537
I understand not only the what, but the why
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
537 points (97.7% liked)
tumblr
3451 readers
328 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That is somewhat of a logical fallacy.
I made a very specific argument -- users/customers of a company not being allowed to have a direct say in how the company is run -- and you expanded that into saying I don't support democracy at all? That is a HUGE misrepresentation of my position -- one that is not supported by ANYTHING I said in any of my posts.
Also you have a very idealistic view of what social media users would vote for. To think they would vote for "a perfect possible system" (which is what your fourth paragraph suggests) is (for me) somewhat naïve.
Me? I think that one political side or the other would vote for their ideology to take control -- they would vote for unfettered free speech, which would remove all hate speech policies and so forth. We've seen it on Twitter -- all the people who were banned under the previous regime were returned. All the people who were banned for very good reasons were returned, and the site has gone to shit.
But that wasn't my central point.
My central point was that just because I believe private corporations shouldn't answer to the myriad of users & customers they serve doesn't mean I don't believe in democracy on a wider scale. And nothing I said in any of my posts would suggest that.
Well replace "company" with "country" and the only arguments you bring forward is about democracy in general being bad. You later argued logistical difficulties with a multi national company, which is a different argument. And I'd concede that there are legitimate arguments against this, but your argument are just very general "demorcacy bad". Lol I'll leave that typo as it is.
You could replace "company" with "rabbit" and my argument would make no sense.
Does that make me a raving lunatic?
This is what I meant when I said "You sound insane" -- if you change someone's argument to something completely different then IT'S NOT THEIR ARGUMENT ANY MORE and you are entirely misquoting them.
It's called Reductio ad absurdum. If your logic is absurd about people voting in a democracy, then you'd have to provide some rationale why it's not absurd when applied to voting in economic systems. There are good arguments against this.
But your only point was that it would be utter chaos, like it was a given. And that is the same argument authoritarians, monarchists, dictators and plutocrats have been making forever - and are making right now. Right now they are spreading this propaganda around, everywhere. And you picked it up and used it. And that is how they maintain power. That is the actual mechanism of thought control in western "democracies".
My argument would be people don't own the companies.
They do -- from a certain point of view -- own their countries.
So while they have no right to have a say in the operation of the companies, they do have a right to have a say in the operation of their countries.