracy is incorrect. The US has implemented a form of representative democracy."

This is false. Democracy is defined as rule by population. Majority rule. We do not have a democracy. "Representative democracy" is not democracy, in the same way that social justice is not justice. Regardless, if you're discussing semantics, then you should have given the term democracy a useful definition, which you didn't.

"It would be more factual to say 'The US has implemented representative democracy through it's status as a constitutional republic.'"

This is false for the reasons described above. You're implying that republic means something different than it means with this sentence.

[queen fjord]

Let's introduce sources into the discussion.

Oxford English Democracy:

A political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision‐making, or to elect representatives to government bodies.

Oxford English Republic:

A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Merriam Webster:

Is the United States a democracy or a republic?

One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.”

Some people assert that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republic given above: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.”

@normal star Could you please elaborate, based on the definitions presented above, how the below statement is factually incorrect?

The US has implemented representative democracy through it's status as a constitutional republic.

And then MAYBE, just MAYBE if you feel it, you could walk back this statement:

If you're going to discuss semantics, at least attempt to be accurate.

[normal star]

No thanks. My answer is very clear in my previous post. You're more than welcome to look up additional definitions if you desire. M-W's commentary simply illustrates how you can easily make words completely useless if you don't care how they are defined. M-W is essentially arguing that the word democracy doesn't mean anything unique from republic. While they are not wrong, your original reply is clearly wrong, especially if you consider M-W, because you are attempting to criticize others for not following definitions precisely and then arguing that you don't need to be precise yourself.

"Oxford English"

Screw Oxford. They require a subscription to view. Additionally, you posted one definition when there are seven to consider, so shame on you. You're basically proving my point.

M-W must ignore their first and primary definition in order to write their article, which is that a democracy is a government by the people, especially rule of the majority. That's exactly what I said it was. Their next definition describes representative democracy, which is really a republic and not rule of the majority. That's not because it's what democracy means, it's because that's how the word is often (miss-)used, and M-W likes to define things based on common usage rather than actual definition. We've long argued that democracy is not accurate for describing the USA, but according to M-W, if you say something long enough, it literally becomes true. Screw them.

Finally, I will say again what I said before, with elaboration because it was hard for you to understand the first time.

"It would be more factual to say 'The US has implemented representative democracy through it's status as a constitutional republic.'"

This is false for the reasons described above. You're implying that republic means something different than it means with this sentence.

It is not "more factual" to say the US has implemented, etc, because you are saying it's more factual to say that than to say that the US is a republic.

Now stop wasting my time by cherry picking definitions, skipping over all the definitions that prove my point, and then attempting to misquote me by (what you probably think was clever) omission.

[queen fjord]

Enjoy the block buddy.

[normal star]

It's wrong when you skip over appropriate definitions in order to pretend other people are wrong, which is what I was calling out.

[queen fjord]

dum dee dum, I'm going to vote today because I live in a constitutional republic that uses representative democracy as a system of government.

glad to see there is a blocked comment, no need to read the opinion of someone who disagrees with the literal dictionary.

[neon plaza]

If the first is not intended to hurt, I would rather call it forceful or aggressive. If it was, it's violence. The second would be better described as threatening violence, which is often seen as violence as well (in this specific case I think that's hard to argue). For the third, you suddenly step away from the word violence altogether, so there's nothing to analyse in terms of that word.

But as I said, one may choose to call any of those violence. I prefer more nuance, especially because of legal consequences, and the law is incredibly specific in its language.

[normal star]

I would consider any of those violence, because I consider removal of freedom to be a way to harm someone. But I can see your point about definitions being interesting for legal purposes. I can think of very few scenarios where someone would force a person into a car without being willing to hurt them. One such scenario might be a mother and an unruly child.

Police use violence to get compliance, whether it's actual force or the threat of it. Someone blocking traffic is causing you harm intentionally, so that is not a peaceful action, but rather a violent one. That's why police ramming a blockade with a truck and then arresting everyone at gunpoint is an appropriate response to demonstrators intentionally blocking a road.

[neon plaza]

In that case I'm glad I live in a country where the right to protest, even in the form of a blockade, is constitutionally protected. In fact, the supreme court of the entire EU includes blockades legally.

[normal star]

There's a right to blockade in the EU? You can legally barricade the road and prevent ambulances from passing through? Trap elderly grandmothers in their cars in intense heat while their gas slowly dwindles as they use their air conditioning? Prevent mothers from returning home to breastfeed their babies?

This is the insane logic where you believe you should be free to restrict the freedom of others to take care of their families in order to make a political point. Do you truly believe that kind of thing is okay?

[neon plaza]

It comes with the caveat that you have to make sure no one gets hurt. But the protesters are protected from oppressive governments, yes.

[normal star]

Additionally, the idea that there's a Supreme Court of the entire EU is insane. Have countries willingly given up their own sovereignty over there to that extent?

[normal star]

There are few blockades that don't result in people getting hurt. You'd have to redefine harm in order to get there.

[neon plaza]

The EU is a legal body, of course it has a supreme court, lol

[normal star]

You're saying the EU has a Supreme Court that is so binding that it overrules the courts of the individual countries.

That's insane.

[neon plaza]

Human rights organisations agree that the right to protest should be protected, even in the form of a blockade.

I'm on the side of human rights here 🤷

People from an organisation that blockaded a road near me recently took the responsibility to redirect traffic.

Several people did get hurt when the police left, they were exclusively protesters.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure for organised blockades to do all you can to make sure there are no ambulances being locked in.

[normal star]

I think you might be misrepresenting the judgement of the court. And as far as human rights organizations, they're a joke. I couldn't care less what they think. Their record on human rights is atrocious.

[normal star]

The point of a protest [that blocks the road] is to harm people. It's literally the goal, the idea being that if you don't cause people problems, they'll keep ignoring you.

[neon plaza]

I'm not saying it overrules those other courts, I'm just saying legally not only my country protects protesters, but the EU does as well.

[normal star]

I still think you're misrepresenting the ruling of the court.

[neon plaza]

Nope. That's why I care about legal definitions.

[normal star]

Protestors are protected, but not where they are harming the rights of others. Any of the blockades I mentioned would be ruled illegal, not protected.

[neon plaza]

As a court, you've got to jump through several authoritarian hoops to exclude blockades from human rights.

[normal star]

Unless you can point to a specific ruling you're quoting from?

[normal star]

That's not the argument being made.

You don't have to exclude anyone from human rights to acknowledge that they are harming others, and prosecute them accordingly.

[neon plaza]

Nope, you say a blockade by definition is harming others. That's not something a court can just claim.

[normal star]

That's not actually what I said

What I said was you'd be hard pressed to find a blockade that didn't hurt others. If you're trying to be technical about legal language, then that matters. Don't try to get me on some stupid technicality.

[neon plaza]

Someone being hurt in a situation doesn't mean that the entire situation is harmful.

It's never the intention to harm others in a blockade.

[normal star]

It's trivial for a government to show that a blockade harmed others, violated their rights, and is therefore worthy of prosecution.

A blockade without the intent to harm people would also not have the intent to block the road.

You can't block a public road without causing harm.

[neon plaza]

Pretty soon after the first people step on the road, the traffic gets redirected.

[normal star]

The only way for such a blockade to be ruled legal is if that same blockade were ineffectual because it wasn't actually blocking anything.

[neon plaza]

Traffic is always supposed to be redirected in a blockade

The blocking isn't the goal

[normal star]

Then it isn't a blockade.

[neon plaza]

Sure, you can call it something else then

[normal star]

You're basically describing people not blocking the road to justify people blocking the road.

If it's a blockade, then it's illegal.

If you're making it legal by making it less like the illegal thing, then sure. But that defeats the point.

[neon plaza]

As soon as traffic is redirected, the road becomes a public space

The first X many people to step on the road are breaking the law.

[normal star]

Private citizens are simply allowed to turn public roads into a public space for walking? That seems sketchy.

