PugJesus

PugJesus, 3 hours ago

Things can get heated in certain threads.

PugJesus, 3 hours ago

In PoliticalMemes, but it was removed for not being political(?)

PugJesus, 1 hour ago

Eversor Assassins, drugged-up hyper-aggressive supersoldiers.

PugJesus, 3 hours ago (edited 3 hours ago)

I’m so glad we couldn’t ignore this fine protest too

PugJesus, 3 hours ago (edited 3 hours ago)

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.

PugJesus, 3 hours ago (edited 2 hours ago)

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.

PugJesus, 2 hours ago

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.

PugJesus, 2 hours ago

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”

PugJesus, 2 hours ago (edited 1 hour ago)

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?

PugJesus, 1 hour ago (edited 1 hour ago)

it really sounds like that voter (or that group of voters) effectively have no choice.

Welcome to being part of a small minority in a democracy; sorry that democracy isn’t utopian and that changing minds requires time and effort. “I want a leader who agrees with all of my positions but I don’t want my positions to have to be popular or supported by a broad swathe of the population to achieve that” is more vanguard politics stuff; democracy isn’t really your speed.

PugJesus, 3 hours ago (edited 2 hours ago)

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.

PugJesus, 5 hours ago

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.