Posts by James Lee77

Edward Flores4 said:Look, it’s not all doom and gloom. 🙂

Quincy:

Or, to put it another way—as adriatic likes to point out—didn't Karl Marx say that... There’s that old, heavy idea floating around again—the notion that religion, or any overarching ideology for that matter, acts as an opium for the masses. It’s a classic argument, isn't it? The idea is that these belief systems function like a sedative, numbing the collective consciousness to keep people from seeing the actual gears turning in the machine. Think about it like this—it’s almost like when people get completely lost in a massive franchise movie saga. They get so wrapped up in the lore, the heroes, and the epic battles that they stop noticing how much money they're spending at the concession stand or how the studio is basically manipulating their emotions just to sell more merchandise. The spectacle becomes the distraction. When you look at history through that lens, it's easy to see how ideologies can act as a buffer. If you can give people a sense of cosmic purpose or a rigid set of rules to follow, they might be less likely to question why the economy is stalling or why the local infrastructure is crumbling. It provides a kind of spiritual or intellectual cushion—a way to make sense of suffering without actually having to change the circumstances causing it. Of course, it’s never quite that black and white, though. People aren't just mindless drones waiting to be sedated. But there is definitely a certain comfort in having a pre-packaged answer for everything, even if that answer keeps us from looking too closely at the reality right in front of our faces. It’s a powerful tool for anyone looking to maintain the status quo, acting as a sort of social anesthetic that keeps the peace by keeping everyone looking upward instead of looking around.It’s more like it actually is—rather than just being a possibility. It’s that old, heavy idea—the notion that religion acts as an opium for the masses. You hear it thrown around quite a bit in academic circles, usually as a way to suggest that faith serves as a sort of spiritual sedative, something designed to dull the edges of reality and keep people from noticing the systemic cracks in our society. I've always found this comparison fascinating, though maybe a little bit reductive if you look at it too closely. The core argument—which traces its roots back to the heavy hitters like Karl Marx—is that belief systems can act as a buffer against hardship. It’s like a psychological cushion; when life gets incredibly difficult or the economic structures feel rigged against you, faith offers a sense of purpose or a promise of justice in the afterlife that makes the present struggle a little easier to swallow. In that light, it functions almost like a painkiller for the soul, keeping the social engine running smoothly by making sure people don't get too restless or revolutionary. But then again, is it really just about sedation? If you dig deeper, you see that belief often drives people to action rather than just passive acceptance. There are plenty of times in American history where faith wasn't a sedative, but rather the very fuel that lit the fire for civil rights movements and massive social shifts. So, while the "opium" analogy holds weight when discussing how institutions might use tradition to maintain the status quo, it doesn't tell the whole story. It's a complex, messy relationship between what we believe and how we live—not just a simple case of being drugged into submission.It’s not some group of shadowy, evil ideologues who corrupt a nation with their ideological opiates—it’s actually the people themselves searching for that escape. People actively hunt for their own distractions and mental crutches to numb the reality around them. And honestly? You can always count on someone being just observant enough to swoop in, rob the public blind while they're distracted, and make sure everyone stays comfortably asleep.

You’re absolutely right—I couldn't agree more. That’s exactly why I feel such a strong urge to rethink how we structure our society from the ground up, but hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet. Let's move on to the next point for now.

Quincy:

The thing is, most people caught up in an ideology have absolutely no clue they’re actually being driven by one—and that’s exactly why they end up living in such deep denial. It’s a bit of a paradox, really. You have this massive majority of people who genuinely believe they’re totally free agents, just independent thinkers making their own calls—you know, the "conscious subjects" we talk about in philosophy. But in reality? They aren't. They've been conditioned by the very ideology they're operating within. It’s like what you were saying earlier—they live in denial because they don't even recognize their own worldview as an ideology in the first place. They just think it's "common sense" or "the way things are." And honestly, that's where the whole problem lies.

