What comes next when you lose faith in democracy

[David1967]

Trump is bad enough, but my state and city made nothing but terrible, uneducated decisions. I've always had a problem with things like juries: uneducated and easily manipulated individuals choosing a man's future. This is ten times worse. I have absolutely zero faith on a system that just lets every uneducated, bigoted, manipulated idiot be involved in such big decisions. The problem is I've never considered an alternative. I respect individuality and freedom, I'm no fascist or totalitarian. Is there a path away from democracy that doesn't run the risk of becoming a monster?

Familiar sounding sentiment. A powerful individual once said : "The problem with democracy is that two fools have more say than one wise man. " The person I quoted is Herman Goering. My point here is, what we have here is not perfect, but I still prefer it over that. . Even when my candidate of choice doesn't win. Which I must admit is most of the time.

 

[Tumah]

The thing is that it's not just about the majority not agreeing with a certain position per se; it's that they disagreed with said position largely based on ignorance and bigotry. It doesn't matter if the majority disagree or not; what matters is whether their position is correct. Their numbers don't necessarily reflect whether their position is sound.

As for the second point, respecting a person doesn't have to entail respecting their opinion or considering it correct. An opinion that supports a racist, sexist bigot is certainly not equal to one that supports tolerance and equality, for example.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Who received objective knowledge to declare which opinion is the sound one? For instance, one of the posters here - who will retain their anonymity - in my opinion is one of the smarter, more thoughtful posters here. I would never consider calling them a racist, ignorant, bigot just because I don't agree with voting for Trump. They are simply not that type of person. To me that means if they did vote for Trump, perhaps what you are describing as racist and bigoted, they see in a different light.

I think its just a matter of looking at the glass as half empty or half full. You could say that someone's racist for voting for someone who's platform was excluding different people from the country. Or you could say that someone has national pride for wanting his country to retain or regain its distinctive qualities. It may be two sides of the same platform, but they also represent two unrelated trains of thought that arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[1137]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Who received objective knowledge to declare which opinion is the sound one? For instance, one of the posters here - who will retain their anonymity - in my opinion is one of the smarter, more thoughtful posters here. I would never consider calling them a racist, ignorant, bigot just because I don't agree with voting for Trump. They are simply not that type of person. To me that means if they did vote for Trump, perhaps what you are describing as racist and bigoted, they see in a different light.

I think its just a matter of looking at the glass as half empty or half full. You could say that someone's racist for voting for someone who's platform was excluding different people from the country. Or you could say that someone has national pride for wanting his country to retain or regain its distinctive qualities. It may be two sides of the same platform, but they also represent two unrelated trains of thought that arrive at the same conclusion.

I'd be interested to see how you spin Trump as not racist, sexist, etc. You may not believe something like mysoginy or banning an entire religion from entering are sexism and bigotry, but they're the very definition of the words. Next we'll hear how the great dictators of WWII were really just misunderstood.

 

[Tumah]

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to the nature of the candidates.

I thought I did.
There was a narcissist who had no platform outside slogans with the word "great" in them.
And there was a lying cheat who would breach any ethic to advance.

 

[Quintessence]

I wonder if things would have been different if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic choice instead of Hilary.

Yes.

What killed the Democratic candidate and sealed it for the Republican was that one won over the white, poorly-educated working class demographics. A demographic to whom Sanders appealed to, but Clinton largely did not. Combine that with anti-establishment sentiment, and you're done. This outcome was very predictable, IMO.

 

[Tumah]

No one is criticizing others on the grounds they don't agree with one's own "opinions/preferences/priorities". That's just spin. The criticism is that many people voted foolishly. There's a difference.

That sounds like word-play not a difference.

 

[Tumah]

I'd be interested to see how you spin Trump as not racist, sexist, etc. You may not believe something like mysoginy or banning an entire religion from entering are sexism and bigotry, but they're the very definition of the words. Next we'll hear how the great dictators of WWII were really just misunderstood.

