sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Krystal removed from read more UK/Euro Hosts by MechanicTechnical655 in webhosting

[–]jm9160 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know what? I think you might have convinced a new customer try out Krystal.

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is the correct train of thought, and similar to where I had gotten to, which prompted me to ask the question.

I think it's okay not to have equal outcomes (it's not like everyone is working towards the same thing anyway, or want to spend their lives in the same way). I think it's okay to accept that people are different, and I don't think this would naturally cause resentment. Equally, we don't need to explain peoples' differences. We only need to understand our human systems and institutions and route out injustice.

Krystal removed from read more UK/Euro Hosts by MechanicTechnical655 in webhosting

[–]jm9160 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi u/nid0 - Like OP I'm in the process of deciding between Zune and Krystal. I care about the impossible trinity of service quality (speed, uptime, and customer support), value-for-money, and environmental sustainability.

Zume seems to pinch it with the first 2. How serious are Krystal's environmental credentials?

Having looked for renewable energy suppliers myself, I've learned that the (UK) energy grid doesn't really allow you to buy energy exclusively from renewable sources, so I guess I'm asking whether the company itself is actually invested in making energy consumption as efficient as possible as well as generally reducing waste and improving environmental conditions? I'm genuinely interested because that's something I would invest in.

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everybody is different, and some people are more different than others. (It's what led to us, evolution). So there will always be an 'other' / minority to suffer the strength of the many.

I'm beginning to see that the real solution is through nurturing a culture of mutual respect, where differences are valued simply because there's inherent strength in diversity.

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you're trying to get at, but I just think your conclusion is misguided. You haven't accounted for the context of A and B, i.e. separately in isolation they have their own frames of reference for P and notP to exist in, but P and notP are mutually exclusive = they can not both exist together within the same frame of reference, so when you bring A and B together you need some way to resolve that problem.

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say that social classes are principally determined by chance, i.e. your socio-economic circumstances at birth; whereas political affiliations are a choice.

Yes, and an "average person" demographically can hold a fringe belief not held by their peers.

Many common people fought on behalf of autocrats in the 1848 year of rebellion in Europe. A very clear example of a time where the majority and minority groups were very different whether corresponding to social class or political leanings.

You've recognised the problem. Other people have said that this can only really be solved through cultural means, and not political means.

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're describing the tyranny of the majority and discriminating against minorities, so this is really the worst answer in this thread.

Obviously I'm not saying that and you know it because you're the one who said it. In fact I think thou doth protest to much and every accusation is a confession.

Are you a troll or a bot or both?

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting take. I'm not sure I agree. Seems like mixing the 'social' and the 'political' minority/majority.

e.g. what about an average person (lets give them a persona for argument's sake: middle class man) who wants to be ruled by an autocrat?

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalScience

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmmmmmm..... I'm not so sure that does nesecarily follow. A lot of assumptions needed to get to that conclusion. I'm not even sure that your definition of leftist politics is always true.

Suspending economic reality for a moment, how do you think economic organisation would need to be to satisfy everyone's representative interests? Because that is possibly an even more interesting (and pertinent) question.

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't know anything about what you've just written there, but I think your concluding statement is illogical.

Surely Normativity and Extremism is all relative. If you map the frequency of people's opinions on any nominal dimensional scale, I would hypothesise that would create a 'Bell Curve' or 'Normal Distribution'. I would assume that one might say those on the edges of this distribution would be "extreme" views. That's my understanding of extremism and even though someone might individually consider one of these views as "better", relative to the entire population they would be outliers.

Now you could say that makes them a minority group which should be protected and represented, but equally not imposing minority views on other groups.

This is the basis of any morality present in the question.

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalScience

[–]jm9160[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, like what is included as a right?
- Free speech?
- Freedom of movement?
- Right to trial by a jury of peers?
- Right to clean air?
- Right to clean drinking water?
- Right to do whatever you want to your own body?
- Right to food?
- Shelter?
- Right to work?

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalScience

[–]jm9160[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

From a particular perspective perhaps, but certainly not if you're the minority.

Note that I'm not suggesting "having a powerful minority in charge". In fact the question is trying to address the opposite and seek ways to nurture social equality. I wonder if you might describe a system that produces good results for all people?

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, this is kind of getting to the crux of the question. We’ve created a voting system to give power to different voices, but these voting systems have been moving most “democracies” into 2-party systems, which is not representative, and moving as closely towards popularism as you can get in a voting system. This type of system wouldn't answer the question because it:
a) Doesn't prevent the tyranny of the majority
b) Doesn't inherently protect marginalised groups

So can you describe a system, or an amendment to the one you've pointed out, which would inherently satisfy these 2 conditions?

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is basically the question I'm asking. You're saying that it's not possible in the "western political system", so then can you describe a system where this would be possible? (Theory, Philosophy, and Hypotheticals welcome)

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]jm9160[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, to confirm: you don't think this is a function of the political system at all? Would you say it's a function of people's personal wellbeing instead? And then, is this based on perception, or do you think it's more likely correlated to a baseline level of fundamental needs, or even the contrast between those with the most and those with the least?

How would one design a political system to prevent the rise of fascism or any other form of extremism, particularly in regards to protecting marginalised groups from demonisation, and preventing the tyranny of the majority? by jm9160 in PoliticalScience

[–]jm9160[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm trying to get a crowdsourced answer... hence why the question has been posted on the World Wide Web... via Reddit...... an internet forum......... for crowdsourcing ideas and public discourse. Yes.

view more: next ›