[neon plaza]

After the redirection, anyone joining isn't.

It might be different in your country

But here we're protected

[normal star]

The rights of the people to use public roads are being infringed, causing harm to the population. And you think that should be protected.

Sounds stupid.

[neon plaza]

They get redirected.

[normal star]

There are numerous public areas that you can use to assemble and protest.

Using a public road for such is illegal, and should remain illegal without appropriate permits.

[neon plaza]

The most important thing about these locations, is that even though traffic gets redirected, people will get mad about it

[normal star]

Yes, because their rights are being trampled.

[neon plaza]

Peopl will ignore the fact that traffic gets redirected

Therefore it makes the news

Therefore the action is successful

[normal star]

Because their rights are being trampled and they are being harmed.

Those people should be prosecuted.

[neon plaza]

Even though it, according to your definition, isn't even a blockade.

[neon plaza]

No, because it isn't a blockade. You said so yourself.

[normal star]

You are arguing that it isn't blocking people, which makes it not a blockade. Either it blocks people or it doesn't.

[neon plaza]

You claimed that a redirection makes it not a blockade.

[normal star]

If it does, then it's illegal. If it doesn't, then it's not a blockade.

I did not claim that.

You're not very good at being precise

[neon plaza]

^

[normal star]

That's not the full quote, now is it.

[neon plaza]

Sorry, maybe you wrote "Just kidding" in invisible ink 🤣

Missed that

[normal star]

If an action doesn't block people, then it isn't a blockade.

A blockade has the goal of blocking people, whether or not traffic is redirected.

Traffic redirected is still blocked from that area.

[neon plaza]

Nope, blocking people isn't the goal of these blockades.

Can't speak for other types of blockades.

[normal star]

It's literally in the name. Either you're blocking something or you're not. If you're not, then it isn't a blockade.

Pretending that the goal of a blockade isn't to block something seems pretty dumb.

[neon plaza]

Then we'll call it something else if you're uncomfortable

I don't care about what specific words you want to use, I just care about what is actually the case.

[normal star]

By definition, a blockade is something that blocks. If it doesn't block, then it isn't me that's not calling it a blockade, but rather the thing not fitting the definition.

[neon plaza]

Sure, what do you want to call it then?

A redirection hub?

[normal star]

For someone who pretends to care about specific definitions, you'd think this would be easier to understand.

[neon plaza]

Yeah, I care about the definitions, not the words.

[normal star]

Does it block access through a specific point?

Is the intent to block access through that point?

[neon plaza]

Yes

[neon plaza]

No

[normal star]

Then it's a blockade and it's illegal.

[neon plaza]

That may be illegal where you live, it's not where I live.

[normal star]

How the hell do you block access intentionally without intending to block access?

[neon plaza]

You're not blocking access generally, but just through a specific route.

The destination isn't blocked

[normal star]

That's literally what I said.

"Is the intent to block access through that point?"

[neon plaza]

The people are always supposed to be able to reach their destination

[normal star]

You're bad at reading then?

Did I ask about passage through the point, or passage to a destination?

[neon plaza]

The intent isn't to block access through that point. The intent is to get word on the news.

[normal star]

You literally just said you're blocking access "through a specific route."

[neon plaza]

Exactly, but that is not the end goal.

The goal is to get on the news.

[normal star]

So I ask again, how do you block access through a specific route without intending to block access through that route?

I don't care what the end goal is. You're doing what you intend and the consequences are part of what you intend to happen.

It's all by design. There's no accidental blockade.

You get on the news because you intentionally block access through a point.

You can't say that you don't intend the access to be blocked, because then you wouldn't get on the news at all.

[neon plaza]

You get on the news because people think the destinations are blocked.

[normal star]

You get on the news because there's an actual blockage of a route.

[neon plaza]

Nope, that's not why.

You get on the news because news outlets want to feed off of the outrage

[normal star]

If you set up in a public area of equal publicity and coverage without blocking access, then you don't get on the news. If you block access through something, then you make the news. It's not rocket science.

People are not outraged if you aren't blocking anything.

[neon plaza]

And the outrage is because destinations are blocked, allegedly

Word gets round, more people get mad, the news crew shows up.

Basic activism

[normal star]

No. It's because people aren't able to drive through the point they want to drive through.

Basic activism is proving to be the realm of complete idiots.

[neon plaza]

You do you, man

Your type of reaction is the reason activists still block the roads 🤷

[normal star]

My type of reaction would be to drive through such blockades. You don't get to harm people and then pretend you're really not actually harming them, so it should be allowed.

[crisp basin]

I think most of the world is happy with the idea of our rights being infringed when there is a more important thing going on. It's only extreme individualists who put their own needs, however unimportant, above anyone else's needs, no matter how important.

I'd probably prevent someone from moving a protestor blocking the road if I saw someone trying to do it. I don't care what they are protesting, they're allowed to make their point and blocking a road isn't harming anyone in any meaningful way.

Whereas being violent towards a protestor IS harming someone in a meaningful way.

[normal star]

That's the problem, isn't it. All you have to do is create an emergency, and people will willingly throw their rights away, calling anyone who refuses to do so "extremists." And that's how you transform a society without a revolution.

[normal star]

My child is sick, she needs to get to the hospital!

No worries, Arklar is here to save the day... to stop you from helping your child!

[crisp basin]

Go another way then. Nobody is stopping you getting to a hospital.

Roads get blocked all the time for all kinds of reasons. Your needs don't override everyone else's.

[crisp basin]

It's not a problem. Our societies work very well, thanks.

[normal star]

That's often actually not how it works. People do exactly that. In most cases when people move protestors, they can't get through.

[crisp basin]

Occasionally giving up some rights is better than living in anarchy because whoever happens to be the biggest bully keeps forcing themselves on the rest of us.

[normal star]

You prefer tyranny to anarchy. The difficulty with giving up rights is that people generally don't give them back once you've given them up.

[crisp basin]

There are like 3 roads in the UK where there isn't an easy detour to take to go round a blockage, and those roads are in the highlands where nobody but sheep protest. It's not a problem.

[normal star]

Ever consider that there's more than just the UK in the world?

[crisp basin]

But we don't have tyranny though. We only give up rights temporarily.

[normal star]

You can't even pray silently in your head without being arrested. What kind of rights do you think you have over there?

[crisp basin]

If there is someone protesting somewhere by blocking a road that means emergencies cannot be dealt with, that's a problem and I wouldn't support that. But that's not the case in the examples that I've seen. Europe has good transport flexibility. Maybe there are a lot of people blocking the only road in existence between two places in the US, I don't know.

[crisp basin]

What the fuck are you talking about?

I have more rights in the UK than anywhere else in the world. There's nowhere else I would prefer to live, not by a long shot.

Someone would really have to pay me a LOT of money to force me to live in the nightmare that is the US.

[normal star]

If you defend your property against a burglar over there, you're the one who gets arrested.

[crisp basin]

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? If there's a burglar, I would just call the police and if possible restrain them until the police arived and arrested them. I don't need to shoot them, if that's what you're suggesting.

Shooting a burglar doesn't help the situation in any way. It's much better to just give them my stuff and claim on insurance to get it back, if I can't stop them without killing them.

Again, it's not just my needs that are important.

[normal star]

Gotta think about the needs of the burglar, of course.

Then if you have the wrong beliefs, your bank account gets closed.

Seriously, the fact that you know none of the things happening in your own country. You're obviously in agreement with the people who take the rights of others away. As long as it's just people you don't like anyway that are being harmed, then you don't care. Might come back to bite you though, the moment they touch something you actually care about.

[crisp basin]

Of course I do. Plus, shooting a burglar would harm me a lot more than simply giving them my stuff.

[crisp basin]

You mean, if I'm using my bank account for illegal activities then it gets closed? Yes, I'm fine with that.

[normal star]

How exactly does harming a burglar harm you? Also, who said anything about shooting?

