• New TOR Mirror: suicidffbey666ur5gspccbcw2zc7yoat34wbybqa3b
    oei6bysflbvqd.onion

  • Hey Guest,

    If you want to donate, we have a thread with updated donation options here at this link: About Donations

  • Twitter/X is a shitty platform that no one should ever use: Read More here
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
So this will probably be a very long thread. And as in many other political threads most people will disagree with me. For transparency reasons I am living in Germany I was a conservative as a teenager but became a lefty inter alia because of economical reasons at first. I think I once read in a German newspaper with high reputation Bernie Sanders would be concerning his economical stances either in the German centrist left or centrist right wing party in my country. I could try to analyze which party would better fit to his economical plans. I think it depends on the policies. For example no German party really none would be against universal free health care or (with less certainty), be against free public colleges. So the pre-conditions are pretty different.

So who is responsible for the mess that the US is currently in. The issues are multilayered and solely the description could take a whole thread. But this would be a boring start. I think one of the people who is responsible for the current crisis is Barack Obama. One could say the same about Tony Blair in UK. Their neoliberal and austerity policies fueled the multicrises we are in. In Germany there were also neoliberal reforms but the situation is different here because of the special history.

Obama in his campaign pretended to be an outsider. He promised change. And still way too many journalists suck him off for that. He was a fraud not as bad as Trump but he was responsible for the rise of Trump. Obama had a super majority and he delivered almost nothing. His reforms were a joke and was way too much concerned what the tea party thinks about him. The centrist approach wanting to please both sides was so fucking naive. The GOP plays hard ball something the leftwingers in the DNC would never dare to do. Obama was a national disappointment. He is one reason why young Americans became cynical about politics. He is one reason why people doubt whether voting really matters. I mean he had the majority and he simply did not deliver. In Western countries austerity policies were en vogue to that time. The disadvatanges of globalisations were negligible for them. They saw the advantages for the anywheres (cosmopolitans) and did not care aat all bout the somewheres (communitarians). To put it simply. The elites did not give a fuck about the average Joe and Jane. Most tax policies favored them. They profited of trade deals and all the good things that globalisation brought along. While the side-effects were outsourced to the workers. Areas like the Rust belt were seen as irrelevant. As Hillary Clinton showed very well parts of the elites look down at average workers. Her quote about the deplorables of Trump voters showed her arrogance. Clinton was an horrible candidate. They had the strategy to boost Trump in the primaries because they thought he was the easiest candidate to beat. Well this is simply hubris. As you will see later I am despite all of that a leftwinger but I have to say there is a compilation on youtube which has million of views. Listing all the democratic elites making fun of Trump and his voters which hugely backfired. I consider the choice in favor of Trump still a terrible mistake but I had to chuckle when watching that video. I was shocked that Trump won. (I only read mainstream German media to that time and I was quite young). I was consternated after his victory and asked myself how the media elites could be so wrong. I think in the US some people want to blame the loss of Clinton on sexism and fake news/Russia. Well she was a horrible candidate and the voters wanted to show the middle finger to the democratic elites who on the outside pretend to be in favor of equality but secretly they run away with all the money. Clinton and her staff did not realize how much anger the voters had about the globalisation and that for example her bombing of Lybia was the opposite of what the American voters wanted concerning foreign policies.

I hope after this paragraph some people might be glad that this thread does not solely consist of sucking off Democrats. There are so many grievances in the US system that it is hard to sum them up. Personally I think comparing it to Obama I see clear progress in Biden's policies. He more or less undertook some Trump policies (with other less provoking names) which can be called protectionism. I think he checks he gave the Americans during the covid lockdowns were great. Though he did fully deliver what he promisied (less money). So partially it was a success on the other hand also a disappointment. I think if there are referendums in the US many Americans vote in favor of policies that favor the common men. So in other terms leftwing policies. It is intricate to explain why at elections we don't see the same happening. I think one reason is the heated culture war. The GOP was skilled enough to convince voters that cultural issues are more important than their own economical interests. Something I cannot really comprehend for my personal values. Trump pretended to be an outsider while being part of the elite. His tax cuts gave all the profits to the elites in an insane magnitude. Tucker Carlson is also very good in pretending to fight against the elites while he makes millions brainwashing people to vote against their own economical interests. And that fucking bud light ads are more important than earning a fair wage.

