Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Examples of Anti-Democracy 71

Journal by pudge
  • A big Bush-Cheney sign on the side of the highway near my house has spray paint covering it over.
  • Left-wing "hackers" try to shut down GOP web sites.
  • Trolls try to shout down discussions they disagree with.
  • Protestors are restricted to "Free Speech Zones."
  • Commission on Presidential Debates purposefully shuts out third party candidates.
  • Bill O'Reilly.

Anti-Democracy is something designed not to push your own view, but to prevent democracy from occurring, to prevent opposing views from being heard. What other examples are out there?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Examples of Anti-Democracy More

Examples of Anti-Democracy

Comments Filter:
  • I never understood how someone could advocate this, or the purposfull disruption of the conference by any means (blocking busses / traffic). It makes their cause seem like it is run by cry babies and anarchists (though some of them may well be cry babies and anarchists).

    I mean, those are illegal! How can this e considered? Those same people would cry foul at the top of their lungs if it happened to them.

    jason
    • I agree, these acts are terrible and pointless. The most charitable guess I have about their motivation is these people have been consumed by an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and destruction is the only act they can imagine to exert their influence on their surroundings and therefore regain a feeling of power. In reality I'd rather just call most of the actual actors assholes and use the above rationalization to explain why others on the same "side" don't cry out againt such acts.
    • I don't agree with a lot of the "anti-democracy" tactics that Pudge mentioned, but I will say that a powerless group may use "illegal" means to make themselves and their concerns known.

      Precendence holds for such things as the civil disobedience of the civil rights groups (often marching without permits and performing lunch counter sit-ins) and in India (Ghandi's blocking of the trains).

      I think the "Free Speech" zones that Pudge mentioned only contribute to this feeling of powerlessness and make for the

      • I would not include passive civil disobedience in a list of "anti-democratic" tactics. It may be illegal, but it doesn't quiet or shout down anyone else. I suppose blocking access to a venue would be a borderline case: if there's only one way in to a convention and access is prevented, that would certainly be anti-democratic. But that would be a relatively rare example. Gandhi doesn't count here because India didn't have a democracy at the time. :-)
        • Okay, but what about non-violent "bicycle protests". These are generally designed to clog streets and make getting around difficult.

          There has been a bicycle protest here in Bloomington, IN at Indiana University that is a prostest of the poor city planning and over development that has been pushing out riders. Riders have gathered to show just how many of them there are and that their voices should be heard.

          These sorts of protests generally occur without permits, so they are "illegal", but they are eff

          • Okay, but what about non-violent "bicycle protests". These are generally designed to clog streets and make getting around difficult.

            They are usually not about preventing democratic activity, but commerce ... or to just be annoying, or make a point. So I wouldn't call that anti-democratic either.
  • Not that I actually want to defend Mr. O'Reilly but I don't think this example matches your others. He's not obligated to have guests on his show at all, much less let them actually speak their view. To invite someone to your forum and then not let them speak is dumb, but not the same as preventing them from speaking in their own forum or a public one.

    If he just spent the hour alone on camera speaking his own view, that wouldn't be anti-democratic would it? So what difference does it make if the focus of h
    • That is the part I don't understand. If you don't want to be treated like that, then don't show up. Of course Bill will say that is a sign that you are too scared to go on his show. I didn't say it was a win-win for someone or that it was fair.

      jason
      • O'Reilly, Coulter, Moore(O'Reilly being one of the biggest if not the biggest offenders here), etc. have done great deal of damage to the ability of the average American to conduct sane political discourse. They're at the same level as trolls, really. I'm trying to be fair here, but it came from the right for a long time before it started coming back from the left.

        Anyway, "Free-speech zones", loyalty/endorsement pledges and the restricting of debates are just disgusting. Probably the most disgusting of
        • Just to be a contrarian:

          For free speech zones: The point of a protest these days is to be seen on TV. You choose a time and place for your protest and make sure the media is properly notified. As long as the TV cameras show up, how does it matter what exactly is your physical proximity to the event that you are protesting?

          • Re:Bill O'Reilly (Score:2, Insightful)

            by robi2106 ( 464558 )
            The reason the location / proximity matters is because protests now days are rarely focused on drawing attention. They are designed to disrupt. Just look at the ELF freaks and other enviro groups that decide protesting isn't enough. They must chain themselves to each other and block roadways and interrupt commerce.