[crisp basin]

It sounds like you're reading the Daily Mail and thinking the government are out to get you just because they won't let you enslave your workers. Seriously, the stuff you're saying bears no resemblance to reality in the UK.

[normal star]

No, I'm not talking about illegal activities. You've just convinced yourself over and over that surely there are reasons behind these actions. The government would never just do something extreme like that. In every case here, you've added additional details to justify the actions, because the raw actions by themselves wouldn't constitute protecting rights.

[normal star]

I'm not reading anything in particular. It's not hard to find these details.

[crisp basin]

Harming another person harms you. It causes psychological damage, because we're hard-wired to care about fellow humans. We feel bad when we cause harm to others.

[normal star]

We feel worse when others are allowed to freely harm us and our families and there's nothing we can do about it.

[crisp basin]

That's why soldiers end up so traumatised.

[crisp basin]

But that's not the alternative.

[normal star]

You're acting like it should be illegal to defend your family, because the act of defending someone harms you. That's insane.

[normal star]

What's the alternative then?

[crisp basin]

We don't just have two options. It's not the case that we have to choose between being totally free to do whatever we like to others, or else being totally under the control of others. There is a whole spectrum of shared power that comes inbetween that.

The alternative, that actually most of the world uses, is that of fairness and proportionality, rather than binary states.

[normal star]

I'm talking about that specific scenario, where a burglar wants to hurt your family. What's your alternative to defending your family? Just letting it happen?

[crisp basin]

But burglars don't want to hurt my family. Burglars would prefer it if my family were nowhere near where they are.

Burglars go out of their way to avoid people.

You're talking about assassins. And we don't have many of them round here.

[normal star]

So you're saying you shouldn't be allowed to punch a burglar you find in your home. You should just open the door for him and let him walk out.

[crisp basin]

If I catch him, and he gives up, and tries to leave, then yes, absolutely. Both of us leaving unharmed is really the best case scenario there.

[normal star]

I didn't say he gives up. You catch him and he takes a swing at you.

[crisp basin]

We don't need to give everyone who does something wrong a harsh punishment. That doesn't help anyone.

[normal star]

You're really, really trying to modify scenarios away from what actually happened in order to make your own views more acceptable.

[crisp basin]

Burglars don't swing at people. Burglars have no need to be violent.

In this country, we don't all live under the constant threat of violence. Burglars try and steal stuff, and if they fail, they just try and escape.

[normal star]

Dude, this isn't a hypothetical. You really, seriously can't conceive of someone willing to steal your stuff also being willing to harm you?

I'm literally looking at an incident of a guy who went to jail because the burglar swung at him and he defended himself.

[crisp basin]

Why would they try and harm me? What would they get out of it? They're risking suffering harm themselves, and possibly a serious jail sentence, when they could just run away and get either nothing or a minor caution. Attacking me is lose-lose for them.

As is me attacking them, for me. I gain nothing out of it.

[normal star]

Why would they break the law when they're already breaking the law?

Are you serious?

[crisp basin]

Are YOU serious? You think someone who is willing to steal a candy from a supermarket is automatically willing to commit mass murder? That's an insane argument.

[normal star]

Do you think there's no violent people in the UK? No one would ever try to hurt you or your family, even if they're actively stealing your stuff?

[normal star]

That's a very extreme version of what I was saying.

Is there a reason you have a need to go to extremes instead of paying attention to the scenario I was actually using?

[crisp basin]

Why would anyone bother trying to hurt me or my family? Only in a really freak situation could that occur, some kind of terrorist act perhaps.

[normal star]

I said a man who was already stealing your stuff inside your home, when confronted by you, took a swing at you. You translated that to someone stealing candy from a store going and committing mass murder.

[crisp basin]

I was illustrating that just because someone is willing to break a minor law, it doesn't mean they are willing to break the law in a much more major way. A common burglar is nowhere near the point of committing violence.

[normal star]

Is this how people in the UK typically argue? Make the situation so absurd that they no longer have to confront it?

[crisp basin]

At least, not in the UK. In the US, maybe they are, because even burglary risks them being shot, so you have to be willing to encounter violence to even burgle.

[crisp basin]

We typically use reasoning, yes.

[normal star]

If there's no chance of encountering violence when you invade homes in the UK, then maybe we all should get into the burglary business.

[normal star]

You haven't been willing to deal with the actual situation I've described without adding absurd details that aren't present. There's no reasoning in that.

[crisp basin]

I responded to your exact point.

[normal star]

I said harm someone, you said shoot them. I said take something inside your home, you said steal candy from a store. I said take a swing at you, you said commit mass murder.

There's no point in this conversation where you've responded to my exact point.

[crisp basin]

and I said:

I was illustrating that just because someone is willing to break a minor law, it doesn't mean they are willing to break the law in a much more major way. A common burglar is nowhere near the point of committing violence.

[normal star]

Your reasoning is nonexistent and absurd, and it's clear that discussion with you is useless.

But my point was, what happens when they are willing to commit violence? You didn't respond to that at all.

Your entire reasoning is assuming only a best case scenario is possible. It's ridiculous.

[crisp basin]

Yes I did. I pointed out that burglars here aren't, in general, willing to commit violence.

The scenario you're enquiring about doesn't really exist here.

[normal star]

That's not answering the question, and it's certainly not true in 100% of cases.

[crisp basin]

Certainly it doesn't happen often enough to worry about it.

[normal star]

LOL. Violent burglars just don't exist in the UK. Okay. You're living in a fantasy world.

[crisp basin]

I can't imagine a scenario short of terrorism where a burglar would actively want to risk trying to harm me or my family.

There's just nothing in it for them.

[normal star]

For the record, you recently had 75,000 robberies in a year for England and Wales. That's theft, the same thing we're talking about, but with the use of force.

[crisp basin]

I knew a very rich person who was burgled once by armed burglars. They didn't harm him, they just kept him to one side while they searched for what they were after, and then they left. He came to school the same afternoon.

[normal star]

So that's 75,000 times that people are willing to hurt you when they're stealing from you.

[crisp basin]

With the threat of force. That's not the same thing as actually hurting someone.

[normal star]

I don't know what dreamland you're living in where you just think that can't happen. It happens all the time.

[crisp basin]

The threat of force happens all the time in robberies, I agree. But you just give them your stuff and everyone goes away safe.

Situation resolved.

[normal star]

That actually includes the use of force, not just the threat of force.

[crisp basin]

I don't care how much someone likes their TV, it's better to give it to someone else than risk someone suffering actual physical harm.

[normal star]

And if that's where you are, where you think it's just "resolved" to give criminals your stuff, then that's insane.

[crisp basin]

Sure, but that happens when you refuse to give someone what they want. Like I said, you can just give it to them and everyone's fine.

[normal star]

Gotta protect that criminal from harm, even though he's willing to harm you to get your stuff.

[normal star]

And that's okay with you???

[crisp basin]

Yes.

[normal star]

You're insane.

[crisp basin]

Neither of us suffering physical harm is better than either of us suffering physical harm.

[crisp basin]

Where's the problem with it?

I lose a phone for a couple of days. That's objectively better than any alternative in that situation.

[normal star]

My problem with it is that you're saying it's wrong for someone to not give a robber their stuff, as if the victim is in the wrong instead of the robber threatening or using violence.

[crisp basin]

That's not what I'm saying. It's not a question of right or wrong. It's just a question of what is best.

[normal star]

You're literally just supporting robbery.

What are you saying then?

[crisp basin]

No I'm not. I'm acknowledging the robbery is happening, and I'm refusing to make the situation any worse.

[normal star]

You're okay with someone threatening or using violence to steal from people. And if people just give up their stuff, whether or not the violence has already happened in the course of that, then that's fine.

[crisp basin]

Violence is incredibly risky for everyone. Any time a situation can be resolved without violence, that is invariably better.

[normal star]

Then you should be against robbery, which is literally the use of violence, either actual or implied.

