Does Democracy Lead to Tyranny?

[DemolitionRed]

This video is about a passage from Plato's Republic, it's about how democracy can give way to tyranny. How people, tiring of the endless choices and decisions in a democracy, the insecurities, will put their faith in a leader, a strong man, who promises to ease all of the burdens a democracy places on its citizens. This is after a period where old social structures start to break down and "elites" are distrusted. Sound familiar to anyone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38664789

[Brillopad]

This video is about a passage from Plato's Republic, it's about how democracy can give way to tyranny. How people, tiring of the endless choices and decisions in a democracy, the insecurities, will put their faith in a leader, a strong man, who promises to ease all of the burdens a democracy places on its citizens. This is after a period where old social structures start to break down and "elites" are distrusted. Sound familiar to anyone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38664789

It can't be worse than the tyranny of many idiolistic religious dictatorships, especially for 50% of the population.

[DemolitionRed]

It can't be worse than the tyranny of many idiolistic religious dictatorships, especially for 50% of the population.

How do we know it can't be worse?

[Brillopad]

How do we know it can't be worse?

Because I have at least an average IQ.

Seriously are you attempting to suggest there is any merit, particularly for women, to have all their rights removed by a dictatorship, especially those of a religious persuasion who tend to view a female role very much as one of sub-mission believing they should have no say in their own lives. Such dictatorships create a perfect environment for physical and sexual abuse.

[Kizzy]

If not kept in check I'd say it's at risk of corruption, any voting system can be rigged, gerrymandering, misinformation, propaganda, mistruths and media influence all add to this.
You think you have a choice? You don't.

[Brillopad]

If not kept in check I'd say it's at risk of corruption, any voting system can be rigged, gerrymandering, misinformation, propaganda, mistruths and media influence all add to this.
You think you have a choice? You don't.

There is a choice - some choice or no choice.

[DemolitionRed]

Because I have at least an average IQ.

Seriously are you attempting to suggest there is any merit, particularly for women, to have all their rights removed by a dictatorship, especially those of a religious persuasion who tend to view a female role very much as one of sub-mission believing they should have no say in their own lives. Such dictatorships create a perfect environment for physical and sexual abuse.

Did you actually watch the video? because you seem to of missed the point spectacularly.

If you want to discuss women’s rights within a dictatorship, then you are merely trying to change the topic.

[Brillopad]

Did you actually watch the video? because you seem to of missed the point spectacularly.

If you want to discuss women’s rights within a dictatorship, then you are merely trying to change the topic.

Comes across as anti-Trump rhetoric from the BBC - not exactly any surprise from them.

[Northern Monkey]

Sounds interesting.I'll check it out later when have time:thumbs:

[user104658]

It can't be worse than the tyranny of many idiolistic religious dictatorships, especially for 50% of the population.
So because it's not a religious oligarchy, it must be OK? Is this really where we're headed? Not questioning things because "some other things are worse"?

[Brillopad]

So because it's not a religious oligarchy, it must be OK? Is this really where we're headed? Not questioning things because "some other things are worse"?

People can question it all they like but as a dictatorship is the opposite of democracy it is seemingly being suggested that a dictatorship may be preferable to democracy. Smacks of an agenda to me.

I doubt many who have lived their lives under a democracy, with the power of free thought, would agree, except perhaps for those with emotional issues who are desperately looking for an 'answer' to their problems. I doubt they would find that answer under a dictatorship.

Is there a middle ground that offers some alternative? Please enlighten me.
Unless you can come up with something that would change human nature I fail to see what else there is.

That video is just being used to paint Trump as the next Hitler and is just the BBC trying to take advantage of what they perceive as a susceptible audience - a weak attempt to rock the boat.

[Kizzy]

There is a choice - some choice or no choice.

ok

[user104658]

People can question it all they like but as a dictatorship is the opposite of democracy it is seemingly being suggested that a dictatorship may be preferable to democracy. Smacks of an agenda to me.

I doubt many who have lived their lives under a democracy, with the power of free thought, would agree, except perhaps for those with emotional issues who are desperately looking for an 'answer' to their problems. I doubt they would find that answer under a dictatorship.

Is there a middle ground that offers some alternative? Please enlighten me.
Unless you can come up with something that would change human nature I fail to see what else there is.

That video is just being used to paint Trump as the next Hitler and is just the BBC trying to take advantage of what they perceive as a susceptible audience - a weak attempt to rock the boat.

Have you read any Plato? You've missed the point spectacularly. Where are you getting the idea that there's any suggestion that "A dictatorship is preferable to democracy"?? No no no. The concept is that after a long period of democracy, the population will become lazy, comfortable, easily scared by outside threats, and rather than actually wanting to continue to engage with democracy, they will "give up", and surrender themselves to dictator-like "strong man" rulers who will "make things great" and "keep them safe (and comfortable)".

In other words, a man like Trump, or the "daddy state" Tory government. People will WILLINGLY surrender (and are doing so) their freedoms and liberties in exchange for the "protection" of a tyrant. DR's suggestion (one that I agree with) is that we are seeing this happening, right now, and at an increasing pace.

[Tom4784]

TS and DR have it spot on, pretty much.

[DemolitionRed]

Have you read any Plato? You've missed the point spectacularly. Where are you getting the idea that there's any suggestion that "A dictatorship is preferable to democracy"?? No no no. The concept is that after a long period of democracy, the population will become lazy, comfortable, easily scared by outside threats, and rather than actually wanting to continue to engage with democracy, they will "give up", and surrender themselves to dictator-like "strong man" rulers who will "make things great" and "keep them safe (and comfortable)".

In other words, a man like Trump, or the "daddy state" Tory government. People will WILLINGLY surrender (and are doing so) their freedoms and liberties in exchange for the "protection" of a tyrant. DR's suggestion (one that I agree with) is that we are seeing this happening, right now, and at an increasing pace.

Thank you for taking the time to explain things.