You’re absolutely right on that point, but I think you're missing the mark when you suggest they aren't doing this consciously. See, when someone is in denial—and by definition, denial requires an actual object to deny—we can't just lump them together with someone who is unconsciously absorbing some ideology from a news broadcast. There's a massive difference between passively soaking up whatever the pundits on CNN are shouting about and actually living in a state of active denial. One is just mindless imitation, while the other is a much more deliberate psychological stance.

The real issue here—and I think we see this all the time in American politics—is that about 95% of these folks haven't actually sat down to study the ideology itself. They didn't pick up a book or engage with the core ideas because they were genuinely curious about the philosophy. Instead, they just adopted the whole thing as a pre-packaged bundle. For them, the ideology is really just a side effect of wanting to be part of the club—it’s about finding their tribe, joining a specific career path, or adopting a certain lifestyle. It's more about the social package than the actual principles behind it.

When you’re hanging out in a social circle where you feel totally at ease, certain ideological leanings tend to just... seep in. It happens so naturally that most people end up swallowing them whole—not because they've done the heavy lifting of critical thinking, but simply because it feels good to belong. They’ll go on record claiming to support whatever the current "mainstream consensus" is, but if I’m being honest? Most of them probably haven't given it a second thought. For them, it isn't about political theory or deep-seated convictions; it’s just about the vibe, the social connection, making a few bucks, or having a good time. It’s much easier to nod along with the group than to risk the discomfort of standing out.

He doesn't see himself as some kind of ideological crusader—mostly because that’s not why he showed up in the first place, and frankly, it's not even what occupies his mind. But here's the kicker, and it’s a bit tragic, really: he hasn't realized that this ideology is actually pulling his strings in a pretty ugly way. It’s like someone being steered by a puppet master without ever looking up at the wires. If you or I were to step in and challenge his core beliefs, he’d immediately deny that he’s even following an "ideology" to begin with. Instead, he'll defend every single tenet of it as if his very life depended on it—because, in a sense, it does.

Beneath the surface of a conversation like this, there’s a deeper layer at play—the realization that stepping away from the prevailing social ideology means risking total rejection by the very community that shaped your worldview in the first place. It’s a heavy thing to sit with. That intense, almost subconscious pressure to protect the status quo? That is exactly what triggers the denial. In those moments, a person is fully aware of the fear of being cast out, and they can see how absurd their own counterarguments—or the ones being thrown at them by their peers—really are. It becomes a tug-of-war between logic and the primal need to belong.

Denial doesn't just happen in a vacuum—it always comes from a specific place. And honestly? It’s rarely about some grand, lofty ideology. Usually, people deny things because they’re terrified of losing the entire "package deal" they've signed up for—the lifestyle, the social circle, and the belief system all wrapped into one. It's what psychologists call anchoring. Think about it this way: you find a group of people you actually enjoy hanging out with, and suddenly, you start associating that warm, fuzzy feeling of belonging with a specific set of political or social ideas. You tell yourself you've embraced these views because they seem harmless or even good, but really, you've just hitched your wagon to them. The problem arises when someone starts attacking those core beliefs. To the person holding them, it doesn't feel like a debate about abstract concepts—it feels like a direct, personal assault on their very way of life. That’s why the reaction gets so intense. They aren't being logical anymore; they're acting purely on instinct. They push the truth down into their subconscious and lie to themselves—and everyone else around them—even though, deep down, they know exactly why they're doing it.

It’s funny how churches organize festivals, or how political parties throw massive rallies and concerts—there's always some kind of party paired with a short sermon or a catchy slogan. People show up for the fun, and suddenly the underlying ideology becomes the "sponsor" of that entertainment. If you walk away from the idea, you're walking away from the party. That’s the playbook for both politics and big-brand marketing. There isn't really any subconscious manipulation happening here; it's much more calculated. It works because people can be incredibly hypocritical—they’ll loudly declare their loyalty to someone like a local populist politician just so they can snag a free plate of food at the community BBQ. These folks have consciously decided to abandon having a backbone, and that’s exactly what catches up to them... this total lack of integrity where they end up reduced to nothing more than a social mask, pretending the values they parrot are actually their own.

