You didn't 'clarify' (not that 'believe' was really clarified, either) the most important term: instead, you tossed it to the readers, and so avoided the entire issue.
I won't, poorly formed as it may be, leave without answering the question: nobody who has the attentional capacity to consider a thing for more than a minute thinks that "everyone affected by any decision is given an opportunity to speak" is a good idea. That's a nice painting; have you read Plato's Laws?
Surely this is a joke: the (lack of) definition of the essay's object can't be an irrelevant detail. I'm detecting that you, and probably the author too, have difficulty with definitions. Incidentally, are you LGBT?
I also think it’s not a coincidence, but I don’t think there’s a good way to inoculate an abstract democracy steelman against the no-true-Scotsman argument without being a little vague or letting the reader fill in the blanks. The point is for the reader to do their own thought experiment, and see if they reach the same conclusions.
It’s likely most of the readership is left-leaning in a global sense, not necessarily with the culture war allegiances Americans would assume (although not necessarily *not* that either). Right-leaning types generally wouldn’t be reading this in good faith or for their own enlightenment anyway; they’d have fled back to LessWrong or wherever as soon as they saw a post taking Communism seriously (there is almost always one on the first page).
Since you asked, I identify as asexual, but I consider “membership” in LGBT to be low-stakes enough for me personally that in this case I go with the democratic consensus in saying we don’t “count” and attending pride parades etc. is generally uninvited crashing.
I didn't mean to make inference about the readership per se, although I'm sure you're right; I had to find out if your inability to grasp definition, in the literal sense of the Law of Identity, is correlated with femininity as Weininger wrote.
If you'll indulge me again: what's your attitude re 'adulting'? Do you recognize your instinct to depend on someone else? Surely you can feel your desire for social approval, but what about your desire to be
What is the correspondence here between LGBT membership and femininity? I don’t believe I’ve expressed a baseline gender or pronoun identity.
I think the coinage “adulting” is kind of stupid to begin with, but to the extent it gestures toward a real thing that the prior word “maturity” may have failed to capture, my completely unsubstantiated hunch is that we’re mostly talking about differences in executive-functioning, which mostly is weaker in ADHD and other “neurodiverse” conditions, which more and more people are getting diagnosed with in ways that seem difficult to explain merely by saying our instruments are growing more sensitive.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I have difficulty with definitions, and I don’t believe Mr. Bear does either. I suspect you have trouble with thought experiments, but I lack the relevant statistics to come up with an identity-based explanation for why you lack imagination.
Your failure to understand fundamental realities of masculinity and femininity puts you in the broad majority of under-50 Westerners (briefly: it has little to do with self-identity {as such}, hence the problem with definition plaguing our entire effeminate society); we are very far removed from nature, these days, and one wonders how long it can last; certainly in South Korea, not very long unless they create some sort of Handmaid's-Tale fertility dictatorship, but we are not so different over here.
The ideology you (and 'Bear') express with your word choice, and the flow and meter of your ideas, and your idioms, is in the water; you can't help but breathe it in; and if you were mentally inclined like me, I would tell you to read more broadly, to find the philosophers which modernity has rejected, for you already get Foucault on NPR, and everywhere else.
One can read Galen with interest, yet still trust in modern medicine; try out Weininger. Or Baudrillard, for a slightly different tack to your (and that of all your peers, and most people in this country, etc) main problem: you call some thing a name, and you believe it to be so, because you do not understand the definition of the thing, or even deny it has one in essence. You are a manipulated, abused spouse to the propaganda machine that has been mass media since 1935.
https://erraticus.co/2021/01/15/authentic-democracy-voting-populism-democratic-reform/
You didn't 'clarify' (not that 'believe' was really clarified, either) the most important term: instead, you tossed it to the readers, and so avoided the entire issue.
I won't, poorly formed as it may be, leave without answering the question: nobody who has the attentional capacity to consider a thing for more than a minute thinks that "everyone affected by any decision is given an opportunity to speak" is a good idea. That's a nice painting; have you read Plato's Laws?
Bit of a nitpick on an irrelevant detail, I think. "However you think a democracy would best be ordered, the polity is ordered in that way."
Surely this is a joke: the (lack of) definition of the essay's object can't be an irrelevant detail. I'm detecting that you, and probably the author too, have difficulty with definitions. Incidentally, are you LGBT?
I also think it’s not a coincidence, but I don’t think there’s a good way to inoculate an abstract democracy steelman against the no-true-Scotsman argument without being a little vague or letting the reader fill in the blanks. The point is for the reader to do their own thought experiment, and see if they reach the same conclusions.
It’s likely most of the readership is left-leaning in a global sense, not necessarily with the culture war allegiances Americans would assume (although not necessarily *not* that either). Right-leaning types generally wouldn’t be reading this in good faith or for their own enlightenment anyway; they’d have fled back to LessWrong or wherever as soon as they saw a post taking Communism seriously (there is almost always one on the first page).
Since you asked, I identify as asexual, but I consider “membership” in LGBT to be low-stakes enough for me personally that in this case I go with the democratic consensus in saying we don’t “count” and attending pride parades etc. is generally uninvited crashing.
I didn't mean to make inference about the readership per se, although I'm sure you're right; I had to find out if your inability to grasp definition, in the literal sense of the Law of Identity, is correlated with femininity as Weininger wrote.
If you'll indulge me again: what's your attitude re 'adulting'? Do you recognize your instinct to depend on someone else? Surely you can feel your desire for social approval, but what about your desire to be
What is the correspondence here between LGBT membership and femininity? I don’t believe I’ve expressed a baseline gender or pronoun identity.
I think the coinage “adulting” is kind of stupid to begin with, but to the extent it gestures toward a real thing that the prior word “maturity” may have failed to capture, my completely unsubstantiated hunch is that we’re mostly talking about differences in executive-functioning, which mostly is weaker in ADHD and other “neurodiverse” conditions, which more and more people are getting diagnosed with in ways that seem difficult to explain merely by saying our instruments are growing more sensitive.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I have difficulty with definitions, and I don’t believe Mr. Bear does either. I suspect you have trouble with thought experiments, but I lack the relevant statistics to come up with an identity-based explanation for why you lack imagination.
Your failure to understand fundamental realities of masculinity and femininity puts you in the broad majority of under-50 Westerners (briefly: it has little to do with self-identity {as such}, hence the problem with definition plaguing our entire effeminate society); we are very far removed from nature, these days, and one wonders how long it can last; certainly in South Korea, not very long unless they create some sort of Handmaid's-Tale fertility dictatorship, but we are not so different over here.
The ideology you (and 'Bear') express with your word choice, and the flow and meter of your ideas, and your idioms, is in the water; you can't help but breathe it in; and if you were mentally inclined like me, I would tell you to read more broadly, to find the philosophers which modernity has rejected, for you already get Foucault on NPR, and everywhere else.
One can read Galen with interest, yet still trust in modern medicine; try out Weininger. Or Baudrillard, for a slightly different tack to your (and that of all your peers, and most people in this country, etc) main problem: you call some thing a name, and you believe it to be so, because you do not understand the definition of the thing, or even deny it has one in essence. You are a manipulated, abused spouse to the propaganda machine that has been mass media since 1935.
Fuck. "...to be nakedly controlled, in thought and action?"