this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
226 points (86.0% liked)
[Dormant] moved to !tankiejerk@piefed.social
1117 readers
1 users here now
COMM HAS MOVED TO !tankiejerk@piefed.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not entirely sure any of those are democracies.
Well, some are markedly more democratic than others. I still wouldn't give the US high marks for democracy, but "The ability for the majority of the population to freely choose a candidate of their choice" is miles ahead of "There is one candidate and the Central Committee approved them", even with all the other fuckery that goes on.
I'm sorry, did we redefine democracy to mean "Democracy except when the vast majority of the population is in favor of supporting a genocidal state"?
Can we? Like not really seeing a downside to imposing that rule...
More "At that point, we're discussing moral issues OTHER than democracy" rather than "We shouldn't try to stop this"
Is it though? Can a democracy truly exist when it decides to exterminate entire peoples? Is that democracy?
Considering the meaning of democracy is just that decisions are made by the will of the polity's population, gonna go with 'yes'.
If you try to think of democracy as some perfect decision-making machine that will decide in accordance with your moral code, the only democracy you'll find is autocracy.
Democracy results in decision-making that is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It results in decision-making with broad consensus or acquiescence by the polity's population. That's all.
How many people? How many people have to vote to make it a democracy? At what point does something stop being a democracy? How many people are allowed to be excluded ? How many people are allowed to be exterminated before it ceases to be a democracy? Would you classify apartheid as democracy for instance?
What are your answers to those questions?
Hold up a second there Socrates, I thought that was all. Isn't that what you said a second ago? If that is all, you should have a pretty easy answer my questions right?
You're the one with extremely strong opinions on what makes democracy not democracy beyond non-participation of the citizen body, I would expect you to have answers to those questions.
My answers are self-evident in principle - that participation of the citizen body is what defines democracy, and everything else is question of degrees or of morality outside the question of democracy. Your answers, on the other hand, are not self-evident, since you think a democratic polity which kills other people is not a democracy.
Am I the one that expressed an extremely strong opinion? I thought you defined democracy, and then definitively said "that is all". Again which one of us declared an extremely strong position? You took an extremely definitive position and set limits upon it. A position which you can't seem to clarify. It seems to me you made the claim. An extremely broad, extremely general, and maybe an extremely naive claim. I ask you again if it's so self-evident define it for me. What level of participation of the citizen body? If the citizen body is eliminating part of itself is that really still democracy? Is it apartheid state democracy? How can it be?
For that matter by your absurd definition an oligarchy is a democracy isn't it? That's participation of citizens. Not a lot of them. But you don't need any limits as long as anyone participates it's all you care about right? That's the logical conclusion is it not? Seemed self-evident.
Yes, considering that you expressed that genocide and democracy were incompatible.
I actually clarified it quite clearly from the start. Which you acknowledge, as you describe my position as both "definitive" and with "set limits".
Conveniently, you seem to reverse your position in this same comment, which reeks of tossing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Voting is generally agreed to be a minimum.
Yes. I struggle to think of any democracy which does not eliminate any of its citizen body.
They can be, theoretically. Democracy regards the participation of the citizen body in the polity's decision-making. Whether the citizen body or the polity is racist is not really relevant to this.
In the same way that any state is a democracy. There are always limits to both the citizen body and the polity. The more limits, the less democratic; yet no democracy is without limits entirely.
fucking what
Will you very nearly had a consistent point, but at the end you blinked. If you truly think any level participation regardless of numbers equals democracy then say it. Is an oligarchy a democracy? You said earlier it doesn't matter if entire swath of the population are excluded, apartheid states count. If all black people are not allowed to vote you still think it's democracy. If all women aren't allowed to vote you still think it's a democracy. If all Asians aren't allowed to vote you think it's a democracy. We just got done establishing this. If you eliminate everybody who is in a select small group in that Society it's still a democracy. That is definition you established. Why then is an oligarchy not a democracy? It has citizens voting. Therefore it's a democracy right? You seem to have an inconsistent definition. This is what I've been asking the whole time. This is the clarification you've been failing to give me. What level of participation. If it's any citizens voting at all as you mentioned multiple times then why is an oligarchy not a democracy?
Yes, there are democracies which included those aspects. Apparently, no democracy existed before women's suffrage.
Conversely, your point being that exclusions from participation are apparently disqualifying from being democracies, any polity which does not allow non-citizens to vote is not a democracy. Any polity which does not allow children to vote is not a democracy.
After all, apparently, participation of the population must be total, or it's not a democracy. You can't exclude members of the population and be democratic, according to your clear implication.
Either that or your definition of democracy is "Democracy is when I like the policies, and non-democracy is when I don't like it >:("
No, in an oligarchy, the rulers vote.
No, you're just doing your best Ben Shapiro impression in repeatedly rapid-fire rephrasing your points and ignoring any objections.
Because the point of a democracy is the participation of the citizen body, guy. I don't know how much clearer you want me to phrase it. Do you not know what a citizen is, or what citizenry are?
You know it's kind of hilarious to me, you listed all these scenarios that you think must be disqualifying in their absurdity. Yet I think those are all legitimate points. Yeah I don't think it counts as a democracy if half the population isn't allowed to participate. Totally valid. Yeah I'm not entirely sure there should be any voting age whatsoever. Yeah I don't believe only citizens should vote. I find the concept of citizenship in general troubling . These are all arguments I would entertain seriously. The fact that you think they were too absurd to even mention shows how far apart we are.
But let's table that for a second and address the second half of your comment. That in an oligarchy only the rulers vote. And then your second argument there at the end that relies entirely on citizenship. So who decides citizenship ? What if only the rulers are citizens. That's pretty much how oligarchy's usually operate. They are the only citizens. The only citizens are usually a wealthy Elite ruling class. So again I ask is that not democracy? If a small click of elite citizens voting would qualify as a democracy to you then why is an oligarchy not a democracy? You keep backing yourself into this corner and then acting like you're not in a corner and I don't understand it. How can you have it both ways? You're pretending it's a line you won't cross but you're already a mile past it.
Yeah. It does. If you think that any polity that doesn't allow children and non-citizens to vote isn't democracy, you're so far from seriousness that there's no point in continuing.
Still ducking and dodging it looks like. Not willing to say straight out what your definition is. But we already know what it is. Anyone reading this can see very clearly what you've outlined. They know that your view of democracy is so incredibly broad that it's absurd. That by your definition oligarchy is democracy. You don't want to say that cuz it sounds absurd but that's literally what all your statements add up to. It's okay. I like to think of democracy as pluralism, the rule of the people, and if all the people aren't participating or at least allowed to participate then it's clearly not a democracy it's not a rule of the people. You're more of the white land owning male sort of definition. Which I don't consider democracy. Cuz it's literally oligarchy. That's fine, just stop calling it democracy.
I literally defined it, and you acknowledged it as tightly defined before reversing course.
Yeah.
Yes you tightly defined it. Any system in which any number of people vote. That was your definition. Then you changed your mind again and said oligarchy is not democracy. That's why we're still here. You defined it then you blinked. The one who reversed course was you.