Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

I do not know what the ultimate utopia would be. However, there's one simple fix to SIGNIFICANTLY improve the quality of any democracy: Take away the right to vote from white men and forbid white men from being elected. After all, the biggest problem with any democracy is that it is all too easy for the majority (in the power sense, not necessarily in the numerical sense) to abuse their power and override the rights of minority groups. In addition to that, white men are pretty unique in the extend to which they're willing to abuse and destroy for personal gain, both on a personal and institutional level. By taking away our suffrage and preventing us from being elected, a significant part of our political influence will be nullified, which should level the playing field for other minorities (women, black people etc.) somewhat.

The answer to the institutional inertia of formerly legal oppression is most emphatically not more legalized oppression.

I don't see how it is oppression? Under the proposed system, white men would almost surely still hold a lot of political power. I would rather characterize it as leveling the playing field.

[GlyphGryph]

So I'll give a go at answering my own questions, starting with the first one, and hopefully bring this... a bit more on track.

What are the strengths of democracy - why is democracy a good thing?

Primarily, stability. So long as the majority can exert influence on and influence the government in a way where they feel they have power, there will not be a revolution. It provides an outlet for dissatisfaction - it allows political opposition to be part of the system, and thus interested in maintaining it. The benefits here are hopefully pretty obvious.

Does anyone disagree with this as a primary benefit?

[Virex]

I don't see "impediment of revolution" as a definitive positive. See for example Italy. They could do with a rather thorough and preferably bloody redesign of the political landscape.

[Nadaka]

I do not know what the ultimate utopia would be. However, there's one simple fix to SIGNIFICANTLY improve the quality of any democracy: Take away the right to vote from white men and forbid white men from being elected. After all, the biggest problem with any democracy is that it is all too easy for the majority (in the power sense, not necessarily in the numerical sense) to abuse their power and override the rights of minority groups. In addition to that, white men are pretty unique in the extend to which they're willing to abuse and destroy for personal gain, both on a personal and institutional level. By taking away our suffrage and preventing us from being elected, a significant part of our political influence will be nullified, which should level the playing field for other minorities (women, black people etc.) somewhat.

The answer to the institutional inertia of formerly legal oppression is most emphatically not more legalized oppression.

I don't see how it is oppression? Under the proposed system, white men would almost surely still hold a lot of political power. I would rather characterize it as leveling the playing field.

You don't see how denying the right to vote to an arbitrary population can be oppression... Seriously?

[LordSlowpoke]

White men still hold a majority when it comes to political influence though? Numbers aren't everything you know.

And their political influence is spent where? Because by Jove, I certainly don't see it being thrown into ensuring the Congress or the Supreme Court are an affair ran wholly and entirely by whites. What you're seeing there is the desire to stay in power, and their considerable resources are put into doing so - at the expense of whoever else who could represent their minority, yes, but this is an universal behavior of the ruling elite. Are you willing to dispute that?

Could you please point me to a place where what you're saying actually has occurred and the effects you're describing happened?

As far as I know, no country has ever tried to restrict the political power of men.

That's dodging the question right there. Of course the political power of men hasn't ever been restricted in a modern setting, that's what you call a patriarchy and is absolutely unrelated to the issue at hand. I'm tackling the race aspect because for some reason you happen to believe white males, which you described as "us", are everything what's wrong with the world and should be treated as second-class citizens. I won't quote the part where you say I'm a white supremacist and racist, but my friend, I will turn your attempted ad hominem around and claim you are the racist, for you claim races are not equal, and that is the definition of racism - unless you claim that dictionaries are racist because there's also a small elite of linguists who define the English language, in which case I'm thoroughly done.

Because I can point to South Africa right off the bat - the seat of power has shifted according to the people's will, and all was well, but in the representative system we have there now they're ending up very close to being straight up genocided.

So why don't they just leave? It's not like they have a right to be there, they stole the land from it's original owners.