[DemolitionRed]

Modern day democracy is little different to the democracies of old…class conflict in our democratic pursuit to be equal... materialistic greed and fear that glorifies profitable conflicts and rewards our ruthless robbers with new lands, obedient servants and worldly power.

Neutralizing the power of the majority and dividing its citizens whilst creating an unbalance of power is a potential recipe for tyrannical rule.

[Brillopad]

Have you read any Plato? You've missed the point spectacularly. Where are you getting the idea that there's any suggestion that "A dictatorship is preferable to democracy"?? No no no. The concept is that after a long period of democracy, the population will become lazy, comfortable, easily scared by outside threats, and rather than actually wanting to continue to engage with democracy, they will "give up", and surrender themselves to dictator-like "strong man" rulers who will "make things great" and "keep them safe (and comfortable)".

In other words, a man like Trump, or the "daddy state" Tory government. People will WILLINGLY surrender (and are doing so) their freedoms and liberties in exchange for the "protection" of a tyrant. DR's suggestion (one that I agree with) is that we are seeing this happening, right now, and at an increasing pace.

I am fully aware of what the video was trying to say and how it was trying to paint Trump as a future dictator (Eg Hitler) and in my opinion this is an attempt at scaremongering, as there are a lot of scared people with all the uncertainty over Brexit and Trump.

In my opinion that video was a weak attempt at taking advantage of the situation and attempting to make people question their own belief systems and decisions they have made regarding Brexit and Trump.

I think it ridiculous to imply our own government and Trump are attempting to get British and American citizens to 'give ip democracy' and their freedoms. Neither are a dictatorship. The whole thing is extremely manipulative.

[user104658]

I am fully aware of what the video was trying to say and how it was trying to paint Trump as a future dictator (Eg Hitler) and in my opinion this is an attempt at scaremongering, as there are a lot of scared people with all the uncertainty over Brexit and Trump.

In my opinion that video was a weak attempt at taking advantage of the situation and attempting to make people question their own belief systems and decisions they have made regarding Brexit and Trump.

I think it ridiculous to imply our own government and Trump are attempting to get British and American citizens to 'give ip democracy' and their freedoms. Neither are a dictatorship. The whole thing is extremely manipulative.
We ARE giving up freedoms year on year. That's not a debate, it's a straightforward fact. And not an "alternative fact" either.

[DemolitionRed]

I am fully aware of what the video was trying to say and how it was trying to paint Trump as a future dictator (Eg Hitler) and in my opinion this is an attempt at scaremongering, as there are a lot of scared people with all the uncertainty over Brexit and Trump.

In my opinion that video was a weak attempt at taking advantage of the situation and attempting to make people question their own belief systems and decisions they have made regarding Brexit and Trump.

I think it ridiculous to imply our own government and Trump are attempting to get British and American citizens to 'give ip democracy' and their freedoms. Neither are a dictatorship. The whole thing is extremely manipulative.

Like TS says, democracy is becoming more and more questionable.

And I think it was appropriate to use Trump in that video because its right wing America that appear to be doubting the democratic system and the reckless electorates that voted him in are the same people who believe ‘white America’ needs to go back to its roots and if that takes regime change, there appears to be plenty of loyal partisans.

[the truth]

Liberalism leads to tyranny and bankruptcy

[user104658]

Liberalism leads to tyranny and bankruptcy

You forgot that it leads to terrorism, and destroys our music and publishing industries.

[Northern Monkey]

So basically there is no perfect system.All paths lead to the same outcome?You can start with tyranny or get there much slower.Democracy leads to option paralysis and the people start to crave authoritarianism?
Depressing.

[DemolitionRed]

So basically there is no perfect system.All paths lead to the same outcome?You can start with tyranny or get there much slower.Democracy leads to option paralysis and the people start to crave authoritarianism?
Depressing.

Plato just happens to be a philosopher we can relate to because we've been able to see his predictions on real politics play out over the centuries. Democracy doesn't have to lead to tyranny so long as we have the right balance.

Plato (Greek philosopher) wrote, Democracy’s key feature is that everyone becomes a lover of tolerance, but he also stated that tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.

Plato described how unrestrained freedom or unbalanced freedoms would eventually lead to unrestrained financial irresponsibility and with not enough money to go round, bickering and fighting would result, leading to chaos and anarchy. That people will begin to look for someone to come along and fix the mess... A leader of men... a Master.

He notes,"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Plato warns "Democracy without virtue would end in chaos out of which a tyrant would arise."

http://freedomoutpost.com/plato-explains-tyrants-arise/

[Northern Monkey]

Plato just happens to be a philosopher we can relate to because we've been able to see his predictions on real politics play out over the centuries. Democracy doesn't have to lead to tyranny so long as we have the right balance.

Plato (Greek philosopher) wrote, Democracy’s key feature is that everyone becomes a lover of tolerance, but he also stated that tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.

Plato described how unrestrained freedom or unbalanced freedoms would eventually lead to unrestrained financial irresponsibility and with not enough money to go round, bickering and fighting would result, leading to chaos and anarchy. That people will begin to look for someone to come along and fix the mess... A leader of men... a Master.

He notes,"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Plato warns "Democracy without virtue would end in chaos out of which a tyrant would arise."

http://freedomoutpost.com/plato-explains-tyrants-arise/A clever man.The first quote is eerily familiar.I would say that there is possibly no such thing as a completely "virtuous people".Greed appears in almost everyone and given the opportunity to capitalise on it a large percentage of people will.It is a dog eat dog world.
I have actually been meaning to read some Plato and Socrates at some point after i've finished with the Bible.Very interesting.

[user104658]

It's worth noting really that those early philosophers lived in what were mankind's first democracies. Different in many ways to modern ones but similar in concept, obviously. These civilisations were wealthy, and powerful, and comfortable enough for most... And they DID crumble. It's easy to see the progression of history through time as an upwards progression but it really isn't one. These societies (ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire) were FAR more advanced in many ways than Europe in feudal times... A thousand or more years later. It's worth remembering. In 500 years people (if there are any) may well be sat around pondering, "Isn't it weird that society was more advanced in 2000 than in 2250?"

