Democracy

[digitalShaman]

What do you think about the current state of democracy around the world or in your home?

[sapator]

We have democratic dictatorship in Greece.
Although since we created democracy(you're welcome), I hope we can get back to it.

I can't speak for the rest of the world but I guess some countries fall into our dominion, meaning they think they have democracy but they really don't.

[dilettante]

Democracy? That system also known as "Tyranny of the Majority?"

There is a reason why so many new governments founded during the Enlightenment are republics. Mob rule doesn't work particularly well even in a tiny population.

[sapator]

It's not the first time that an innovative idea gets so twisted up, so I blame the monkeys!

[digitalShaman]

what we see right now is the loss of the forth pillar of democracy. and that frightens me.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah. There's a distorted fourth pillar, though, and that's even more disturbing. There's news out there, to be sure, it just doesn't have any vetting before it's released. There are no editorial standards on social media.

[digitalShaman]

There are no editorial standards on social media.

if you mean that someone should verify if the posted information is OK to be posted or not and kind of filter these to protect people from false information, then you are absolutely and totally wrong. this is free speech and censoring of the same. yes, there will be stupids who post stupid things but the people must be allowed to hear it and decide what they believe. and a democracy must trust in the ability of its people to do so.

you can see what happens when you have "editorial standards" infested with politics every day in established media. you dont get information, you are just brainwashed. If politics would get their fingers out of journalism and journalists would be allowed and trained to do their job again (investigate, but the pieces together and make a story out of it) then we would not be in this catastrophic situation.

[Shaggy Hiker]

if you mean that someone should verify if the posted information is OK to be posted or not and kind of filter these to protect people from false information, then you are absolutely and totally wrong.

No, I don't mean that. What I meant was that there was no verification for social media posts. I didn't say whether that was right or wrong.

When it comes to journalism, an ethical journalist shouldn't accept any statement as true, but verify everything against multiple sources. If those sources all agree, and they weren't chosen specifically BECAUSE they will agree, then the statement can be said to be true. If the sources do not all agree, then the statement can be stated, but the disagreement must also be stated.

None of that happens with social media. That isn't right or wrong, it just is. However, it does mean that there is a different evidence basis for responsible journalism as opposed to social media. They shouldn't be considered equal, or even particularly equivalent.

[FunkyDexter]

If politics would get their fingers out of journalism and journalists would be allowed and trained to do their job again

Why? All evidence currently points to the opposite conclusion.

[digitalShaman]

Why? All evidence currently points to the opposite conclusion.

may i ask, what evidence you are refering to?

[FunkyDexter]

You're arguing that we are better informed informed when there are no press standards and anyone can report as they see fit. The internet has given us exactly that situation for the first time in a couple of hundred years. It gave rise to QAnon, the big lie and January 6th.

Where is your evidence that journalists, when left devoid of oversight, will pursue integrity over profit?

[digitalShaman]

what makes you sure that journalists will pursue integrity over profit in the current system? they are not.
what i meant was that no one shall decide on what is the truth and what not and different opinions shall never be censored (aka deleted).

[sapator]

In Greece we call the journalists (most of them) ruffians.
Btw the truth is one, everything else is opinions and everyone got one of them. You know, opinions are like aholes....

[digitalShaman]

In Greece we call the journalists (most of them) ruffians.

haha, you greeks are still years ahead compared to the rest of us but we are catching up.

Btw the truth is one, everything else is opinions and everyone got one of them. You know, opinions are like aholes....

there is never ultimate truth, at least not in this universe. it's like heisenbergs uncertaincy: you can narrow it down to a degree but odds are, its still somewhere else. every person has to search for thruth on their own. if you don't do it but instead just follow others without questioning, you are not living.

[FunkyDexter]

what makes you sure that journalists will pursue integrity over profit in the current system? they are not.

I agree, hence the need for oversight.

there is never ultimate truth

Yes there is. Gravity causes objects to attract, the earth is round and man made climate change is real and was when were debating it 20 frickin' years ago. What there is not is a only single valid opinion. News media should not be regulated in the opinions it expresses but it should be regulated in the "factual truths" it expresses. At present this is clearly not the case.