I love this line of thought. I actually sarcastically employed it a while back, but it was met with a resounding wave of facepalms - everyone could leave anywhere if they're oppressed, after all nobody wants them there, so why do they stick around? Obviously the land was stolen. Everyone's land is stolen, even the one you and me are posting from, and I'm willing to bet there's less than ten thousand square kilometers of land outside Antarctica that nobody ever had a claim on.

You edited your post in the middle of me writing mine, so I took the liberty of butchering the quotes a little bit to accommodate that.

[Virex]

You don't see how denying the right to vote to an arbitrary population can be oppression... Seriously?

Let me guess, you're one of the people that calls quota on the number of female professors or scholarships for Hispanics oppression as well?

White men still hold a majority when it comes to political influence though? Numbers aren't everything you know.

And their political influence is spent where? Because by Jove, I certainly don't see it being thrown into ensuring the Congress or the Supreme Court are an affair ran wholly and entirely by whites. What you're seeing there is the desire to stay in power, and their considerable resources are put into doing so - at the expense of whoever else who could represent their minority, yes, but this is an universal behavior of the ruling elite. Are you willing to dispute that?

Do you really think white men would stop being the political elite in this case? It's not about changing the rulers, it's about giving women and people of color a fighting chance.

Could you please point me to a place where what you're saying actually has occurred and the effects you're describing happened?

As far as I know, no country has ever tried to restrict the political power of men.

That's dodging the question right there. Of course the political power of men hasn't ever been restricted in a modern setting, that's what you call a patriarchy and is absolutely unrelated to the issue at hand. I'm tackling the race aspect because for some reason you happen to believe white males, which you described as "us", are everything what's wrong with the world and should be treated as second-class citizens.


How the hell would they be treated as second-class citizens? They would still control most corporations and the media. This isn't about oppressing white men, it's about leveling the political playing field for other groups.

I will turn your attempted ad hominem around and claim you are the racist, for you claim races are not equal, and that is the definition of racism - unless you claim that dictionaries are racist because there's also a small elite of linguists who define the English language, in which case I'm thoroughly done.

Read: http://whiteseducatingwhites.com/2012/09/10/racism-101-prejudice-vs-power/


And don't bother coming back until you actually understand what racism is and why your definition is bollocks.

Because I can point to South Africa right off the bat - the seat of power has shifted according to the people's will, and all was well, but in the representative system we have there now they're ending up very close to being straight up genocided.

So why don't they just leave? It's not like they have a right to be there, they stole the land from it's original owners.

I love this line of thought. I actually sarcastically employed it a while back, but it was met with a resounding wave of facepalms - everyone could leave anywhere if they're oppressed, after all nobody wants them there, so why do they stick around? Obviously the land was stolen. Everyone's land is stolen, even the one you and me are posting from, and I'm willing to bet there's less than ten thousand square kilometers of land outside Antarctica that nobody ever had a claim on.

If you're in the US, then you're right. Your land is stolen. One could make a case that the land in Europe is also stolen in some sense, but seriously you'd need to employ a huge amount of racist mental gymnastics to even entertain the idea that the two situations could be comparable.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I do not know what the ultimate utopia would be. However, there's one simple fix to SIGNIFICANTLY improve the quality of any democracy: Take away the right to vote from white men and forbid white men from being elected.

Oppression has never and will never fix or justify oppression.

After all, the biggest problem with any democracy is that it is all too easy for the majority (in the power sense, not necessarily in the numerical sense) to abuse their power and override the rights of minority groups.

That's not really the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that a lack of democratic tradition can make democracies unstable entity.

In addition to that, white men are pretty unique in the extend to which they're willing to abuse and destroy for personal gain, both on a personal and institutional level.

No we're not, Virex. All people have equal capacity for violence and selfishness.

By taking away our suffrage and preventing us from being elected, a significant part of our political influence will be nullified, which should level the playing field for other minorities (women, black people etc.) somewhat.

Are you fucking kidding me? Virex, buddy, you need to get that self-hatred of yours in check.

White men still hold a majority when it comes to political influence though? Numbers aren't everything you know.

No, numbers are pretty much everything. That's one of the benefits of democracy, ultimately, numbers are more of a sway than anything else.