            Protesting where you physically intimidate someone is no longer jsut a protest. It is more.

            But they want to still call it a protest and free speech. Odly, that sounds like the marriage deba
            • None of this really matters. The Constitution guarantees your right to protest. The fact that some people break the law doesn't take away the right of others to perform legitimate protest. And to turg too: that where you are may not matter to some people is irrelevant, if it matters to other people. That person A's goals might be satisfied with being in a free speech zone is beside the point entirely.
            • protests now days are rarely focused on drawing attention. They are designed to disrupt

              Do you have some statistics on that? Of course disruptive protests get the majority of coverage, but, AFAIK, very nearly all protests are not disruptive.

              • Good point. I am just going by my impressions of the coverage the media does for protests. There are a few recently that were not disruptive, notably the local "anti-war" group down at the state house.

                jason
                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • I'm speculating. Pudge will probably criticise me for going on gut-instinct, but genuinely, looking at the reactions of my co-workers ...

                    Eh, I don't care if you speculate, as long as you don't try to tell me it is fact instead of speculation.

                    I like protests. As long as they are not physically disruptive (including blocking access to the venue, or breaking into it, etc.), then it's all good to me. I was disappointed there were not more protestors at the WA state GOP convention.

                    As for the argument "The
            • Hmmm... They must chain themselves to each other and block roadways and interrupt commerce.?

              Lunch counter sit ins for the Civil Rights movement. [watson.org] These were respectful, but they did block commerce. Bus boycotts also had a commercial effect. "Perhaps most importantly, the sit-ins marked a change in the civil rights movement. In the words of journalist Louis Lomax, 'They were proof that the Negro leadership class, epitomized by the NAACP, was no longer the prime mover in the Negro's social revolt. The demo

              • "They" was referring not to protestors in general, but "the ELF freaks and other enviro groups that decide protesting isn't enough."
                • Thanks, I was about to mention to that effect.

                  I do agree that when the blacks in america decided that there was no hope of legal recourse, that the measures taken were necessary. They had legitimate concerns. They were actively descriminated against. They were not given due process. They were discriminated against because of their skin.

                  EFL can't claim that (unless they truely believe they are at one with the nature and the trees). The Democratic party activitsts urging this destructive and intimidati
              • I would like to see all current protesters follow these rules that SNCC set up for the lunch counter protests...

                Do show yourself friendly on the counter at all times. Do sit straight and always face the counter. Don't strike back, or curse back if attacked. Don't laugh out. Don't hold conversations. Don't block entrances.

                How awsome would it be if ELF suddenly had some respect for others? What about the abortion clinic protesters?

                jason
    • Good point; however, when he goes on other shows, he does the same thing (such as the other day when he was on Tim Russert's cable show with Paul Krugman, and shouted him down the entire time).

  • Moo (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    I've had discussions with other about which is more tolerant, the right or the left. Many mention the right is less tolerant. Extremist regimes making the best case. No free press, no right to disagree, and so on.

    However, the left is many times just as bad in other areas. They simply cannot accept defeat. Whereas the rightists disagree and may even disrupt the other side, they admit that there are dissenters. Misguided, but people with valid opinions. The left thinks that anyone who disagreees, however, is
  • I understand the historical reasons for the electoral college, but it sure is ugly. A proportional system would mean that more than 10 states are important in a national election.
    • The electoral system is not anti-democratic at all. It is one form of democracy. And, incidentally, one could argue a winner-take-all system is more purely democratic than proportional systems; one could disagree with that, but to call it anti-democratic makes no sense to me whatever.
      • Perhaps it is a "form of democracy" but it is a twisted and strange one. I grew up in Utah basically never seeing a politcal ad for a presidential campaign. Now in Massachusetts I don't see any either. If I live in a state that is locked up then the presidential campaigns ignore me and the state. I fail to see how a system that ignores 80% of the states is more democratic. Admittedly each state is free to change its method of selecting electors. I wish more would do so.
        • Perhaps it is a "form of democracy" but it is a twisted and strange one.

          Not really. The problem is that you see the President as your elected official. He is not. He does not represent you, and is not there for you. He is not the Chief Executive of the citizens, but of the state governments. That is why the state governments (through the legislatures) are charged with selecting him.
          • And I am not suggesting getting rid of the electoral college. I am suggesting that the winner take all format on the state levels actually gives most states less voice than they would otherwise have.
            • I am suggesting that the winner take all format on the state levels actually gives most states less voice than they would otherwise have.

