Or, y'know, Vietnam.

As they say, "everything is political". And yes, "only the information I say is political is allowed" is quite the overreach.

Believing that you're the only person who deserves to exist and that everyone else should be killed is still a political view, and one that must be allowed to exist in a democracy as long as you don't actually start killing people. Odious and hateful ideas are still political ideas (see: American Democrats and Republicans arguing that the others' ideas are odious and hateful, for example), and if we believe in democracy we have to believe that the people can be trusted with unrestricted political information.

A manipulable minority that acts on these calls to violence is enough to deeply damage a democracy.

That's why acting on those calls to violence is illegal, while speech is not.

The majority did vote for democratic parties but that isn’t enough, it has to be an overhelming majority that votes for democratic parties.

Yes, that's a huge flaw of coalition system governments, but it doesn't change the overall point - you either trust the people with the choice of electing their government, or you don't. If you only trust some of the people with electing their government, you don't have a democracy - you just have a slightly-larger-than-normal autocracy.

Also, unless I'm misunderstanding something (which I very well may be), it seems to me that 70% of the people voted for democracy in Germany - your elected representatives not being able to agree with each other is what appears to be the problem.

Also: I’d argue that representative democracies are a lot more susceptible to this kind of flaw where parties have to resort to manipulation to get the votes of people.

I was going to argue in my previous comment that representative democracies are dangerously close to autocracies already, but thought it too far afield from my main point. So, I think I agree with you here.

A system where more political decisions are voted on through direct democracy and representatives are only chosen to enact the policies already selected by the people would be less susceptible to these problems (but, again, would rely much more heavily on the people, which, again, is the entire question).

(Also, I've enjoyed this conversation so far - thanks!)

I believe that if we allow advertisements at all, we must do so on the assumption that the majority of people have complete free will while shopping, especially in the modern world where we have so many more ways of accessing and sharing information than has ever been possible. It is, however, reasonable for the majority to enact advertising protections that would benefit the dumb/manipulable minority.

The difference is that we can't do so for political information in a democracy, because the entity that enacts and enforces the supposed "protections" (i.e. the government) is exactly the same entity that is directly affected by the subsequent political choices of the people based on that information.

Once again, the question is, "Are the majority of people too dumb or easily manipulated to be trusted with the system?" If so, then we should do away with the system altogether and have a government of philosopher-kings decide how resources should be distributed.

As for what I personally think, about both advertising and government? Nowadays I go back and forth. When I was younger and more naive, I believed that people could be trusted with making their own decisions, but the older I get and the more I see how truly stupid people are, the more I question whether that's actually the case.

At this point, politically I'm still firmly in the camp of, "The people must be fully trusted with information to make their own political decisions, for good or ill," because to believe otherwise is to believe that democracy is not possible, and I'm not ready to make that step quite yet (and I honestly don't really want to).

What I do know is that there is no middle ground. I do not believe in "democracy" where the government restricts in any way the information that the people have access to when making decisions about that very government. That's already autocracy under the guise of "democracy", so we might as well stop fooling ourselves at that point.

If the people are too dumb to be trusted with an unrestricted marketplace of ideas, the they're too dumb to be allowed to vote for their own government.

If you believe in democracy, you have to also believe that the majority of people can be trusted with the information necessary to make informed political choices.

If the people can't be trusted to act in their best interests in an informed manner, then we might as well just adopt Plato's philosopher-kings system instead, and make all of the peoples' decisions for them.

They already have thought about it - see the part where they're glad our rights aren't curtailed just because someone might say some words that hurt your feelings.

Germany can take their nanny state bullshit and fuck right off.

Linguists are still divided on this topic, called the "Critical Period" hypothesis - the question of whether there is a "Critical Period" during childhood when children naturally acquire language better than adults.

The data in favor cited in pop articles often comes from "feral children" like Genie, but as Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world mentioned, how much of this inability is due to natural brain development and how much is due to years of unimaginable trauma is hard to know.

Other research has cited brain plasticity differences and brain matter changes that occur during puberty that seems like it may be linked to language acquisition.

Again, however, the counterpoint of "It takes ten-ish years of pure immersion for children to learn a language, and how many adults actually do that" is pretty frequent.

I'm still undecided about what I think - maybe something in the middle, like "humans do lose some neuroplasticity during puberty that may inhibit language acquisition a bit, but adults acquiring native-like fluency is still possible with enough immersion".

They need to hurry up and tow that windmill outside of the environment.

I switched my four home computers to Linux Mint this week. Windows is just more trouble than it's worth nowadays.

The worst part of this comic is that philosophy bro is clearly not even very good at his field, since there's a much better Cartesian parallel to be made here (and I'm not even a philosopher).

"I think, therefore I am" is actually leaving out (imo) the most important part of Descartes's argument. He was trying to find literally anything that he could know without a doubt was true. The problem is, that's really hard, as our existence-troubled shopper has discovered. Descartes could doubt the existence of God, he could doubt the existence of goodness, of truth. All of these things might not actually exist. Descartes could even doubt his own existence.

In fact, literally the only thing Descartes could conclude without a doubt was true was the fact that he was doubting at all. So, since that's the only thing he could be sure of, that's what he built his argument for rationalism upon.

This perfectly mirrors the existential crisis the so-called philosopher comes upon, but instead of starting the shopper right where Descartes started, he instead just provides what must seem like almost a non sequitur in context, since if the man is currently doubting his existence, he can also doubt that he's thinking. What he cannot doubt, is that he is in fact doubting.

"I doubt. Therefore, I think. I think, therefore I am."

So "'s" is what's called a "clitic". It's a tiny little piece of meaning that can't stand by itself and has to "lean" on a neighboring thing to be grammatical.

The interesting thing is that their distribution is syntactic, not morphological. So, instead of attaching to a word, like affixes do, "'s" instead attaches to entire noun phrases. This includes all adjectives, prepositional phrases, and even subordinate clauses, as long as they're part of the possessor noun phrase.

So, "the dude's car"? Perfectly fine, and it even looks like an affix here. "The dude over there's car"? Perfectly fine. "The dude I went to school with but who forgot that he ate a capybara yesterday's car"? Perfectly grammatical in English thanks to the power of clitics.

Bonus fun fact: "'s" used to actually be a suffix, but somehow became separated over time, and it's a big deal in diachronic syntactic theory, because things are only ever supposed to evolve toward being a suffix, but "'s" is one of the few things that seems like it evolved the other way, which throws a wrench into how we usually view the process (called "grammaticalization").

In short, Anon's sentence is a perfectly cromulent use of the English language.