The single most prolific mechanism news media uses to avoid existing regulation is to couch itself as opinion rather than news. This happens on both the Left and the Right (though I would argue that the Right is much worse). Thus we have news media denying Covid Vaccinations and pushing cattle de wormers as an alternative by "just asking questions". But the answer to this is not to throw away what regulations there are, but rather to extend them to police the bad actors.

I think you're broadly arguing that regulation is not needed because the public at large is discerning enough to distinguish fact from fiction but, again, that's demonstrably untrue.

[Shaggy Hiker]

pushing cattle de wormers as an alternative

See, there you go. Fake news. I heard it was horse de wormers, and yeah, I didn't do a bit of research to confirm that bit of information, so I'm probably wrong, because why would a dewormer work on horses and not cows? But that's the level of editorial responsibility on social media.

I think you're broadly arguing that regulation is not needed because the public at large is discerning enough to distinguish fact from fiction but, again, that's demonstrably untrue.

Darn. I came back here because I thought you had said "the public at large is discriminating enough", to which I would have replied that we discriminate plenty, but you said 'discerning', which just isn't nearly as ripe with promise.

[digitalShaman]

See, there you go. Fake news. I heard it was horse de wormers, and yeah, I didn't do a bit of research to confirm that bit of information, so I'm probably wrong, because why would a dewormer work on horses and not cows? But that's the level of editorial responsibility on social media.

what an extraodinary example of fake news spread by legacy media that is what i meant with loss of the fourth pillar. you should propably do that "bit of research" on the drug in question. don't let them spoon feed you! question everything!

[jmcilhinney]

what an extraodinary example of fake news spread by legacy media that is what i meant with loss of the fourth pillar. you should propably do that "bit of research" on the drug in question. don't let them spoon feed you! question everything!

Except it's not fake. Ivermectin is used to treat humans but that treatment is regulated and not approved for COVID so people are using veterinary medicines because they are not regulated the same way. Dosage for animals is much higher, hence the cases over poisoning. There is sufficient reason to investigate Ivermectin further but, currently, there is no good evidence to indicate that it is effective in treating COVID. If those pushing were talking about its potential or even its promise then that would be one thing, but they are claiming that it's a some proven wonder drug, which it clearly isn't not. They're banging on about it now just like the did hydroxychloroquine before. No one is pushing that any more but, of course, no one has actually come out and admitted they they were wrong. They've just gone onto the next thing with which to deny reality.

[digitalShaman]

Except it's not fake. Ivermectin is used to treat humans but that treatment is regulated and not approved for COVID so people are using veterinary medicines because they are not regulated the same way. Dosage for animals is much higher, hence the cases over poisoning. There is sufficient reason to investigate Ivermectin further but, currently, there is no good evidence to indicate that it is effective in treating COVID. If those pushing were talking about its potential or even its promise then that would be one thing, but they are claiming that it's a some proven wonder drug, which it clearly isn't not. They're banging on about it now just like the did hydroxychloroquine before. No one is pushing that any more but, of course, no one has actually come out and admitted they they were wrong. They've just gone onto the next thing with which to deny reality.

how much time did you invest in researching this to come to this conclusion?

The story with the many people overdosing ivermectin is proven fake news but it was published in media all around the world with the arrogant undertone of how stupid these people are taking horse dewormer "hahaha, we are so much smarter than these idiots". that was the story. question why.

this arrogant attitude "i am smart and others are stupid" is the hybris of civilization.

[Shaggy Hiker]

what an extraodinary example of fake news spread by legacy media that is what i meant with loss of the fourth pillar. you should propably do that "bit of research" on the drug in question. don't let them spoon feed you! question everything!

That would be true, except that in this case I don't care. I have neither a horse nor a cow, and those animals that I don't have certainly don't have worms. Therefore, I have no use for the medicine and no reason to research it. However, I was willing to take just as much effort as was required to write a whimsical post on fake news.

[sapator]

I don't understand the argument.
There is only one ultimate truth and it's...42.

[digitalShaman]

There is only one ultimate truth and it's...42.

you don't yet know how right you are!