Here comes one of the most unpopular opinions of this thread. The emphasis on free spech without almost any limits is toxic for the US society. (which is kind of undermining this forum which benefits of that. A paradox I have so far no good answer for. Maybe it depends on the issues but I think I should not waste time on this topic at this point.) In my country when I read about the US the following is common sense. The GOP has radicalized itself in the last decades. So much that it can be called in part a right-wing extreme party. There are people in the US that intoxicate the societal climate for their own advanage. People like Nick Fuentes, Alex Jones or a company like Breitbart are toxic for democrcaies that want to function. It is the paradox of tolerance of the philosopher Karl Popper. If the state is too tolerant towards people who want to undermine and destory democracy this can damage the system and can lead to its fall. Conspiracies have become way too influential in the US. Maybe I am biased because I only communicate with US-citizens on the internet but I think the magnitude in which Americans believe in conspiracies has become a huge problem. It makes them susceptible for strategies like "flood the zone with shit" how Steve Bannon called it. This can be observed in so many political debates. There are always pundits that repeat the same standard platitudes. Morever they always portray it as if there were only two choices. A big issue is in my opionion the US two-party system because usually the both parties nominate status quo candidates that are both in favor of the rich and big companies/powerful lobbies. It is pretty much the DNA of US democracy that the game is rigged in favor of the rich. Though to give my take on conspiracies more nuances. The Americans have a lot of good reasons for paranoia. All the big broadcast stations spread their corporate propaganda. The "leftwing" channels want to be seen as progressive and posture themselves as fighter for equality. Though they only use cultural topics for wanting to be seen as progressive while rigging the game in favor of the lobbies and companies that finance them. In my opinion PBS is way too much in favor of the centrist "we have to listen to both sides" approach. Something similar happened to the BBC during the Brexit campaign. Furthermore other points like the NSA spying, the secret operations of the CIA or Iraq war crimes raise legitimate questions about US politics. After all of this it is no wonder the people believe in conspiracies but it has become way too much and people believe in insane theories like baby eating elites/pizza gate, space laser, reptiloids, Qanon stuff or the Great reset.

I think this thread is already insanely long and no one will read it anyway. There are more less attractive issues to talk about. Campaign finance reforms, more support in small donor donations,measures against corporate campaign contributions, state ballot initatives (though I don't have detailed knowledge on that. Something people will claim about 99% of the stuff which I wrote here if I am lucky enough that one person would be willing to reply or even read this). Democrats have to deliver on the economical topics of the country and decrease their focus of cultural topics. Personally I think free higher education, a minimum wage, decrease in military spending, infrastructure spending programms, free health care for all could be topics to help to heal the nation in the long run. I think the Biden advisers have understood that to a certain point. Though the small progress the country makes is not enough. But compared to Obama the policies have become better. I think making climate change policies a point about creating jobs is the absolutely right way to go. Something the German politicians never understood. I don't think Biden will heal the nation he is way too moderate for that. But they learned some lessons of the Obama years to be fair.

There would be other topics. A potential constitutional crisis if Trump has to go to prison., a potential civil war (very unlikely) but riots don't seem to be that unlikely. The supreme court which will shape the country's future also with unpopular decisions like on abortion and no good answer for that. I don't think court packing is a good way to go. But I have not read enough about it. Foreign policy, Ukraine war/China, alternative candidates like Ron DeSantis, migration, wokeness, polarization of the parties..

Holy shit this is a long ass thread noone will read or like. But Oslo I am wating for a call of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sserafim, アホペンギン and buyersremorse
L

lethargic

Member
Jul 14, 2023
90
I read it.

Controversial but my question would be: why are you motivated to sustain "democracy" in its current state at all? It seems to be begging the question to inherently claim it's a good thing. Things are beyond fucked. It's clearly not working.