[crisp basin]

Of course I'm not OK with it. But I'm not prepared to do something I'm even less OK with it to stop it.

[crisp basin]

I AM against robbery!

[normal star]

You're not okay with people defending themselves against violent criminals.

[crisp basin]

I'm not OK with anyone choosing violence over non-violence.

Violence is more serious than robbery.

[normal star]

Exactly. It doesn't matter what someone is trying to do to harm your family, you should just let it happen to avoid escalating the situation, right?

[normal star]

ROBBERY USES VIOLENCE.

[crisp basin]

But nobody is trying to do harm to my family!

[crisp basin]

NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!

[normal star]

It's literally in the definition

[crisp basin]

The threat of violence isn't violence. They are two very different things.

[normal star]

Robbery is theft with the use of force.

It also includes theft with the threat of force.

[crisp basin]

"Use of force" can include a threat. It doesn't mean someone was actually punched or stabbed or anything.

[normal star]

But if they were actually punched or stabbed, by definition that would still be a robbery.

[crisp basin]

Well no, that would escalate the offence to a more serious one in UK legal terms.

[normal star]

I'm literally looking at the definition according to the UK police right now.

Every single time someone was punched in the commission of a theft, that was marked as a robbery.

[crisp basin]

Haha, that's not the same pont at all.

[crisp basin]

"A person is guilty of robbery if the person steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, they use force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force."

"or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force."

Not all robberies involve the use of force.

[normal star]

Where exactly is the confusion here? It's still a robbery if someone uses force. Is right there.

I never said all robberies must use force.

I said force or the threat of force. I said violence or the threat of violence.

[crisp basin]

ROBBERY USES VIOLENCE.

It's literally in the definition
Yes you did. But we can move past it and continue the discussion.

[normal star]

At the end of the day man, you're arguing that nothing violent happens in the UK. There were 75k robberies, which is theft involving the use of force, implied or actual.

[crisp basin]

Which imaginary day are we talking about now? I've never said anything even remotely of the sort.

[normal star]

There were over 2 million instances of violence in that time period.

[normal star]

"Sure, but that happens when you refuse to give someone what they want. Like I said, you can just give it to them and everyone's fine."

I mean you literally said over and over and over again that robbers don't hurt people, they just threaten force.

[crisp basin]

...and that's still generally accurate.

[normal star]

Lol. You're arguing that robbers aren't violent.

[crisp basin]

I'm arguing that robbers don't use violence unless you force them to.

[normal star]

Even though when you take theft and add violence, implied or actual, it becomes robbery.

You've completely missed the transition from burglary to robbery.

I feel sorry for you man.

But then again, they do say ignorance is bliss.

[crisp basin]

I'm all good. I'm just happy I don't live anywhere near a place where people are likely to shoot me.

I'm perfectly happy living in a country with a fraction of the levels of violence of the US.

[normal star]

Over 2 million recorded incidents of violence in the UK in one year. But it's okay, it never happens, and if it did, I would just say it didn't so I didn't have to respond to it.

[crisp basin]

Feel free to continue to argue with some imaginary person who is saying violence never happens.

[normal star]

I don't think you're particularly imaginary

[crisp basin]

Want to have a conversation with me then, instead of making up points to argue against yourself?

[normal star]

I asked you what you would do if a burglar became violent, and you argued that it never happens

I asked you about robbers, and you said they aren't violent unless you force them to be.

[crisp basin]

.....if I don't force them to use violence

So where's the issue?

Plenty of people DO force robbers to turn violent in the course of robberies.

[normal star]

I'm literally asking about the scenario where they do become violent. You're not answering that at all.

It's also not true that the only time people become violent is if you force them to.

[crisp basin]

I'm saying I would choose not to create that situation. It is in my control whether that happens or not.

[normal star]

That's not how it works.

[crisp basin]

OK. When else does it happen, specifically in the UK?

I've mentioned terrorism already. What else?

[normal star]

Over 2 million recorded acts of violence, and you're asking me when it happens?

[crisp basin]

[normal star]

I'd get farther talking to a brick wall.

[crisp basin]

We've been over this. Those acts happen when the violence is forced. If I don't resist, there is no need for a robber to be violent towards me, and therefore they won't be.

[normal star]

You're saying every act of violence was forced by the victim.

[crisp basin]

Well, a lot of those acts of violence happen as a result of people being drunk and starting random fights in bars and clubs. But that's also not something I need to ovely concern myself with.

[normal star]

So it's the victim's fault the violence happened.

Plenty of incidents of violence in the commission of a theft, but that's always the victim's fault.

[crisp basin]

Sometimes the victim shares part of the blame, yes. You're fucking stupid if you try and start a fight with someone under any circumstances.

[normal star]

Yeah, I'm not really into blaming the victim for the actions of criminals. I'll just stick with my US mentality, where it's actually wrong to commit crime.

[crisp basin]

That's a weird sentence. It's still wrong to commit crime in the UK.

But if someone causes an even bigger crime to be committed, they are also guilty.

It seems to me that the US is actually the country where crimes are ignored.

To me, it's crazy to see that you actually believe that people will harm you for no reason. That just doesn't really happen here, but apparently it is common enough to be considered standard behaviour there. What a crazy world it is outside of Europe.

[tardy patio]

Arklar, mind if I try to sum up your position? This back and forth seems to have gone on for a while.

Maybe I can try to explain things as a third party.

[crisp basin]

Be my guest. I've tried to do it a few times myself, but you're welcome to take a stab at it, so to speak.

[tardy patio]

So, would it be fair to say that regardless of the circumstances that are present, the solution to address a situation should result in the least amount of harm possible?

Did I understand that correctly or did I miss anything?

[normal star]

@tardy patio So if you found a burglar in your home, stealing your things, would you confront them? And if you did confront them, and they took a swing at you, would you defend yourself?

[tardy patio]

I'm only attempting to sum up Arklar's perspective but operating under what I believe to be the underlying logic, the solution in this case can be broken down into different ways depending on the circumstances.

A) The burglar comes up into the house purely to steal a specific item and get back out
Answer) Do nothing in the moment and report the crime later in order to prevent the suffering of both you and the burglar.

B) The burglar breaks in to steal something and is threatening to harm/kill you or your family if you don't comply.
Answer) Give the burglar what they want in order to prevent the suffering of all parties involved since that would generate the least amount of harm.

C) The burglar breaks in and wants to harm you or your family regardless of what you do or say.
Answer) Apprehend the burglar in a way that results in the least amount of violence inflicted on all parties involved.

So to address your hypotheticals, it would depend on whether or not you would confront them based on the circumstances taking place. With all that being said, by using this line of thinking, I would say that if a burglar was to swing at you, you would apprehend them using a method that causes the least amount of harm.

Hopefully this all helps and you two can continue with the conversation.

[crisp basin]

That's close.
For A) I would say it doesn't have to be a specific item. Most burglary is opportunistic. The times burglars are after something specific, tend to be with very rich and well known people, in which case it's a much more carefully planned attack that usually includes the threat of violence because there's an expectation of greater resistance.
For C) I don't think that person is a burglar. They are an assassin or a terrorist or something else. But stealing stuff isn't their goal if they're trying to harm me or my family.

I don't think there is any realistic possibility of scenario C happening.

[tardy patio]

Sure. I was only addressing if it were to happen since Falcon asked.

[normal star]

There are videos of people completely complying while being robbed at gunpoint or knifepoint, and then getting shot or stabbed on the way out. There are also many robberies that begin or end with someone getting hit by a fist or an object. The world isn't all unicorns and rainbows, where criminals are actually upstanding people who don't want anyone to get hurt.

By definition, (C) is a robbery, and it happens, even in the UK.

[normal star]

Also, while I appreciate the attempt, there is zero chance of this conversation going anywhere productive. I literally present him with a situation that happened in the UK, and his response is that it can't happen. That's not the kind of person that you can have a conversation with.

