>ITT: Over rated ideologies
Baneposting
Absolute monarchism
Egalitarianism
Democracy was a bad idea.
Suffrage was a worse one.
I will never get how a bunch of people who use a board that promote freedom of speech as much as 4chan does can favor dismantling democracy this much.
>>995846
kek
>>995846
Maybe it's because democracy and freedom of speech are two separate concepts, and most modern democracies, while having technical freedom of speech, do not have meaningful freedom of speech
Technical freedom of speech means you don't get your ass thrown in jail just for saying shit (which isn't even a guarantee in most democracies)
True freedom of speech requires a culture of almost radical tolerance of opposing ideas. Something we never really had, but we ESPECIALLY don't have it now, with all the modern witch-hunts and boycotts of anyone who dares to defy my political in-group, even a little bit
Sure, nobody is getting killed over it, but do you really have freedom of speech when saying certain things - and not even deliberately offensive, radical things - can get you fired and ostracized
>>995879
>Translation: the principal yelled at me for calling Tyrese and nigger when I saw him making out with that racemixing slut Stacey :'(
>>995695
Democracy isn't an ideology.
>>995970
Are you an angry man?
Religion for sure
>>995879
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. It can never be.
>>995986
So what else do you call a culture where dissenting opinion DOESN'T warrant mob violence against you, apart from "freedom of speech"?
>>996000
You are proteced from mob violence though.
>>996010
Metaphorically speaking.
>>995970
> Everyone who I disagree with is /pol/
What's it like being so incredibly boring
>>995986
Yeah, but you can work towards a culture where the consequences are minimal
What I'm saying is if you have a state where your free speech is "protected", but really anything that violates the prevailing ideology is punished by economic sanction and social ostracism, you don't really have much free speech at all. For freedom of speech to mean anything, you need to have a culture that tolerates dissent. We don't really have that.
>>996000
You're arguing with the assumption that that culture even exists. People still operate under lynch mob mentalities even today. See the total shutdown of recent Trump rallies as an example.
>>995695
your favorite ideology
>>996029
That's a honorable desire tough i don't see why it contradict democracy. I can't think of any historical authorian that has worked for such an society, thought that may be because i lack knowledge.
>>996026
I think it's doing it's job if you think people calling you a meanie and not buying your stuff because you don't want the fags collecting certain premiums on insurance is mob violence in any way shape or form jfc.
every ideology iss overrated *sniff*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8ibrfXvpQ
>>995879
>True freedom of speech requires a culture of almost radical tolerance of opposing ideas. Something we never really had, but we ESPECIALLY don't have it now, with all the modern witch-hunts and boycotts of anyone who dares to defy my political in-group, even a little bit
No, that's a safe space.
You're free to say whatever you want but nobody will protect you from the consequences. Like if you'd have some neo-pol-pot fan who says that he was cool and all he deserves to be ridiculed for spouting bullshit, same goes for WE WUZ in various forms(from niggers to germanic folktales).
That they aren't always ridiculed but perfectly level-headed opinions are is a feature, caused by people having different opinions and some of those being mainstream, even if wrong.
>>996042
Frankly, I don't trust anyone who employs terms like "jfc" ffs.
>>995695
>democracy is bad because everyone's opinions except mine are wrong
you're going to get far with that attitude
Voting as a right.
I agree everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY to vote, but they have to prove they actually know something about politics first.
>>996050
I think you're sheltered and naive desu
>>995846
Democracy as it is and free speech don't mix very well. If 51% (or much less in practice) don't like something they can get it banned.
>>996226
>What is constitution
>>996226
No they can't. You're talking as if we're living in fucking Athens. That being an actual democracy.
>>996058
>decisive amount of power is held in the hands of people who never finished high school
Classical liberalism
>>996226
Direct democracies do not exist in any major country I am aware of.
>>995846
Most democratic countries do not have full freedom of speech and have vague laws limiting freedom of speech that can be abused case by case.
Mosleyism
>>996396
literally who
>>995846
Explain why "Islamic democracy" is possible then.
>>996098
It should have been the job of the civics education, but nobody takes it seriously.
>>995983
>united peoples
>was the cause of the largest conflicts in history
I would say it's appropriately rated.
Populism
>>996378
And things will get better if we let one single guy do it?
Many of those that want to dismantle democracy (May be arguing against a strawman here) also seem to be leaning strongly towards abolishing any sort of constitution that hinders the authoritarian from creating whatever laws he or they wants as well.
>>996058
No, democracy is bad because it's divisive and pretty much pointless.
What changes when you elect a new leader?
Maybe a few social policy changes, disappointment, different foreign policiy. Other than that there really is no difference, it's an illusion of choice and freedom.
A true corrupt free democracy can never be obtained, and even if it is obtained it won't last long.
>>996569
So tell me, what should of government should we adopt?
Communism
>>996592
How is Communism "Overrated" literally the entire mainstream hates the fuck out of it.
I would actually say Capitalism.
Capitalism is the greatest productive force mankind has ever seen, but the sheer level of circlejerking over it and delusion needed to ignore it's issues is widespread in the mainstream media.