So why don't they just leave? It's not like they have a right to be there, they stole the land from it's original owners.

Uh, no, they do in fact have a right to be there. You do realize that almost all of the white people living in South Africa were born there, yes? The place where you are born is your home, regardless of what your ancestors did. If we were to accept your standard, pretty much everyone in the world would "not have a right" to live in their home.

Besides, if the inhabitants of South Africa feel the country would be better off without a white population, then it is their right to act on that.

First you talk about minority interests, now you support ethnic cleansing?

[Nadaka]

You don't see how denying the right to vote to an arbitrary population can be oppression... Seriously?

Let me guess, you're one of the people that calls quota on the number of female professors or scholarships for Hispanics oppression as well?

What?

[kaijyuu]

Obviously the best system of government is being ruled by my wife. It's pretty pleasant for me, so I assume it'd be great for everyone.

[LordSlowpoke]

he's just gone and went and claimed the dictionary is racist



fuck this thread

[Virex]

he's just gone and went and claimed the dictionary is racist

There's nothing wrong with the dictionary, but I can't fucking stand prescriptivists.

You don't see how denying the right to vote to an arbitrary population can be oppression... Seriously?

Let me guess, you're one of the people that calls quota on the number of female professors or scholarships for Hispanics oppression as well?

What?

Do I need to spell it out for you? One shouldn't strive to treat everyone equally, since not everyone is in the same position. The imbalance in our society requires active counterbalancing. That is not oppression. Capiche?

I do not know what the ultimate utopia would be. However, there's one simple fix to SIGNIFICANTLY improve the quality of any democracy: Take away the right to vote from white men and forbid white men from being elected.

Oppression has never and will never fix or justify oppression.

After all, the biggest problem with any democracy is that it is all too easy for the majority (in the power sense, not necessarily in the numerical sense) to abuse their power and override the rights of minority groups.

That's not really the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that a lack of democratic tradition can make democracies unstable entity.

Fine, one of the larger problems. I never said this proposal would solve everything at once, only that it would improve things.

In addition to that, white men are pretty unique in the extend to which they're willing to abuse and destroy for personal gain, both on a personal and institutional level.

No we're not, Virex. All people have equal capacity for violence and selfishness.



Equal capacity and equal propensity are not the same. And white men, taken on average, do employ far more violence and oppression then other groups.

White men still hold a majority when it comes to political influence though? Numbers aren't everything you know.

No, numbers are pretty much everything. That's one of the benefits of democracy, ultimately, numbers are more of a sway than anything else.

How many women voted for the GOP? Numbers matter, but that's the numbers that vote for you. And you get those numbers by using power. That's how you get blacks to vote for racist legislation (or prevent them from voting at all), how you get women to vote against their own interest and how you get poor people to vote for even more tax breaks for the rich.

So why don't they just leave? It's not like they have a right to be there, they stole the land from it's original owners.

Uh, no, they do in fact have a right to be there. You do realize that almost all of the white people living in South Africa were born there, yes?

"My dad stole it so I have a right to it." Yeah, that totally makes sense. It doesn't matter that they were born there, they shouldn't have been born there in the first place.

If we were to accept your standard, pretty much everyone in the world would "not have a right" to live in their home.

There is a difference between saying that white colonialists should've stayed home and saying that all lines should be traced back. Stop trying to apply reductio ad absurdum please, it doesn't fly here.

[GlyphGryph]

... >_>

Okay, come on folks. Let's try to keep this some sort of productive. If people want to argue something, let me throw out an idea that isn't "The best system of government is one where white men don't get to be involved".

Why is mandatory voting a thing? Why are turnout rates important? Could we arguably be better off by using a sampling system?

Something I've proposed here before, and would like to bring up again, is the concept of "professional voters", the electoral equivalent of a jury pool - anyone can register to vote, and you're name is entered into a lottery. When an election happen, a random subset of those registered are selected to serve as "voters". For presidential elections, this would probably be a few hundred per state or region. They will be given a stipend, travel expenses to some place to meet and discuss with others (probably others from their region) and the ability to talk with candidates personally and ask them questions, demand answers, express dissatisfaction. They would be given whatever access they wished.

