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?
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.
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?
the problem with democracy is the people are morons, so we’ve gotta figure out how to protect the idiot plebs from themselves
That is a problem. Representative democracy in our federal republic (the US) aims to mitigate the “tyranny of the dull mob”.
What we need (in the US) is to tweak term limits, introduce ranked voting, and have more direct-vote referendums to help check the power imbalance of plutocrats.
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?
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.
Pigeon chess
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?
That is a problem. Representative democracy in our federal republic (the US) aims to mitigate the “tyranny of the dull mob”.
What we need (in the US) is to tweak term limits, introduce ranked voting, and have more direct-vote referendums to help check the power imbalance of plutocrats.
We don’t need to throw out the Socratic Method.
deleted by creator