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”
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 kind of people who say “Liberals hate leftists more than fascists” and then proceed to oppose liberal coalition candidates in situations where a leftist coalition candidate is nonviable, even though fascism is the only realistic alternative outcome to the liberal coalition candidate winning.
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.
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.
Other than the fact that the Democratic majority is often in name only, I agree. Dems are only the lesser evil - we must fight to build REAL alternatives in the long term.
Their deaths easily left a power vacuum that was filled by soviet leaning german communists, most especially after 1922 when the civil war ended and the soviets emerged victorious. While some of the prominent german communists that werent russian soviets… were dead.
Yet the period of the United Front between the KPD and SPD lasted from '23 to '28. The idea that it was an organic change because of deep-seated grudges is extremely questionable even just by the timeline, much less the details of the interactions of the 20s and early 30s.
Politically, human dignity is important to me. There is room for that discussion of humanity and autonomy, but it’s certainly not foremost of all. Human dignity cannot manifest if we begin and end conversations by calling into question whether there’s a human capable of making decisions on the other end of the line.
You’re a very genial individual. I don’t know how you do it, honestly. Keep up the good fight!
I guess where we disagree is probably more at how common certain talking points become. We, as social creatures, naturally adopt the mannerisms and at least some of the outlooks of our communities - thus, sowing specific points of view in a niche community is a very cost-effective and practical way of amplifying propaganda.
Of course, as the saying goes, “You are not immune to propaganda”. It’s something we all must be aware of, lest we become (or remain) useful idiots ourselves.