Hello! My name is Gem, and I'm a newcomer to this forum. I'm not, however, new to the minefield that is political discussion, being a journalism student and an advocate for civil rights. Something I do not understand is the idea that opinion supersedes fact--if one side has facts on it, should one not at least consider it? I also do not understand people who do not change their views based on fact. So, I decided to open this thread for the discussion of more difficult and political topics with a single goal in mind--education, the understanding of different points of view and the absorption of knowledge. I'd also love it if we respected one another and didn't subscribe to bigoted views, but as that is a part of having opinions and opinions are a part of human nature, it must continue. But please be mindful that if your opinion attacks another's existence, you may be met with resistance.

Well then, shall we begin?

@NightinGem How in any society can the Yes Means Yes Law ever work practically?

@NightinGem How in any society can the Yes Means Yes Law ever work practically?

Unfortunately, without constant surveillance of peoples' lives, there is no way the Yes means Yes Law can be enforced with one hundred percent accuracy. In its current state, it seems like it is an improvement upon consent laws, but can only truly be effective if it applies equally to men and women, and there are exceptions in the case of mutual intoxication. Sadly, the former condition is not necessarily one merely of lawful issue, but also of societal--sexual assault is considered to be a crime primarily, if not exclusively committed by males in the public eye, and juries and judges are affected by that opinion. From Brock Turner to Mary Kay Letourneau, responses to sexual assault are fucked up. The teaching of affirmative consent can be beneficial, but only if we teach the nuances of sexual scenarios and acknowledge that females can be rapists and men can be raped.

@NightinGem

I believe that it is in our nature that we bicker and fight with another. That any peace is destined to fail given a relatively short amount of time. That the attempt of trying to have all people from all walks of life cooperate is a fool's errand (though admirable task). I believe that the root cause of our hatred of another derives from fear. Not the fear of something scary, but the fear of someone different. Someone with a different culture/values than you.

"Those Mexicans are crossing our boarder illegally and taking our jobs."|"Soviet Russia is shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba."|"Terrorists are posing as immigrants/refugees to get within our boarders".

We fear something that may or not be happening that will lead to negative results of varying degree. Fortunately the solution is simple. Education. Unfortunately, the solution will be difficult to implement. Not only will absolutely everybody need to be informed, but it must be ingrained within their consciousness to diffract bias. There is also the fact that people are naturally resistant to the idea of being wrong, sometimes to the point of violence. People would rather listen to confirmation of their beliefs than facts. (I mean, anti-vaxxers still exist despite the monumental evidence to the contrary)

We fear something that may or not be happening that will lead to negative results of varying degree. Fortunately the solution is simple. Education. Unfortunately, the solution will be difficult to implement. Not only will absolutely everybody need to be informed, but it must be ingrained within their consciousness to diffract bias.

Literally advocating for state-sponsored brainwashing.

<Snipped quote by Lurking Shadow>

Literally advocating for state-sponsored brainwashing.

That's basically what it will take. I'm not saying we should (I feel we shouldn't because obvious reasons), but that this is one solution.

I see several other possible solutions, but they are more complicated and/or limited by our current technology.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

That's basically what it will take. I'm not saying we should (I feel we shouldn't because obvious reasons), but that this is one solution.

I see several other possible solutions, but they are more complicated and/or limited by our current technology.

Tyranny is not a solution, no matter what the problem is (unless the problem is "Man, we're not messed up enough"). Democracy has made things immeasurably better. The current world order is as good as it's ever been, so I say we stick with that for a while.

<Snipped quote by Lurking Shadow>

Tyranny is not a solution, no matter what the problem is (unless the problem is "Man, we're not messed up enough"). Democracy has made things immeasurably better. The current world order is as good as it's ever been, so I say we stick with that for a while.

Pretty much.

<Snipped quote by Lurking Shadow>

Tyranny is not a solution, no matter what the problem is (unless the problem is "Man, we're not messed up enough"). Democracy has made things immeasurably better. The current world order is as good as it's ever been, so I say we stick with that for a while.

Democracy is only good as long as your population is not ignorant and maintains their knowledge of (insert topic at hand) before voting. A similar but far inferior form of democracy, idiocracy, is very dangerous. And, on principle, I also disagree with democracy.

I'm curious how you dictate world order is good, or what criteria there are for that?

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Democracy is only good as long as your population is not ignorant and maintains their knowledge of (insert topic at hand) before voting. A similar but far inferior form of democracy, idiocracy, is very dangerous. And, on principle, I also disagree with democracy.

I'm curious how you dictate world order is good, or what criteria there are for that?

Western democracies have never gone to war with one another. The spread of Western democracy has led to peace and prosperity, and American hegemony is another factor -- yes, yes, we have our share of wars, but a few short years ago war meant hundreds of thousands dead in a single battle and existential threats to civilians. Things are a lot better now. People are freer, safer, healthier, wealthier, more educated, and endowed with more potential than they've ever been in the past. We should be pretty stoked about our world, and a bit more appreciative of all the people that got us here.

@mdk

I feel similar to what @Odin thinks.

The benefits of Democracy is limited by the knowledge of the voters. Socrates compares society to a ship in an example...

If you were going on a sea voyage, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel, just anyone, or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring?

In order for Democracy to be beneficial, the voters must be informed of the issues and the best way to deal with them. Without knowledge, many things can arise from Democracy. Hitler, for example, was able to exploit the fears of the German people to the point where his party had total control.

@mdk

I feel similar to what @Odin thinks.