[DemolitionRed]

A clever man.The first quote is eerily familiar.I would say that there is possibly no such thing as a completely "virtuous people".Greed appears in almost everyone and given the opportunity to capitalise on it a large percentage of people will.It is a dog eat dog world.
I have actually been meaning to read some Plato and Socrates at some point after i've finished with the Bible.Very interesting.

Its facinating stuff NM.

[Kizzy]

What I take from his teaching is that freedoms in certain sectors are exploited and it is the duty of those within the society to take action to stop the rot of corruption, however when that corruption is happening from the top down...it becomes impossible.
If they were held accountable, and those in govt and business were as culpable as the common man then that would show that there is a balance of justice, which is the bedrock of democracy.

For me this is why the ruling of the supreme court on brexit was so pivotal, it showed that the law of the land has the power over governments too, it sent a powerful message that we are a democracy and that was it at work in it's purest form.
constituencies can be doctored, voting tampered with, media influenced but judges take everything down to the bare bones and look at what is constitutionally sacrosanct.

I believe that freedoms and rights are a necessity within a democracy, however that does not stretch to deregulation or self regulation of powerful organisations, there must be safeguards against corruption to prevent this risking the stability of the nation.
My feeling is that Platos 'democracy without virtue' is what we are witnessing now, nothing is for the greater good, rather to maximise profit, that may be seen as an acceptable norm today and nobody is 'virtuous' which may be true...less is not more, more is more.

This comes at a cost, as more and more people are disadvantaged and the haves turn a blind eye to the have nots, the scope of the have nots has grown from a gap to a gulf.
I pity this generation with a millstone of debt for daring to secure a degree, unable to find affordable housing, crippled with record energy, living and fuel costs, what of their democracy, our legacy to them is that democracy has failed...it hasn't, we have failed democracy.

[Niamh.]

Just watched the video there, it's really interesting. What is the solution though?

[user104658]

Just watch the video there, it's really interesting. What is the solution though?

Small democratic communities of a couple of hundred people at most, with a global population in the low millions with plenty of land to go around. Like normal primates.

In other words; there isn't one, we broke it :joker:

[Niamh.]

Small democratic communities of a couple of hundred people at most, with a global population in the low millions with plenty of land to go around. Like normal primates.

In other words; there isn't one, we broke it :joker:

Yeah, more like "clans" I suppose like how we would have started out? Yep too late

[Livia]

Nothing is ever going to work perfectly because people are so greedy, aggressive and despicable, generally.

[user104658]

Yeah, more like "clans" I suppose like how we would have started out? Yep too late

Maybe not... if the human population is devastated by a supervirus ("The Stand" style) that kills 99%+ of humans, it could work out OK. Of course that has to happen before we nuke ourselves. Or trigger irreversible global warming. :think: ... .. .... so, there's hope yet! :hehe:

[Niamh.]

Nothing is ever going to work perfectly because people are so greedy, aggressive and despicable, generally.

Yes this too. Power will pretty much always lead to corruption

[Niamh.]

Maybe not... if the human population is devastated by a supervirus ("The Stand" style) that kills 99%+ of humans, it could work out OK. Of course that has to happen before we nuke ourselves. Or trigger irreversible global warming. :think: ... .. .... so, there's hope yet! :hehe:

No there's no such thing as Global Warming anymore, remember?

[user104658]

Nothing is ever going to work perfectly because people are so greedy, aggressive and despicable, generally.

Are we naturally inclined to be these things, though, or are those things the products of the type of societies we are raised in? Are people greedy because we're being bombarded with "things", and the idea that we SHOULD want "more", that "having more" than others is an indication of success in life.

Or do those societal values arise naturally because we DO have some sort of "instinct for greed", related to primal urges to gain and hold territory, and survival instinct. That "having more" for ourselves and our own small group = higher likelihood of survival.

Then again that's really just something to think about out of curiosity, because if it's where we are now, it doesn't really matter "why" I suppose.

[user104658]

No there's no such thing as Global Warming anymore, remember?

Or viruses either probably. Too expensive! Too many lost man hours! Back to work everyone, viruses are a myth invented by the lazy :fist:.

[Niamh.]

Are we naturally inclined to be these things, though, or are those things the products of the type of societies we are raised in? Are people greedy because we're being bombarded with "things", and the idea that we SHOULD want "more", that "having more" than others is an indication of success in life.

Or do those societal values arise naturally because we DO have some sort of "instinct for greed", related to primal urges to gain and hold territory, and survival instinct. That "having more" for ourselves and our own small group = higher likelihood of survival.

Then again that's really just something to think about out of curiosity, because if it's where we are now, it doesn't really matter "why" I suppose.

It is an interesting discussion though, it's a little bit like the nature or nurture question

[Livia]

Humans didn't always live in big societies with lots of laws and governance. But we've always regularly slaughtered each other in massive batches. Humans are a bit like the French. Individually... charming. Collectively... not as nice as you'd imagine.

[Kizzy]

Yes this too. Power will pretty much always lead to corruption

Hey! I'm supposed to be the forum cynic :laugh:
I don't happen to believe that I believe that what the majority of people want is just a secure job with enough money to not have to choose whether to heat or eat.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely....or something like that, joe public just want to work to live, not live to work.

[Kizzy]

Humans didn't always live in big societies with lots of laws and governance. But we've always regularly slaughtered each other in massive batches. Humans are a bit like the French. Individually... charming. Collectively... not as nice as you'd imagine.

Even the ancient Mayans had governments.

[Niamh.]

No I feel really depressed all of a sudden :worry:

[user104658]

Humans didn't always live in big societies with lots of laws and governance. But we've always regularly slaughtered each other in massive batches. Humans are a bit like the French. Individually... charming. Collectively... not as nice as you'd imagine.