[Delaney]

I don't understand the argument.
There is only one ultimate truth and it's...42.

I know people who would fight together because the first ones would say "42" and the second would says "forty two"... (by the way they are both wrong because in reality it is 2A)

[digitalShaman]

I know people who would fight together because the first ones would say "42" and the second would says "forty two"... (by the way they are both wrong because in reality it is 2A)

the good old babel problem...

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I really do not get how people who will loudly shout as to how the Covid Vaccines are untested or even we lack enough data on them can then push Ivermectin as some cure for Covid.

There are some Doctors who believe that it has been effective, there have been some studies that also suggest this, but if you dig further into it the biggest test group studies those patients were taking a cocktail of drugs, they were not proper double blind trials and the amount of people it has been tested on is tiny in comparison with the vaccines.

If you believe that any of the vaccines have not been tested enough then I dont understand how you can believe that Ivermectin has when it hasn't gone through proper clinical trials to see if it even really works on Covid

Right now Oxford University is doing a large scale clinical trial, the data from that trial should give us a much clearer picture if Ivermectin is at all effective in treating covid.

[jmcilhinney]

I really do not get...

It's about ideology. It's just like how creationists will point to some scientific fact that supposedly supports their case while ignoring most of cosmology and biology. With regards to COVID vaccines specifically, two of the big factors are:

1. Trump didn't get credit for the vaccines. Trump was crowing about vaccines as the crown jewel of his COVID strategy - it was pretty much all he had - and there wasn't really much pushback at the time. Trump was then out of office and it was up to Biden to oversee the vaccine rollout and suddenly there was considerably more opposition to them. Sarah Sanders, Trump's old press secretary, even suggested that Biden give Trump more credit for the vaccines specifically as a way to reduce vaccine hesitancy rates. I'm not sure exactly how much credit she thinks Trump deserves but she knows that a lot of people are opposing vaccines specifically to "own the libs" and make life harder for Biden. They are so dug in now that even Trump himself telling people he thinks that they should be vaccinated doesn't move them.

2. The conspiracy theorists who have been against the vaccines from the start genuinely want to be in the minority. They want to feel like they know something that the majority just don't/can't understand because it makes them feel special. That the majority have been hoodwinked by Big Pharma and the government while they know the truth fuels their simultaneous persecution complex and superiority complex, which they have in the first place thanks primarily to the American brand of Christianity.

[Zvoni]

2. The conspiracy theorists who have been against the vaccines from the start genuinely want to be in the minority. They want to feel like they know something that the majority just don't/can't understand because it makes them feel special. That the majority have been hoodwinked by Big Pharma and the government while they know the truth fuels their simultaneous persecution complex and superiority complex, which they have in the first place thanks primarily to the American brand of Christianity.

Cannot say anything about this regarding USA or Australia, but i can say something about this in Germany:
The Problem with the "Vac-Opponents" in Germany isn't so much the Vaccination itself, but more the "it's mandatory"-Style it's propagated as.
There are more and more "areas" (Restaurants, Supermarkets, Public venues etc.) which only allow entry to "recovered, tested or vaccinated" people.
And currently, It's even a point of debate to make it a regulation (I'm trying to avoid the word "Law").

--> This implies the opposite of "unrecovered, untested, and not vaccinated" as "undesirables". BUT: How would you recognize someone being either?

In that context i asked my boss an "explosive" Question:
"When is the german Governement starting to issue, you know, the yellow armbands with a 6-pointed star on it to those who are neither recovered, tested or vaccinated?"
Dead silence was my answer......
"If you think about it, the rhetoric is the same, just a few different words, and we all know how that played out some 80 years ago....."

As i said: The Problem is not so much the Vaccination itself, it's more the lack of freedom of choice
and "So, we, who did everything right, and neither didn't get infected nor infected anyone else, are now the losers in our rights?"

[jmcilhinney]

Cannot say anything about this regarding USA or Australia, but i can say something about this in Germany:
The Problem with the "Vac-Opponents" in Germany isn't so much the Vaccination itself, but more the "it's mandatory"-Style it's propagated as.
There are more and more "areas" (Restaurants, Supermarkets, Public venues etc.) which only allow entry to "recovered, tested or vaccinated" people.
And currently, It's even a point of debate to make it a regulation (I'm trying to avoid the word "Law").