Democracy benefits the majority. In the current state of things, the majority can be split between all kinds of demographics. How about.... old people on retirement against young people? A reversed population pyramid in a democracy will mean that young people will get leeched for everything they've got to make sure the boomers get a peaceful, fun exit. And that is what is happening. Fuck democracy, I hope it explodes.

If you've ever wondered why the boomers had the utopian perfect life at every stage - it's because they have ALWAYS been the biggest voting block. Whether they just became adults, or in their 20s, or 30s, or 40s.... they always got what they wanted. Because they are the biggest swarm in the pyramid and always voted in unison. That's "democracy" working as intended for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dead Already
soonatpeace777888

soonatpeace777888

Specialist
Jul 4, 2023
301
What is so good about democracy? Would you support a democratic method of running a power-plant or would you have the experts do it? Democracy just means mob rule of the easily manipulated average-person. Democracy means the minority gets fucked even if they are correct because they are outnumbered.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: nadia225 and Dead Already
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
I read it.

Controversial but my question would be: why are you motivated to sustain "democracy" in its current state at all? It seems to be begging the question to inherently claim it's a good thing. Things are beyond fucked. It's clearly not working.

Democracy benefits the majority. In the current state of things, the majority can be split between all kinds of demographics. How about.... old people on retirement against young people? A reversed population pyramid in a democracy will mean that young people will get leeched for everything they've got to make sure the boomers get a peaceful, fun exit. And that is what is happening. Fuck democracy, I hope it explodes.
All other alternatives are way worse. Democracy has issues but if we compare democracies worldwide we can see the advantages/disadvantages of certain democracy forms, multi vs two-party system, presidential parliamentary system etc. I am not in favor of replacing capitalism by socialism. Though I think some people have different notions of socialism. I want social democracy like Norway or Sweden no socialism like Venezuela.

I think the flaws of democracy can be fixed to a certain extent by reforms. Abolishing democracy would be like nuking the own country in order to solve the issues. There are no dictatorships that offer better life quality than countries like Sweden or Norway. Democracy itself is certainly not the problem.

Which system would you be in favor of instead? Anarchy? Dictatorship? I think a strong single leader often brings along totalitarianism and misery.

Name me countries where the people actually profit of authoritarianism. The people in Iran beg for democracy and we don't value enough our privileges. North Korea, the third Reich, Russia. I would not want to live in any of these states.
 
Last edited:
L

lethargic

Member
Jul 14, 2023
90
All other alternatives are way worse. Democracy has issues but if we democracies worldwide we can see the advantages/disadvantages of certain democracy forms, multi vs two-party system, presidential parliamentary system etc. I am not in favor of replacing capitalism by socialism. Though I think some people have different notions of socialism. I want social democracy like Norway or Sweden no socialism like Venezuela.

I think the flaws of democracy can be fixed to a certain extent by reforms. Abolishing democracy would be like nuking the own country in order to solve the issues There are no dictatorships that offer better life quality than countries like Sweden or Norway. Democracy itself is certainly not the problem.

Which system would you be in favor of instead? Anarchy? Dictatorship? I think a strong single leader often brings along totalitarianism and misery.
Truth be told I feel like anything that is modern civilization is a fucking dystopian nightmare. I'm in support of everything Ted Kaczynski has claimed.
But if I had to choose, then I would either be the majority in a democracy, or have a dictator who I agree with. Those two have the same outcomes.
There's always winners and losers, but at least a dictatorship is honest about it. That's why I don't like this virtue signaling about how great democracy is because it really isn't if you're in the minority. If you're the minority in a dictatorship and you try a violent revolt against it, you're considered something of a hero. If you try the same in a democracy, you're considered some kind of evil terrorist because people are under some guise that democracy benefits everyone. It doesn't.

As for the Iran question, I find that odd. You can have the problems of any country you deem inferior in a democracy. The question is actually about having a humanitarian constitution. People seem to forget that the USA had full-on slavery during democracy as well, yeah? It's civil wars that push milestone changes into reality, not votes lol.