The secret to reaching that level of conformity is pure ignorance combined with a willingness to publicly adopt an idea just to secure your standing and social safety within the group. Even back then, they knew they didn't care about the ideology; they were just nodding along and repeating phrases nobody truly believes—kind of like those empty, pious platitudes you hear at a Sunday service. They lie to society about their convictions, and when a discussion about core beliefs comes up, they have to pretend they believe, because abandoning the "cause" means losing the support of their equally fake, faux-idealist colleagues.

A person like that doesn't actually hold an opinion on anything... whatever you ask them, they just pivot and scan the room to see what everyone else is saying. They couldn't care less about their own perspective—their only goal is to figure out the "correct" thing to say so they stay perfectly aligned with the expectations of the crowd. That’s why they act like mindless followers, chanting their little mantras automatically... it’s basically training themselves to give "spontaneous" answers to tricky questions that they don't even understand, though they’d never dare admit it.

Joseph Campbell would probably describe this as someone who has permanently glued a social mask (a persona) over their face and never takes it off, even when they get home. The person underneath the mask is entirely consumed by the need to maintain that facade, suffering from a deep anxiety because they’ve identified so closely with the mask that, eventually, there’s nobody left underneath... That’s why Campbell calls them "nobody there."

... Now, just because I don't feel sorry for them personally doesn't mean we should let these small-minded opportunists exploit these tactics, because eventually, it's going to blow up in my face too. We urgently need to decouple social decision-making from profit margins. If we did that, nobody would have any incentive to peddle mental instability to the masses using cheap slogans set to pop music and free giveaways.

You hit the nail on the head with that description, but I don't know... I guess I just don't buy that they actually realize they're lying to themselves and everyone else—or even why they bother doing it in the first place. 🤷 I honestly don't think they even realize what they're doing. It feels like they’re just trying to make everyone feel good and included, you know? Like, they probably ask themselves, "Why can't we all just get along?" So when you push back, they don't see it as a critique—they just see it as an attack from some aggressive ideology. To them, you aren't just someone with a different opinion; you're just a member of some intense political group coming at their own personal beliefs.

So, I guess we’re pretty much on the same page regarding the diagnosis. The real question is what to do about treatment. I'll hit you up later to pick your brain on how you actually separate decision-making from profit margins.

Look, redtinker36, before I dive back into what I was saying about being an outsider... I mean, obviously, ideological brainwashing is all about that deep-seated craving to belong to some kind of group. But over the last few decades—and maybe even a bit before that, though it wasn't nearly as intense—we've been seeing this weird, new kind of ideological programming popping up. It's sort of like... It’s basically just an ideology that puts the individual on a pedestal. Like, everything revolves around the single person and their own interests above all else. I guess you could call it extreme individualism? It's pretty wild how much focus goes into just one person's desires sometimes.This whole ideology keeps preaching about how much the individual matters compared to the group—but if you look at how it actually works, it’s totally collective. I still think the mechanism behind it isn't even some "conscious lie" people tell themselves, it's more like they're just completely oblivious to it. It's everywhere, too. You see it in all those massive ad campaigns that scream stuff like, "Just be yourself!" or "You're unique!" or "Dare to be different!" It’s kind of a weird paradox, I guess. It’s like this weird mix of collectivism and individualism. I guess you could call it the collective nature of being an individual? Maybe that sounds a bit deep, but I've been thinking about how much we all try to be unique while still desperately wanting to fit into the crowd. It's kind of a trip.If you aren't trying to be "unique" or "one of a kind," you're basically just breaking rank from a crowd where everyone is desperately trying to stand out. So, in the end, everyone ends up looking exactly the same. I guess this whole ideology feels way more dangerous than the old stuff, because it totally blurs the line between people just following a script and people actually being self-aware.

I feel like it’s honestly pretty hard to wrap your head around how much this ideology actually influences us. It feels like the most dominant way of thinking out there right now, especially here in the West. And I guess we shouldn't underestimate the fact that people might not even realize they're being influenced by it. It's probably not even a case of them consciously lying to themselves or everyone else—it just kind of happens.

