Funny events in anti-woke world

[crimson5pheonix]

If you think occasional conformational referenda constitute "entirely the elements I don't like about direct democracy", then you haven't actually understood my position at all.

No, you silly person, you said you hated that decisions were being made by uninformed people who don't understand how government works. The Chilean constitution has their government representatives who have been writing laws up until now in an explicit minority so small they can't even block changes they don't like, the Chilean people picked a bunch of non-professionals specifically because they're non-professionals.

 

[AnxietyProne]

Remember people who got vaccinated; you aren't human anymore.

 

[Silvanus]

No, you silly person, you said you hated that decisions were being made by uninformed people who don't understand how government works. The Chilean constitution has their government representatives who have been writing laws up until now in an explicit minority so small they can't even block changes they don't like, the Chilean people picked a bunch of non-professionals specifically because they're non-professionals.

The Chilean people elected those people as representatives. Just because they're not career politicians doesn't somehow mean that isn't representative democracy in action. What a bizarre interpretation that would be.

I distrust the notion of a country run by full direct democracy (emphasis on the "full") because most ordinary people have zero understanding of the detail and practicalities involved. And they can hardly be blamed for that; it's an area that requires years of study. And so, in confirmatory referenda such as the constitutional ones in Chile and Cuba, the documents and details were drafted by a relatively small group of people who could devote significant time and research to the task, and then the population was asked whether the result had their approval.

Absolutely fine, well and good, I approve! A successful syndication of a direct-democratic element into a representative-democratic system. And it neatly avoids the pitfalls I identified in "full direct democracy".

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The Chilean people elected those people as representatives. Just because they're not career politicians doesn't somehow mean that isn't representative democracy in action. What a bizarre interpretation that would be.

I distrust the notion of a country run by full direct democracy (emphasis on the "full") because most ordinary people have zero understanding of the detail and practicalities involved. And they can hardly be blamed for that; it's an area that requires years of study. And so, in confirmatory referenda such as the constitutional ones in Chile and Cuba, the documents and details were drafted by a relatively small group of people who could devote significant time and research to the task, and then the population was asked whether the result had their approval.

Absolutely fine, well and good, I approve! A successful syndication of a direct-democratic element into a representative-democratic system. And it neatly avoids the pitfalls I identified in "full direct democracy".

Oh okay, so the act of being elected makes one suddenly intelligent and informed, got it. You do have a really bizarre interpretation.

 

[Avnger]

Oh okay, so the act of being elected makes one suddenly intelligent and informed, got it. You do have a really bizarre interpretation.

I like that you very obviously didn't even read his post but felt like you were clever enough to come up with a 2-liner retort anyway. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad because it's the epitome of all your posts in this thread.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I like that you very obviously didn't even read his post but felt like you were clever enough to come up with a 2-liner retort anyway. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad because it's the epitome of all your posts in this thread.

I have read his posts. Direct democracy is bad (despite all the good it's done) because it puts non-professionals in charge (even though that happens in representative democracy too). I seriously do not understand his objection to direct democracy because it's based on ideas that flat out aren't true.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh okay, so the act of being elected makes one suddenly intelligent and informed, got it. You do have a really bizarre interpretation.

I never said that, and nor do I believe it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I never said that, and nor do I believe it.

Well since direct democracy initiatives also have plenty of time to research and make informed decisions about, what's your objection? If you have the same people making the same decisions with the same information and the only difference is whether you're counting a fraction of people or not, what's your damn point?

 

[Silvanus]

Well since direct democracy initiatives also have plenty of time to research and make informed decisions about, what's your objection? If you have the same people making the same decisions with the same information and the only difference is whether you're counting a fraction of people or not, what's your damn point?

You don't have the same people with the same information; you have the entire population of the country. They have time to research and make informed decisions (though most won't have access to the resources, and most also wouldn't have the inclination to research)... at least for a few votes. In a full direct democracy, everything would be up to public vote, so someone with a full-time job realistically wouldn't have the time, even if they did have the resources and inclination.

Let's imagine that a trade deal is required. The country needs more silicon, else they'll be looking at a severe computer chip shortage in a few years.

Now, the vast majority of people do not know the stock is low, and nor do they know that computer chips are composed of silicon. So it's unlikely the trade deal even gets proposed in order for it to be put to vote.

But, say that the country gets lucky, or the press actually does its job and enlightens enough people to the issue to get the trade deal proposed. Only 99% of people have zero fucking idea how much it costs, or have any experience of negotiation or diplomacy. Maybe they organise an election for a board of people to draft it... only nobody knows anything about who has the expertise in the area, so it's essentially a crapshoot.

If the stars align, it'll get drafted and go to the people for confirmation in a referendum. But damn, that cost looks high! It gets voted down by 51 to 49%, because the costs look high and people don't really know why we need this silicon anyway, we'll do fine without new computers anyway. The press obviously isn't providing sufficient enlightenment on the issue, because 1) silicon trade deals are fucking boring, and 2) we're in a FULL DIRECT DEMOCRACY: this is one of 2 dozen referenda on the docket for the week.