To answer your question: I would objectively be doing better under Hitler's Germany. Because I am white and I have blue eyes. Like I said, always winners and losers. Unfortunately I'm stuck in a ponzi scheme democracy where I won't be able to collect any wealth until the age of 40 because the pensioners need their pensions leeched off of my labor. Oh well! I mean I must really be appreciating the gift of democracy that just keeps on giving since I am here on sanctioned-suicide.net, after all.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Dead Already
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
Truth be told I feel like anything that is modern civilization is a fucking dystopian nightmare. I'm in support of everything Ted Kaczynski has claimed.
But if I had to choose, then I would either be the majority in a democracy, or have a dictator who I agree with. Those two have the same outcomes.
There's always winners and losers, but at least a dictatorship is honest about it. That's why I don't like this virtue signaling about how great democracy is because it really isn't if you're in the minority. If you're the minority in a dictatorship and you try a violent revolt against it, you're considered something of a hero. If you try the same in a democracy, you're considered some kind of evil terrorist because people are under some guise that democracy benefits everyone. It doesn't.

As for the Iran question, I find that odd. You can have the problems of any country you deem inferior in a democracy. The question is actually about having a humanitarian constitution. People seem to forget that the USA had full-on slavery during democracy as well, yeah? It's civil wars that push milestone changes into reality, not votes lol.

To answer your question: I would objectively be doing better under Hitler's Germany. Because I am white and I have blue eyes. Like I said, always winners and losers. Unfortunately I'm stuck in a ponzi scheme democracy where I won't be able to collect any wealth until the age of 40 because the pensioners need their pensions leeched off of my labor. Oh well! I mean I must really be appreciating the gift of democracy that just keeps on giving since I am here on sanctioned-suicide.net, after all.
I should go to sleep soon. I am quite sure you would not be better off under Hitler. Germans had to fight in a war that they had to lose. So many Germans soldiers were sacrificed for nothing. The nazis and especially Hitler were horrible in military strategy. The strategy against the Soviets was stupid as fuck. Hitler was megalomaniac and thought he could beat the US. They all put their trust in a completely insane guy who took crystal meth and other drugs. Hitler became more and more a mental wreck during in his years in office.

After all his strategical mistakes he blamed it on the German people. Shortly before he committed suicide he ordered to destroy Germany all the infrastructure because the Germans allegedly showed they were not worth it.

So many young men were sacrificied for nothing. Even young 14 year old boys were used in last minute kamikaze attacks when the war was lost a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
L

lethargic

Member
Jul 14, 2023
90
I should go to sleep soon. I am quite sure you would not be better off under Hitler. Germans had to fight in a war that they had to lose. So many Germans soldiers were sacrificed for nothing. The nazis and especially Hitler were horrible in military strategy. The strategy against the Soviets was stupid as fuck. Hitler was megalomaniac and thought he could beat the US. They all put their trust in a completely insane guy who took crystal meth and other drugs. Hitler became more and more a mental wreck during in his years in office.

After all his strategical mistakes he blamed it on the German people. Shortly before he committed suicide he ordered to destroy German all the infrastructure because the Germans allegedly showed they were not worth it.

So many young men were sacrificied for nothing. Even young 14 year old boys were used in last minute kamikaze attacks when the war was lost a long time ago.
If Hitler never lost, I would be doing better under that dictatorship is my point.

But wars / conflicts is a separate thing that has nothing to do with what political system you're running with either. Like the US is a democracy and how many lives got thrown into the pit during Vietnam? Or with how many operations they've pulled in the middle east?
 
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
If Hitler never lost, I would be doing better under that dictatorship is my point.

But wars / conflicts is a separate thing that has nothing to do with what political system you're running with either. Like the US is a democracy and how many lives got thrown into the pit during Vietnam? Or with how many operations they've pulled in the middle east?
This statement is not correct. The number of wars has to do with the political system. There is empirical evidence that democracies fight less wars among each other. In history there was no war between two stable democracies. There is a theory about that in political science.

So if there were democracies all over the world there would be probably less wars.
 