>>996584
Any you want.
All governments centre around human greed and hunger for power, and it is pretty much impossible to have a government that doesn't.
What I find funny however is people believing that this can change by shifting to a different form of government (socialism being the big one these days), but I just don't think it can change, it's human nature to have one group controlling (and possibly oppressing) another less powerful one, and if a group wants to be pacifist they will be replaced by a more dominant group.
A good recent example of the dominant group replacing the pacifist group would be Stalin taking control of the USSR and throwing Trotsky and Lenin to the dirt.
Anyway to answer your question directly, a non corrupt direct-democracy or socialist government would be my pick, but it will never happen.
>>996604
>capitalism
>overrated
Tell me again what people think about free-trade, outsourcing, inequality and deregulation. Capitalism gets too much shit from everyone who can't seem to grasp the basic concepts of economics.
>>995815
>no one has taken in it seriously as a form of government for at least a couple of centuries
>over rated
>>995846
Democracy is not synonymous with freedom of speech and can actually be used to restrict freedom of speech-if enough people are offended by something they could just ban people from discussing it.
>>995819
Egalitarianism is ironically one of the most unfair ideologies. It doesn't reward effort, tenacity, or talent, and is built on the false belief that all people are created equal, which is demonstrably false.
>>996604
>capitalism
>gets shit from pretty much everyone these days and is used by most youths as a hanger for the world's problems
>one of the front runners in the presidential election of on of the world's most capitalist countries is a socialist, and the other front runner is against free trade and against Wall Street
>over rated
>>995879
>with all the modern witch-hunts and boycotts of anyone who dares to defy my political in-group
Unless they are breaking the law, it's only reasonable that people that oppose you exercise their freedom of speech in response to your own exercise.
>we ESPECIALLY don't have it now
My country used to be a police state, pussy.
>>996797
People are equal. I don't know what so hard to grasp here. Did anyone need to be treated as some kind of unique and special snowflake? Such approach clearly aren't realistic one.
>>996569
>Maybe a few social policy changes, disappointment, different foreign policy. Other than that there really is no difference, it's an illusion of choice and freedom.
That's not the point of democracy, that's the PR campaign that keeps it going. The real point of democracy is to keep power divided among a number of competing parties in order to keep a single party from despotic rule. While it does not make any of the parties less corrupt it does hold them to a basic standard of public approval and gives them an incentive to expose corruption in the opposition. Politicians are going to be opportunistic and, most likely, corrupt no matter what system you use. A democracy pits them against each other to fight for public approval. It may seem undignified but there is much worse.
For us it's not the choice that matters but the act of choosing.
I see democracy as less of an ideology and more of a social tool for keeping an advanced society together.
>>996834
>people are equal
>students who outperform most other students are equal to the guy who gets D's and C's despite studying hard everyday
>people who have the mental endurance to work hard everyday at work, do what they are told, and put up with whatever shit is thrown at them so that they would succeed are equal to the people who quit because their boss is "too mean" and they can't handle the stress
>the people who reached the top of the professions are equal to people who failed right from the start
I'm not saying that the government should give preferential treatment to the top performers in society but I am saying that it shouldn't try to bring the above average people down to the level of everyone else for equality's own sake. It's incredibly unfair that people who either deserve or have the potential to achieve a great deal in life in the form of material success, elected office, or being at the top of their field should be brought down to the same level as people with low IQ's, no emotional endurance, etc.
>>996834
>people are equal
So everyone thinks and acts the same way? Do we all have a hivemind?
>>995846
Freedom of speech is a right, usually laid in a constitution. It has nothing to do with Democracy. In fact, the US was always more of a representative democracy than a fully-fledged one.
>>996876
epic equivocation fallacy
>>996884
People are equal to a certain extent. We are all human beings and should have the same basic human rights. After that, we differ in almost everything from each other.
>>996870
> people who either deserve or have the potential to achieve a great deal in life
Most people could achieve something great if you spent huge amount of resources or work on them.
>>996876
You don't need to be the same to be equal.
>>996810
Sanders is not socialist.
Socialism =/= welfare state
>>996896
I disagree. I went to a school that is generally considered one of the best in my country. The school is expensive and has first rate, almost college-tier facilities. Many of the teachers here have advanced degrees in their subjects and they give out very demanding work, whilst still being very supportive. Despite all of the resources that my school put in and all of the effort my teachers put into teaching the students, there will still many who ended up doing poorly even though they had parents who cared deeply about academics. They ended up going to bad or mediocre universities and performing averagely at them despite having come from a very good school. One of my current classmate's cousins comes from the other side of the spectrum. He (the cousin) went to an average state school-not too bad but not good-but he still managed to get into one of the best universities in the country and he is currently doing very well there. Most of his classmates now go to mediocre or bad universities and most perform poorly. His tenacity, motivation, discipline, and intelligence is what separated him from the rest of his cohort, and most people don't have any of those. I have seen many people who work incredibly hard but are still average or poor performers; I used to blame this on ineffective study habits but some of them had study habits that were very similar to some of the most successful people in my year group.