@Edward Flores4:

I feel like we're just talking past each other here. Honestly, looking at your line about "conscious subjects of ideology living in denial..." I think that exact denial is what makes them unconscious in the first place. That’s basically how ideology even works.

On that note—and I know you're probably gonna hate this—here’s the oldest, and honestly best, breakdown of ideology I’ve ever read. Just because it's 2,500 years old doesn't mean it isn't totally relevant today.

Or do you also believe [Edward Flores4 😁 ], like so many others, that there are certain "moles" corrupted by the sophists [ideologues], and that the sophists [ideologues] are the ones doing the corrupting, and that's worth talking about? Or is it more that those who speak such things are themselves the greatest sophists [ideologues], effectively conditioning young and old, men and women, to become exactly what they want them to be?
"And when does this happen?" he asks.
It happens when a huge crowd gathers together in an assembly, or a stadium, or a camp, or any kind of mass gathering, shouting and praising things with way too much intensity, yelling and clapping, while the very walls and surroundings echo that noise back at them [media effects]. In those moments, how can you expect a young person to stay true to their heart? Or, how can individual upbringing even stand a chance against being swept away by that tidal wave of noise, until they just end up agreeing with everyone else about what's good or bad, just to fit in?
(Plato, Aristotle, 492a and d.)

In other words—and I guess this is what redtinker36 likes to point out—it wasn't that Karl Marx said religion (or ideology) is an opium for the people, but rather that religion is the opium of the people. It’s not some evil ideologues corrupting the public with ideological opiates; it’s that the people themselves seek out the opiates (and there's always someone clever enough to swoop in, rob them, and make sure they stay asleep).

So, I guess most people caught up in ideology have no clue they're even part of it, which is why they live in denial. The vast majority of people think they're totally free agents thinking for themselves (conscious subjects)—but they aren't, because they've been conditioned by ideology. Like you said, they're in denial because they don't even realize what they're looking at is ideology. That's the real issue.

Look, I don't want to keep rambling here because this thread is gonna get impossible to read, so here are a few quick answers (I'll try to keep them short and hopefully clear).

1. Identification—and I mean subconscious identification—is actually a huge way ideology works. Like, take feminist critiques of ideology; they've shown how textbooks often use almost exclusively male names in examples, which carries a deep ideological weight. The authors probably aren't even aware they're doing it, but that doesn't make it any less ideological. The result? Boys identify with those textbook examples while girls just don't. You see the exact same thing happening with how minorities are cast in movies or TV shows.
So, you don't have to realize what an "ideology" is to be caught up in one. Honestly, it's usually the other way around.

2. Okay, yeah, innovation isn't something you can just program where you set a goal and then map out the path to get there—that's obvious. By definition, innovation is something new that couldn't be predicted. There’s no guaranteed roadmap for innovation.
But, just because you can't plan the *how* doesn't mean the *what* isn't clear from the start. For example, Tesla knew exactly what he wanted to achieve. It wasn't like some random idea just popped into his head and he had to figure out what to do with it later. Not at all. He had a crystal-clear vision. What someone wants to accomplish can be thought of as an "ideal state." The unpredictable part is the specific way they stumble upon a way to reach that ideal state. But the goal itself? That was in front of him long before the breakthrough happened.

3. Why am I being so broad with my definition of ideology? That's a fair question, and I guess I haven't explained it clearly enough yet.
From what I can tell, pretty much nobody wants to be seen as an "ideologue." And honestly, almost nobody wants to think they're an unconscious follower of some ideology either. Instead, everyone wants to feel like a free thinker who makes their own decisions.
So, if you ran a poll asking people if they were truly free or just influenced by ideologies, the results would probably show that ideology is super rare.
But when we look at everyone else, it's incredibly easy to see how *they* are being driven by various ideologies.
Basically, from almost every perspective: "I'm free, but he's brainwashed."
But obviously, a lot of people are wrong about that. I think in a situation like this, it's pretty smart to ask yourself: "Wait, maybe I'm actually being influenced by an ideology too, and I just *feel* like I'm thinking freely? Because that's exactly what those other people—who clearly seem biased—think they're doing."
It seems to me like we need a concept that covers both sides—both my "free thinking" that others see as ideology, and their "ideological thinking" that they see as freedom.
Anyway, I've written way too much already, so I'll leave point number 3 unfinished.