[crisp basin]

It might theoretically happen in the UK, but trying to protect against it is on the level of building a nuclear fallout shelter in your garden. No matter what you do, chances are it will have no effect if the situation ever arises unless you literally devote your whole life to preparing for that one scenario.

[crisp basin]

OK. Show me one concrete example of a situation where there was a random robbery in the UK where the victim was needlessly harmed without them provoking the attacker into it. Let's try and start with that.

Because so far, you're just claiming it's commonplace without any evidence.

[normal star]

I already described a situation, which you rejected. I'm kinda done playing this game with you. Not really interested.

I literally said I was looking at it, and it wasn't hypothetical.

[crisp basin]

I wasn't asking you to invent a scenario. I was asking for evidence that it happens in real life.

[normal star]

Not gonna lie, and I'm actually super happy to not get your thoughts on it.

What do you think "not hypothetical" means? Did you learn English yesterday?

I had a news report pulled up, and was describing the exact scenario to you.

Bye. ✌️

[crisp basin]

Not in this conversation you didn't. If you can't have a conversation without lying then we are indeed very much done here.

That's twice now. I think that's enough.

[normal star]

7:05

[crisp basin]

Ok, no, I take it back. You said "I'm literally looking at an incident of a guy who went to jail because the burglar swung at him and he defended himself."
If you could have linked that, that would have been helpful.

[normal star]

This is why I really couldn't be happier to not get your input on it.

I would have, except it was far more interesting to see how far you'd take the argument that it just never happens

Bye for reals now. ✌️

[crisp basin]

Yeah, ok, you're definitely no longer participating in good faith, so there's no point having a pretend conversation.

Also you still haven't provided any evidence.

[queen fjord]

I see 200+ blocked messages from someone who literally disagrees with the dictionary. Not really sure why people are debating this person who is obviously arguing in bad faith.

[neon plaza]

At this point they've been called out for bad faith arguing by 3 different people in 3 different conversations. But I don't think blocking is the best way to go about that, better to just end the conversation. They weren't harassing anyone or anything like that. And repeating that you blocked them like that, I get kind of a braggy vibe? 😅 I mean, of course you're free to use the block however you want 😋 But as long as it doesn't turn into spamming or bullying, I think blocking isn't the most productive way to react

[crisp basin]

Yeah, good point.

[tardy patio]

Instructions uncleared. I have blocked Open Tanyao since they remind me of the fact that I don't know how to play mahjong.

[queen fjord]

It did turn into bullying, hence the block.

[normal star]

He thinks that someone disagreeing with him is bullying.

Disagreeing isn't bad faith arguing.

ZeroG got annoyed when I pointed out that he was doing the very thing he was trying to call someone else out for doing. Arklar and Open Tanyao are upset because the organizations that they're defending, by the descriptions and admissions of those groups of people, are drastically different from the way they want them to be described.

[normal star]

That seems like the most reasonable response.

[neon plaza]

Nah, I was just done with our conversation because you make the most ridiculous claims and refuse to back it up when someone asks you to.

There's no reason to be upset about something that isn't true

[normal star]

Alright, for you, @neon plaza, I'll send you a couple links. But not this discussion. I wasn't kidding when I said I couldn't be happier to not get ark's thoughts. Anyone who just says criminals are never violent, even with statistics proving the contrary, and that wolves cause problems, even when statistics show the opposite, is someone that clearly isn't going to be swayed with an internet debate.

[crisp basin]

Anyone who's happy to just lie constantly isn't worth having a conversation with. It seems like we're all done with you now.

[normal star]

@crisp basin Lying and disagreeing aren't the same thing. And like I said before, I really couldn't be happier for you to be done talking to me.
Peace ✌️

[cunning berry]

Just to chime in. I think that to focus solely on electoral reform is wrong. While electoral systems play a crucial role in shaping representation and governance, i think that political issues have many sides. While I think Electoral reform can have a profound impact, but other issues like economic policies, international relations, etc, also contribute significantly to the overall political landscape. Feel free to comment on my thoughts on this

[rain mortar]

The point I'm trying to make it that one is fundamental to the others

[cunning berry]

I see, so you believe that electoral reform is foundational and influences other political issues. But if you don’t mind, can you elaborate on how you think it shapes or intersects with these other aspects?

[rain mortar]

We are told we are free to choose, but we are only free to choose between shitty options. This is not a real choice.

Until we are able to choose nothing we do politically has real meaning

[cunning berry]

I completely agree with your viewpoint. I think it’s a real issue with the quality of choices. Especially here in Sweden at the moment. So the idea of being able to “choose nothing” is interesting.

But I don’t understand how by introducing the option to abstain or reject all options could enhance the meaningfulness of the decisions being made?

[rain mortar]

It's intuitive to think it's a problem of options rather than a problem of structure.

The Chocolate vs the Vanillia party.

Or in better democracies like Sweden maybe you get mint chip or rocky road. But you never get to choose to not have ice cream. And you probably aren't even allowed to meaningfully talk about it.

[rain mortar]

The question I'm asking is: Is representative democracy the only valid structure or could some conversation occur to design a better form of democracy.

[cunning berry]

Yeah, I see the issue with the inability to choose. And that there isn’t really a choice that fits everyone. And yes, I do think we are in need of some sort of restructuring. Although how that might take form I have no idea. I think that the polarizing effect the current political landscape may have needs to be addressed.

But as I said, I would not know what specific changes that is to be made. What do you think?

[crisp basin]

It isn't just that the current choices don't fit everyone, it's that they don't fit anyone. No two people share the exact same views, so the representative you choose will always require a compromise on your part, whoever you are. In this current system, nobody's views are not accurately represented in decision-making processes except the representatives themselves.

[crisp basin]

I stared a thread a while back with a suggested framework if you wanted to read about some specific ideas:
#1187251921048850442 message

[cunning berry]

I think I fully agree here. I completely understand the point you’re making

[cunning berry]

Thanks, I’ll read up

[normal star]

It's often said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Is the ultimate goal of government that it is able to accomplish something or that it isn't? Should it have power or be limited?

[crisp basin]

Both. Governments need a certain amount of power to do their job, but collectively people should retain power over it. For individuals, no, they shouldn't have power over the government.

[normal star]

What does it mean for individuals to have no power over the government?

[crisp basin]

A random guy can't just decide not to obey the law decided by that society.

Or a small group can't just try and overthrow to government.

[normal star]

What happens if a small group finds a clever way to get a law passed that shouldn't be followed?

[crisp basin]

Then you need to improve your political system.

[normal star]

Too late. The law is already passed.

You're never going to create a system where a bad law will never be passed. No matter how many safeguards are in place, it will eventually happen.

[crisp basin]

Sure, but then when people see that it is a bad law they will remove it again.

Unless you're saying democracy is a bad system?

[normal star]

As I said before, democracy is the worst system, except for all the others.

People should remove a bad law. But recognizing that something is a bad law is very difficult. Getting people to agree to repeal it is nearly impossible, compared to the difficulty of getting it passed to begin with.

[crisp basin]

It depends to some extent what decision-making system you're using, but obviously there is a very high profile example of a law being removed in the US recently, with Roe v Wade. So I would say the evidence suggests that even with the current system it can happen. With the system I proposed, I think removing a law would be an almost identical process to getting a new law in place.

[normal star]

Roe vs Wade didn't remove a law. Or rather, the decision regarding Roe vs Wade didn't remove a law.

[crisp basin]

I don't think we need to argue technical terminology. It's certainly possible to remove laws without too much difficulty in the UK. I don't know what the precise situation is in the US.

But it's certainly not intrinsically difficult to remove a law in any system involving democracy.

[normal star]

I think you might be overestimating the degree to which laws are able to be repealed. There have only been 155 acts of Parliament repealed since 1800. That's less than one per year, but you might get 50 passed in the same year. Additionally, many of these weren't repealed for decades or longer. It can't be possible for people to hotly disagree on the passage of laws but then never agree to repeal them unless the actual mechanism of repeal is far more difficult to employ than passage.

