Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

heelspider t1_izx5mtx wrote

Ok, now explain the Civil Rights Movement in this context. According to this author, Rosa Parks was anti-democratic and self righteous.

22

dsdsds t1_izx639g wrote

The author might have a point if all public protests are a reaction to democratic votes, but most public protests are against political or private interests that could never be addressed by democracy. January 6th and associated trucker disruptions might be the only example in the US I can think of. Even saying that political decisions by elected officials are democracy, but consider that politicians misrepresent themselves all the time, or there are new influences after the election that affect decisions.

16

iiioiia t1_izy3w9v wrote

> but most public protests are against political or private interests that could never be addressed by democracy.

I think they could be addressed by legitimate democracy, but I can certainly agree that they are not addressed by our democracy theatre (that we refer to colloquially and ambiguously as "democracy", as if the word is a binary).

3

Skinny-Fetus t1_izxard1 wrote

The author seems to be assuming a perfect democracy where all politicians are good willed angles enacting policies solely on the will of the people.

13

Meta_Digital t1_izx84gy wrote

Protests are a good sign that a democracy either isn't working or is just an outright lie.

I couldn't help but find this article amusing because in the last protest I was part of (fighting for better pay and working conditions for grad students who had recently unionized at a local university) we were all chanting "this is what democracy looks like". Maybe the author of this article should head on over to the US and get some perspective on this. What they wrote feels extremely out of touch.

9

Bellman3x t1_izxihi0 wrote

Arguing Flat-Footedly For Provocative-Sounding Conclusions Is Not A Philosophical Thing To Do

6

Ill_Department_2055 t1_izxsprh wrote

Wells, wells, wells... publicly protesting the concept of public protests. How the turntables.

6

cara-122 t1_izxxm0j wrote

This paper is a mess. I don’t think you do a very good job of arguing what a democracy is and why protests go against democracy. At one point you say:

“democracy is a system for achieving compromises between people who disagree on many things”

But this isn’t actually true. Democracy often leads to comprises, but by no means is it a system of compromises. Winner-take-all decisions are regularly made in democracies. I would argue that a modern liberal democracy’s purpose is to allow the people a voice in government via their representatives. In this context a protest is absolutely democratic as it is another way for a group to have their representatives hear their concerns. Using your definition of democratic action we could argue letter writing campaigns are undemocratic, which is also ridiculous.

You argue that essentially protests are unfair because they give large groups a disproportionately large voice, but for a protest to even be noticed it needs thousands of people supporting it. Most protest groups consist of less than 20 people, and we never hear about them because local news stations don’t even think they’re relevant enough for a story. There is a selection bias when considering the effectiveness of a protest because often the only ones we hear about are the largest and most well organized.

A protest does not prevent people from voting. A protest does not force a congressperson to vote either way. A protest does not interfere with any democratic process. Protests are simply a way for people to have there voices heard.

5

chesterbennediction t1_izxjgwk wrote

I think what the writer gets wrong is the base assumption that democracies are the most fair form of government and can't be oppressive to the point of needing protest. For example 20 people voting to take the wealth of the richest person is a democratic but isn't exactly fair. This is why a republic is better as it doesn't allow for the overriding of existing rights despite a majority opposing them.

2

iiioiia t1_izy43tf wrote

> For example 20 people voting to take the wealth of the richest person is a democratic but isn't exactly fair.

Isn't necessarily fair....it could be more fair though (or, lead to a more net happy/harmonious world regardless of "fairness", which is a subjective term so fairly misleading anyways).

Besides: the masses are subject to the whims of the rich and powerful few on the regular, perhaps they should be subject to the whims of the masses at least occasionally.

2

phileconomicus OP t1_izxoaho wrote

I think you are confusing liberal democracy (which has those basic rules) with democracy in the generic sense that e.g. Plato talked about

In any case, saying that protest is non or anti-democratic shouldn't matter if you don't think democracy is any good

1

Fishermans_Worf t1_izy3jfv wrote

No one's confusing anything—the author didn't give sufficient context for their particular language game.

2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_izxcpk4 wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1