Just a quick wrap-up on that last bit:
4. The drive to free society from anything is really just a drive to make society match a specific vision (an idea) of what it should be. To me, saying that this drive isn't a new vision of society, but rather a rejection of *all* visions, sounds just as unconvincing as saying Tesla didn't have a clear vision of his goals before he achieved them.

redtinker36 said:.. damn it .. I'll never be able to write anything like that ..

.. but damn .. that’s just anarchy .. meaning .. what I think regarding John and those old shamans .. you guys are saying .. is just meaningless nonsense ..
.. and I'm perfectly fine .. with you all thinking the same about my own speech ..

.. anarchy is how I carry myself toward another person .. assuming I am a human being .. and holding onto the right .. to clean up today .. just as I did yesterday .. truth be told ..

.. about John ..
.. there were others .. I remember him and the soup .. equally good .. but John was the intellectual brotherly figure ..

.. this .. he doesn't matter at all .. I don't get it .. are you trying to say he's just some local nobody .. and that's why you bring him up .. ?

.. and damn .. while they were singing and mocking .. they were looking further ahead into the politics of slaughter ..

.. and then there were the third parties .. the ones who actually had to work so the singers and the butchers could eat ..
.. the story of anarchy is really the story of those third parties ..

.. songs live on a single sensation .. on a single tone .. that is art .. they create .. an atmosphere .. an emotional state ..
.. we could talk about that forever .. but I've already said too much .. so I'm bored of it ..

---

.. yeah .. I could have put this on a blog .. or somewhere else .. but I wanted it here .. damn it .. that's why I posted it here ..

.. does what you're saying imply a tone of .. "we let you in, so you should be grateful" .. ?

.. you enter a house by clicking and walking in .. and once you're in, you're in .. whoever wants to come in does .. whoever doesn't stays outside ..

.. so what, you're saying the noise from my house was bothering the neighborhood .. ?
.. there could be several explanations for that .. a few come to mind .. maybe .. some bad ones .. but also .. some .. quite good ones ..

.. anarchy is .. this ..

.. there is a neighborhood .. and there is a house .. the neighborhood sets all the rules for how a house can be built .. but the one building the house has to accept that if necessary .. he might have to sell his soul ..
.. you can follow every rule and still find it isn't enough .. he has to be with the neighborhood in his heart ..
.. the neighborhood's love for him is massive .. but they demand it be returned ..
.. they don't ask for it clearly or distinctly .. they just demand that you be one of us .. they want your blood ..

.. it's the same situation with Americans .. they love and help the whole world .. but if that love isn't reciprocated, they bomb them ..

---

.. listen kid .. I feel like this is my house .. and you're getting on my nerves here .. but what can I do .. I like you .. for certain .. sportsmanlike reasons ..
.. and I endure it .. following the rules of the neighborhood ..

There's no undertone like that. I wrote it clearly and straight away, specifically because:

Purely as a phenomenon, not as a question of guilt or merit — what allowed the system to leave you alone for so long?

So, I'm just looking at the phenomenon itself: how did the system allow a spark of redtinker36's freedom to last that long? It's not about the system being "good" or you needing to be thankful to it, I guess. I just want an explanation. It's like when it rains and a farmer gets a good potato crop, and he asks a meteorologist, "why did it rain now instead of earlier?" He isn't thanking the rain, he's just trying to understand the weather.

And if I'm just some "little guy" you're talking down to, I have no intention of being a jerk to a big shot, so I'll just leave you alone. I didn't even jump into this topic because of you, and I wouldn't have talked about this case at all if you hadn't brought it up.

Edward Flores4 said:Look, I’m sorry... but you're honestly just talking nonsense!

