"The question is whether other people's interests outweigh his."
I wonder that too. I keep saying this trial ain't over yet.
"Imagine being a juror for your own trial. It does seem like a slight conflict of interest."
Given that this trial is based on interests, it's a weird thing to say Remy's interests don't matter.
This could still go either way.
I am sure Grateful, mag1cman, and sidewalker are gonna vote for ban, because they were the ones pushing this in the first place.
So result is almost guaranteed to be at least 6 - 6.
So the question is how will remaining voters vote.
I think Remy does get to vote, because he is still a member of this site. I mean, if I argued to ban everyone else except me, surely I wouldn't be the only one allowed to vote.
"Russia has a firewall, punishes ppl for going around it, and criminalizes organized dissent"
It's pretty easy to go around a firewall these days.
But since majority supports Putin while knowing he has that firewall, it means they support the firewall.
So I am afraid this is the case of majority supporting censorship.
Also, democracies which you consider democracies also have censorship and tend to imprison people for stating some political opinions. There are actually not many democracies without censorship. Entire Europe is basically full of censorship.
The only countries where censorship is less common are USA and Japan and some Nordic countries, and those aren't really turning out well either.
Lack of censorship didn't stop Americans from falling for Trump's lies for two elections.
Because simply, masses are always average. Those who succeed in getting power have way above average abilities. So they are guaranteed to trick the masses, democracy or dictatorship.
Hierarchy of abilities always puts masses below top tier. It's why masses who own so much money still can't make themselves rich by uniting power, while top 1% are each billionaires.
As I said, Russians have internet. Censorship doesn't work for anyone even mildly curious and questioning Putin.
The problem is that Russians are perfectly happy with Putin.
They are more happy with Putin than almost any democracy is happy with their leader.
And let's not forget, Putin didn't elect Putin. Masses elected him for decades.
So I am afraid it's the masses who get the blame.
If you elect a guy who obviously wants censorship and war, and you know this, what does that say about you?
"Sure but Russia has fewer ways for people to figure out he's lying"
No, Russia actually has more ways to figure out that Putin is lying than anyone outside Russia has.
First, they have the internet. Second, they can see his actions in person.
Third, they are well aware he is killing the opposition. They don't care.
"His actions don't represent the median voter either, he just lies about what they are"
All politicians lie.
It's why democracy in order to work, needs majority to be both smart and good, but that is impossible.
Majority will always be average, and those in power will always be above average. So it's pretty much guaranteed that majority is getting outplayed constantly one way or another.
"Cause other groups aren't allowed to campaign against him"
Oh, there were countless reporters trying to mock Putin in his face. Those reporters were just mocked by majority.
Again, Putin has approval of majority to do what he does.
If majority decides to silence the opposition, does majority get the blame?
Same way USA had 92% approval rate for war in Iraq.
Virtually all wars in history happened with approval of majority, sometimes even with overwhelming desire of majority.
The idea that majority is good, and that some bad dictator is making them do it, is a fairy tale.
If majority wanted, they could overthrow Putin easily instead of giving him 70% support in polls.
Also, 50% to 70% of Russians support war in Ukraine. Yeah, I am afraid this war was brought by wings of majority.
Around 70% of Russians support Putin. All polls show it. So yeah, I am afraid Putin quite perfectly represents the majority, even better than most countries you consider democracies.
"So the failure of democracy was in becoming undemocratic"
No, the failure of democracy was that it placed Hitler in power. Hitler got in power through a democratic process, because a dumb majority elected idiots who placed Hitler, a convicted criminal, on a position of power.
"If wars were started due to demand for wars, they would not have decreased over human history"
The wars didn't decrease. They became more expensive, so now there is less of them because, other than using nukes, countries can't economically afford to fight constant wars. Not even US, world's strongest military, can afford to fight conventional wars everywhere. In past, wars were fought with swords, and swords are relatively easy to make. Also, defense was much more difficult in past, motivating attackers.
