I’m just trying to square ‘any protest that can’t be ignored’ with literally every successful protest in the history of democracy. Seems like the biggest difference between your example and mine is that one is demanding equality and one is demanding forced segregation.
Seems like the biggest difference between your example and mine is that one is demanding equality and one is demanding forced segregation.
Which means, in objective terms, the biggest difference between our examples is whether you (or, if you prefer, anyone who isn’t a horrendous cretin) agree with it.
Protests must be addressed carefully - a government that concedes to every large-scale protest has neither democracy nor rule of law - likewise, a government that concedes to no large-scale protests has probably neither democracy nor rule of law.
You know if these single issue voters could read, they’re be really mad at you.
You’re completely right, and I find the fact that this needs to be explained very funny. Ancaps and ancoms are so wild to me conceptually - they want someone to enforce their will on others but hate the idea of a government. Both get really whiny when they realize that democracy doesn’t mean “we get what we want” but instead means “we get what the plurality of people around me want”. Sucks when you’re a minority opinion, even if it’s the “right” opinion.
But a democracy that can outright ignore (and put down by force, even) a protest demanding something that is by all accounts reasonable (that we do not provide arms used to commit genocide (among other actions against genocide), much like a demand that African Americans have equal rights) is, what, exactly?
But a democracy that can outright ignore (and put down by force, even) a protest demanding something that is by all accounts reasonable
Reasonable is nothing but a point of view, man. That’s the point of democracy. Democracy does not create reasonable solutions - it creates solutions that are approved of by the majority.
If you want reasonable governance, find a philosopher-king that agrees with you. Democracy provides consensus governance, or what is as close as seems possible.
is, what, exactly?
A government that doesn’t collapse because a large number of people gather in one place. Not much else is inherently implied by a government that doesn’t concede to large-scale protests.
And what is your point of view on supporting genocide, then?
If we all agree that supporting genocide is bad then i’d think we’d all also agree that protesting against it is… Good?
And it might be one of those kinds of protests that a democracy isn’t supposed to ignore.
edit: i really have to admire that you’ve gotten to the point where you’re arguing against protesting government-supported genocide. That’s an unexpected level of reactionary
And what is your point of view on supporting genocide, then?
My point of view? That supporting genocide is unreasonable.
If we all agree that supporting genocide is bad then i’d think we’d all also agree that protesting against it is… Good?
Yep. Both from an ordinary moral standpoint (“genocide is bad”) and a civic moral standpoint (“protesting is a civic duty”).
And it might be one of those kinds of protests that a democracy isn’t supposed to ignore.
It’s one of those kinds of protests that a moral government isn’t supposed to ignore. Although, arguably, if there was such a thing as a moral government to begin with, protests against genocide support would not be necessary.
But ‘moral’ and ‘democratic’ are two entirely different concepts. The purpose of a democratic government is to represent the will of the people - the consensus. The process through which that will, that consensus, is confirmed is elections, or recall petitions in some governments, not protests. Protests are merely a warning in most democratic governments, that there is some amount of groundroots support for (or against) an issue - it is not a confirmation of the opinion of the whole electorate, but that of exceptionally animated (and dutiful) citizens.
The process through which that will, that consensus, is confirmed is[sic] elections
We’re running around in circles. I thought you said voting for a candidate is not and indication support for all their policies? Is a vote for Biden a vote for more genocide or not?
We’re running around in circles. I thought you said voting for a candidate is not and indication support for all their policies?
Voting for a candidate is not an indication of support for all of their policies - it’s an indication that you prefer their policies, taken as a whole, to those policies of the realistic opposition candidates, taken as a whole. Seeking consensus is not the same as seeking a complete lack of dissent - consensus inherently includes compromise. Typically, those citizens actually involved in the political process begin by running, assisting, and promoting candidates in the primaries, who they agree with most closely. Then, as the agreement of proportions of the electorate winnow down the field to a smaller number of candidates whose policies are acceptable to a larger subsection of the voters, voters pick which one they disagree with least; as the concept of finding a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue is about as insane as finding a fellow voter that agrees with you 100% on every issue. I understand this concept can be confusing to those more familiar with ‘democratic centralism’, in which everyone toes the party line, but this is how actual democracies work.