Being an outsider isn't some kind of ideology—it’s just what happens when people face discrimination. Think about figures like Jesus or Socrates; they weren't out there preaching a manifesto about being outsiders, nor was it their specific belief system that pushed them to the fringes. Their "outsider status" was simply the fallout from the prejudice and primitivism of the society around them. To claim that being sidelined by discrimination is actually an ideology... well, that just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word ideology even means in the first place.

You just can't escape your own ideology as long as you’re actively mediating what you have to offer—which basically means, as long as you're still talking. I mean, think about it: everything that comes out of your mouth (assuming you're actually saying anything at all) is composed of ideas—it's pure *logos*. There isn't really any way out of that loop unless you manage to rise above it somehow. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that—it feels like a fragment of a thought left hanging there. If you were trying to get a point across or start a conversation, feel free to lay it all out for me. I’m all ears, and I don't mind if it gets a little long-winded—sometimes the best discussions need a bit of room to breathe. What's on your mind? To really get an ideology, you have to actually sit down and wrap your head around its internal logic—you have to understand its core requirements and, more importantly, why anyone would ever find it necessary in the first place. Honestly, whenever I run into someone who dismisses an entire ideology as "pointless" or "nonsense," I can't help but think they haven't actually done the work to understand it. I mean, if an ideology were truly without merit or purpose, it wouldn't be able to take root or sustain itself in the first place. It’s about learning how to rise above it rather than just trying to walk away from it.

I hope you aren't under the impression that "ideology" is just some simple mashup of "idea" plus "logos"—because, if you look at the actual roots, that suffix "-logy" implies a systematic study, a formal development, or an entire established doctrine.

Ideology—it’s one of those words that gets thrown around so much these days that it almost feels like it has lost its teeth, doesn't it? People toss it around during dinner parties or in heated Twitter threads like it's some kind of magic spell to discredit an opponent. But if you really peel back the layers, what are we actually talking about? To me, ideology isn't just a list of political demands or a set of policies tucked away in a party platform. It’s more like the lens through which you view the entire world—sort of like how a photographer chooses a specific filter to change the mood of a shot. Once you put that lens on, everything looks different. Every event, every news headline, every interaction you have with a stranger gets filtered through that specific perspective. You aren't just seeing reality; you're seeing a version of reality that has been color-graded by your core beliefs. Think of it like this: imagine two people watching the exact same baseball game at Yankee Stadium. One person sees a beautiful display of strategic skill and teamwork, while the other sees a chaotic mess of luck and overpriced concessions. They’re looking at the same diamond, the same players, and the same scoreboard, but their "ideology"—their underlying assumptions about how sports or even society should function—dictates what they take away from the experience. The danger, I think, isn't having an ideology—we all have them, whether we admit it or not—but rather when that lens becomes so thick that you can't see through it anymore. When you stop being able to recognize the validity of someone else's perspective because your own "filter" tells you they're fundamentally wrong, that's when things get messy. It turns into a closed loop where you only seek out information that reinforces what you already believe, creating this echo chamber effect that makes actual conversation nearly impossible. It’s a delicate balance, really. We need frameworks to make sense of the chaos of life, but we also need to remember to occasionally wipe the lens clean so we don't lose sight of the actual world sitting right in front of us.
Back in 1796, we saw the birth of what people called the "science of ideas." It was originally framed as a philosophy of the mind—basically, a way to derive actual knowledge through our senses rather than getting lost in the weeds of pure metaphysics. This whole concept grew out of the French term *idéologie*, which translates to the study or science of ideas. It was actually coined by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy, who mashed together the Greek root for "idea" with "-logy" to create *idéologie*. It wasn't until much later, around 1909, that we started using the phrase to describe a systematic set of doctrines or a specific collection of ideas. And if you’ve ever heard someone tossed around as an "ideologue," that term actually dates back to 1815, specifically when people were talking about the revolutionaries during the French Revolution.
When people talk about "ideology," they’re usually referring to those rigid, prescriptive doctrines—the kind of set-in-stone belief systems that don't really bother to back themselves up with actual, logical reasoning. It’s like someone trying to convince you that a specific way of life is the only right path without ever being able to explain the "why" behind it using sound logic.
D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970

Look, let's be clear about this—just because someone voices an idea doesn't mean they've suddenly stumbled into an ideology. There's a massive difference there. To me, that "-ology" suffix actually tells the whole story; it implies a systematic doctrine or a structured discipline that has been built up, layer by layer, around that initial core concept. It’s the transition from a single thought to a full-blown framework.

