Do I deserve it? Sometimes I'm kind of a dick.
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
11 points (82.4% liked)
micro-blog-[ish]
135 readers
3 users here now
A place to say what you have to say, without requiring any context, theme, arguments, or ceremony. Be civil.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
I don't think we should punish people just because of their names, Richard.
What if I donkey punched your mother?
We agreed not to use animal names as insults in this family, Dick, and that rule also applies if you use it to insult yourself.
No one deserves anything, there are only actions and reactions
That... is deserving if you do an action while knowing what the reaction would be, though.
no i don't, personally haven't lived in a democracy though just the USA
Relates question: What should happen if a population votes democratically to genocide a people?
As an anarchist, I’m extremely aware the rule of the majority is mob rule. I’ve been excommunicated for always been the minority on things, even queer spaces. So no, I’m against genocide, no matter how singular their death sentences are. There should be 0 deaths in functional societies.
Too bad humans are incapable of antimurder.
You're describing ochlocracy. Democratic republics have legal protections for minority groups (you would be a minority if you're the 49%).
Those are all secondary things added on top of pure democracy. None of those protections are intrinsic to democracy in general.
I wouldn't support a direct / minimalist democracy without guarantee of civil liberties even if I was part of the majority.
Too close to mob rule for me.
That seems like exactly what OP is asking
Depends on your definition of democracy
In context of the question, we're talking simple, basic, direct democracy. Whatever 50%+1 of the population wants, goes.
Those are all secondary things added on top of pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a question of definition. Greek democracy? Pre 1960-ish US democracy? Only men can vote? The adult population has the right to vote but no right to free assembly and speech?
still
Democracy as "rule of the majority" I never supported in the first place. Exactly because I'm capable of understanding that if now the majority doesn't want to rob and kill me personally, accepting such a system means declaring that if it does, then it's right and I am wrong. Would be kinda stupid to declare that.
I don't support pure democracy which does not even exist given many systems are influenced by what is possible. When talking about things like the electoral college I get so annoyed at folks that refuse to acknowledge how much influence the capabilities of the time in voting mattered. The whole system had to be state by state and locality by locality with limited ability to check the veracity of any particular localities. It requires a certain amount of trust. Unless you have a mind linked collective like the borg the democracy you are suggesting is not really possible.
I certainly believe in a liberal democracy where the democracy is limited by human rights. So the democracy does not decide if they want to harm me but if its acceptable to harm people to begin with.
After that there are seperation of powers so that if its decided that harming folks in general I still have a chance of the it not being implemented on me by any particular authority. That type of government allows you to support the general system but not the particular implemenatation. For example in the us when it comes to the constitution I generally like it but feel it could be improved and feel it has a horrible leftover remnant of allowing slavery.
In addition due to a variety of supreme court decisions I think some things need to be specified either in the document or in laws passed by congress. There are many congressional laws I do not agree with.
The executive of the country is not following the countries laws so I now use my right to protest and do not support the executive.
You should really consider breaking up your wall of text with some line breaks :)