Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Death of Michael Ledeen, maker of the phony case for the invasion of Iraq

    (www.spytalk.co)
    93 points nabla9 | 12 comments | 25 May 25 07:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.418s | source | bottom
    Show context
    jaybrendansmith ◴[25 May 25 16:47 UTC] No.44089027[source]▶
    This is the last time I felt the power of the propaganda machine. (The most recent time was the 2024 election) It was so obvious to myself and my friends that this was completely cooked up intelligence. And yet the truth was not getting out, and had fooled many people with this strange groupthink, almost like a dumb, braying herd animal, where the collective intelligence was utterly ambushed and tied up in a sack. I don't like feeling powerless, yet I have this feeling that our voices have been smothered of late, destroyed by ridiculous talking points.
    replies(5): >>44089221 #>>44089247 #>>44091728 #>>44097085 #>>44100533 #
    1. CoastalCoder ◴[25 May 25 22:18 UTC] No.44091728[source]▶
    It certainly is making me wonder about the supposed benefits of democracy.

    If our votes, even those of our elected representatives, are so easily manipulated, then what's the point?

    My question isn't entirely rhetorical. I'm hoping someone can talk me out of that conclusion.

    replies(5): >>44091873 #>>44092903 #>>44093960 #>>44096183 #>>44096975 #
    2. jackyinger ◴[25 May 25 22:37 UTC] No.44091873[source]▶
    To the contrary, if voters are manipulated it is not a well functioning democracy. It is a farce of a democracy, the subtle manipulation just adds a veneer of legitimacy because it appears to be a democracy. Those who are manipulating people are the ones in power, not the citizens.

    Edit: I say subtle in the sense that those being manipulated are not particularly aware of being manipulated.

    3. AndrewKemendo ◴[26 May 25 01:06 UTC] No.44092903[source]▶
    I’m afraid your conclusion is correct

    There has never been a representative democracy. Not in the US, not anywhere. So it’s impossible to say whether it’s a goal that’s with pursuit.

    The idea that one ever existed is also a fairy tale to be clear. This is the most globally “representative” system ever, if for no other reason than for the existence of global mobility. Despite global border protection, if you’re determined enough you can get anywhere. Truly.

    People will argue in a mealymouth way about whether any form of democracy is functional and “best of all bad systems” is typically the masters level refrain.

    It’s worth thinking beyond 20th century concepts like states

    4. mediumsmart ◴[26 May 25 04:24 UTC] No.44093960[source]▶
    Democracy still is a good idea.
    replies(3): >>44094213 #>>44095228 #>>44096195 #
    5. hulitu ◴[26 May 25 05:21 UTC] No.44094213[source]▶
    > Democracy still is a good idea.

    When they finnaly implement it. /s

    6. ndsipa_pomu ◴[26 May 25 08:23 UTC] No.44095228[source]▶
    Only with an educated population. An uneducated population is more easily swayed by cults of personality which can lead to the rise of dictators as the people will accept and justify any behaviour from the leader of their tribe.
    replies(1): >>44096996 #
    7. hoseja ◴[26 May 25 11:07 UTC] No.44096183[source]▶
    The contest for the most efficient manipulation of the plebeians is where the elites are arbitraging their game nowadays. I suppose it's marginally better than constantly dying in their petty wars.
    8. hoseja ◴[26 May 25 11:08 UTC] No.44096195[source]▶
    Not with universal suffrage. And without it you need to aggresively curb revolutionary communist parasites.
    9. lm28469 ◴[26 May 25 12:48 UTC] No.44096975[source]▶
    It's simple really, democracy isn't democracy if the voters aren't well informed. Also democracy is a spectrum, the "benefits of democracy" is almost meaningless if you don't define what type of democracy you're talking about.

    We quickly get into the "communism was never implemented properly" type of argument too. Sure a theoretical benevolent dictator might be better than a flawed democracy, the problem is that it never happens in real life

    10. lm28469 ◴[26 May 25 12:52 UTC] No.44096996{3}[source]▶
    "democracy is bad because it can lead to dictatorship" can't be a serious argument...

    Democracies are all flawed but theocracies, monarchies, oligarchies, &c. certainly aren't better when it comes to cult of personalities and serving their own tribes

    replies(2): >>44099116 #>>44099928 #
    11. rightbyte ◴[26 May 25 16:48 UTC] No.44099116{4}[source]▶
    > "democracy is bad because it can lead to dictatorship" can't be a serious argument...

    Heh you got a good point. People seem to expect way to much from their form of government and get desillusionized when it is not magic.

    Like, join a party and see how the sausage is made.

    12. ndsipa_pomu ◴[26 May 25 18:04 UTC] No.44099928{4}[source]▶
    > "democracy is bad because it can lead to dictatorship" can't be a serious argument...

    It's not and I didn't write, nor intend that.

    Educated voters are a pre-condition for democracy and without that, democracy fails. It's similar to how market knowledge is a pre-condition of free markets as otherwise markets favour the biggest trader.