True, we have been doing it all throughout recorded history but there was a lot of human history before we developed the tools to record it in writing or images. It does seem likely, based on the animal kingdom, that "Caveman Bob" would probably kill his neighbour "Caveman Joe" to take his food for himself and his family... but it only really makes sense that it would happen when food wasn't abundant. Otherwise you're putting yourself at risk (in a fight) for no reason. Also, the fact that societies exist AT ALL is evidence that we are capable of peaceful coexistence and co-operation in small to medium sized groups.

Then again, there was plenty of land and resources to go around on the American continent before Europeans arrived, and yet various tribes there were perpetually at war with each other.

Ponder ponder. It's making me want to study some Sociology. One of the few degree paths I haven't already stumbled half way down :joker:

[user104658]

No I feel really depressed all of a sudden :worry:

Look away Niamh! I'm actually serious, too. Once you've stared into the abyss and had it stare right back, you can't ever look away. You'll see it everywhere. It is actually ****ing horrible.

[Kizzy]

No I feel really depressed all of a sudden :worry:

Aw come here you big silly! :hug: people aren't all greedy and aggressive, if they were then how did the NHS come about? and all the philanthropic, charitable organisations?

There is a balance, sometimes it feels like it's tipping... but we're resilient.
As my dad said, 'Good will out' :)

[user104658]

Aw come here you big silly! :hug: people aren't all greedy and aggressive, if they were then how did the NHS come about? and all the philanthropic, charitable organisations?

There is a balance, sometimes it feels like it's tipping... but we're resilient.
As my dad said, 'Good will out' :)

They aren't but greed and aggression are two fundamental aspects of ambition, and therefore, those are the people who rise to the top in politics, and in any other organisation that holds the allure of power. In other words; those who desire and chase power are the absolute WORST people to actually HAVE power. Trump is a very clear archetype of this.

[Niamh.]

Look away Niamh! I'm actually serious, too. Once you've stared into the abyss and had it stare right back, you can't ever look away. You'll see it everywhere. It is actually ****ing horrible.

https://mattburnscoventry.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/mental-breakdown.gif

Aw come here you big silly! :hug: people aren't all greedy and aggressive, if they were then how did the NHS come about? and all the philanthropic, charitable organisations?

There is a balance, sometimes it feels like it's tipping... but we're resilient.
As my dad said, 'Good will out' :)

:love:

It just seems really bad times are coming, I like to think you're right, things seem very bleak now though

[DemolitionRed]

What I take from his teaching is that freedoms in certain sectors are exploited and it is the duty of those within the society to take action to stop the rot of corruption, however when that corruption is happening from the top down...it becomes impossible.
If they were held accountable, and those in govt and business were as culpable as the common man then that would show that there is a balance of justice, which is the bedrock of democracy.

For me this is why the ruling of the supreme court on brexit was so pivotal, it showed that the law of the land has the power over governments too, it sent a powerful message that we are a democracy and that was it at work in it's purest form.
constituencies can be doctored, voting tampered with, media influenced but judges take everything down to the bare bones and look at what is constitutionally sacrosanct.

I believe that freedoms and rights are a necessity within a democracy, however that does not stretch to deregulation or self regulation of powerful organisations, there must be safeguards against corruption to prevent this risking the stability of the nation.
My feeling is that Platos 'democracy without virtue' is what we are witnessing now, nothing is for the greater good, rather to maximise profit, that may be seen as an acceptable norm today and nobody is 'virtuous' which may be true...less is not more, more is more.

This comes at a cost, as more and more people are disadvantaged and the haves turn a blind eye to the have nots, the scope of the have nots has grown from a gap to a gulf.
I pity this generation with a millstone of debt for daring to secure a degree, unable to find affordable housing, crippled with record energy, living and fuel costs, what of their democracy, our legacy to them is that democracy has failed...it hasn't, we have failed democracy.

Fantastic post Kizzy. I'm so glad you've joined in this debate

The erosion of civil liberties, the collapse of political freedoms and the rise of neo-nazi thinkers, its not freedom, its fraud.

When economic interest overpowers your vote and a tenth of the 1% of the richest people in America, controls the decisions made by millions of people and nobody without political privilege can get involved and when the 70% of the American population do not have any kind of influence on the policies in their country they no longer live in a democracy that represents its people.

" land only becomes a democracy when the poor are victorious

Yes, America are living in a failed democracy and its only those with survival instincts that are asking, "what the fcuks going on?...

What we have to remember is, Britain is in the habit of hanging off the American coattails and the oligarchs that are presently ruling this country could so easily tip the balance.

[DemolitionRed]

Are we naturally inclined to be these things, though, or are those things the products of the type of societies we are raised in? Are people greedy because we're being bombarded with "things", and the idea that we SHOULD want "more", that "having more" than others is an indication of success in life.

Or do those societal values arise naturally because we DO have some sort of "instinct for greed", related to primal urges to gain and hold territory, and survival instinct. That "having more" for ourselves and our own small group = higher likelihood of survival.

Then again that's really just something to think about out of curiosity, because if it's where we are now, it doesn't really matter "why" I suppose.

Hmm...that's very thought provoking.
I'm just heading out to do some mundane tasks but at least you've now given me something to think about!!

[Kizzy]

Fantastic post Kizzy. I'm so glad you've joined in this debate

The erosion of civil liberties, the collapse of political freedoms and the rise of neo-nazi thinkers, its not freedom, its fraud.

When economic interest overpowers your vote and a tenth of the 1% of the richest people in America, controls the decisions made by millions of people and nobody without political privilege can get involved and when the 70% of the American population do not have any kind of influence on the policies in their country they no longer live in a democracy that represents its people.

" land only becomes a democracy when the poor are victorious

Yes, America are living in a failed democracy and its only those with survival instincts that are asking, "what the fcuks going on?...

What we have to remember is, Britain is in the habit of hanging off the American coattails and the oligarchs that are presently ruling this country could so easily tip the balance.