I didn't say anything about Trump. I'm talking about those who voted for him.

 

[Sunstone]

That sounds like word-play not a difference.

To you.

 

[Tumah]

To you.

Yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Trump is bad enough, but my state and city made nothing but terrible, uneducated decisions. I've always had a problem with things like juries: uneducated and easily manipulated individuals choosing a man's future. This is ten times worse. I have absolutely zero faith on a system that just lets every uneducated, bigoted, manipulated idiot be involved in such big decisions. The problem is I've never considered an alternative. I respect individuality and freedom, I'm no fascist or totalitarian. Is there a path away from democracy that doesn't run the risk of becoming a monster?

Me, I favor blends of socialism, meritocracy, and just enough, like only a little pinch, of democracy to add some barrier to prevent a tyrant from gaining too much control. I'm also very much heavily in favor of competency tests for both candidates and voters. Voting is cherished as a sacred right, but realistically it's asking for bad things to happen. Preserving and maintaining a healthy and functioning society should be placed as a much higher goal than democratic elections,
I knew last night would not be good when I turned on CNN and they're saying about half of the population polled won't believe the results if their candidate looses, and then there were voting issues early on in NC.

I wouldn't be so quick to lose faith in democracy.

People have now put into office--TWICE--a man who said my, and thousands more throughout Indiana, civil liberties are beneath religious hatred. One of the very few "original intent" things I agree with on how the Framers and Founders felt, and that is Democracy is too prone to dissolving into mob rule. However, since the 1770s no one has updated our Republic to keep those Republic elements, shifting more-and-more towards Democracy.

New I wonder if things would have been different if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic choice instead of Hilary.

Most likely.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Who received objective knowledge to declare which opinion is the sound one? For instance, one of the posters here - who will retain their anonymity - in my opinion is one of the smarter, more thoughtful posters here. I would never consider calling them a racist, ignorant, bigot just because I don't agree with voting for Trump. They are simply not that type of person. To me that means if they did vote for Trump, perhaps what you are describing as racist and bigoted, they see in a different light.

I think its just a matter of looking at the glass as half empty or half full. You could say that someone's racist for voting for someone who's platform was excluding different people from the country. Or you could say that someone has national pride for wanting his country to retain or regain its distinctive qualities. It may be two sides of the same platform, but they also represent two unrelated trains of thought that arrive at the same conclusion.

To an engineer, the glass is neither half-empty nor half-full.
The glass is too big.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes.

If you can't see a difference between criticizing someone because they don't share your views, and criticizing someone's views on the grounds that you consider their views foolish, that's on you.

 

[Revoltingest]

That sounds like word-play not a difference.

I can't speak to intent, but I agree there was a lot of foolish voting....
- Those who voted for Hillary because it was "time for a woman"
- Those who voted for Trump because of the "wall".
I could go on, but I'd risk offending some.
A difficulty is that one person's "foolish" is another's "cromulent".
So as you point out, we should be careful & restrained in our criticism of fellow voters.

 

[Tumah]

If you can't see a difference between criticizing someone because they don't share your views, and criticizing someone's views on the grounds that you consider their views foolish, that's on you.

I think criticizing someone's views as being foolish is effectively criticizing them because they don't share your views.

Barring cases where the critic considers himself to be a fool as well of course.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Who received objective knowledge to declare which opinion is the sound one? For instance, one of the posters here - who will retain their anonymity - in my opinion is one of the smarter, more thoughtful posters here. I would never consider calling them a racist, ignorant, bigot just because I don't agree with voting for Trump. They are simply not that type of person. To me that means if they did vote for Trump, perhaps what you are describing as racist and bigoted, they see in a different light.

I think its just a matter of looking at the glass as half empty or half full. You could say that someone's racist for voting for someone who's platform was excluding different people from the country. Or you could say that someone has national pride for wanting his country to retain or regain its distinctive qualities. It may be two sides of the same platform, but they also represent two unrelated trains of thought that arrive at the same conclusion.

