209
submitted 9 months ago by CaractacusPotts@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

I guess we should let the smart people choose what’s right for them, and not give them a vote…..

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

This is essentially the system that Socrates advocated for.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Who chooses who is “smart?” The right wing?

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

The system is described in Plato's Republic. You can learn more about it on Wikipedia. This idea pre-dates the concept of "left" and "right".

I made a slight mistake in my previous comment. Plato was the one who came up with it, but his work is in the form of a Socratic dialogue.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 3 points 9 months ago

Hey, aren't those the guys that argued repeatedly that slavery is natural and good?

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Ancient Greek philosophers' views on slavery are complex and can't be boiled down to a reply that would retain all the nuance yet would not be annoyingly long to read. Nonetheless, their views on slavery do not invalidate their views on politics.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 2 points 9 months ago

Yes it does, Mr Cryptofascist unironically arguing to restrict the vote to landowning males.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Are you unable to grasp that someone can explain an opinion without holding said opinion? Are you unable to grasp that I can describe a political system without advocating for it? That I can show the history behind it without endorsing it?

Are you unable to grasp that you can agree with someone on one topic without agreeing with them on everything? Are you unable to grasp that people are more than one-dimensional points on a spectrum and that there can be nuance and intricacies in their way of thinking, some of which is agreeable, some of which is not? That no idea or person can be described merely as a binary choice of "good" or "bad"?

Or have you no grasp at all of the rules of logic and the art of rhetoric, leaving you with nothing but strawmen and ad hominem left?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You're not "explaining" anything, clown, you're making a vague reference to a classical work.

You're also calling the people too stupid to govern themselves and hoping no one else has read enough of the two most famous and most read philosophers in the world to call you on your bullshit.

Go cry into your unpainted marble statue pfp about it happening anyways.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago
[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Okay internet faux intellectual fascist whose version of explaining The Republic's political philosophy is "read Wikipedia" and "the problem with democracy is the people are morons, so we've gotta figure out how to protect the idiot plebs from themselves!"👍

What's your favorite IQ benchmark for forced sterilization btw?

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
209 points (100.0% liked)

News

23376 readers
1688 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS