That has nothing to do with this thread. If you want a response for such a petulant gotcha, I’ll give one in a new thread.
Another conservative tried to bring her up to me as a gotcha and my response was that I didn’t agree with her, but I understand where she is coming from. When you are a member of a victimized and discriminated against minority, you tend to hate and despise your oppressors. She isn’t a bigot, she’s a victim of bigots and she’s frustrated with how they have the power in our society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
How about Rachel Dolezal? Cancelled or bullied out of her job?
I’m not sure, which does being fired for habitually lying fall under?
Has thread just become a “let’s throw this random example of someone who was criticized/fired/etc. against the wall to see if it sticks”? If so, perhaps we should just let it die.
Errm, what makes you think I do?
Okay, but this NEXT example is gonna BREAK THE CASE WIDE OPEN, see? Are ya tryin to HIDE THE TRUTH, pal? Huh? Are ya?
Anarchists are usually rather insistent that anarchism is democracy.
Are you finally admitting that tyranny of the majority doesn’t quite qualify?
Anarchism uses democratic processes (for my preference direct or consensus democratic processes) but it is not “democracy” as in the style of government, which is what I understood DemonTree to be referring to. I was answering them on that basis.
I don’t get what you’re referring to by “finally admitting”. I’ve never considered the tyranny of the majority to be anarchism.
And no, there are many variant attitudes on democracy in anarchism. Some tendencies, like Crimethinc, oppose it quite a bit.
You can “not consider” falling down to be the result of jumping off a building, either.
Without a rule of law, the tyranny of the majority is what results. There’s no theory which can disprove that, any more than there’s a theory which can disprove falling.
Wait, huh? That’s not how it works at all, unless I’m missing context. Without a rule of law, the tyranny of the tyrannical is what results: the person who’s best at being terrifying and awful is the person who terrifies and oppresses everyone into following their will.
Democracy is intended to subvert that, but “tyranny of the majority” is a description of how even with the rule of law democracy can still result in terror and oppression to minority groups.
History say different.
My point is this: Without a constitution, and the will to obey it, the majority always gets its own way. That is the tyranny of the majority. There’s nothing simpler, and nothing more dangerous to minorities.
The point they’re trying to make is that “rule of law” and “a constitution that protects minorities” are not the same thing. You can have one without the other.
That’s not true at all. History is replete with tyrants who use a position in the minority to impose their will over the majority. They often do this in the absence of a constitution. And there are also circumstances in which, with a constitution and the will to obey it, the majority oppresses the minority. Look at 1920s United States for an example.
“Tyranny of the majority” is a specific flaw with majority-vote democratic systems. It’s not especially related to the existence of constitutions.
That said, I’ve totally lost track of what if anything this has to do with the myth of cancel culture, so unless someone sees a strong connection, I’ll try to let this be my last word on the subject in this thread.
Constitutions aren’t magic. All of American history being my cite.
I never claimed they were.
Also, tearing down another system does nothing to make your system better.
Might as well have.
I don’t want to tear down the system to make mine better. My system is fine as it is, and it’ll be there when people are ready for it, which mostly they are not, yet.
I want to tear down the system because it’s shit, all on its own.
What current events have shown is that the system itself protects nothing if the people in power harbor ill intent.
The system doesn’t protect by design, because it was never intended to. It arose out of patriarchy, plutarchy and white privilege, and those are its constant fruits. If it happens to protect any but the privileged, you can bet it’s a momentary blip, soon corrected.