I think I should mention here that I clearly distinguish between those who vote for Trump believing he is the lesser of two evils and those who vote for him in support of his stances. The former may agree that he's sexist, racist, bigoted, etc., but not believe that all of these traits make him worse than Hillary. The latter agree with such stances and think he's justified in his sexism, racism, bigotry, etc.

Now, I could still disagree with those who see him as the lesser of two evils, but I wouldn't necessarily assume they were bigots/racists/sexists/whatever themselves. But those who fully support him and agree with his statements about women, Muslims, racial minorities, etc.? I don't think anyone should even pretend to be politically correct for the sake of not offending them by saying they're being bigoted for supporting him.

Regarding declaring which opinion is the sound one, I think protecting the rights of minorities is one standard by which we can measure which opinions are sound. Even if not everyone agrees that, say, banning the entry of Muslims altogether into the U.S. constitutes bigotry, at that point there's no need for unanimous agreement that anyone has "objective knowledge" based on which they could declare such a belief unsound or unjustified. Protecting the rights of minorities, even if it means ignoring popular vote, should take precedence, in my opinion.

 

[1137]

I think criticizing someone's views as being foolish is effectively criticizing them because they don't share your views.

Barring cases where the critic considers himself to be a fool as well of course.

But the reasons are different. I disagree with the views because they are foolish, not the other way around.

 

[Sunstone]

I think if the results of this election make you lose faith in democracy it could be because you expected democratic elections to always work out for the best, to always make the wisest choice. But there is, and there never has been, any guarantee that democracy will always make the wisest choices. I would argue though, that it tends to make the wiser choice more often than other systems of government.

 

[1137]

Me, I favor blends of socialism, meritocracy, and just enough, like only a little pinch, of democracy to add some barrier to prevent a tyrant from gaining too much control. I'm also very much heavily in favor of competency tests for both candidates and voters. Voting is cherished as a sacred right, but realistically it's asking for bad things to happen. Preserving and maintaining a healthy and functioning society should be placed as a much higher goal than democratic elections,
I knew last night would not be good when I turned on CNN and they're saying about half of the population polled won't believe the results if their candidate looses, and then there were voting issues early on in NC.

People have now put into office--TWICE--a man who said my, and thousands more throughout Indiana, civil liberties are beneath religious hatred. One of the very few "original intent" things I agree with on how the Framers and Founders felt, and that is Democracy is too prone to dissolving into mob rule. However, since the 1770s no one has updated our Republic to keep those Republic elements, shifting more-and-more towards Democracy.

Most likely.

Yes yes yes, competency tests for all. Only educated, informed decisions should count, ensuring a decision is clear and intelligent.

 

[Tumah]

But the reasons are different. I disagree with the views because they are foolish, not the other way around.

What made you determine they are foolish if not your own disagreement with them?

 

[Revoltingest]

Me, I favor blends of socialism, meritocracy, and just enough, like only a little pinch, of democracy to add some barrier to prevent a tyrant from gaining too much control. I'm also very much heavily in favor of competency tests for both candidates and voters. Voting is cherished as a sacred right, but realistically it's asking for bad things to happen. Preserving and maintaining a healthy and functioning society should be placed as a much higher goal than democratic elections,
I knew last night would not be good when I turned on CNN and they're saying about half of the population polled won't believe the results if their candidate looses, and then there were voting issues early on in NC.

People have now put into office--TWICE--a man who said my, and thousands more throughout Indiana, civil liberties are beneath religious hatred. One of the very few "original intent" things I agree with on how the Framers and Founders felt, and that is Democracy is too prone to dissolving into mob rule. However, since the 1770s no one has updated our Republic to keep those Republic elements, shifting more-and-more towards Democracy.

Most likely.

All we need is a better class of humans.