Thank you DR really lovely of you to say, at last a serious debate in serious debates :)

Excellent topic really thought provoking.

[DemolitionRed]

Are we naturally inclined to be these things, though, or are those things the products of the type of societies we are raised in? Are people greedy because we're being bombarded with "things", and the idea that we SHOULD want "more", that "having more" than others is an indication of success in life.

Or do those societal values arise naturally because we DO have some sort of "instinct for greed", related to primal urges to gain and hold territory, and survival instinct. That "having more" for ourselves and our own small group = higher likelihood of survival.

Then again that's really just something to think about out of curiosity, because if it's where we are now, it doesn't really matter "why" I suppose.

I believe there is a natural inclination to hoard assets in the same way that you would store a harvest for harder times and that the modern consumer society plays on that and amplifies it, so yes, I think we have become greedy but I believe we were pre-disposed to become greedy.

Thatcher deliberately played on peoples desire for material wealth and in turn, those who reveled in this new consumer environment made others feel like failures if they couldn't afford these goodies.

We could ask; are we programmable? (I think that's an easy one)
A tougher question is; What is the essence of human nature?

[Kizzy]

Yep I'd say it was a mix of post war affluence and social conditioning that has led to the obsession with 'stuff'... people feel a real need to have lot's and lots of 'stuff'.

[DemolitionRed]

So Democracy is driven by the need for personal freedom... Life… liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but democracy starts to crumble when the tyranny becomes the majority.

My question is, who is the tyrant !?

[DemolitionRed]

Yep I'd say it was a mix of post war affluence and social conditioning that has led to the obsession with 'stuff'... people feel a real need to have lot's and lots of 'stuff'.

I was thinking about this when I was out food shopping tonight.
From birth till the age of around six its called our "formative" years. These indeed are the years we are programmed or formatted by our parents and relatives and child minders or nurseries. A lot of children today are being programmed to believe consumerism is normal and expected way of life. The competition to "have" is bigger than its ever been.

I wonder how that will sit with our future.

[the truth]

liberalism is the path to hell

[Jack_]

neoliberalism is the path to hell

Glad we agree

[DemolitionRed]

Glad we agree

:joker:

[the truth]

Glad we agree

way to abuse your position with mis quotes:nono:

[Kizzy]

What a guy :)

V7MvXKrN-xc

[Jack_]

way to abuse your position with mis quotes:nono:

My position? Am I above you then?

Am I your boss now?

http://cdn.bbspy.co.uk/images/uploads/480_cbb13_lionel_2.jpg

Please say it's so

[jaxie]

Power corrupts. At face value communism looked like a great idea and look how that turned out. History is full of regimes with good intentions that turned into dictatorships.

Democracy is as good as it's ever going to get.

[the truth]

Power corrupts. At face value communism looked like a great idea and look how that turned out. History is full of regimes with good intentions that turned into dictatorships.

Democracy is as good as it's ever going to get.

at least it limits the loony left to 5 year terms

[Mystic Mock]

If not kept in check I'd say it's at risk of corruption, any voting system can be rigged, gerrymandering, misinformation, propaganda, mistruths and media influence all add to this.
You think you have a choice? You don't.

It's interesting that you mention the Media because I tend to notice that whoever the Media tends to give alot of attention too in any country conveniently ends up winning the given Election, and quite coincidently they're business minded people to such a point that the Media get richer and more corrupt whilst the average person is suffering to even have a roof over their head.

Democracy at it's purest form is a great idea, but people do often get manipulated into not voting for their best interests, it's why Donald Trump is President of America, and why we're got Thresa May in Office in this country which she seems to be even more incompetent than Trump who is at least going for people setting up businesses in foreign countries instead of hiring in their own country. But I'm sure the Media in this country will pretend that everything Thresa May does is great because they don't want people to have their own free will and realise that they're being played by the Tories.

[Brillopad]

So Democracy is driven by the need for personal freedom... Life… liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but democracy starts to crumble when the tyranny becomes the majority.

My question is, who is the tyrant !?

Dictatorships are tyranny. Some try to suggest democracy leads to tyranny, so why don't those suggesting this offer up a viable alternative then. Maybe because they can't. What most people realise is that democracy is way more preferable to a dictatorship.

[Kizzy]

It's interesting that you mention the Media because I tend to notice that whoever the Media tends to give alot of attention too in any country conveniently ends up winning the given Election, and quite coincidently they're business minded people to such a point that the Media get richer and more corrupt whilst the average person is suffering to even have a roof over their head.

Democracy at it's purest form is a great idea, but people do often get manipulated into not voting for their best interests, it's why Donald Trump is President of America, and why we're got Thresa May in Office in this country which she seems to be even more incompetent than Trump who is at least going for people setting up businesses in foreign countries instead of hiring in their own country. But I'm sure the Media in this country will pretend that everything Thresa May does is great because they don't want people to have their own free will and realise that they're being played by the Tories.

I believe that the needs and wants of a handful of business leaders are put head and shoulders before the public and any technique that can be utilised to manipulate votes adopted.
Any attempt at freedom of thought or expression is slapped down as pc, sjw, or some other derisory term. We are all being played.
Brexit means brexit.....erm, but business owners can still have the eastern European agency workers for their cheap labour obv.

[Brillopad]

I believe that the needs and wants of a handful of business leaders are put head and shoulders before the public and any technique that can be utilised to manipulate votes adopted.
Any attempt at freedom of thought or expression is slapped down as pc, sjw, or some other derisory term. We are all being played.
Brexit means brexit.....erm, but business owners can still have the eastern European agency workers for their cheap labour obv.

PC slaps down attempts at freedom of thought and expression which is why it is so unpopular. PC is controlling and attempts to tell others how to think. PC could be described as dictatorial.

PC uses derisory terms to attempt to intimidate others out of expressing free thought when not in keeping with PC thinking - so yes I agree we are certainly being played.