Dead Already

Dead Already

-
Jul 14, 2023
84
Truth be told I feel like anything that is modern civilization is a fucking dystopian nightmare. I'm in support of everything Ted Kaczynski has claimed.
But if I had to choose, then I would either be the majority in a democracy, or have a dictator who I agree with. Those two have the same outcomes.
There's always winners and losers, but at least a dictatorship is honest about it. That's why I don't like this virtue signaling about how great democracy is because it really isn't if you're in the minority. If you're the minority in a dictatorship and you try a violent revolt against it, you're considered something of a hero. If you try the same in a democracy, you're considered some kind of evil terrorist because people are under some guise that democracy benefits everyone. It doesn't.

As for the Iran question, I find that odd. You can have the problems of any country you deem inferior in a democracy. The question is actually about having a humanitarian constitution. People seem to forget that the USA had full-on slavery during democracy as well, yeah? It's civil wars that push milestone changes into reality, not votes lol.

To answer your question: I would objectively be doing better under Hitler's Germany. Because I am white and I have blue eyes. Like I said, always winners and losers. Unfortunately I'm stuck in a ponzi scheme democracy where I won't be able to collect any wealth until the age of 40 because the pensioners need their pensions leeched off of my labor. Oh well! I mean I must really be appreciating the gift of democracy that just keeps on giving since I am here on sanctioned-suicide.net, after all.
Hammer Down
 
CW36

CW36

➕〰️➰
Jul 23, 2023
841
I'm don't live in the US, but I'd vote Trump over Biden any day. You'd have to be mad to vote for the latter.
 
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
Truth be told I feel like anything that is modern civilization is a fucking dystopian nightmare. I'm in support of everything Ted Kaczynski has claimed.
But if I had to choose, then I would either be the majority in a democracy, or have a dictator who I agree with. Those two have the same outcomes.
There's always winners and losers, but at least a dictatorship is honest about it. That's why I don't like this virtue signaling about how great democracy is because it really isn't if you're in the minority. If you're the minority in a dictatorship and you try a violent revolt against it, you're considered something of a hero. If you try the same in a democracy, you're considered some kind of evil terrorist because people are under some guise that democracy benefits everyone. It doesn't.

As for the Iran question, I find that odd. You can have the problems of any country you deem inferior in a democracy. The question is actually about having a humanitarian constitution. People seem to forget that the USA had full-on slavery during democracy as well, yeah? It's civil wars that push milestone changes into reality, not votes lol.

To answer your question: I would objectively be doing better under Hitler's Germany. Because I am white and I have blue eyes. Like I said, always winners and losers. Unfortunately I'm stuck in a ponzi scheme democracy where I won't be able to collect any wealth until the age of 40 because the pensioners need their pensions leeched off of my labor. Oh well! I mean I must really be appreciating the gift of democracy that just keeps on giving since I am here on sanctioned-suicide.net, after all.
I disagree with most of the statements in this post.

First of all in a democracy one usually is not always in the minority or majority. There are often changes in the government. So there are fluctuations. But the same applies to policies. Sometimes policies get implemented that I agree and sometimes disagree with.
There is nothing like being always in the majority in a functioning democracy. Democracies live by accepting defeats and peaceful transitions. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

Protests are allowed of course as long as they respect the rights of other people. If you try to destroy the system by violent means there will be of course repercussions. If you dislike the system (democracy) so much you have the right to leave the country and search for a better country.

If you think you have a better life quality in North Korea, Russia or other autocracies like for example in Africa you can try to migrate to these nations. I could not name any dictatorship that would offer me better life quality than in Germany.
 
Last edited:
Holu

Holu

Hypomania go brrr
Apr 5, 2023
556
I ain't even gon lie, I'm mad biased, and cannot support anything advocating for Desantis as an "alternative" candidate. Bro is working too hard to societally punish trans people for being themselves.


Shit still in law

Shit thankfully gone but desantis backed

Suck my dick desantis. Learn to respect other humans and free speech.
 