As for history, we got two world wars, both involving democracies, and one being a direct result of democracy's incompetence.
"Again, wars are happening in places with very limited democracy, where leaders don't represent the median voter"
Quite the contrary. Almost all wars which happened, happened because majority supported them, directly or indirectly.
The idea that majority doesn't want war would actually make most wars in history almost impossible.
Germany before Hitler was a democracy. the idea that democracies cannot start a very bad war, or result in one by their collapse, is naive.
"Because autocracies create conflicts and problems that make reasonable discussion less feasible."
So do democracies.
"The US is more likely to invade a dictatorship than a democracy."
Right now, yes. If it ran out of dictatorships to invade, it would invade democracies.
Also, I dont see how US invading bunch of countries and starting wars everywhere is an argument for democracy. At best, its argument that democracies have a violent tendency to attack non-democracies, not a positive trait. Also, USA is declining in democracy, so its likely it soon wont be a democracy at all.
"We can observe that democracies rarely fight each other. Kind of indicates that for conflict one of the sides needs to be an autocracy."
this is again, an assumption. Currently, its popular for politicians to trick masses into wars by using excuses such as terrorism, dictatorship...ect. If everyone was a democracy, it would just mean politicians would use different excuses to start wars.
"Russia isn't democratic though, it's clearly a front."
People in Russia have ability to vote. So did people in Yugoslavia, and war happened there too.
Even people in Ukraine had ability to vote, and civil war happened there.
"Yet quality of life is much better in democracies"
depends what standard you use. Certainly not birth rates, suicide rates, depression, homelessness....ect.
"And autocracies have much more draconian bans than bans on smoking lol."
Autocracies dont usually try to micro manage citizen's life. Its basically just obey the system and you are good.
In democracies, the state will literally micro manage your life into oblivion. Media will bomb you with countless nonsense. Politics will brainwash you and turn you against your neighbors who are voting differently. Could be reason why democracies are most depressed.
"Against who?"
this is irrelevant. If its democracies starting most wars, why would it matter against who is that war fought?
"If both countries were democratic, they would likely just bargain with each other"
this sounds like assumption. Its like saying "if it wasnt for X group of people, we would all get along.". Doesnt work that way. Once people run out of enemies, they turn on each other.
"Yes, slaughter of groups that couldn't vote."
Are you saying ability to vote gives person immunity from being slaughtered? If that were the case, Russia and Ukraine would never go to war. they both have voting.
"At worst, it turns into something that's not a democracy. "
No, at worst, it turns into tyranny of majority, a much worse form of tyranny which is much more difficult to overthrow.
"Also this "long term" is hypothetical, because democracies today do better than autocracies."
Not really. Even today, democracies are on a one way path into chaos by all measurements. Biggest debt, population which is increasingly mentally ill, birth rates which are non-existent, and insane amount of retarded laws such as UK's lifetime ban on smoking.
Democracy starts with an advantage, but later its a much bigger loss because its very difficult to reverse the decline unless it turns into a dictatorship, which is also difficult but still happens to more and more democracies.
"Yeah, pack animals who look out for other humans."
No, history of human race is that of wars, witch trials and slaughter.
"An yet democracies have the least oppression of any governmental system and every time two countries go to war, it almost always involves one of them being non-democratic."
this is only short term. Decline of democracies shows that over time, democracy becomes oppressive or just dies because masses are oppressive wolves.
If we count USA, Ukraine and Israel as democracy, then I am afraid its democracies starting most wars.
Your entire argument for democracy rests on assumption that masses of people are sheep and not wolves.
But as far as I know, humans are predators throughout their evolution.
Pretty much all ancient philosophers rejected democracy, and they had more than one reason for it.
In order to make good decisions, person must be both good and smart. Masses of people are neither. Its why democracies world wide are getting worse.
https://www.v-dem.net/news/press-release-democratic-backsliding-reaches-western-democracies-with-us-decline-unprecedented/
the problem is that sheep only has a chance if sheep is majority.