So it falls through. And a few years later people find out computer chips are actually fucking important, and their health service administration system collapses because it relies on something that the country doesn't have anymore, which is also something people don't know the first thing about.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You don't have the same people with the same information; you have the entire population of the country. They have time to research and make informed decisions (though most won't have access to the resources, and most also wouldn't have the inclination to research)... at least for a few votes. In a full direct democracy, everything would be up to public vote, so someone with a full-time job realistically wouldn't have the time, even if they did have the resources and inclination.

Let's imagine that a trade deal is required. The country needs more silicon, else they'll be looking at a severe computer chip shortage in a few years.

Now, the vast majority of people do not know the stock is low, and nor do they know that computer chips are composed of silicon. So it's unlikely the trade deal even gets proposed in order for it to be put to vote.

But, say that the country gets lucky, or the press actually does its job and enlightens enough people to the issue to get the trade deal proposed. Only 99% of people have zero fucking idea how much it costs, or have any experience of negotiation or diplomacy. Maybe they organise an election for a board of people to draft it... only nobody knows anything about who has the expertise in the area, so it's essentially a crapshoot.

If the stars align, it'll get drafted and go to the people for confirmation in a referendum. But damn, that cost looks high! It gets voted down by 51 to 49%, because the costs look high and people don't really know why we need this silicon anyway, we'll do fine without new computers anyway. The press obviously isn't providing sufficient enlightenment on the issue, because 1) silicon trade deals are fucking boring, and 2) we're in a FULL DIRECT DEMOCRACY: this is one of 2 dozen referenda on the docket for the week.

So it falls through. And a few years later people find out computer chips are actually fucking important, and their health service administration system collapses because it relies on something that the country doesn't have anymore, which is also something people don't know the first thing about.

Neat, but you haven't explained why this is particular to direct democracy since political games are played with poor or non-existent trade deals right now, today, in representative democracy. Overbuying vaccines, under-funding energy. I'm in Texas and right now we're watching our energy infrastructure crumble and recently had a storm earlier in the year that killed hundreds, but the representative experts who are supposed to be stronger against all that you just said will not be investing in infrastructure or be remedying it any meaningful way, despite it being their job.

Politicians are not particularly resistant to these issues you bring up. So I don't know why you bring this up like it matters. "In a direct democracy people can make bad decisions!" Neat. I'm not particularly moved.

 

[Silvanus]

Neat, but you haven't explained why this is particular to direct democracy since political games are played with poor or non-existent trade deals right now, today, in representative democracy. Overbuying vaccines, under-funding energy. I'm in Texas and right now we're watching our energy infrastructure crumble and recently had a storm earlier in the year that killed hundreds, but the representative experts who are supposed to be stronger against all that you just said will not be investing in infrastructure or be remedying it any meaningful way, despite it being their job.

Politicians are not particularly resistant to these issues you bring up. So I don't know why you bring this up like it matters. "In a direct democracy people can make bad decisions!" Neat. I'm not particularly moved.

Not just "can make bad decisions"; that would be the reality for almost every issue requiring an understanding of a modicum of detail. Every trade deal, every tax, every immigration quota. Every element of healthcare provision.

You're in Texas, where representative democracy has manifestly failed to address the energy crisis. Yep, representative democracies frequently fail to address issues/ cause issues. I've already stated that the system is deeply flawed and is far from perfect.

In a full direct democracy, this would be the norm for every utility. There is no way you would have an energy infrastructure in the first place, because most people haven't got a fucking clue what is required to build or maintain one. Every issue you outlined above vis-a-vis Texas would be magnified a thousandfold.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Not just "can make bad decisions"; that would be the reality for almost every issue requiring an understanding of a modicum of detail. Every trade deal, every tax, every immigration quota. Every element of healthcare provision.

You're in Texas, where representative democracy has manifestly failed to address the energy crisis. Yep, representative democracies frequently fail to address issues/ cause issues. I've already stated that the system is deeply flawed and is far from perfect.

In a full direct democracy, this would be the norm for every utility. There is no way you would have an energy infrastructure in the first place, because most people haven't got a fucking clue what is required to build or maintain one. Every issue you outlined above vis-a-vis Texas would be magnified a thousandfold.

You claim, with no evidence, in the face of many examples of successful instances of direct democracy.

Again, I'm not moved. You frame your position how a propagandist would. "Don't do this thing or else everything would be bad forever!"

 

[Cheetodust]

In a full direct democracy, everything would be up to public vote, so someone with a full-time job realistically wouldn't have the time, even if they did have the resources and inclination.

Yes... I too believe that full time work, in a world where most of what we produce goes directly in the garbage and most jobs, at best, don't need to exist, is purely an idea to keep the populace too stressed to meaningfully engage with society and just continue to funnel money from one ghoul to another,. The latter ghoul's existence being doubly unnecessary.

