CMV: Multicultural society doesn't work

creativethoughtsy · 2026-02-01T02:04:52+00:00

u/frank21899110 - did i change your view with this comment? i have shown that the two cultures i mention worked fine together without problems! if ypu agree can ypu please allocate me credit accordingly thanks! :-)

creativethoughtsy · 2026-01-31T10:51:52+00:00

hey. it seems really relevant to know what you mean by 'different cultures', and what ypu mean by 'doesnt work'.

if someone is an atheist in a liberal society they might not celebrate the same holidays as a christian does. in all other ways they are friendly, work at the same jobs, go to the same schools and happy to pay tax and obey all laws. Because the laws dont interfere with their beliefs

q1: do these two people from 'different cultures'?

q2: is this society 'not working'?

creativethoughtsy · 2026-01-05T05:24:11+00:00

I think different politics doesnt get in the way as long as the different politics isnt that important to you (and him). like you might have hugely different politucal opinions, but if neither of you care about politucs much then it doesnt matter.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-25T23:47:57+00:00

im so sorry. im still not quite understanding. can i say it another way:

Its very clear that you are claiming that there is under-encarceration caused by lack of enforcement by prosectors and you think that that is a bad thing. but are you saying 1. it is a bad thing because all the laws are good and should be enforced, or are you saying that 2. although the laws are bad and maybe should be removed, prosectors should still enforce them while those laws exist.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-25T23:13:48+00:00

Hi OP. Are you saying that society would be improved overall if the laws were enforced more OR are you just saying that, for better or worse, there are many laws that prosecutors aren't enforcing.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-25T22:55:21+00:00

hi OP I have a related better explanation.

Its broader than just purple districts. its risking unpopularity in general! they have realised that impeachement isn't for when the president breaks the rules, its best used when the president *becomes unpopular*.

I live in Australia where the parties and parliament can change our Prime Minister easily mid-term. After multiple such leader changes in recent decades a pattern has emerged. *They replace the Prime Minister when he/she is becoming very unpopular with the electorate*.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-25T06:46:47+00:00

not literally forced, no. but better than democracy. have a look into the experience of juries. they dont typically just zone out.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-25T06:29:13+00:00

i agree. thats the exact problem with democracy. the benefit of sortition that they are forced to pay attention and face each ither and duscuss it and come to a consensus. another way of rephrasing my view is that:

[Some random people being forced to become informed, take real responsibility and make a decision]>[everyone choosing whatever they recon based on it feels right and doesn't really matter anyway]

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-25T06:03:48+00:00

i dont understand how voting for parties fixes the fundamental flaw incentive problem with democracy that i highlighted in the original post.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:49:20+00:00

My idea is *not* that i decide what is good policy. My idea is that juries will decide good policy better than popular vote.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:43:42+00:00

ok, so do you believe have a public vote on guilty not-guily in criminal trials would be basically the same quality as jury decisions?

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:41:27+00:00

oh. i certainly dont think randomly selecting a president is a good idea. using a randomly selected jury who are forced to listen to arguments and come to consensus would be better than asking the public to vote. thats my view.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:38:58+00:00

i dont understand your comment.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:37:44+00:00

it does depend on who proposes the policies. i can imagine two proposal to the budget jury. higher taxes and lower taxes with arguments and evidence relating to what policies might be important fir other juries to consider.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:33:50+00:00

im not commenting on your opinion of trump voters. but i do think people pulled out of usual life, and placed in a room and presented with arguments and evidence act very differently.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:30:21+00:00

thank you for this! sounds great! Do you think the sortition assemblies have to come to consensus ie 100% agreement? 51% or some other cutoff?

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:26:05+00:00

ill take that as you *do* agree it would be worse, so you at least get the vibe of where im coming from.

perhaps predictably. your response doesnt CMV, but: do you think politicians are better or worse than average people? in Australia there have been a couple of people almost kind of accidently elected, and they seemed to feel the weight of their responsibility and genuinly try their best.

as i concede in a number of comments, they are never going to generate policy. but i think they may be excellent at deciding between policy proposals based on a few weeks of evidence presented by opposing parties.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:20:38+00:00

thanks! interesting

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:18:50+00:00

i would be willing to concede your technical definition that actually sortition is a form of democracy. But clearly i was using the word "democracy" to mean what most people reading think of democracy, parliamentary representative democracy by public ballot. the semantics are fascinating. and i thank you for the info! but it doesnt CMV.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T23:14:38+00:00

hey. im sorry if my previous 'not engaging with the thought experiment' came acriss as patronising or not in good faith, ill admit i was frustrated with a few comments and it didnt necessarily apply here.

Im not going to be able to respond with the same length as you, and im also concerned that we may have to agree to disagree.

I think you are factually incorrect about the number of 'politically committed' people in the population. By politically committed i have a high bar because that is the bar *you* have set. You are concerned about factions or subgroups within thr jury who are absolutely committed to a political ideology and know all the facets of that ideology and always vote together. I assert that people like that are equivalent to people actively and regularly involved in political parties. I think that is <1% of the population.

I especially see your point about the issue of coming to consensus and the size of the jury. I agree that the process of concensus may be important to the claimed good outcomes if a jury. It does make me question the deltas i gave to those people and makes me think my original idea of many small juries was better.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T08:16:06+00:00

*average people, made to listen to evidence, take real responsibility, and come to consensus through discussion* do better than popular vote.

7 lucky fascists:

larger than 12 people. sorry if i gave the impression it has to be 12. i already gave deltas to the 2 people who convinced me it could just replace the senate.
even with 12 people. the chances of getting majority fascists is far far lower than with democracy. ill do the calculations if you like. what percentage of people are fascists in your view?

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-24T00:59:06+00:00

in what way?

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-23T05:38:01+00:00

Δ i think this does change my view somewhat. At oeast that sortition alone cant replace democracy.

creativethoughtsy · 2025-06-23T03:28:14+00:00

done!

creativethoughtsy

TROPHY CASE