[crisp basin]

In practice, passing a new law often replaces an old law, so the old law effectively gets repealed without it needing to be an explicit repeal. There are very few situations where You need to go from a bad law about something, to no law at all, and I would think that only tends to happen as a result of cultural changes, which happen over very long time periods. It doesn't surprise me that there have been less than one per year of those.

[normal star]

So if there is a bad law, then it stays in place until it's replaced by a different law. How do you prevent that from becoming like an old computer, getting bogged down by the sheer number of laws over time? How would an ordinary person be expected to follow all such laws without a law degree, or even with one?

[crisp basin]

It's a good question. I would say the check in my proposed system to stop law becoming overly complicated would lie with the juries who decide on the final implementation of the laws. In the present day, well, we haven't solved that problem. Laws are complicated. But most are intuitive, and in the UK at least there is always a test of reasonableness being applied to every legal case. If a law is too difficult to follow for a normal person, normal people cannot be held accountable to it.

[normal star]

It's commonly said that ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to not follow it.

[crisp basin]

It is commonly said, but that's a stupid principle in my opinion. You can't expect anyone to follow a law they don't know about, because it's literally impossible for them to do so.

But again it comes down to reasonableness.

[normal star]

I mean, it's commonly said by the prosecutors and judges. People disagree strongly over whether laws are reasonable.

[crisp basin]

Yes, you should find out about the laws that apply to the situations you are venturing into. No, you can't be expected to automatically be aware of a recent change in law.

[normal star]

Going back to what you said earlier. What prevents a government from trampling over a citizen it doesn't like if a citizen has no power over the government?

[crisp basin]

Collectiveness. Citizens work together to exert power over the government.

[normal star]

So a citizen by himself is powerless to prevent a government from harming him, unless he can convince fellow citizens to band together with him. But he is also not allowed to communicate with fellow citizens, based on communication restrictions imposed by the government who is harming him.

[crisp basin]

Nobody is stopping him communicating with his fellow citizens. He is just prevented from communicating in a way that society has decided is harmful.

[normal star]

Actually, I just said the government aims to harm him, which includes cutting off his communication. What protections does he have now?

Please try to not confuse this with the other threads.

[crisp basin]

If he's harming society? None. Screw him. If he's innocent, then he has the protection of other members of society who can alert the authorities to whichever branch of he government has made a mistake in this case.

[normal star]

No one said he's harming society. The government would say that, because they don't like him. What authorities are available when the government is the authorities? Those commonly fall under the executive branch, the same portion of government who doesn't like him.

[crisp basin]

My answer is still the same.

All the other branches apart from the one that made a mistake.

Every process has an appeal process.

[normal star]

So... his recourse is pleading his case to other branches of government.

Are they obligated to help him?

[crisp basin]

Yes

[normal star]

What obligates them?

[crisp basin]

The law and their employment contract.

and ultimately the fact that they'll be sacked if they don't obey those two things.

[normal star]

The law written by the legislative branch? I don't think one branch is able to obligate themselves or another branch.

That would have to come from something else

[crisp basin]

For example, in the UK, if you have a problem with a government office, you would turn to the legal system.

[normal star]

I also don't really believe that it's that simple to fire government officials in any country, because there are always powerful interests that put them in power and aim to keep them there.

Okay, but what obligates the legal branch to help you?

[crisp basin]

Well that's precisely one of the many good reasons why we need to improve the political systems.

[crisp basin]

I mean, I've already answered that question. But do you not already know the answer to that yourself?

[normal star]

Right, but we're talking about the present day, and one of the major items you've listed as a protection is one we both agree doesn't really exist.

[crisp basin]

It does exist. Democratic processes do exist in many countries. Less so in the US it seems, but it's still there to some degree as evidenced by the removal of Trump. But it can be improved.

[normal star]

I've already discussed both things that obligate, and neither survive. First off, we're not discussing the US, or this would be a different conversation. Second, Trump wasn't removed, so you're wrong there again.

[crisp basin]

Wait, so Trump is still the President of the USA? There must be something wrong with my internet 😉

[normal star]

Clinton wasn't removed. Obama wasn't removed. Bush wasn't removed. The fact that someone else is elected doesn't mean someone was removed. Language matters.

[crisp basin]

....Trump was voted out. That is exactly what that means.

[crisp basin]

You don't think legal systems are obligated to help citizens?

[normal star]

Look, you're basically saying that citizens have no power over government unless they work together. That means they have no rights, and that's a pretty dark and terrible system.

[crisp basin]

It doesn't mean that at all.

[normal star]

I don't think the legislative branch obligates the judicial branch to do anything. I also don't believe "not getting fired" obligates anyone to do anything.

[crisp basin]

OK. What DOES obligate the judicial branch to do something?

[normal star]

I mean we have a constitution in the US.

[crisp basin]

Are we talking about the US now or not?

[normal star]

It includes basic rights of the individual, so that they don't have to convince a bunch of other people to support them if a government starts trampling over them.

We weren't, now we are. You were confusing my asking for your views for me making statements about the US.

[crisp basin]

Sure, but the constitution is itself a document produced by the government.

[normal star]

The way you explained it, if you were explaining your own government, rights don't exist at all.

[crisp basin]

I was talking about all democratic systems. Including the US.

and rights exist just fine.

[normal star]

I mean they can, if there's a constitution that prevents government from trampling them. But you also said an individual has no power over the government, which is the opposite.

Rights give an individual power over the government.

Without having to convince your neighbors to support you or having to resort to violence.

[crisp basin]

The constitution doesn't prevent a government from trampling over citizen's rights. The government can change the constitution any time it wants.

[normal star]

It absolutely prevents that, and a well-designed constitution can't be changed easily at all.

[crisp basin]

They really, really don't.

"An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification."

[normal star]

If I want to speak in a public square and a police officer tells me I can't or he'll arrest me, doing so would be an illegal arrest and he would be required to act outside his authority to do so. Someone who acts outside his authority can be held accountable for it, generally without the need for violence, and I would be compensated.

[crisp basin]

I don't see an individual in that. That's the government deciding what's in the constitution.

[crisp basin]

To hold that policeman accountable you would have to appeal to another branch of the government.

Everything I was describing applies to the US.

[normal star]

In the event that an officer wishes to stop me and search my person without cause, he can't do that. If he does and finds anything, it can't be held against me. If he finds nothing, then he can be held accountable for the illegal search and I can get compensated for it.

[crisp basin]

Again, you're still relying on the government to do that. You can't do it yourself as an individual.

[normal star]

Hardly. If I were to prevent the unlawful arrest, I am legally allowed to do so in many states, though I don't know if that includes all. So if I chose to take it into my own hands, I could.

But I'm also not relying on convincing the government that I'm being harmed in some way. My rights are clearly articulated, and the violations are clear to see, even without me convincing them of anything.

[crisp basin]

Of course you are. It doesn't matter if your rights are clear to see, if nobody will enforce them.

[normal star]

In the initial scenario, there's no protection for me at all. I just have to hope that someone agrees that I've been wronged. The chances of that working are very small.

[normal star]

That's not how that works.

[crisp basin]

As I said already, I was describing the situation in the US previously. This is exactly how it works.

Three policemen arrest you without you doing anything wrong. How do you get yourself out of that without relying on another branch of the government for aid?

[normal star]

No? Not at all. You initially said you have two options.

1. Get screwed.
2. Convince fellow citizens to band with you to exercise control over the government.

[crisp basin]

You were asking about a theoretical situation in which the whole government was against you, so that was what my reply you're referring to was in response to.

[normal star]

Well, private citizens can and do hold their government accountable when it is acting unlawfully. But you're arguing that I'm saying something I'm not saying.

[crisp basin]

Only by appealing to another branch of said government.

