11mo ago

Democracy brain

Auntie Oedipus (@Parasite@kolektiva.social):

One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.

55 comments

Not really a problem of democracy. More of an American problem with it's 2 part, FPTP electoral system.
- If your party has 51% in basic any parliamentary system, you basically rule the parliament.
- So? Do you really think that the EU parliament is a good example of democracy? O.o
  
  It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it's better than whatever the fuck is going on in the US
  
  Yes.
That's really only the case under incredibly undemocratic systems like the US's that don't support more than two parties or proportional representation.
The problem isn't democracy, the problem is undemocratic systems that just call themselves democracies.
- No, I mean all liberal, representative democracies. I would actually call those "undemocratic".
- It happened in the UK with the Brexit vote.
  Granted we technically have a two party system here but the Brexit vote wasn't a vote for either of them but for whether our country left the EU. Then when 51.89% voted leave, our idiot government called that democracy and we left.
- In Bavaria, the CSU had an absolute majority for about 50 years. And now they coalition with disgrundled ex-CSU politicians.
that is because politics has effectively turned into a football game in some countries
- That's how it basically develops after a while in all countries.
Voting for people first instead of policies is a strong contender.
The pitfall lies in acknowledging their arguments, coupled with the desperate need to give value to the invaluable.
It's a hustle and a pyramid scheme.
Grammar, logic, and rhetoric are lost tools for their target demographic, who likely have an undeveloped prefrontal cortex.
- who likely have an undeveloped prefrontal cortex.
  Wow, better not let those subhumans have any say in how things are run. /s
  
  “We are all slave of our own making; some choose to do something about it, while others don’t!” Someone must have said it
  Now regarding the dumb argument you provided:
  Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.
  Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy where an argument uses a conclusion as a premise, essentially repeating oneself instead of providing evidence or logical reasoning. It's a self-referential argument that assumes the truth of the conclusion, making it a flawed and unconvincing argument.
  My references:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

55 comments