--> This implies the opposite of "unrecovered, untested, and not vaccinated" as "undesirables". BUT: How would you recognize someone being either?

In that context i asked my boss an "explosive" Question:
"When is the german Governement starting to issue, you know, the yellow armbands with a 6-pointed star on it to those who are neither recovered, tested or vaccinated?"
Dead silence was my answer......
"If you think about it, the rhetoric is the same, just a few different words, and we all know how that played out some 80 years ago....."

As i said: The Problem is not so much the Vaccination itself, it's more the lack of freedom of choice
and "So, we, who did everything right, and neither didn't get infected nor infected anyone else, are now the losers in our rights?"

I think that most of that is a crock. Things may certainly be different in Germany but I very much doubt that they're so different as to make much of that reasonable. There are a lot of people trying to frame this as a freedom issue and there is certainly that aspect to it, but if you're a person who would get the vaccine if there was no pressure to do so but won't because there is then you're basically scum. The comparison to the holocaust is really rather disgusting, to be frank. Playing the victim in the extreme. If the problem is not the vaccine then get vaccinated. Stop whining about freedom when you have the freedom to choose to get vaccinated and maximise the level of protection for everyone.

[Zvoni]

I think that most of that is a crock. Things may certainly be different in Germany but I very much doubt that they're so different as to make much of that reasonable. There are a lot of people trying to frame this as a freedom issue and there is certainly that aspect to it, but if you're a person who would get the vaccine if there was no pressure to do so but won't because there is then you're basically scum. The comparison to the holocaust is really rather disgusting, to be frank. Playing the victim in the extreme. If the problem is not the vaccine then get vaccinated. Stop whining about freedom when you have the freedom to choose to get vaccinated and maximise the level of protection for everyone.

It is different in Germany because of its "Sensivity" to History.
The thing is: There are already public venues (Restaurants etc.) which have a sign on the door "Entry only allowed for recovered or vaccinated" (note: tested is deliberately missing).
Anyone remember the US-History? Public restrooms divided by skin-color?
THAT's the Problem the Vac-Opponents have! That's the cut into Freedom of choice, that's the point of contention regarding "discrimination".
Not a single one of those vac-opponents i talked with have a problem with "let's stop this pandemic".
They have a problem how governments are doing it (and along the way filling the purses of the Pharma-Biggies).

As someone pointed out that facts have to be proven by evidence: Please correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it proven, that Covid19 "dies" after 14 days?
So, wherein lied the problem to stop the World for 3-4 weeks with every single person adhering to "keep yourself isolated for that time"? Covid19 would have been defeated already!
[SARCASM ON]
But no, it's not possible. We cannot stop global trade. The damage to economy would be immense.
I do not want to go without <insert inane reason> during that time.
[SARCASM OFF]

Do not lecture me on trying to frame it as an issue of freedom, because it is an issue of freedom of choice!
Do not lecture me on being selfish just because i want to keep my freedom of choice.

Nuff said.

FWIW: I am vaccinated! But not for the reasons you posted (protection of someone else).
that's not my job!
I did everything right during the "High-Time" of infection and didn't get infected, though i had close contact with my parents who both got it.
So, i did everything right, but i am discriminated against just because i'm not vaccinated (for whatever reasons).

I got vaccinated because i'm traveling a lot, and i just didn't want to go through the hassle with those tests.

EDIT: Since this is a thread about democracy:
Democracy is my right to say "No", and not get prosecuted for it!

[sapator]

Ehmm.
This is not a covid thread?...

What I would say, regardless on what you talked about is that majority is not always right. Not opposing or favoring mind you.

[digitalShaman]

Ehmm.
This is not a covid thread?...

correct, but it goes hand in hand. systematic misinformation and framing by legacy media is pushing people into vaccination that might not be indicated. (I am saying "might" as i want to encourage to examine this - i came to my personal conclusion backed up by scientific data.) And the pandemic is used to dismantle democracy. That is, at least my perception.