Do I have to simplify this any further, or have I now succeeded where your high school civics course failed?
This has become so non-stop that I had to do some research on logical fallacies because I was quite sure that there was a formal name for what we’re seeing from anti-electoralists and accelerationists (the Venn diagram is pretty much a circle). And I was right.
In this thread there’s actually two (at least).
False Dilemma (aka false dichotomy): “You can either support genocide by voting for Biden (or Trump) or oppose it by voting third-party (or not voting).” This is just ridiculous levels of oversimplification with an implicit nested False Equivalency fallacy (“both sides are the same”).
Denying the Correlative (what I had to look up): “Vote third-party.” In the first-past-the-post, two-party system, there are only two choices that can have an impact. According to the data, voting third-party is nothing but a spoiler for the candidate of the major parties that one prefers. The choice is Biden ⊕ Trump. This fallacy is basically the inverse of the False Dilemma, which makes it all the more impressive to see the two used alongside one another.
Voting for a candidate is not an indication of support for all of their policies - it’s an indication that you prefer their policies, taken as a whole, to those policies of the realistic opposition candidates, taken as a whole
OK, so in the event that there is no candidate that is absent a policy position that, hypothetically and personally, is so completely morally bankrupt that you cannot possibly support them, what are the available options? Because if protest is an option, but the government is under no obligation to listen to it, and voting third party and not voting is also not an option (because for whatever reason the second most likely option is end-of-timestm), it really sounds like that voter (or that group of voters) effectively have no choice. Not ‘literally’ (because literally they have choices that have no effect), effectively. It seems like to that voter and the group of voters that are in that situation are living under an autocracy lead by whatever party that provided those options as the only ones. They are effectively disenfranchised.
I would go on to say more about the popularity of dissent to that policy, but the way we measure popularity is so skewed by the above political situation that it’s essentially begging the question.
edit: i really have to admire that you’ve gotten to the point where you’re arguing against protesting government-supported genocide. That’s an unexpected level of reactionary
Silly me, not realizing saying “Protests are good, but not conceding to large-scale protests does not inherently make a government non-democratic” actually meant “Protests against genocide are bad”
Maybe not any protest then?
I’m just trying to square ‘any protest that can’t be ignored’ with literally every successful protest in the history of democracy. Seems like the biggest difference between your example and mine is that one is demanding equality and one is demanding forced segregation.
Which means, in objective terms, the biggest difference between our examples is whether you (or, if you prefer, anyone who isn’t a horrendous cretin) agree with it.
Protests must be addressed carefully - a government that concedes to every large-scale protest has neither democracy nor rule of law - likewise, a government that concedes to no large-scale protests has probably neither democracy nor rule of law.
You know if these single issue voters could read, they’re be really mad at you.
You’re completely right, and I find the fact that this needs to be explained very funny. Ancaps and ancoms are so wild to me conceptually - they want someone to enforce their will on others but hate the idea of a government. Both get really whiny when they realize that democracy doesn’t mean “we get what we want” but instead means “we get what the plurality of people around me want”. Sucks when you’re a minority opinion, even if it’s the “right” opinion.
But a democracy that can outright ignore (and put down by force, even) a protest demanding something that is by all accounts reasonable (that we do not provide arms used to commit genocide (among other actions against genocide), much like a demand that African Americans have equal rights) is, what, exactly?
Reasonable is nothing but a point of view, man. That’s the point of democracy. Democracy does not create reasonable solutions - it creates solutions that are approved of by the majority.
If you want reasonable governance, find a philosopher-king that agrees with you. Democracy provides consensus governance, or what is as close as seems possible.