PC has become the monster it claims to abhor.

[DemolitionRed]

PC slaps down attempts at freedom of thought and expression which is why it is so unpopular. PC is controlling and attempts to tell others how to think. PC could be described as dictatorial.

PC uses derisory terms to attempt to intimidate others out of expressing free thought when not in keeping with PC thinking - so yes I agree we are certainly being played.

PC has become the monster it claims to abhor.

I agree...Freedom of speech is the unbridled enemy that helped get Trump his presidency.

We are all sick of having to supress truths by policing our own words/language. Millions of us, in fact hundreds of millions of us have been stopped from expressing our dissatisfaction because of PC.

The opponents of political correctness always said they were crusaders against authoritarianism. In fact, anti-PC has paved the way for the populist authoritarianism now spreading everywhere. Trump is anti-political correctness gone mad.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump

[Brillopad]

I agree...Freedom of speech is the unbridled enemy that helped get Trump his presidency.

We are all sick of having to supress truths by policing our own words/language. Millions of us, in fact hundreds of millions of us have been stopped from expressing our dissatisfaction because of PC.

The opponents of political correctness always said they were crusaders against authoritarianism. In fact, anti-PC has paved the way for the populist authoritarianism now spreading everywhere. Trump is anti-political correctness gone mad.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump

In essence without PC there would be no 'populist authoritarianism'. In other words PC made it's bed and it now has to lie in a bed of anti-PC. .

PC supporters, by behaving in a manner in common with those they deride, have done no favours for the minority groups they proport to defend as they have created a backlash against them due to the way they have chosen to go about it.

They have tried to play the hero and tried to take the moral high ground whilst adopting the type of behaviour they claim to abhor. They have no one to blame but themselves if it has all gone 't**s-up'.

[Kizzy]

I don't believe that for a second... PC is a blanket term for absolutely anything that is counter to the media inspired standpoint on any given topic.
It has no specific meaning, there has been opposition to the word 'bigot' yet this has a set definition, a criterion, if you make a statement that is by definition bigoted then stand by that and own it... don't cry nonsense words.

PC or politically correct is for me a term that infers something was legislated for and passed into law, if you are politically correct you are acting within the remit of the law...is this not a civil duty, so to go against this would this not be an act of civil disobedience?

'PC supporters, by behaving in a manner in common with those they deride, have done no favours for the minority groups they proport to defend'

What does this mean?... We will attack minority groups even though it is against the law and if you object then you are just making things worse?.... I don't understand, is this another way of saying 'put up and shut up? be complacent? compliant?

I am not 'PC' I am a free thinker, it is a tool of social control to attach labels to things to create folk devils, such as PC , SJW these can then be used to group individuals together who are totally unconnected to make it easier to rail against them.

Those who oppose the mistreatment of any minority group are not to blame for the rise of authoritarianism more those who allowed themselves to be manipulated into thinking that this was a right and proper thing to do on a civil, legal and human level. My feeling is that those against those who aren't is more than likely to do with guilt... they know deep down that it's wrong but it makes them feel bad to be constantly reminded of it. Hence the blanket terms and derision.

[Alf]

Censorship is the foundation of tyranny.

[Alf]

BtWrljX9HRA

[user104658]

Censorship is the foundation of tyranny.

Indeed, but anyone who at this point can't see that all of these entities are working together is in my opinion sadly blinkered. The forces driving over -the-top PC are the same forces that are driving the "backlash" that is currently steering global politics. All designed to play the gullible at both extreme ends of the political spectrum like a ****ing fiddle.

[Brillopad]

I don't believe that for a second... PC is a blanket term for absolutely anything that is counter to the media inspired standpoint on any given topic.
It has no specific meaning, there has been opposition to the word 'bigot' yet this has a set definition, a criterion, if you make a statement that is by definition bigoted then stand by that and own it... don't cry nonsense words.

PC or politically correct is for me a term that infers something was legislated for and passed into law, if you are politically correct you are acting within the remit of the law...is this not a civil duty, so to go against this would this not be an act of civil disobedience?

'PC supporters, by behaving in a manner in common with those they deride, have done no favours for the minority groups they proport to defend'

What does this mean?... We will attack minority groups even though it is against the law and if you object then you are just making things worse?.... I don't understand, is this another way of saying 'put up and shut up? be complacent? compliant?

I am not 'PC' I am a free thinker, it is a tool of social control to attach labels to things to create folk devils, such as PC , SJW these can then be used to group individuals together who are totally unconnected to make it easier to rail against them.

Those who oppose the mistreatment of any minority group are not to blame for the rise of authoritarianism more those who allowed themselves to be manipulated into thinking that this was a right and proper thing to do on a civil, legal and human level. My feeling is that those against those who aren't is more than likely to do with guilt... they know deep down that it's wrong but it makes them feel bad to be constantly reminded of it. Hence the blanket terms and derision.

In brief it means without PC and its attempted gagging of 'free speech' when not in keeping with it's own way of thinking, which has undermined its position with its hypocrisy, a backlash against the principles it claims to uphold would not have been the inevitable result.

It isn't so much about objecting but how people go about objecting. Effectively attempting to gag one type of free speech for another was always going to be a disaster.

Btw we are all free-thinkers but only some of us it seems want to be able to have the right to express free thought.

[Kizzy]

People who shape our world eh?...well they got that bit right.

The rest is crap, it wasn't those causing offence who caused great things to happen it was the people who believed in those causes who made them happen, none happened overnight, many were generations in coming.

his whole monologue is nothing but a dig at students that oppose the sun, like that is in any way comparable to the great shifts he uses as a counter, and these are clever people...they go to Oxford. :/

[Kizzy]

In brief it means without PC and its attempted gagging of 'free speech' when not in keeping with it's own way of thinking, which has undermined its position with its hypocrisy, a backlash against the principles it claims to uphold would not have been the inevitable result.

It isn't so much about objecting but how people go about objecting. Effectively attempting to gag one type of free speech for another was always going to be a disaster.