[normal star]

Yes, and in that theoretical situation, you have no protection and are screwed, because the theoretical government you described was a massive trainwreck.

[crisp basin]

Like I've said a few times, I was describing the US.

[normal star]

That's not at all what I meant.

[normal star]

You weren't at all.

If you were, you described it poorly and inaccurately.

[crisp basin]

OK. Then answer my question that I asked. How do you get yourself out of a situation where three cops arrest you, without resorting to help from the government?

[normal star]

When I say "private citizens hold government accountable," I mean that. You're not asking a random seperate branch of government to do something.

[normal star]

Three random cops and you're in the local county jail? A random lawyer comes up and starts threatening all hell to break loose and litigation out the end of next Tuesday unless the officers immediately explain why you were arrested, and since they can't, because the arrest was unlawful, they better release you immediately or face lawsuits unending.

For example.

[crisp basin]

A random lawyer just appears out of thin air?

[normal star]

You get a phone call.

[crisp basin]

A lawyer that is, by the way, part of the government

[normal star]

No, he's not. He's a private citizen.

[crisp basin]

Only if the government allows it.

[crisp basin]

Working as part of the legal system that forms part of the government.

[normal star]

That's okay, because there were four people who filmed your arrest, and your buddies got word from one of them and got the lawyer to you.

[crisp basin]

Ok, so you're banding together with your fellow citizens now?

That sounds an awful lot like what I described.

And if nobody filmed it?

and so what if there is a lawyer? What is the lawyer going to do without a legal system?

[normal star]

Hang on. When you said you band together with your fellow citizens to exert power over the government, you were referring to just taking your next door neighbor? That's it?

You weren't talking about any kind of large number of people, you just meant you and a buddy?

[crisp basin]

So far you're light years from being able to hold the government to account as an individual or as yourself plus 4 guys with a phone and a random lawyer.

[normal star]

So like, if I have a problem with government in your system, I just talk to my cousin and everything's good?

[normal star]

You just gave a random nonsense theoretical situation where you get unlawfully arrested, and I gave a perfectly plausible way for it to go where you get back out of it.

[crisp basin]

You haven't got out of anything yet. You're locked in a cell and your buddies have a phone with a video on it.

[normal star]

With an unlawful arrest, if they don't release you, they're in a world of trouble.

[crisp basin]

From whom? You and your buddies?

[normal star]

So they will and they do, and they will probably end up compensating you anyway.

From their own counterparts.

[crisp basin]

Aha! So from another branch of said government.

[normal star]

You're combining scenarios here in ways that are senseless.

[crisp basin]

So I was entirely correct then.

[normal star]

No. You really, really weren't.

[crisp basin]

There are an estimated tens of thousands of unlawful arrests in the US every year. This isn't a theoretical example.

and the only way to get people out of them, is to rely on another part of the same government.

[normal star]

It's literally a theoretical example.

And no, you're not relying on government.

[crisp basin]

In your example you relied on another part of the same government. You literally proved my point for me.

[normal star]

That's not it at all.

[crisp basin]

From their own counterparts.
I rest my case.

[normal star]

You're claiming that getting your buddies to talk to the government is relying on government.

[normal star]

Your case is trash.

[crisp basin]

😂

[normal star]

You asked how they might be held accountable after the fact. That's very different from getting out of the scenario.

[crisp basin]

Name me anything you can do to get out of a wrongful arrest that doesn't rely on some part of the government functioning properly.

[normal star]

And it's perfectly plausible that they would be held accountable within their own government. This is also incredibly messy, because you keep pretending that all governments are the same.

[crisp basin]

...which still requires another part of the government to act.

[crisp basin]

😂

[normal star]

Is a local city the same as the federal government? It's still "government," but that's not the same at all.

[crisp basin]

Yes, it's still part of your government.

[normal star]

No...

[crisp basin]

Whose government is it then? Mine?

[normal star]

Cities and states are not part of any branch of the federal government.

[crisp basin]

Who was talking about federal government?

We were talking about your government.

[normal star]

Me. Which you clearly didn't understand.

Additionally, you were talking about the US government, which is the federal government.

I don't think you have the faintest clue how our government operates.

You don't "go to another branch" of government if you're having trouble with government.

There are ways to do that, sure.

[crisp basin]

😂

You're hilarious.

[normal star]

But no, you don't have to rely on the good graces of a different part of the government if the government decides to persecute you.

This isn't productive.

[crisp basin]

The goalposts were over there -->

Put them back when you're done.

[normal star]

You're so focused on technicalities. You can't stand anyone telling you you're wrong.

You will literally argue with someone for hours just to prove that technically, one could say you were right.

That's insane. I really hope I'm not like you, but I'm afraid I am.

What a horrible, scary thought

[crisp basin]

Hey, I was having fun. I already knew I was right.

[normal star]

You were right according to your own definitions. You couldn't care less about what I was talking about.

[crisp basin]

We were having a great conversation right up until the point you realised you were wrong and therefore moved the goalposts.

[normal star]

That's the scary part. I see myself in you. Not caring about what other people are saying, as long as I can say I'm right.

That's really not what happened, but I'm genuinely disturbed by this. I appreciate you.

[crisp basin]

You remember that I think you're a troll, right?

I didn't just forget in the last few hours.

[normal star]

This was a really important mirror for me to look into. And wow, it's ugly as hell.

[crisp basin]

But thanks for letting me practice basic explanations.

[normal star]

I recommend you keep practicing, because you're pretty terrible at them.

[crisp basin]

Sure 😉

"and your father smelled of elderberries!"

[terse raft]

I'm sorry, I just had to... it must have been something in the air...

It's okay folks, we all have a bit of troll in us. Luckily, we can reform.

[normal star]

Is that a poor frog getting blown away?

[queen fjord]

I am not surprised at all that the same person that disagrees with the literal dictionary is also a Trumper.

[supple osprey]

I cracked the whole of philosophy, cultural issues, global issues, conceptual framework issues and basically (everything) ..🧐..🤔
I'm not scamming, or joking.
It's not graphic or violent in any way but it might not be language suitable for younger kids. But it's fine really 👍 I'm just saying is all .
Thanks for trusting each other and me, I mean that, honestly 👍😎🥇👏...🫣
https://youtu.be/So5XvWIvPlo?si=KoplLvrRRN4Xt-OT

There is a video diary that leeds up to this and it might matter if you watch them in order to get narrative etc, but it might not so do what you like hehe 👍

[frigid kindle]

I stopped listening to MW when during the pandemic they conveniently changed the definition of vaccine to fit the narrative the pharma companies were pushing. I realized words can be changed but facts cannot.

[queen fjord]

I work in human subject research for one of the companies that developed a vaccine, so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.

Can you please provide citations for this statement from reputable sources. Please provide links that demonstrate the accuracy of your statement:

"they conveniently changed the definition of vaccine to fit the narrative the pharma companies were pushing."

[neon plaza]

I mean, they did change the definition, but it was to keep up with newer research 😋 Just like the definition of mail wasn't to fit a narrative haha

[queen fjord]

Can you please provide a source for this, I'm not interested in how you want to qualify the statement. Please provide a reputable source confirming that the definition of a vaccine was changed during COVID. Otherwise I'm forced to believe that you're intentionally trying to spread COVID misinformation.

[neon plaza]

My source is Merriam Webster. To be more specific, Emily Brewster, Senior editor and editorial ambassador of Merriam Webster.

Emily Brewster: Now, that definition reflected the kind of vaccines that were formerly available. But the COVID vaccines that were produced by these companies for this particular disease are very significantly different and so-

Peter Sokolowski: They work in a different way.

Emily Brewster: That's right.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word-matters-podcast/episode-68-word-of-the-year-2021#:~:text=Merriam-Webster's word of the year 2021 is vaccine.

@queen fjord You can thumbs down my response to your heart's content, but sometimes science progresses and language follows. It's just the way the world works.

A "computer" used to be a human doing manual computations.