Last edited:
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
I ain't even gon lie, I'm mad biased, and cannot support anything advocating for Desantis as an "alternative" candidate. Bro is working too hard to societally punish trans people for being themselves.
This is a misunderstanding maybe because I am no native speaker I despise DeSantis too (also because of trans related stuff but also other things). My intention was never to advocate for him. I just wanted to say I could have elaborated my thoughts of him. This was never meant as an endorsement. But he just can be called an alternative candidate.
 
Last edited:
Holu

Holu

Hypomania go brrr
Apr 5, 2023
556
This is a misunderstanding maybe because I am no native speaker I despise DeSantis too (also because of trans related stuff but also other things). My intention was never to advocate for him. I just wanted to say I could have elaborated my thoughts of him. This was never meant as an endorsement. But he just can be called an alternative candidate.
Prob misunderstanding, since I assumed it was one of the uneducated takes that "Desantis is moderate and not extreme", when dude is literally beefing with Disney. Bro does not deserve to even have a position, let alone be deemed an alternative candidate
 
  • Like
Reactions: noname223
SexyIncél

SexyIncél

🍭my lollipop brings the feminists to my candyshop
Aug 16, 2022
1,487
Thoughtful analysis! You might be interested in these points



Democracy

Is "democracy" pageants where people elect 4 year kings? Sounds more like a reality tv republic. The US's founders were very clear it isn't a democracy. And they were right to be clear, because it leads to endless confusion. For example, people typically hate government, but love democracy

They invented the US & probably know something about its political nature. "The Democracy Project", chapter 3, has an anthropologist's overview of their decisionmaking, and explanations on what real democracies are like

If you wish to read the founders themselves, my understanding is that it's best to directly read the debates at the Constitutional Convention. (Whereas "The Federalist Papers" is propaganda to convince the public to accept it)



Freedom of speech

Who'll dictate & enforce speech codes? The same professional politicians who regularly concoct conspiracy theories?

Shouldn't we let ourselves create & discuss theories, even if you disagree with mine? Isn't it more educational, to imagine your own thoughts? Maybe use some of that censorious energy to help everyone improve their theories, using rational thinking and institutional analysis?
 
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
Thoughtful analysis! You might be interested in these points



Democracy

Is "democracy" pageants where people elect 4 year kings? Sounds more like a reality tv republic. The US's founders were very clear it isn't a democracy. And they were right to be clear, because it leads to endless confusion. For example, people typically hate government, but love democracy

They invented the US & probably know something about its political nature. "The Democracy Project", chapter 3, has an anthropologist's overview of their decisionmaking, and explanations on what real democracies are like

If you wish to read the founders themselves, my understanding is that it's best to directly read the debates at the Constitutional Convention. (Whereas "The Federalist Papers" is propaganda to convince the public to accept it)



Freedom of speech

Who'll dictate & enforce speech codes? The same professional politicians who regularly concoct conspiracy theories?

Shouldn't we let ourselves create & discuss theories, even if you disagree with mine? Isn't it more educational, to imagine your own thoughts? Maybe use some of that censorious energy to help everyone improve their theories, using rational thinking and institutional analysis?
I disagree with many points.

I don't think US presidents can be accurately compared to kings.

I think the founders and their intentions should not have the last word in this discussion. The US needs reforms and these people could not predict everything that happened since. All the new technologies, climate change, mass media etc.
I don't want to say their words are meaningless though personally think our new knowledge we gained since helps to make the necessary changes.
I would not say their words should be taken as the absolute truth. For that it has happened too much since.

I live in Germany and free speech is more restricted by law. At the same time companies are more aggressive in the US to fire staff when politically incorrect things were said. This shows freedom of speech is in the US also only relative. I have the feeling many US citizens are totally paranoid that people want to brainwash them. The people don't trust anyone anymore which makes them susceptible for fake news and trusting of what your guts says. Which is in many case a stupid decision. (slow and fast thinking - Daniel Kahneman). If you see how many people in the US trust people like Alex Jones it is obvious for someone outside of the US that there is something wrong. When you read how popular Qanon is in the US it becomes obvious that the current state is very detrimental for the country. In many European countries the media is more objective and less influenced by money and lobbies. If you see which few companies own all the broadcast stations in the US it shows that freedom of speech per law is not worth a lot if there are not the right regulations to guarantee certain standards and quality.