              No, it gives most states more voice than they would otherwise have, since most vote for the winner. :-)
              • That is not always the case. It is very easy to constuct a case in which the winner of the electoral vote loses the popular vote and is not the winner in the majority of the states.
                • That is not always the case. It is very easy to constuct a case in which the winner of the electoral vote loses the popular vote and is not the winner in the majority of the states.

                  "Popular vote" is a myth, and does not exist. It is unreasonable and statistically invalid to compare a vote in one state for President to a vote for President in any other state. Since you cannot compare them, you cannot group them together as a lump sum, and there is therefore no such thing as winning or losing the popular
                  • I am not claiming that the popular vote has any legal standing at all. I was simply trying to point out that the current system allows for the situation in which the majority of the people and the majority of the states vote for a particular person for president and that person still loses. You implied that whoever wins the most states wins the election, which is why I went into the digression.

                    My point about fewer states being involved in the election is a different one though. It is that the debate of

                    • You implied that whoever wins the most states wins the election, which is why I went into the digression.

                      Only because YOU stated the opposite.

                      I for one wish that the issues of this election got as much attention in Utah and Massachusetts as they do in Florida. It would be good for the voters and I don't see it hurting the candidates.

                      It hurts the candidates in that it doesn't happen without financial support, which takes money away from other areas. Regardless, I'd like to see the national election ge
                    • Only because YOU stated the opposite.

                      I am sorry if that is how you read my posts. Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was that the campaigning process simply doesn't happen in most states, not that those states don't have a voice at all. But their issues don't get consideration because all their votes are locked up. Take the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada with temporary storage in Utah. The states don't have the power to block it, it is an executive branch issue at this point, but the candidates don

                    • Take the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada with temporary storage in Utah. The states don't have the power to block it, it is an executive branch issue at this point, but the candidates don't care because the states are locked up. This is probably a bad example since they are small states electorally, but the point remains.

                      Also a bad example because the candidates ARE talking about it, because Nevada's polls all put it within the margin of error (both Kerry and Bush talked about Yucca Mountain in the las
                    • I am all for reducing the power of the president, but I don't see that happening. If you do, please let me know how this is going to happen.

                      In the meantime, states could get more attention by switching their method of selecting electors away from the winner take all system. I don't think Maine and Nebraska have an ideal system since it is subject to the same gerrymandering that congressional districts see, but it is an improvement and probably the only workable alternative since other methods would be m

                    • I already mentioned several ways. The most obvious is to actually enforce the Constitution. One thing I would love to see happen is to refuse any Presidential budget for consideration. Have the House do it, as they are supposed to, and let the President comment (or not) on that, instead of the other way around.

                      In the meantime, states could get more attention by switching their method of selecting electors away from the winner take all system.

                      I don't want states to get more attention. I want state go
                    • I already mentioned several ways. The most obvious is to actually enforce the Constitution. One thing I would love to see happen is to refuse any Presidential budget for consideration. Have the House do it, as they are supposed to, and let the President comment (or not) on that, instead of the other way around.

                      Do you think any of this will happen though? By what mechanism would this change take place?

                      I don't want states to get more attention. I want state governments to get more attention. All this wi

                    • Do you think any of this will happen though? By what mechanism would this change take place?

                      I concede some things I mentioned are less likely to happen than others. Congress taking back its power certainly can happen, though, because there are strong political interests in it happening, unlike changing how the President is selected.

                      Is your solution to have the state legislatures select the electors directly?

                      That is one thing that could happen that would help. By itself it is no solution, certainly.
                    • Barring a scandal of greater magnitude than Watergate I do not see any of these changes happening in the next ten to twenty years. Anger subsides and people go back to business as usual.
                    • But it's not merely about anger, and doesn't require the people (except those in Congress). It's about Congressmen gaining back their power, and they need little motivation apart from the quest for power itself. Let's get their unfortunate vices working for us! :-)
                    • Now if only the RIAA or some other money grubbing organization shared your interest in increasing the power of congress.
                    • One thing at a time. We reduce Presidential power by increasing Congressional power, then reduce their power by appealing to the courts. From there ... well, we just have to hope. :-)
                    • Come back to MA! The courts seem to have plenty of power here.
    • I think I prefer the electoral college system over a proportional
      system. Cities have more dense populations and easily over power rural
      areas otherwise. Granted I am in favor of this since I have lived in
      rural or small town areas most of my life.

