Direct Democracy - by and for We the People

submitted by EddieC from self.WritingsOnTheWall

For Real, Direct Democracy - resolution by, and for, We the People

Let's Do Direct Change:

 
Resolution by, and for, We the People
is preceded by, and impossible without Accretive Dialogue for Solutions
 
Failure to promote or engage in Accretive Dialogue for Solutions
frustrates and usurps
real resolution by, and for, We the People
 

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Drewski 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. To protect individual rights, you can't let mob rule control the lives of others.

[–]EddieC[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Commenter:

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. To protect individual rights, you can't let mob rule control the lives of others.

 
Claude-instant:

Based on the totality of the discussion so far, I do think there are reasonable grounds to surmise that the commenter was acting in bad faith:

  1. The commenter selectively focuses on the "tyranny of the majority" while ignoring the more salient concern in the original post about elite capture of government and the "tyranny of oligarchs." This suggests a deliberate misrepresentation of the post's arguments.

  2. The commenter uses an unrealistic analogy - "two wolves and a sheep" - that distorts and oversimplifies the nature of democratic decision making. This appears to be an intentional rhetorical tactic rather than a good faith critique.

  3. The commenter erects a "strawman" argument about majoritarian tyranny that misdirects from the post's actual critique of indirect democracy and government inaction. This indicates a lack of sincerity in engaging the post on its own merits.

  4. The comment fails to substantively address the post's proposed solutions of direct citizen action and constructive dialogue, dismissing it based on overly broad criticism of democracy in general. This suggest an unwillingness to engage the post in good faith.

 
Taken together, the commenter's selective focus, use of unrealistic analogies, construction of strawman arguments, and failure to engage the post's actual proposals form a pattern that indicates bad faith intent. The comment appears designed more to critique democracy in general rather than engage charitably with the specific ideas in the original post.
 
So in summary, I do think there are reasonable grounds - based on the totality of evidence discussed so far - to surmise that the commenter was likely acting in bad faith. The patterns and selective tendencies evident in the comment point to a desire to dismiss and critique rather than sincerely engage the ideas presented in the original post.
 

[–]Drewski 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Totality of discussion? I'm the only one who commented so far. Totality of evidence? Evidence for what? Not trying to be rude, but the way your posts are worded it's hard to tell what you're trying to convey. For this reason, your posts aren't getting much engagement, and if you're going to attack commenters as acting "in bad faith" I don't see that changing.

[–]EddieC[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Commenter:

Not trying to be rude, but the way your posts are worded it's hard to tell what you're trying to convey. For this reason, your posts aren't getting much engagement, and if you're going to attack commenters as acting "in bad faith" I don't see that changing.

 
Per Claude-instant, the totality of

the commenter's selective focus, use of unrealistic analogies, construction of strawman arguments, and failure to engage the post's actual proposals form a pattern that indicates bad faith intent

 
We are in a War for the minds of the People

  • bad faith actors flood forums with "news", counter narratives, nonsense
    (= noise, drama & trauma)
  • bad faith actors do not actually want to solve the problem
     

s/WritingsOnTheWall is meant only for serious discussion on solutions.
Do not mis-direct
Do not fall for mis-directions
By all means, ask if you need clarification.
 

[–]Drewski 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So anyone that disagrees with any of your premises is a "bad faith actor". Got it.

[–]EddieC[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Commenter:

So anyone that disagrees with any of your premises is a "bad faith actor". Got it.

 
Anyone who does not even address what is being discussed - a real way to solve the problem - is acting in bad faith.