I think your statement "people hate government, but love democracy" is not really accurate. If you see how many people here lost their hope in democracy and shit on it instead...
 
SexyIncél

SexyIncél

🍭my lollipop brings the feminists to my candyshop
Aug 16, 2022
1,487
I think the founders and their intentions should not have the last word in this discussion.
Let's not engage in the electoral pageantry's tradition of debating, where one makes wild statements & cites nothing. No one here seriously thinks I said the system's creators should have "the last word"

If you want to understand a system, it helps to know something about it. Anyone who actually knows the minimal basics of the US nation-state, beyond the timewasting pageantry, sees your basic errors. And it's not even been around that long, not even 250 years

I think your statement "people hate government, but love democracy" is not really accurate. If you see how many people here lost their hope in democracy and shit on it instead...
A rational person would simply look at polls. A brief googling brings up:
  • Poll: 74% of US Americans agree that "democracy is the best form of government"
  • Poll: "53% say Congress is doing a bad job of upholding democratic values, compared with just 16% who say it's doing a good job."
Whereas you... cite a couple posts on a suicide forum

This irrationality likely comes from defining "politics" as electoral politics, with its cultish pageantry. Certain other forms of politics don't suffer from this irrationality

If you'll excuse me, I'll ignore this thread. I'm on sasu, not long-form twitter. The OP won't find my intervention useful. Maybe some others might
 
Last edited:
N

noname223

Angelic
Aug 18, 2020
4,534
Let's not engage in the electoral pageantry's tradition of debating, where one makes wild statements & cites nothing. No one here seriously thinks I said the system's creators should have "the last word"

If you want to understand a system, it helps to know something about it. Anyone who actually knows the minimal basics of the US nation-state, beyond the timewasting pageantry, sees your basic errors. And it's not even been around that long, not even 250 years


A rational person would simply look at polls. A brief googling brings up:
  • Poll: 74% of US Americans agree that "democracy is the best form of government"
  • Poll: "53% say Congress is doing a bad job of upholding democratic values, compared with just 16% who say it's doing a good job."
Whereas you... cite a couple posts on a suicide forum

This irrationality likely comes from defining "politics" as electoral politics, with its cultish pageantry. Certain other forms of politics don't suffer from this irrationality

If you'll excuse me, I'll ignore this thread. I'm on sasu, not long-form twitter. The OP won't find my intervention useful. Maybe some others might
Such polls suffer from social desirability biases to a certain extent. It is a similar phenomenon when Trump voters did not admit to vote for him.
Googling polls does not really seem to be that scientifically and trustworthy either. Citing single polls is not necessarily representative and can easily be used to skew an argument in your favor. That being said - I don't want to imply by that a statement about the popularity of democracy among citizens

I think one issue was I don't understand what you mean with electoral pageantry tradition. I never heard of such a figure and could not really find a proper translation .

I admit I don't have that much knowledge of the US history you could have enlighten me with that. Due to the fact you don't mention my obvious mistakes this reply is at least for me not that helpful. I would be interested to learn more on the exact mistakes I have made. I am not familar with US history that much. I found your remark about "censorious energy" weird because you don't know which exactly my proposals for adapted free speech laws would be. The allegations that I would not allow to disagree with me in debates seems for me like a misunderstanding of what new proposals would be like. And kind of a strawman argument. I never said people are not allowed to create and discuss theories. (which disagree with me).

"Shouldn't we let ourselves create & discuss theories, even if you disagree with mine? Isn't it more educational, to imagine your own thoughts? Maybe use some of that censorious energy to help everyone improve their theories."
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Blurry_Buildings
Replies
23
Views
593
Politics & Philosophy
not-2-b-the-answer
not-2-b-the-answer
goodoldnoname923
Replies
40
Views
2K
Suicide Discussion
goodoldnoname923
goodoldnoname923
N
Replies
8
Views
288
Offtopic
persimmon
persimmon