>>997033
I should have clarified; I meant self-proclaimed socialist who is very popular because of the image he's created for himself.
>>996604
Communism is not hated by the mainstream. The only criticism the mainstream ever do against communism is "it looks good on paper but it doesn't work in real life". This is not "hate", it's a shallow criticism that basically grants moral legitimacy to the communists.
>>995846
4chan makes a pretty good case against free speech and democracy tbqh famicom
>>997041
Well, yes, there are exceptions. If you look at the bigger picture, however, you will see that the ones that work the hardest achieve more. And by "working hard" I don't mean just getting to the office on time, doing your assignments with both speed and quality and going home. Be a leader, create, innovate, express interest for your work, learn more useful skills, have ideas and share them with your superiors, get connections and form a network, go above and beyond the call of duty. That's what real succesful people do.
>>997099
>Be a leader, create, innovate, express interest for your work, learn more useful skills, have ideas and share them with your superiors, get connections and form a network, go above and beyond the call of duty.
>ones that work the hardest achieve more.
I agree. It's just that most people do not have the discipline to work hard, especially by your definition. Most people do not have good leadership skills, most people do not have the discipline or the motivation to learn new skills, most people are not very creative or innovative, and most people certainly do not go above and beyond the call of duty. Most people don't do these things not necessarily because they aren't intelligent enough but because they lack in other, more important things--things like being proactive, being disciplined, being tenacious, etc.
>>996029
It is true that certain opinions are taboo in today's society and although in many countries you're legally free to express them, the potential consequences make people feel they aren't truly free to.
If you say anything deemed racist or sexist you can often lose your job, be unable to find a new one, and be involved in a public controversy if you're already in the public eye.
That said, while people should be encouraged to re-examine their notions of what should be taboo and why, and to tolerant dissent, these kind of consequences aren't always undeserved.
If I were to say that I want IS to establish a worldwide caliphate, and fully support violence against civilian infidels in support of that aim, I would rightly suffer the consequences described above.
So while I do think that people should be more willing to hear and debate dissenting opinions, I don't think suffering consequences for expressing a controversial opinion is inherently bad.
>>995695
Technocracy. Yeah, because I'm sure some fucking pampered marine biologist with years in academia can run the entire parks and wildlife department.
DURR SCIENCE IS GOOD GUYS. ITLL SOLVE EVERYTHING
>>997240
Technocracy has to be the meme to end all memes, honestly. It's kind of like communism in that it makes sense on paper but in practice it's shit.
In the US we had two presidents that were engineers, Hoover and Carter. Both of them are almost universally regarded as total fuckups and both of them were probably legitimately autistic as well.
>>997380
The irony there is that communist on paper was a technocrats in practice. Many members of party in soviet governments was an engineers and such.
>>997400
Yeah and it ended up collapsing. Engineers are useful people but I wouldn't appoint them to be in charge of a newsstand, let alone the whole country.
>>996834
>People are equal
I honestly don't understand how people can think this. Have you met even one other person in your life?
>>995846
Democracy is not synonymous with freedom; in fact, is the exact opposite. It is the only regime that breaks the natural opposition between state and people; that nullifies the identity of the various groups within the state, and corrupts the cohesion of society, which is usually guided by burden and bonuses objectively verifiable.
Instead the people tolerate the sovereign, the people see themselves as sovereign. Instead of the state be an instrument of order, it becomes an instrument of "popular will", a mere mask for a unstoppable tyranny.
>>996038
It doesn't contradict democracy necessarily, it's just that it's a separate idea from democracy, the original argument began because someone was conflating the idea of democracy and freedom of speech
>>996047
At this point you're just using the words 'safe space' and relying on their negative connotations to demonize ideas you don't like, because saying that a 'safe space' is where radically different opposing ideas are tolerated is pretty fucking ridiculous. A safe space is where a specific idea is shielded from others and ideas that contradict it are explicitly NOT tolerated.
>>996058
I don't think that's anyone's criticism of democracy, here.
My criticism of democracy is that it obliges your political leaders to wage a propaganda war for your mind pretty much 24/7, which eventually degrades the culture into something petty, divisive, and highly politicized. And I doubt it's healthy on a personal level, either.
>>996820
My point is that you need a certain level of tolerance of dissent in order to really claim you have freedom of speech. If you live in some ultra-liberal part of the country, for example, and the people there are so activist in their beliefs that they will campaign to have you fired from your job merely for voting republican, you don't really have much freedom of speech.
> My country used to be a police state
Maybe that means you have awfully low standards for what you consider to be free speech.
>>997380
Presidents who were engineers =! technocracy
People need to realize that the reason democracy is an ideal now is because it's better than monarchy/oligarchy. It does not equate to more political freedom at all. Having democracy is the price to pay for not having some cunt(s) tell you what to do.
>>996370
But the majority of people have finshed highschool.
>>997533
My argument was that engineers generally make shit rulers.
>>997560
Virtually all modern "democracies" are de facto oligarchies though.
>>997574
Yeah, but at least the cunts don't have complete control.
>>997560
I think people could use a little direction sometimes, honestly.
