“Last gasps” is a strong word, but symptomatic of a weakening of misogyny in general society, yes. Time will tell if this weakening is another step towards crushing that particular bigotry, or if it’ll experience a second wind in these sickened circumstances.

Uh, then ‘no’.

I’m saying misogyny is, culturally, hundreds of generations deep.

I think the decline of misogyny is the reason. As it’s not as normalized as it once was, yet still a very powerful lingering thread in our culture, men are seeking validation for it where they would have otherwise found validation for misogyny, unasked for and unconditionally, in their everyday social circles in previous eras.

Always been a Clutch fan, but I’ve been listening to Three Golden Horns a lot the past few days.

Contrarianism. Being anti-“Popular Thing” just for the sake of being anti-“Popular Thing” marks you out as having no thoughts worth hearing out.

Gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, gold…

Yes, to keep in contact with 6 people.

Goodness, if only there was some form of action we could’ve taken which would’ve led to some other result than a diaper-shitting manchild playing Red Light, Green Light with the world economy.

My dog tried a grapefruit once. It’s hard to describe just how cute and hilarious it was when he’d take a little lick, shiver from the bitterness and shy away, and then go in for another lick.

We also brought home a mineral ball once, a big one, and he found it something eminently attackable. He’d move to grab it with his mouth, realize it was too large or too hard to bite or carry, stop, paw at it, and repeat, like he was attacking a giant bug. (He also used to body slam stinkbugs into the carpet - less cute)

Oh, when he was young, my grandmother encouraged him to be a lapdog. Unfortunately, he was a bit too big for that. So as he grew up, he was big enough that he’d sit on my grandmother’s lap, but slowly slip off, and then jump back up to try again.

Oh, he’d also carry his food in his mouth out to the living room and drop it on the floor so he could eat ‘with’ us.

My grandparents’ dog used to sleep sandwiched between the pillows. If you walked by in the middle of the night, you’d see her little head poking out, eyes glistening and watching you as you made your way through the hallway. Never seemed to bother my grandmother’s sleep at all, having a little Pomeranian beneath her head all night.

She would also hop up on the back of the couch to get high enough to perch on my grandfather’s bald head. And he would let her.

Not willing to say straight out what your definition is.

I literally defined it, and you acknowledged it as tightly defined before reversing course.

Anyone reading this can see very clearly what you’ve outlined.

Yeah.

Yeah I’m not entirely sure there should be any voting age whatsoever. Yeah I don’t believe only citizens should vote. I find the concept of citizenship in general troubling . These are all arguments I would entertain seriously. The fact that you think they were too absurd to even mention shows how far apart we are.

Yeah. It does. If you think that any polity that doesn’t allow children and non-citizens to vote isn’t democracy, you’re so far from seriousness that there’s no point in continuing.

You said earlier it doesn’t matter if entire swath of the population are excluded, apartheid sites count. If all black people are not allowed to vote you still think it’s democracy. If all women aren’t allowed to vote you still think it’s a democracy. If all Asians aren’t allowed to vote you think it’s a democracy.

Yes, there are democracies which included those aspects. Apparently, no democracy existed before women’s suffrage.

Conversely, your point being that exclusions from participation are apparently disqualifying from being democracies, any polity which does not allow non-citizens to vote is not a democracy. Any polity which does not allow children to vote is not a democracy.

After all, apparently, participation of the population must be total, or it’s not a democracy. You can’t exclude members of the population and be democratic, according to your clear implication.

Either that or your definition of democracy is “Democracy is when I like the policies, and non-democracy is when I don’t like it >:(”

Why then is an oligarchy not a democracy? It has citizens voting.

No, in an oligarchy, the rulers vote.

You seem to have an inconsistent definition.

No, you’re just doing your best Ben Shapiro impression in repeatedly rapid-fire rephrasing your points and ignoring any objections.

If it’s any citizens voting at all as you mentioned multiple times then why is an oligarchy not a democracy?

Because the point of a democracy is the participation of the citizen body, guy. I don’t know how much clearer you want me to phrase it. Do you not know what a citizen is, or what citizenry are?

Am I the one that expressed an extremely strong opinion?

Yes, considering that you expressed that genocide and democracy were incompatible.

A position which you can’t seem to clarify.

I actually clarified it quite clearly from the start. Which you acknowledge, as you describe my position as both “definitive” and with “set limits”.

Conveniently, you seem to reverse your position in this same comment, which reeks of tossing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

What level of participation of the citizen body?

Voting is generally agreed to be a minimum.

If the citizen body is eliminating part of itself is that really still democracy?

Yes. I struggle to think of any democracy which does not eliminate any of its citizen body.

Is it apartheid state democracy?

They can be, theoretically. Democracy regards the participation of the citizen body in the polity’s decision-making. Whether the citizen body or the polity is racist is not really relevant to this.

How can it be?

In the same way that any state is a democracy. There are always limits to both the citizen body and the polity. The more limits, the less democratic; yet no democracy is without limits entirely.

For that matter by your absurd definition an oligarchy is a democracy isn’t it? That’s participation of citizens. Not a lot of them. But you don’t need any limits as long as anyone participates it’s all you care about right? That’s the logical conclusion is it not? Seemed self-evident.

fucking what

You’re the one with extremely strong opinions on what makes democracy not democracy beyond non-participation of the citizen body, I would expect you to have answers to those questions.

My answers are self-evident in principle - that participation of the citizen body is what defines democracy, and everything else is question of degrees or of morality outside the question of democracy. Your answers, on the other hand, are not self-evident, since you think a democratic polity which kills other people is not a democracy.

What are your answers to those questions?

Considering the meaning of democracy is just that decisions are made by the will of the polity’s population, gonna go with ‘yes’.

If you try to think of democracy as some perfect decision-making machine that will decide in accordance with your moral code, the only democracy you’ll find is autocracy.

Democracy results in decision-making that is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It results in decision-making with broad consensus or acquiescence by the polity’s population. That’s all.

Kind of. There are a lot of serious threats to democracies around the world, but so far most seem to be holding out fairly firmly, if not necessarily ideally.

Serious question, what truly successful, stable and properly representative democracies are there?

Most of the EU. Aussieland and New Zealand. Canada. Taiwan. Mongolia. Mexico and Brazil, if you’ll allow a little wiggle room in ‘stable’. Possibly SK and Japan, depending on your definitions of ‘properly representative’.