[jmcilhinney]

On the subject of democracy, I would suggest that no one really thinks of democracy in the original Greek sense. I think that most people consider a democratic society to be one where everyone has a say in who gets elected to then make the decisions. America is a perfect example of a place where that is the case on the surface but more and more effort is being made to give fewer and fewer people a genuine say in who gets elected to a decision-making role. Nowhere is perfect and there are plenty of places that are worse but, given that America tends to hold itself up as the poster child for this brand of democracy, the level of influence that private and corporate money has on American politics is a big problem and only getting bigger. I would say that our campaign finance laws here in Australia help to protect us from that to a greater degree but money still talks and there are always people trying to find loopholes.

[sapator]

I don't have an issue of course but I want to know where I should spam
Also I tend to agree with some words of NeedSomeAnswers here so that is not my kind of thread

[Zvoni]

What you fail to recognize, is the current "right-tug" in general politics (at least for Europe. No idea about the rest of the World).
LePen in France, AfD in Germany, Current Government in Hungary, Current Government in Poland

The main argument of the "Nay"-Sayers is: If you allow it this once, what's to stop "them" for something else in the future?
The Freedom of choice, the freedom of movement, the freedom of speech is anchored in the german Constitution.
Any regulation/Law making it mandatory to get vaccinated (otherwise you are prohibited to visit e.g. the cinema) is a violation of the constitution, and reminds too many german people of the
Enabling Act of 1933

[jmcilhinney]

If such laws are unconstitutional then they will be struck down under the constitution. Are there such laws being put in place? Then oppose those laws. Is it, rather, the case that private institutions are preventing you from entering their premises? If that is the case then you're complaining about unconstitutional laws is a smokescreen. That's exactly what's happening in America, but not sure about elsewhere. The very same people who were all in favour of a baker not having to bake a cake for a wedding that they weren't even invited to are suddenly all up in arms about private companies making decisions about what they will and won't allow on their premises, despite the same thing already being in place in the form of dress codes and the like. Most of the arguments I've heard are just smokescreens.

Also, you say that you are vaccinated and that's great, but your claim that it's not about the vaccine itself but the principle of freedom is simply not true about a large number of people. I certainly don't know the stats in Germany but I can say that, in Australia, things are not quite as bad as in the US but for many it is about the vaccine, even if they pretend that it's not. They hide behind freedom to get support when it's really just selfishness.

[Zvoni]

I disagree.
"Selfish" was the behaviour of the people a year ago, who despite knowing it would spread the virus didn't stop their "normal" life (see my post above --> I do not want to go without <insert inane reason> during that time.)
What do you think, how many so-called "Corona-Parties" german police had to break up?
Remember how long it took the UK to implement "social distancing"?
What do you think, who coined the phrase "Super-Spreader"?

And now those are the same people crying "foul" if you say "No" to a mandatory vaccination.

And those saying "no" NOW, are those who did everything correctly during the High-Time of the pandemic in 2020, but they are the ones, who are NOW the a**holes?

I partially agree with your argument about private premises: Yes, if i own a restaurant, it's my decision who i'm going to let enter.
But what do you think how many Restaurants, Hotels, Pubs, Night Clubs had to declare bankrupcy because they were FORCED by the Government to close for over a year, just because those "selfish" people (see above) couldn't/wouldn't go without whatever for FOUR DAMNED WEEKS!
A whole branch of economy destroyed!
And definitely not destroyed because a minority now STILL says no to vaccination.

The Problem is not the "selfishness" of the "No-To-Vac"-Sayers NOW, the Problem was the selfishness of the "No-To-Social-Distancing"-Sayers THEN

EDIT: reg. Vaccination is not about the vac itself, but about movement:
Everyone i talked with (and those were a lot of people), who got vac-ed, told me: "Eh? I've done it to get out of the testing hassle, so i can move around as before (more or less)"
Not a single one said, that he/she truly believed in the vaccine.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I partially agree with your argument about private premises: Yes, if i own a restaurant, it's my decision who i'm going to let enter.