      (Now something completely different, but sort of related)

      Representation and taxation need to be more closely aligned I think.
      Currently tax and representation is inverse (for income). I pay very
      high federal taxes, moderate state, and very low local (city) taxes.
      • Personally I should not have to worry too much who the president (or congressman) is, cause the president and congress should be making policy descisions on foriegn affairs for the country, not leading the fight on gay marriage, education, or medicare.

        Exactly. And this is why I would prefer we do end the charade of voting for President at all. I want to focus more on state governments, and having state legislators select the electors directly would be a big step toward that.
      • Bear in mind that a lot of rural states are heavily subsidized via various federal programs, such that the industrialized/economic powerhouse states trend towards supporting the more agrarian ones.

        Anyway, I concur for a number of reasons. First off, this focuses the national political debate into a number of key issues without social overtones. Most of the sweeping social changes that were necessary have already mostly done their work. The real question is, how do we achieve a reduction of federal power
        • The real question is, how do we achieve a reduction of federal power at this point?

          One of the keys, I think, is public perception that state government is important, which would be served by states getting rid of the vote for electors (and maybe Senators too). Other symbolic weakenings of the federal government could help, like term limits.

          As for substantive changes, look to enforcement of the 10th Amendment. Nothing could have a greater impact than this.
          • While I agree that public perception needs to be changed, the most vital point it must be changed in is the idea of the federal government holding the safety net. Hopefully we see the social security system die. That alone is probably one of the worst federal programs, too many believe it removes their need for personal saving, and it takes away the right of those who wish to save for retirement on their own.

            I don't think changing the offices of the federal government will matter much. Its the governmen
            • I don't think changing the offices of the federal government will matter much. Its the government teat that needs excising, not the people within it or those suckling it.

              What I meant is that if we don't have lifetime politicians in the federal government, we will not revere their offices as much. When we think of Senator, we think of someone who has been around a long time and commands our respect and a great deal of power. In part, we care about who the Senators are because of the lofty impression they
  • (but not Wonkette) said something I found insightful:

    <paraphrase>Which of the Bill Of Rights _do_ liberals like?</paraphrase>
    • [cheap shot]Why all of them, if you're a classical liberal. We wrote them after all, back when conservatives were called loyalists.[/cheap shot] :-P

      See my other post. That's why I agree with O'Reilly being on the list.
    • House Democrats summon Fox News executives to a hearing and demand more sympathetic coverage.Afterwards, they tell reporters (mind you, this is what they said publically) that they threatened the network with punitive legislation.
    • The Kerry campaign sends letters making ludicrous threats of a libel suit to frighten television stations from airing the Swift Boat Veterans ad.

    Both of these struck me as wildly disturbing. They'd horrify me if used against Indymedia or Michael Moore, and they horrify me coming

    • "Scrubbing" the voters' list in a way so indiscriminate, even the database company warns this will result in a high number of false positives [gregpalast.com]. Also see US Civil Rights commission report [usccr.gov] on Florida 2000 elections.

    • The whole idea of felons losing their right to vote seems to me undemocratic. At least some US states, and many other democracies, don't have such a rule.

    • The Democrats wailing against the existence of the Nader campaign. What's their argument? That certain segments of voters ought to be FORC

    • The Democrats wailing against the existence of the Nader campaign. What's their argument? That certain segments of voters ought to be FORCED to vote for Kerry?

      Well, I wouldn't call "wailing" anti-democratic. I'd call actively attempting to shut Nader up or suppress him or his followers anti-democratic, of course.

      In 2003, the US ambassador to Canada gave a presentation to Canadian business leaders. He threatened economic consequences of Canada's failure to join the Coalition (as he would all through tha
      • Do you mean because businesses in Canada may attempt to contribute to the subversion of the will of the people by convincing the government to support the war?

        Yes, I think their intent was obvious.

        It's not actively attempting to take away someone's voice, it's adding an additional voice.