A government that doesn’t collapse because a large number of people gather in one place. Not much else is inherently implied by a government that doesn’t concede to large-scale protests.
And what is your point of view on supporting genocide, then?
If we all agree that supporting genocide is bad then i’d think we’d all also agree that protesting against it is… Good?
And it might be one of those kinds of protests that a democracy isn’t supposed to ignore.
edit: i really have to admire that you’ve gotten to the point where you’re arguing against protesting government-supported genocide. That’s an unexpected level of reactionary
My point of view? That supporting genocide is unreasonable.
Yep. Both from an ordinary moral standpoint (“genocide is bad”) and a civic moral standpoint (“protesting is a civic duty”).
It’s one of those kinds of protests that a moral government isn’t supposed to ignore. Although, arguably, if there was such a thing as a moral government to begin with, protests against genocide support would not be necessary.
But ‘moral’ and ‘democratic’ are two entirely different concepts. The purpose of a democratic government is to represent the will of the people - the consensus. The process through which that will, that consensus, is confirmed is elections, or recall petitions in some governments, not protests. Protests are merely a warning in most democratic governments, that there is some amount of groundroots support for (or against) an issue - it is not a confirmation of the opinion of the whole electorate, but that of exceptionally animated (and dutiful) citizens.
We’re running around in circles. I thought you said voting for a candidate is not and indication support for all their policies? Is a vote for Biden a vote for more genocide or not?
Voting for a candidate is not an indication of support for all of their policies - it’s an indication that you prefer their policies, taken as a whole, to those policies of the realistic opposition candidates, taken as a whole. Seeking consensus is not the same as seeking a complete lack of dissent - consensus inherently includes compromise. Typically, those citizens actually involved in the political process begin by running, assisting, and promoting candidates in the primaries, who they agree with most closely. Then, as the agreement of proportions of the electorate winnow down the field to a smaller number of candidates whose policies are acceptable to a larger subsection of the voters, voters pick which one they disagree with least; as the concept of finding a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue is about as insane as finding a fellow voter that agrees with you 100% on every issue. I understand this concept can be confusing to those more familiar with ‘democratic centralism’, in which everyone toes the party line, but this is how actual democracies work.
Do I have to simplify this any further, or have I now succeeded where your high school civics course failed?
This has become so non-stop that I had to do some research on logical fallacies because I was quite sure that there was a formal name for what we’re seeing from anti-electoralists and accelerationists (the Venn diagram is pretty much a circle). And I was right.
In this thread there’s actually two (at least).
False Dilemma (aka false dichotomy): “You can either support genocide by voting for Biden (or Trump) or oppose it by voting third-party (or not voting).” This is just ridiculous levels of oversimplification with an implicit nested False Equivalency fallacy (“both sides are the same”).
Denying the Correlative (what I had to look up): “Vote third-party.” In the first-past-the-post, two-party system, there are only two choices that can have an impact. According to the data, voting third-party is nothing but a spoiler for the candidate of the major parties that one prefers. The choice is
Biden ⊕ Trump. This fallacy is basically the inverse of the False Dilemma, which makes it all the more impressive to see the two used alongside one another.OK, so in the event that there is no candidate that is absent a policy position that, hypothetically and personally, is so completely morally bankrupt that you cannot possibly support them, what are the available options? Because if protest is an option, but the government is under no obligation to listen to it, and voting third party and not voting is also not an option (because for whatever reason the second most likely option is end-of-timestm), it really sounds like that voter (or that group of voters) effectively have no choice. Not ‘literally’ (because literally they have choices that have no effect), effectively. It seems like to that voter and the group of voters that are in that situation are living under an autocracy lead by whatever party that provided those options as the only ones. They are effectively disenfranchised.
I would go on to say more about the popularity of dissent to that policy, but the way we measure popularity is so skewed by the above political situation that it’s essentially begging the question.
Silly me, not realizing saying “Protests are good, but not conceding to large-scale protests does not inherently make a government non-democratic” actually meant “Protests against genocide are bad”