Let's imagine that a trade deal is required. The country needs more silicon, else they'll be looking at a severe computer chip shortage in a few years.

Now, the vast majority of people do not know the stock is low, and nor do they know that computer chips are composed of silicon. So it's unlikely the trade deal even gets proposed in order for it to be put to vote.

But, say that the country gets lucky, or the press actually does its job and enlightens enough people to the issue to get the trade deal proposed.

Which would be far more likely to happen with a press more concerned with informing than profiting.

Only 99% of people have zero fucking idea how much it costs, or have any experience of negotiation or diplomacy. Maybe they organise an election for a board of people to draft it... only nobody knows anything about who has the expertise in the area, so it's essentially a crapshoot.

So like now then? A few years ago we outsourced our cervical check screening to foreign labs, despite the protests of experts. A whole bunch of women were later diagnosed with late stage cancer because everyone involved was too busy covering up the fuck ups that experts warned would happen rather than letting women know that they had cancer. Like I don't even want to get into how horrid a shitshow the whole situation was and I definitely won't get into what I feel is an appropriate punishment for the people involved who chose to let women die to save their own careers.

If the stars align, it'll get drafted and go to the people for confirmation in a referendum. But damn, that cost looks high! It gets voted down by 51 to 49%, because the costs look high and people don't really know why we need this silicon anyway, we'll do fine without new computers anyway. The press obviously isn't providing sufficient enlightenment on the issue, because 1) silicon trade deals are fucking boring, and 2) we're in a FULL DIRECT DEMOCRACY: this is one of 2 dozen referenda on the docket for the week.

That's not really how participatory budgeting works though. It wouldn't be a referendum for every single topic.

So it falls through. And a few years later people find out computer chips are actually fucking important, and their health service administration system collapses because it relies on something that the country doesn't have anymore, which is also something people don't know the first thing about.

And the governments that we have now are burning the planet to the ground, creating wealth inequality that a French King would call excessive and exploiting and killing innocent people all across the Global South.

There's two things that you seem to miss here.

1.) People who want direct democracy don't want it in a world where everything else stays exactly as is. Most of your arguments against it are basically "It won't work because capitalism." But I think most of us also want capitalism to go.

2.) The system we have now is literally going to kill us all in an ugly way. At worst direct democracy would be AS bad as what we have now and what we have now definitely doesn't work, unless you are part of a very privileged minority.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

And just like that, we're using fake school board activists to demonize sex ed and LGDTQ kids

"Sexual reproduction is one of the most important concepts of biology (and that's why schools shouldn't teach it)"

I swear, conservatives think left wing groups are all coordinated because it's what they do.

"School board warriors"? SBWs? Can we use that? It's got a nice ring to it.

Also, conservatives want their children to be completely ignorant of sex until the instant they turn 18, at which point they magically transform into well-adjusted adults.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"School board warriors"? SBWs? Can we use that? It's got a nice ring to it.

Also, conservatives want their children to be completely ignorant of sex until the instant they turn 18, at which point they magically transform into well-adjusted adults.

Considering how many of these chucklefucks think the female orgasm is a myth, I think they're banking on 18 year olds not being well adjusted adults in any way that matters. It's a convenient lie so that they can deny 18 year olds help though

 

[AnxietyProne]

Considering how many of these chucklefucks think the female orgasm is a myth,

Hell, females can't even feel love at all according to some of them.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Cuba, on the other hand, also put a constitution to a popular vote after it had been written by elected representatives.

Incorrect. Unelected Cubans made many suggestions which were then approved. All Cubans were able to do this.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Incorrect. Unelected Cubans made many suggestions which were then approved. All Cubans were able to do this.

Even Cuban expats iirc

 

[Trunkage]

And just like that, we're using fake school board activists to demonize sex ed and LGDTQ kids

"Sexual reproduction is one of the most important concepts of biology (and that's why schools shouldn't teach it)"

I swear, conservatives think left wing groups are all coordinated because it's what they do.

I think it was 2019 when something similar happened with the state of Victoria in my country. They had introduced a program I think was called Safe Schools. This was to hopefully allow all types of sexuality to asked question during sex ed. The teacher were encouraged to not be biased against homosexuality.

Of course, once a conservative hears that someone isn't promoting their version of reality, it means that they are 'destroying society.' There were some really hot takes on what 'should be taught in school.' The exact same pictures used previously were now pornograhpic. Any discussion of non-hetero relationships was corrupting the children. Like the current trans debate, there seemed to be a rather large focus on not allowing teenagers be aware that a different sexual choices even exists.

And, of course, these conservatives had no awareness that they were doing cancel culture. But, by the gods, so they complain about it when it happens to them. (See Andrew Bolt or Rowan Dean)

 

[XsjadoBlayde]