        Foreigners are not supposed to have any "voice" in our deliberations at all. I expect the US to express its displeasure with Canada. I expect Canadian businesspeople to raise the question of economic consequences. What
        • Foreigners are not supposed to have any "voice" in our deliberations at all.

          I can see why you might be annoyed at what the U.S. did, but I can't see how you could call it anti-democratic. The U.S. had no voice in your deliberations. The businesses would have the voice, if they chose to exercise it. I meant the businesses were the ones with the additional voice, not the ambassador. By that reasoning, any foreigner who said to an American, "if your country goes to war, we will do $x" is being anti-democ
  • I heard on NPR yesterday, and again this morning that the FBI is interviewing protestors under the guise of seeking terrorists who intend to disrupt the GOP convention. The assertion is that the FBI is conducting their interviews in a manner which in borderline on the 1st amendment violation, or so some people claim. Example, protestor has a plane ticket to leave on Thursday to be at a protest on Friday, and the FBI suddenly shows up forcing an interigation which effectivly prevents the political protest si
    • The assertion is that the FBI is conducting their interviews in a manner which in borderline on the 1st amendment violation, or so some people claim.

      Color me skeptical. The problem is that almost every time the FBI interviews someone who is a "dissident," people claim their First Amendment rights are being violated. Unless I hear specifics, I ignore all such claims.

      Example, protestor has a plane ticket to leave on Thursday to be at a protest on Friday, and the FBI suddenly shows up forcing an interiga

  • Trolls try to shout down discussions they disagree with.

    Yes, trolls can kill out a discussion. At the same time, to be fair, Slashdot editors have done the same. I'm sure you aren't guilty of this pudge. But I bet you've click on my sig for a few examples of abuse of modding down posts or entire long threads to -1, or also revoking moderation priveledges to anyone who mods up such threads, etc. Censorship is wrong, and Slashdot, as a whole, isn't exactly squeakly clean here either.

    It it helps, I

    • Yes, trolls can kill out a discussion. At the same time, to be fair, Slashdot editors have done the same. ... Censorship is wrong, and Slashdot, as a whole, isn't exactly squeakly clean here either.

      Without getting into any specifics, I disagree with the general sentiment that censorship is wrong. By way of example, if you were in my house, cussing out the President, you'll get a firsthand lesson in censorship you won't soon forget.

      And whose house is Slashdot? If we were in a public place, I'd probably
      • And whose house is Slashdot? If we were in a public place, I'd probably either complain to management, or leave, because I have no right to shut you up. But in my own house, I do. And therein lies the distinction.

        I have no problem with this. For example, Fark.com deletes posts, runs them through filters to sometimes make people say things they didn't, temporarily bans peoples priveledges to joke around, etc. It's fine, because everyone knows that the editors stated they would do so, and they do it in a

  • The whole "free speech zone" thing really eats at me, since when is free speech defined as being locked away in a whatever sized small cage that's located a good distance from the event you're protesting.

    While I do understand the safety concerns from extremists, this is just a tad over the top and something should surely be done about it. It seems as though this is more of a tactic to keep the protestors message from being seen on tv and it is DEAD WRONG.

    This is not a partisan issue, as the same thing has
  • Your previous journal entry has closed discussion; you'd written "The State Department, for reasons I cannot fathom, asked the UN to help monitor the upcoming national elections" and "the U.S. has never looked favorably on any foreign influences on our political process..."

    I wonder if you noticed the news stories last week in which the State Department started lecturing a foreign country on how to conduct its elections:

    [State Department spokesman Tom] Casey said opponents of Chavez who claimed fraud in

    • I'm curious, if you wouldn't be happy about foreign powers pressuring the U.S. about how and when to conduct audits of our elections, especially in elections that they have a vested interest in. What do you think about Bush's State Department doing the same in reverse?

      I am not annoyed at foreign countries trying to tell us how to run our elections, I am annoyed at us allowing them in. And I can't say how I would feel if I were Venezuelan. My feelings about this are based on U.S. law and tradition, which
  • http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=972 [badnarik.org]

    "I was actually in the car being driven to [O'Reilly's] show when his deputy called me and informed me that although they would identify me as a Muslim supporter of [Libertarian candidate] [Michael] Badnarik, that I was not allowed to mention Michael's name on the show! I declined to accept those terms and they had the driver bring me back."

    No comment...

Slashdot Top Deals

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Close