[reef harbor]

that makes sense, bet there's a bunch of technology related definitions that have to be regularly updated

[normal star]

They also updated the definition for "anti-vaxxer" to no longer just be those who were against vaccines. Suddenly, if you were against forcing people to get the vaccine against their will, then you were anti-vaxxer, no matter how much you supported and promoted vaccines.

You can worship MW if you want, but it's easy to point out that they were politically motivated with their definition changes.

[neon plaza]

That does reflect how people started using the word during Covid, though. A dictionary definition should just be a collection of ways the speakers of a language use a word.

[normal star]

That reflects a highly political change in definition that half the country strongly disagreed with. Which just supports the thought that MW became a political entity instead of purely a dictionary.

You had a lot of people openly pro-vaccine who were labeled anti-vaxxers and lumped in with those who actively advocated against vaccines. That doesn't make a lot of sense in the real world, but it made perfect sense in the political world.

[neon plaza]

The old definition is still included, so both views are represented.

[normal star]

And yet now if you disagree, you're "arguing with the dictionary" instead of pointing out the obvious. The dictionary should strive to accurately record the meaning of words, not change itself in the name of becoming a political weapon.

It makes no sense to call those promoting a vaccine "anti-vaxxers," by any definition.

[neon plaza]

You're not arguing with the dictionary if you use one of the definitions it gives.

[normal star]

If a dictionary is promoting a misunderstanding of language for political purposes instead of promoting clarity, then it's lost its use.

This, by contrast, is the Oxford English Dictionary, providing the obvious and reasonable definition that has nothing to do with politics:
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer_n?tl=true

MW has successfully steered the conversation away from meaning and towards semantics, making it a contest of controlling language instead of a contest of ideas.

[neon plaza]

It's just how many people use the word now, go cry about it

A dictionary should represent the way a language is spoken by its speakers. If OED doesn't represent that, that's their choice and I'm not going to make paranoid statements about it, because that seems a little over the top.

This is one of the tabs in the link you provided. Is it a political statement to note that the use of "anti-vaxxer" spiked during Covid vaccinations? To me, that just seems like acknowledging the way English is spoken.

[normal star]

No, that isn't particularly political to note. Why would it be?

[normal star]

OED correctly represents the way the word is used. Now who's arguing against the dictionary?

[neon plaza]

MW was doing precisely that. Understand that 75% of uses of the word actually don't target blanket anti-vaxxers, and update the meaning accordingly. You tell me why that would be political, because to me it just seems like acknowledging the way English is spoken.

[reef harbor]

we should have different dictionaries for liberals and conservatives. That way noone will ever be offended by any definitions

[normal star]

That's not actually true. They were still using the original meaning of the word, implying that the people they were talking about were against vaccines. They were covering themselves with a technicality, so they could claim they weren't lying. But the common man still understood the normal, OED definition. Which means they were led to believe that many were against vaccines who were actually promoting the vaccine.

You can't call someone an anti-vaxxer and expect people to not take it as meaning the person is against vaccines. That makes no sense.

[normal star]

It has little to do with getting offended by definitions. It has to do with using language accurately, instead of being able to lie but being covered by a technicality.

[neon plaza]

Do you happen to be on the receiving end of that? Because if so, that might explain why you feel that way.

Factually, however, it has been used in Covid-specific cases mostly since 2021.

[normal star]

Is it difficult to understand what I'm saying? You don't seem to be responding to me at all.

No one is arguing about whether anti-vaxxer has been in common use, especially for covid-specific cases.

Anti-vaxxer has been used to describe people who were against vaccines.

[neon plaza]

If that's the case, then updating the definition to fit the use doesn't seem outrageous to me.

[normal star]

The use is for people who are against vaccines. That's always been the definition. There was nothing that needed to be updated.

[neon plaza]

And you agree that in recent years, people specifically meant opposed to the covid vaccine or the vaccination process

[normal star]

When people use the term "anti-vaxxer," they are communicating to others that someone is opposed to vaccines. No one has ever heard that term and thought, "Oh right, those are the people who are actively promoting vaccines."

So no, I don't agree. I strongly disagree with you.

[neon plaza]

In that case, you just don't understand how people use the word. I don't know whether that is an actual misunderstanding or a politically motivated misrepresentation, but either way it doesn't seem like you're actually willing to learn or be open-minded about it. In which case, the conversation is no longer interesting to me.

[upper egret]

It can be applied to how people have tried to understand more what vaccines actually are. Also, many are required by the state or at least heavily implied is needed, to function in what is considered just a basic natural right.

I received vaccines as a child and yet I did not participate in the covid vaccine

so I get lumped in with anti-vaxxers

[normal star]

This is a politically motivated inaccuracy. Anyone posing reasonable questions was claimed to be an anti-vaxxer, even if they were in favor of the covid vaccine and all other vaccines. The term is meant as a derogatory term, lumping people together with those who are going to bring back polio. It is not meant to communicate the idea that someone is against covid vaccine mandates. The technicality of the new MW definition is used to shield those who misuse the term from criticism, which is also why the definition of vaccine was changed in order to include the covid vaccine, which otherwise wouldn't have qualified.

[upper egret]

Well of course it is, the whole point begs the point of social engineering. It's not surprising that there would be a push of some collective thought over an obsession of an invisible disease to be afraid of. I will never let go of how close people to me reacted to an obvious litmus test.

[normal star]

Never let a disaster go to waste. That seems to be the government's motto these days. Emergency powers are all the rage.

And good old MW is here to provide cover for it.

[upper egret]

It's basic game theory tbh

[upper egret]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJUNTcOGeSw

https://tenor.com/view/trying-not-to-laugh-zoom-in-close-up-holding-it-back-gif-17288301

In the end, it's arguments that have been had before. I just like the experience and the debates about what is actually True. No matter what when it comes to understanding a cerebral experience, I know I really know nothing

[neon plaza]

Living in the Netherlands, a country that has never has any Covid vaccine mandates, there were so many people that refused to participate because of covid vaccine mandates.

It was never mandated, but yet they used it as an excuse to just not participate. So yeah, obviously they were called anti-vaxx and I don't see that as political. Plus, the only party that even made it a political issue instead of a health issue here, was the fascist party, so of course I'm skeptical when people claim these things...

[upper egret]

Here in the states it was mostly both sides politically. I'd rather not see it like that. The same top-down control plays both sides, I will remain apolitical when it comes to any topic unless it's a direct inquire

[neon plaza]

It's always black and white in the states, hate to see it

[upper egret]

It's by design it seems

[upper egret]

Western political ideology is based upon dualism tho, it's more determined what sort of flavor the base is

The terms we use are call backs to the many revolutions that were spawned in Europe and the early Colonial States back in the Renaissance

[neon plaza]

Not all though, the Dutch political system is pluralistic by design, and although it's slowly crumbling like all other Western nations, it's pretty hard to find any subject that is super partisan

[upper egret]

Sure, but in the grand scheme The Netherlands doesn't have sway in the political theatre, Europe is largely just lumped into EU politics

It's sort of why Americans in general are very ignorant and self inflated

[neon plaza]

Yeah I know, it was just an example 😋

[upper egret]

Hey I know first hand

California has a tainted reputation, but I love this state.

The politics do not decide how I feel about my home

[neon plaza]

Anyway, if I look at covid vaccine mandates in the States, I find it was mostly for government employees, sometimes healthcare workers, and mostly there were alternatives like testing regularly. Outside of mostly those sectors, I don't see any mandates

[upper egret]

Oh there were, many were threatened with termination

Those that opted out had to have good mental fortitude

[neon plaza]

Company mandated or government mandated?

[upper egret]

Company

Remember, many small businesses were ruined because of the mandates from the CDC

Corporatism ownership inflated because of it

During the lockdown the CDC reported on their own website that influenza dropped to zero cases as soon as covid entered the zeigeist

No matter how you can reflect on those couple of years, things became worse in so many faculties