Auntie Oedipus (@[email protected]):

One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      522·
      2 months ago

      So? Do you really think that the EU parliament is a good example of democracy? O.o

      • bmatrix@lemmy.world
        321·
        2 months ago

        It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it’s better than whatever the fuck is going on in the US

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
          418·
          2 months ago

          Maybe. But on an anarchist community, I don’t feel like acting as if any representative democracy actually fulfills their promise of freedom and equality.

          • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
            95·
            2 months ago

            We tried anarchy in Europe once, after the fall of the Roman empire.

            It worked out so well, feudalism ended up being a better choice. Took us about 1000 years to see a predominance of republics again, although Italian city states got there first.

            Turns out without organized states, letting a large number of people self organize ends up being a free for all for chieftains and warlords trying to sieze power for themselves. We ended up not writing history for hundreds of years, because everyone was focused on trying to find any sort of stability. We called it the dark ages. Feudalism was simply the strongest warlords managing to hold power for long enough so that people didn’t see slaughter every year and could experience peace long enough to farm and craft. Even they had to come up with rules of casus belli (justification for wars), a claim system, heraldry and succession to prevent an all out slaughter like before.

              • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
                24·
                2 months ago

                The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good. I’m not saying anarchism leads to the loss of values, I’m saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values. I understand that would not be the anarchy you would strive for, I’m saying that’s what people would end up becoming, even though they’d have all the reasons not to.

                Anyway thanks for presenting your arguments and showing me your view points. Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy, as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don’t. I wish you and everyone in this community the best.

                Edit: i just wanted to be clear that i didn’t intend to spout hot takes to rile you guys up or disparage your beliefs. I understand the downvotes, I’m probably saying egregious things considering your community and obviously you disagree with it. I accept that. But please take none of what i say with disrespect, because none was intended. For me that’s the most important take away. All i said were genuine discussion points and i want to make it clear that i admit i don’t understand much about the modern ideals of anarchism. There are many differing takes on this subject online and they are not congruent. Whether or not i end up not agreeing with your beliefs does not mean i don’t want to fully understand the message as it was meant to be understood.

                Above all I’m a firm believer of political plurality. Diversity of opinions is what makes society richer.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
              55·
              2 months ago

              Why are you posting in an anarchist community? You clearly have no idea about anarchist theory, so please bugger off.

              • vithigar
                4·
                2 months ago

                Because this post has made it to page one of “all” when sorting by active and attracted attention outside its original community.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
                  34·
                  2 months ago

                  So do a lot of AI generated images. I don’t post on these communities how ugly the images are.

              • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
                41·
                2 months ago

                Hey i might not agree with anarchy, but it doesn’t mean i don’t like to hear about other people’s political views and see what they think.

                After all, how can one grow being only exposed to one’s own political views ? I will disagree with you, sure, but i mean no disrespect for your opinions. I respect them as if they were my own and i think the world is richer with people who think outside the box and challenge the status quo. We should leave no page unturned.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
                  31·
                  2 months ago

                  But you’re trying to dunk on anarchism with your shallow understanding of history and learly without any idea of what anarchism stands for. Excuse me if that doesn’t speak for your open-mindedness concerning anarchism.

          • SwordInStone@lemmy.world
            52·
            2 months ago

            Now I do, thanks.

            You being anarchist shouldn’t mean that you cannot see that something is or isn’t a good example of democracy the same way people from democratic countries can judge communist countries.

  • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
    11·
    2 months ago

    That’s really only the case under incredibly undemocratic systems like the US’s that don’t support more than two parties or proportional representation.

    The problem isn’t democracy, the problem is undemocratic systems that just call themselves democracies.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      21·
      2 months ago

      No, I mean all liberal, representative democracies. I would actually call those “undemocratic”.

    • Aksamit@slrpnk.net
      8·
      2 months ago

      It happened in the UK with the Brexit vote.

      Granted we technically have a two party system here but the Brexit vote wasn’t a vote for either of them but for whether our country left the EU. Then when 51.89% voted leave, our idiot government called that democracy and we left.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      1·
      2 months ago

      In Bavaria, the CSU had an absolute majority for about 50 years. And now they coalition with disgrundled ex-CSU politicians.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
    103·
    2 months ago

    51% vs 49% is the difference between having absolute complete control over a company, or just being important but still needing the board’s approval. 1% makes all the difference in the world in many, many subjects.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    4·
    2 months ago

    I mean you can have Open List Proportional Voting, where candidates then get gove representative roles in those proportions… They have proportional systems in Germany and Japan, and people have to work together to get things done.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      81·
      2 months ago

      The system in Germany is currently in the process of breaking down and caving in to the (far) right.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        10·
        2 months ago

        That’s what people are voting for, the electoral system might not be the issue, the way medias cover the far right might be. By law in French Belgium the far right doesn’t get live media presence and what they say needs to be filtered to remove the lies and not report them, the result is that the far right isn’t much of an issue over there.

  • C126@sh.itjust.works
    25·
    2 months ago

    Democracy - Tyranny of the majority over the minority.

    Hey, guys! Let’s bulldoze Frank’s house! -Oh, we should vote first to make sure everyone agrees first. Great, looks like only 1 person voted against it and 99 voted in favor. That means, not only is it the right thing to do, it’s also completely ethical! Suck it, Frank!

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      2 months ago

      In reality, a lot of people have empathy. It’s not always a majority, but it’s more than 1% (or is it 0% in your example, since the person presumably voted against for selfish reasons?).

  • Crampon@lemmy.world
    36·
    2 months ago

    Amazing how Lemmy did a full 180° on this opinion. One week ago the majority was the way to go and everyone else could get fucked. That was when the Democrats had it. Now it doesn’t apply anymore.

  • Gresham's Law@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    14·
    2 months ago

    The pitfall lies in acknowledging their arguments, coupled with the desperate need to give value to the invaluable.
    It’s a hustle and a pyramid scheme.

    Grammar, logic, and rhetoric are lost tools for their target demographic, who likely have an undeveloped prefrontal cortex.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      61·
      2 months ago

      who likely have an undeveloped prefrontal cortex.

      Wow, better not let those subhumans have any say in how things are run. /s

      • Gresham's Law@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        14·
        2 months ago

        “We are all slave of our own making; some choose to do something about it, while others don’t!” Someone must have said it

        Now regarding the dumb argument you provided:
        Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

        Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy where an argument uses a conclusion as a premise, essentially repeating oneself instead of providing evidence or logical reasoning. It’s a self-referential argument that assumes the truth of the conclusion, making it a flawed and unconvincing argument.

        My references:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
          52·
          2 months ago

          Jessie, what the fuck are you talking about.jpeg

          Seriously, please read up what those logical fallacies are, because neither applies here.

          To clarify my previous comment: I’m strongly opposed to the notion you implied that some people are “too stupid for democracy”. This line of thought has an incredibly problematic (among others: racist) history.

          For example, IQ tests were used to “scientifically” claim that black people where intellectually “inferior”. This is how they justified them being slaves or not allowed to vote.

          Fundamentally, it is a eugenicist talking point.

          And since you like to throw technical dialectics terms around: You should know that I was simply using reductio ad absurdum, a valid form of an argument. (You know how to search wikipedia)

          • Gresham's Law@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            12·
            2 months ago

            Your capital on hyperbole is misplaced, hun.
            That’s not going to make the argument dissociative with your logical trauma & tantrums, not against me anyway.

            I don’t know about you, but I still have some self-worth left. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m blocking you. Your are wasting my time & energy.