Auntie Oedipus (@Parasite@kolektiva.social):
One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.
Removed by mod
So? Do you really think that the EU parliament is a good example of democracy? O.o
It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it’s better than whatever the fuck is going on in the US
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.
Removed by mod
If I post an anarchist meme on
politicalmemes, I expect liberals to dunk on me. If I post on an anarchist meme community, I don’t expect to be required to explain the basics of the anarchist critique on representative democracy.Removed by mod
Could you provide a link for those that want to learn (me)?
I’m not really sure if I know “the best” source for the completely uninitiated, but
So you want to follow the rules? Your rules?
I am confused; what community is this again?
Lol anarchism means no rules amirite? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 /s
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.
We tried anarchy in Europe once, after the fall of the Roman empire.
No, you didn’t.
Anarchism as a coherent vision of a potential society is a relatively modern development. There are past examples of societies that had some of the traits that anarchists advocate for, but nothing that really matches what we want. Your “lol warlords” example is very far from being relevant.
deleted by creator
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.
Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy,
According to the modlog you weren’t banned for this comment, so I assume we’re fine to continue our discussion. Probably avoid making these kinds of comments on future posts here though, at least until you’ve learned more.
as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don’t.
But you’re also still raising objections here, while admitting a lack of understanding. The tendency to conflate “I don’t understand it” with “it couldn’t possibly work” isn’t good for anyone. If nothing else, at least educate yourself in order to become a better skeptic.
The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good.
Why is this an objection to anarchy, rather than an objection to trusting humans with the power to rule over others?
I’m saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values.
Anarchy does not lack “dissuading devices”. See this comment, where I outline how an anarchist society would handle an instance of vigilantism.
Why are you posting in an anarchist community? You clearly have no idea about anarchist theory, so please bugger off.
Because this post has made it to page one of “all” when sorting by active and attracted attention outside its original community.
So do a lot of AI generated images. I don’t post on these communities how ugly the images are.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
And since anarchy is just fascism
Are you seriously not embarrassed to be displaying this level of ignorance? Have you read anything about either of those ideologies?
And since anarchy is just fascism with a faster, by-chance-situational shifting of power
Wow, you can’t be serious. XD
Yes.
You realize this is an anarchist community, right?
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.
Removed by mod
Ah, yes. The counterpart of “democratic country” is “communist country”. /s 🙄
Please leave me alone with your political illiteracy.
Not really a problem of democracy. More of an American problem with it’s 2 part, FPTP electoral system.
If your party has 51% in basic any parliamentary system, you basically rule the parliament.
Removed by mod
So? What does that have to do with the post? Please remember that it was posted in an anarchist community.
Removed by mod
It’s not about community rules. It’s about me not expecting to explain the basics everytime I post a meme on an explicitly anarchist community.
Do you expect others not to comment or something?
I expect the common courtesy of not entering into an anarchist space and then shit all over the ideology without engaging with it first at least.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
In Bavaria, the CSU had an absolute majority for about 50 years. And now they coalition with disgrundled ex-CSU politicians.
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.
No, I mean all liberal, representative democracies. I would actually call those “undemocratic”.
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.
Yeah. That’s the toxic bit.
Well, what percentage do you propose be required for the winner? What if nobody obtains the required percentage? You just don’t change presidents? I see criticism here, but I don’t see alternatives.
Real democracies have more than two viable parties for a start
Can’t argue with you there.
Simply don’t have presidents, but councils.
Isn’t that essentially Congress?
Do you really think that the US is a soviet republic?
Okay, and what percentage of the vote is required to elect a council member? 51%?
Consensus, or at least 90%. But concil members aren’t representatives. They’re delegates.
that is because politics has effectively turned into a football game in some countries
That’s how it basically develops after a while in all countries.
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.
The system in Germany is currently in the process of breaking down and caving in to the (far) right.
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.
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.
Imagine there being more political variety on Lemmy than US dems. 🙄
Like me?
I think that anarchists don’t really like any party. No matter if they’re in power or not.
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!
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?).
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.
who likely have an undeveloped prefrontal cortex.
Wow, better not let those subhumans have any say in how things are run. /s
“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_reasoningJessie, 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)
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.
Wow, talk about ad hominem. Good riddance, I guess.