But majority of people are usually always wolves. the only way democracy works is if there are majority of people who are omnibenevolent, but that aint happening. Masses are always out for blood.
there are fewer democracies today than 50 years ago, and most democracies turned into autocratic rule.
thats why I say democracy is actually only short term win. Wolves become majority sooner or later.
You know I never believed in democracy. I only considered it better than having no any rights, but to me, it was always obvious that democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on whats for dinner. thats what it always comes down to.
And this trial is best proof of it.
there are ultrarated debates just sitting there with 1 or 2 votes. there are bunch of debates in debating section without any votes. Most forum posts end up with few responses.
Meanwhile, this debate gets 9 votes in 3 days, and 252 comments on it.
People are literally more interested in debating on who gets banned, than they are in actual debates.
Same problem appears in democracy. People get more interested in tearing others down than actually talking about issues.
this would be very simple if people on this site agreed to some core principle, but no. One day, they are praising free speech as best thing ever. Other day, they say "screw free speech".
So to them, its "free speech until I get offended enough by some post".
I really dont see long term benefit of democracy. Democracy is actually only a short term benefit. Long term, its a loss, because eventually right to vote turns into right to vote against others.
the problem with CoC is, when you make too many rules, you get many offenders.
I dont see why there cant be one simple principle whole community, or majority of it, agrees to.
the only way to address all specific issues which might arise, when doing so without any core principle, is to make a very long list, and thats a lot of work.
What type of trolling deserves ban? What type of offensive content deserves ban? What type of rage-bait is unacceptable?
Because I post offensive posts too. I also do rage bait. I also troll. Yet I am not yet put on trial, but Remy is.
Maybe its because Remy posted offensive posts about rape. that probably triggers people more, but this all still feels like a very emotional response.
Who gets to decide just what type of post is too offensive? Is it just majority going with their emotions? Because that can backfire in the future, like it did in Europe. there are a lot of stuff you cannot say in Europe simply because majority finds it offensive. For example, Poland's law about offending religious feelings (yes, that is the actual law, and yes, it is what it says).
there are 3 more people on this site who will vote Pro for sure. So I guess outcome will be decided by whatever votes come after that.
Freedom of speech does literally mean freedom to say whatever you want, as long as your speech cannot be connected to harming others. If RemyBrown was harming users on this site, I would say, sure ban him for a day or two. However, the only "harm" he caused is people choosing to be offended by his posts, and that is not harm caused by Remy but by those people.
"No one is saying that."
then you have no argument.
"Of course it doesn't—that is a category error on your part. 'God exists' is an ontological claim about reality, while a lack of belief is an epistemic state regarding one's own knowledge."
So it is irrelevant to debate. It's not a claim which can be defended or used in a debate.
If you say "one should lack belief in God", then you are making a positive claim which needs proof.
Otherwise, you got no claim at all.
Saying "I lack belief in God" is not a claim which disproves "God exists", so it's irrelevant to debate.
"Atheism is a claim or not a true claim' is not a true dichotomy."
It is by result.
"There are innumerable debates where one person defends a proposition and another tries to tear it down"
The only way to tear down some claim is to make a claim regarding it.
Lack of belief in God does not contradict with "God exists", so it is not a valid counter to that position, as it is not even a claim, so it claims nothing on the issue
Its really a simple dichotomy. If atheism is a claim, it requires proof. If its not claim, then it cannot be true claim, and with that, it cannot even be a debating position, because there is no claim to argue for.
If there is no claim, then there is no true claim.
I suggest you go silent for some time or stick to non-offensive claims, because we are still in the voting period and talking more offensive right now risks ruining the current result with more inappropriate claims.
Its going good so far, but its two weeks left, so its far from over yet.
If you say atheism isnt a claim, then it cannot be logical with evidence. For logic, you need premises, which are claims.