Btw we are all free-thinkers but only some of us it seems want to be able to have the right to express free thought.

It is the state who have gagged... if you are referring to the hate laws.
The state is in the driving seat, individuals cannot be collectively a PC... no two individuals have the same views on the same issues, therefor all you have are a bunch of people thinking for themselves.
It is not a backlash against any one group or individual it is a backlash then against the state, these people are simply convenient scapegoats as to backlash against the government is just far too scary a prospect...

If you want to say something say it! don't gust whinge like a girl because you feel you're not allowed because of 'PC' because 'PC' does not exist!

[Tom4784]

Trump is proving this to be true so far, several Republican majority states are trying to push through laws essentially designed to limit peaceful protesting without technically infringing on the First Amendment plus I've been reading several articles from differing sites that match up and paint a dark image of what's going on in the White House.

[Kizzy]

'Over this time, I have watched as tobacco, coal, oil, chemicals and biotech companies have poured billions of dollars into an international misinformation machine composed of thinktanks, bloggers and fake citizens’ groups. Its purpose is to portray the interests of billionaires as the interests of the common people, to wage war against trade unions and beat down attempts to regulate business and tax the very rich. Now the people who helped run this machine are shaping the government.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation?CMP=fb_gu

[Brillopad]

I don't believe that for a second... PC is a blanket term for absolutely anything that is counter to the media inspired standpoint on any given topic.
It has no specific meaning, there has been opposition to the word 'bigot' yet this has a set definition, a criterion, if you make a statement that is by definition bigoted then stand by that and own it... don't cry nonsense words.

PC or politically correct is for me a term that infers something was legislated for and passed into law, if you are politically correct you are acting within the remit of the law...is this not a civil duty, so to go against this would this not be an act of civil disobedience?

'PC supporters, by behaving in a manner in common with those they deride, have done no favours for the minority groups they proport to defend'

What does this mean?... We will attack minority groups even though it is against the law and if you object then you are just making things worse?.... I don't understand, is this another way of saying 'put up and shut up? be complacent? compliant?

I am not 'PC' I am a free thinker, it is a tool of social control to attach labels to things to create folk devils, such as PC , SJW these can then be used to group individuals together who are totally unconnected to make it easier to rail against them.

Those who oppose the mistreatment of any minority group are not to blame for the rise of authoritarianism more those who allowed themselves to be manipulated into thinking that this was a right and proper thing to do on a civil, legal and human level. My feeling is that those against those who aren't is more than likely to do with guilt... they know deep down that it's wrong but it makes them feel bad to be constantly reminded of it. Hence the blanket terms and derision.

The word 'bigot' may have a set definition but people apply that definition according to their own perception of what they think someone means or an agenda - it certainly doesn't make the use of the word in any given situation correct.

As for the mistreatment of any minority group - again that often comes down to perception/agenda. Wanting to protect the quality of life in their own country and protect British culture and identity is not 'mistreating' minority groups however much PC twists things, using derisive and blanket terms in an attempt to gag their freedom of speech.

Not wanting certain religions to have their own laws and indulge in behaviours that flout our equality laws is not mistreatment of minorities it is standing up for our own beliefs and way of life and not allowing those to be mistreated by minority groups who have no respect for them.

[user104658]

The word 'bigot' may have a set definition but people apply that definition according to their own perception of what they think someone means or an agenda - it certainly doesn't make the use of the word in any given situation correct.

As for the mistreatment of any minority group - again that often comes down to perception/agenda. Wanting to protect the quality of life in their own country and protect British culture and identity is not 'mistreating' minority groups however much PC twists things, using derisive and blanket terms in an attempt to gag their freedom of speech.

Not wanting certain religions to have their own laws and indulge in behaviours that flout our equality laws is not mistreatment of minorities it is standing up for our own beliefs and way of life and not allowing those to be mistreated by minority groups who have no respect for them.
So in other words... It's not PC to call someone a bigot? :joker:

[Brillopad]

So in other words... It's not PC to call someone a bigot? :joker:

Just uninformed.

[Kizzy]

The word 'bigot' may have a set definition but people apply that definition according to their own perception of what they think someone means or an agenda - it certainly doesn't make the use of the word in any given situation correct.

As for the mistreatment of any minority group - again that often comes down to perception/agenda. Wanting to protect the quality of life in their own country and protect British culture and identity is not 'mistreating' minority groups however much PC twists things, using derisive and blanket terms in an attempt to gag their freedom of speech.

Not wanting certain religions to have their own laws and indulge in behaviours that flout our equality laws is not mistreatment of minorities it is standing up for our own beliefs and way of life and not allowing those to be mistreated by minority groups who have no respect for them.

Out of interest what would an example of a bigoted comment be for you,
If it is so ambiguous and meanings differ based on perception?

Who ever said protecting British culture was mistreating minorities?... you're projecting here.

The example in your last comment is most strange, you appear to be referring to a specific group, is it Jewish?... They have their own courts and schools.

[Kizzy]

Just uninformed.

Is it uninformed to call someone PC? or a SJW?...

[Brillopad]

Is it uninformed to call someone PC? or a SJW?...

Not when in response to being called a bigot, seems quite tame in comparison.

[Brillopad]

Out of interest what would an example of a bigoted comment be for you,
If it is so ambiguous and meanings differ based on perception?

Who ever said protecting British culture was mistreating minorities?... you're projecting here.

The example in your last comment is most strange, you appear to be referring to a specific group, is it Jewish?... They have their own courts and schools.

Oh come on you're a regular on here. How about all the times that comment is thrown at anyone who says that don't support mass immigration - so that makes them a bigot does it. As I said perception and agendas.

I have no issues with Jewish culture as I don't see it being rammed down our throats or blatantly disrespecting our equality laws.

[Kizzy]

Not when in response to being called a bigot, seems quite tame in comparison.