What purpose does this serve?

First, I think it provides all the benefits of the traditional democratic apparatus. It uses popular will as an important component of acquiring representatives, everybody can still get involved with government, anyone could be selected. It provides opportunities for the voters to get intimately acquainted with the candidates - there's less publicity around the whole affair, where it becomes something more akin to a job interview. They can question discrepancies, and they have the weight to insure the questions they want answered are actually answered because they will be able to ask them personally. They have time, opportunity, and incentive to research their candidates (since their votes will clearly have a far great impact, and they'll be receiving the stipend to allow them to dedicate themselves to the effort) - those who are lazier will be no worse than today's average voter, but will be able to rely on their efforts of hardworking colleagues who will be eager to disseminate the information they've acquired during the daily session, and who will insure that hard questions are asked and answered.

What do people think are flaws with this proposal, and why are those things flaws? Since people have been pretty mum on why they think democracy is a good thing to begin with, I'm hoping this can draw some responses...

[Tomcost]

... >_>

Okay, come on folks. Let's try to keep this some sort of productive. If people want to argue something, let me throw out an idea that isn't "The best system of government is one where white men don't get to be involved".

Why is mandatory voting a thing? Why are turnout rates important? Could we arguably be better off by using a sampling system?

Something I've proposed here before, and would like to bring up again, is the concept of "professional voters", the electoral equivalent of a jury pool - anyone can register to vote, and you're name is entered into a lottery. When an election happen, a random subset of those registered are selected to serve as "voters". For presidential elections, this would probably be a few hundred per state or region. They will be given a stipend, travel expenses to some place to meet and discuss with others (probably others from their region) and the ability to talk with candidates personally and ask them questions, demand answers, express dissatisfaction. They would be given whatever access they wished.

What purpose does this serve?

First, I think it provides all the benefits of the traditional democratic apparatus. It uses popular will as an important component of acquiring representatives, everybody can still get involved with government, anyone could be selected. It provides opportunities for the voters to get intimately acquainted with the candidates - there's less publicity around the whole affair, where it becomes something more akin to a job interview. They can question discrepancies, and they have the weight to insure the questions they want answered are actually answered because they will be able to ask them personally. They have time, opportunity, and incentive to research their candidates (since their votes will clearly have a far great impact, and they'll be receiving the stipend to allow them to dedicate themselves to the effort) - those who are lazier will be no worse than today's average voter, but will be able to rely on their efforts of hardworking colleagues who will be eager to disseminate the information they've acquired during the daily session, and who will insure that hard questions are asked and answered.

What do people think are flaws with this proposal, and why are those things flaws? Since people have been pretty mum on why they think democracy is a good thing to begin with, I'm hoping this can draw some responses...

Biggest flaw: less people to vote means easier bribes an less money spent on doing so than demagogic politics.

[Nadaka]

he's just gone and went and claimed the dictionary is racist

There's nothing wrong with the dictionary, but I can't fucking stand prescriptivists.

Words have meaning. They form the very foundation of human thought. The corruption of that meaning is an attack on the very fabric that constitutes the human mind both individually and collectively. Performed deliberately, it is an attempt to hijack not only the course of discussion, but the ability to discuss fundamental topics. It is an attempt to purge the noosphere of competing ideologies through deception and obfuscation.

Your attempt to redefine "racism" and "oppression" are as abhorrent to me as the much more successful attempts to redefine words like "liberal", "socialist" and "justice". Its not just that you are wrong, its that you are wrong in a way that attempts to eliminate the ability to be right. This makes you and the arguments you are making as bad as or worse than those put forwards by those who call themselves "conservatives".

[Glowcat]

Virex, I'm not sure how you've rationalized both supporting minorities by limiting the power of the majority while simultaneously saying that the majority should have the right to expel minorities in another location. Based entirely on some arbitrary criteria of who deserves to live there. Your double standard might not be institutional racism, but it's definitely bigotry on an individual level.