Actually, no it isn't, and this is an important point: The law on this is far from settled, and may never truly BE settled. There are things you are freely allowed to discriminate against, and things that you are not freely allowed to discriminate, and the items that are in each camp are constantly changing.

So, to claim that there is some absolute right, in this matter, is to ignore the law itself, as well as history.

As for vaccine mandates, not only does the US have a very long history with them, we also have a very long history with fighting over them. They have been upheld by the Supreme Court repeatedly. Here's one article (really a transcript of an interview):

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/29/10321...ccine-mandates

I had another, but you need a subscription to the Wall Street Journal to read it, so that's not so good.

However, you just have to go into the history of smoking, seat belts, and child seats to see how this has played out in various arenas. The bottom line is that what is allowed and what is not, and how people feel about it has changed over time. This fight over vaccinations is not new, nor are mandates. Society ends up making the rules, and in this case, anti-vaxx is likely to lose out, if history is any guide. The simple fact is that we often do give up liberties for some perceived common good.

I would have also commented on likening a vaccine mandate to the holocaust, but Funky did a better job of it, so I won't bother.

[FunkyDexter]

I heard it was horse de wormers

Turns out it's both. Great mods think alike

I think that most of that is a crock

To be fair, I hold the position that I'm pro the vaccine but against mandates. It is possible to hold that position but I agree with you that it's dissapearingly rare. Other than that I completely agree with your assessment. It's almost exclusively to do with owning the Libs.

When is the german Governement starting to issue, you know, the yellow armbands with a 6-pointed star on it

Dunno... but I sure as hell know you don't get to cite the holocaust while we're doing anything less than exterminating the unvaccinated en-masse. It's not the same thing.

Anyone remember the US-History? Public restrooms divided by skin-color?

Neither do you get to cite segregation while being vaccinated is a choice that might affect you for a year or while skin colour is not a choice and has affected generations. When you or your family actually get lynched, then your comparisons might hold water.

If someone says "No" to getting vaccinated, she/he IS prosecuted the moment there is a sign on a door "only recovered/vaccinated allowed".

I think you mean persecuted, not prosecuted (I'm not correcting that to score points - just to clear up potential confusion).

Democracy is my right to say "No", and not get prosecuted for it!

No it isn't. Democracy is not your right to freedom, it is your right to have a say in the restrictions we, as a society, place on all of our collective freedoms. If, as a society, we deem that you should not be afforded a particular freedom and you exercise it anyway, we, as a society, punish that transgression in a manner that we, as a society, deem fit. And you have a say in every part of that decision making process. The "wrong" being committed in this circumstance is not the punishment, it is the transgression.

[Zvoni]

OK,
to get something cleared up:
My Provocation with the yellow armband was not about a comparison with Nazi-Germany, it was because a that time (beginning of 2021) there was a serious discussion in Germany how to recognize those, who have NOT been vaccinated, on the street!
And this can only be done in a visible way (Sticker/Label/whatever) --> hence, my quip with the yellow Armband (And to make something clear: I'm NOT in any way making fun of the Holocaust!), because the fastest way to shut someone up in Germany is actually to prove he's using the same rhetoric like the Nazis did 80 years ago!

About segregation: Agreed. I accept that it's a poor comparison, it's just that it basically has the same "taste" (for lack of a better word).

Thx about prosecution vs. persecution. English is not my first language.

The Final: IF you have a say in the restrictions, then you have a say in the "freedoms" --> You can't have it both ways
And if those freedoms are anchored in the constitution, then you have to change the constitution, and not pass regulations/laws violating those freedoms.
As long as the freedoms are defined in the constitution, society, as you call it, can go and hang themselves.
If society doesn't agree to those freedoms afforded to me by the constitution, they should change the constitution.
Do i have to bring up the US-Constitution and the second amendment to it? And how many times someone has tried to change it?

If i have a right to say "No", then you have to accept that i have the right, and that i use that right. Though, i accept, that i have to live with its consequences, but that's my own choice.
It's the same, if someone has a constitutional right to carry a gun.
I don't have to agree with this right, but i have to accept it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Thx about prosecution vs. persecution. English is not my first language.

I would expect that a large percentage of US citizens would have gotten those two words confused.