What if it's not in response to being called a bigot?
Why is it tame, do you feel that being labeled a bigot is worse than being labeled 'PC'?

[user104658]

Not when in response to being called a bigot, seems quite tame in comparison.
How about "hypocrite"? Where does that fall on the snowflake spectrum?

[Brillopad]

How about "hypocrite"? Where does that fall on the snowflake spectrum?

You tell me.

[Kizzy]

Oh come on you're a regular on here. How about all the times that comment is thrown at anyone who says that don't support mass immigration - so that makes them a bigot does it. As I said perception and agendas.

I have no issues with Jewish culture as I don't see it being rammed down our throats or blatantly disrespecting our equality laws.


If a bigoted remark has been made then yes I've seen people being accused of bigotry, just because you don't accept the terms of the definition it doesn't make it so, your example of mass immigration is one issue... there are literally 100's of examples of remarks which have had 'PC' or 'SJW' pinned to them across many topics.

Did you miss this?
I only post this as a point of reference you understand.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/ultra-orthodox-jewish-schools-drop-ban-on-mothers-driving

[Tom4784]

Not when in response to being called a bigot, seems quite tame in comparison.

Bigot isn't a dirty word, you keep trying to make it into an insult so you can create your little safe space but it's not going to work. If someone accuses you of being a bigot then it's down to you to prove them wrong, it shouldn't be difficult if you don't hold bigoted views.

Trying to make it that calling someone bigoted is different from branding them PC or loony left or any of the other tired catchphrases LT relies on is both hilarious and hypocritical.

[Brillopad]

If a bigoted remark has been made then yes I've seen people being accused of bigotry, just because you don't accept the terms of the definition it doesn't make it so, your example of mass immigration is one issue... there are literally 100's of examples of remarks which have had 'PC' or 'SJW' pinned to them across many topics.

Did you miss this?
I only post this as a point of reference you understand.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/ultra-orthodox-jewish-schools-drop-ban-on-mothers-driving

That rabi is an idiot. First time I have heard of this, but I have heard of it a lot more in another religion.

Is's not just about whether I accept the definition or not it is also about whether a bigoted remark was made or whether the allegation was made based on ignorance, influence of personal opinion or agenda.

You imply that if someone makes an allegation then it must be so. There are so many variables to consider in determining why that person made that remark.

Btw the same also applies with people calling people PC etc - if you want to believe the person throwing allegations around is always right, then it works both ways.

[Brillopad]

Bigot isn't a dirty word, you keep trying to make it into an insult so you can create your little safe space but it's not going to work. If someone accuses you of being a bigot then it's down to you to prove them wrong, it shouldn't be difficult if you don't hold bigoted views.

Trying teo make it that calling someone bigoted is different from branding them PC or loony left or any of the other tired catchphrases LT relies on is both hilarious and hypocritical.

Ooh it isn't going to work.

It's down to the accuser to prove their allegation, not the accused to prove their innocence.

[Tom4784]

Ooh it isn't going to work.

It's down to the accuser to prove their allegation, not the accused to prove their innocence.

It's not, it's silly to act like Bigot is some forbidden word just because you're scared of being called out as one. It's Serious Debates, defend yourself and your ideals.

[Brillopad]

It's not, it's silly to act like Bigot is some forbidden word just because you're scared of being called out as one. It's Serious Debates, defend yourself and your ideals.

As usual you miss the point. I don't much care if you me a bigot because you throw that word around too often, so it has little value - I might care more if it came from someone else.

As for defending myself - read the thread and I think anyone who can read can see I have done exactly that. :nono:

[Kizzy]

That rabi is an idiot. First time I have heard of this, but I have heard of it a lot more in another religion.

Is's not just about whether I accept the definition or not it is also about whether a bigoted remark was made or whether the allegation was made based on ignorance, influence of personal opinion or agenda.

You imply that if someone makes an allegation then it must be so. There are so many variables to consider in determining why that person made that remark.

Btw the same also applies with people calling people PC etc - if you want to believe the person throwing allegations around is always right, then it works both ways.

Based on ignorance? it's a little more black and white than that you can't be a little bit bigoted and it really isn't down to interpretation as such.
I don't imply anything, there is no real scenario here to compare.

If someone makes a comment that fills the dictionary definition of what a bigot is then where's the harm in calling it out?...
There is less scope for being wrong as the parimetres are more clearly defined.
For a blanket term such as 'PC' first you have to explain what ''PC' means to you, then apply it to the situation.

[Tom4784]

As usual you miss the point. I don't much care if you me a bigot because you throw that word around too often, so it has little value - I might care more if it came from someone else.

As for defending myself - read the thread and I think anyone who can read can see I have done exactly that. :nono:

I don't think I've any member on here a bigot in ages so there's no need to lie, Wombai.

[Brillopad]

Based on ignorance? it's a little more black and white than that you can't be a little bit bigoted and it really isn't down to interpretation as such.
I don't imply anything, there is no real scenario here to compare.

If someone makes a comment that fills the dictionary definition of what a bigot is then where's the harm in calling it out?...
There is less scope for being wrong as the parimetres are more clearly defined.
For a blanket term such as 'PC' first you have to explain what ''PC' means to you, then apply it to the situation.

I have been called a bigot by a particular person for saying I did not support mass immigration - twist it all you like that does not fill the dictionary definition. Assumptions were made by the accuser, as usual, as soon as they heard the word 'immigration'. As I said perception and agenda.

[Brillopad]

I don't think I've any member on here a bigot in ages so there's no need to lie, Wombai.

I can always tell when you are getting desperate - out comes the w word. Predictable as ever.

By the way I thought baiting wasn't allowed on this site!

[Kizzy]

I have been called a bigot by a particular person for saying I did not support mass immigration - twist it all you like that does not fill the dictionary definition. Assumptions were made by the accuser, as usual, as soon as they heard the word 'immigration'. As I said perception and agenda.

Without seeing the wording of your post it's impossible to say if it was or wasn't.