The benefits of Democracy is limited by the knowledge of the voters. Socrates compares society to a ship in an example...

<Snipped quote by Socrates>

In order for Democracy to be beneficial, the voters must be informed of the issues and the best way to deal with them. Without knowledge, many things can arise from Democracy. Hitler, for example, was able to exploit the fears of the German people to the point where his party had total control.

Citing Hitler as justification for your brainwashing class is precisely exploiting the fears of the (not-German) people to the point where your party gets total control.

Control is the virus, Hitler is just a really terrible symptom. You can't beat future-hypothetical-minihitler by enhancing the amount of control such a person would ultimately get. "Informing people of the best way to deal with the issues" is a means to WHATEVER end -- remember, Hitler 'informed' his people about exactly those things.

<Snipped quote by Lurking Shadow>
Citing Hitler as justification for your brainwashing class is precisely exploiting the fears of the (not-German) people to the point where your party gets total control.

I gotta make this real clear. I AM NOT ADVOCATING BRAINWASHING (especially considering that it is largely ineffective). My earlier posts tried to remain neutral which may have caused confusion as to my intent. I can not think of any situation where brainwashing is a preferred method, or any other similar mean to control the populace for that matter.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I gotta make this real clear. I AM NOT ADVOCATING BRAINWASHING (especially considering that it is largely ineffective). My earlier posts tried to remain neutral which may have caused confusion as to my intent. I can not think of any situation where brainwashing is a preferred method, or any other similar mean to control the populace for that matter.

Alright help me understand what you're talking about, because based on what I'm reading, "brainwashing" seems like a fair summary. Not trying to put words in your mouth though. What, exactly, do you mean?

@mdk

I feel similar to what @Odin thinks.

The benefits of Democracy is limited by the knowledge of the voters. Socrates compares society to a ship in an example...

<Snipped quote by Socrates>

In order for Democracy to be beneficial, the voters must be informed of the issues and the best way to deal with them. Without knowledge, many things can arise from Democracy. Hitler, for example, was able to exploit the fears of the German people to the point where his party had total control.

The problem with the Socrates quote is... well, lets pull it out of its context. Socrates in this particular situation isn't necessarily the philosopher himself, but a character in Plato's Republic, where Plato's concept of an ideal society is developed. It's based on the idea that you can create a meritocratic natural order, where an upper level of "Philosopher Kings" can be nurtured to rule.

The problem is that you cannot make a meritocratic natural order. Plato's Republic amounted to saying "It would be great if we always made worthy people into Kings, so we should do that", which is nice sounding, but it's quite Utopian in reality to expect an aristocracy to work that way. Whatever problems democracy has regarding education, dictatorship also has. If the history of Kings and Dictators was a history of meritocracy, sure, we could stick with it. But in reality that history is a history of Carlos IIs and Neros.

In a democracy, the failures can at least be rectified by the reaction of the populous. With Monarchy you have to hope that the next role of the dice is a good one, whereas in a democracy the population itself can intervene through... democracy. And it has worked out that way. Buchanan, the 15th President of the US, is considered the most incompetent in American history. He is directly followed by Abraham Lincoln, who is often rated our best President. Democracy is a good system because it is reactive like that.

<Snipped quote by Lurking Shadow>

The problem with the Socrates quote is... well, lets pull it out of its context. Socrates in this particular situation isn't necessarily the philosopher himself, but a character in Plato's Republic, where Plato's concept of an ideal society is developed. It's based on the idea that you can create a meritocratic natural order, where an upper level of "Philosopher Kings" can be nurtured to rule.

The problem is that you cannot make a meritocratic natural order. Plato's Republic amounted to saying "It would be great if we always made worthy people into Kings, so we should do that", which is nice sounding, but it's quite Utopian in reality to expect an aristocracy to work that way. Whatever problems democracy has regarding education, dictatorship also has. If the history of Kings and Dictators was a history of meritocracy, sure, we could stick with it. But in reality that history is a history of Carlos IIs and Neros.

In a democracy, the failures can at least be rectified by the reaction of the populous. With Monarchy you have to hope that the next role of the dice is a good one, whereas in a democracy the population itself can intervene through... democracy. And it has worked out that way. Buchanan, the 15th President of the US, is considered the most incompetent in American history. He is directly followed by Abraham Lincoln, who is often rated our best President. Democracy is a good system because it is reactive like that.

If you're going to analyze history through the lens of basic Hegelian Dialectics, then democracy has the benefit the action-reaction-synthesis of history is carried out relatively faster as opposed to having to raise an army to wage a bloody year, two, or three year war against the present ruler to affect the change you want to see when said ruler is unresponsive to the needs of the populace and society in general. That is provided you're not willing to wait for the kings equally insulated son or next of kin is any better.

The danger in democracy I feel is increasing insulation and isolation of the leaders we elect, and not the system itself. Democracy kind of has that benefit of the resources spread over a larger base so no group is any stronger than the other and it can act with stability without a succession war kicking up every other succession period.

facts

And we're positive these exist?

The danger in democracy I feel is increasing insulation and isolation of the leaders we elect, and not the system itself. Democracy kind of has that benefit of the resources spread over a larger base so no group is any stronger than the other and it can act with stability without a succession war kicking up every other succession period.

We need to have a constitutional amendment to add Athenian style ostracism to the system.

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

We need to have a constitutional amendment to add Athenian style ostracism to the system.

Or alternatively just democratize more things.

@Dinh AaronMk

Nooo, scrawling on pottery and exile!