If you take the core premise—that we can actually cure certain ailments just by administering the right specific compound—and decide to approach that concept with actual scientific rigor and a systematic framework, then you've basically given birth to pharmacology. It’s funny when you think about it that way—every "-ology" out there essentially builds its own distinct mental map or "picture" of how the world works. The idea of reaching some kind of "perfect state"—that absolute, flawless ideal we all seem to be chasing—is a bit of a slippery concept, isn't it? It’s one of those things that sounds wonderful when you first wrap your head around it, but once you start digging into the actual mechanics of it, things get complicated fast. It’s like trying to catch lightning in a bottle, or maybe more accurately, like trying to find a perfectly quiet afternoon in the middle of downtown Chicago—it’s a beautiful thought, but reality usually has other plans. What exactly is the end goal here—what is it actually aiming for—and what kind of methodology is being used to try and make that happen? The perfect state of affairs. And that—right there—is exactly why we call it an ideology.

On the other hand—think about when Tesla first hit upon that groundbreaking idea for how to... It’s all about making things better—just a steady, incremental improvement to the way everything works. Look, when you talk about an electric motor transitioning from direct current to alternating current—and actually pulling that off through systematic research and hard work—that’s what we call innovation. It isn't some grand ideology or a political manifesto. Tesla didn't just sit around staring at a "perfect vision" of a motor in his head; instead, he looked at the tools available in those specific circumstances and figured out how to make them better. He improved the reality right in front of him.

To me, ideology is basically just any system that tries to force a specific ideal onto reality—it’s that constant, relentless push to reshape everything else to fit under its own umbrella, all in this obsessive pursuit of turning the subject of change into something "perfect."

To you, even a breakthrough from Tesla would count as ideology, which is just plain absurd. If we label absolutely everything we say as "ideology," then the word loses all its weight—it stops being useful because it fails to distinguish one thing from another.

ps: Look, if anarchy is defined as a society striving to free itself from individual ambitions and personal agendas—aiming to function without any single authority figure imposing their own "ideal" onto everyone else—then by definition, anarchy can't be an ideology!

A society like that wouldn't have a singular ideal or a unified vision for itself. After all, for a society to possess a grand vision or a blueprint for its future, there has to be an individual who carries that specific vision and idea, which is then collectively adopted as the group's shared goal.

I can forgive that easily, but I won't talk nonsense.

My point with Jesus and Socrates wasn't that they were "obsessed with being outsiders," but more that you can look at them as role models and build an "outsider ideology" based on their examples. Like, "just as the system crushed Jesus, Socrates, or Galileo... it crushes me too." I used those specific names because I wanted to show that being an outsider is deeply baked into Western tradition, since those guys are basically foundational figures for how we understand ourselves in the West. So, I'm not talking about them as historical figures, but as symbols that define our understanding of what a great man is. And honestly, in Western tradition, a great man is very often an outsider. If someone takes those great people as inspiration, they might end up "embracing outsiderism." In that sense, being an outsider can actually be an ideal for some. And if that ideal becomes a group thing, then you've got this weird paradox of collective outsiderism.

Basically, like I said before: there are outsiders who "live the outsider life," and then there are those who are truly authentic.

I hope you don't think "ideology" is just a mashup of ideas + logos, because that "-logy" suffix actually implies a systematic study, development, or a doctrine.

ideology
In 1796, "science of ideas," originally "philosophy of the mind which derives knowledge from the senses" (as opposed to metaphysics), from French idéologie "study or science of ideas," coined by French philosopher Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) from idéo- "of ideas," from Greek idea (see idea) + -logy. Meaning "systematic set of ideas, doctrines" first recorded 1909. Ideologue first recorded 1815, in ref. to the French Revolutionaries.
"Ideology ... is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument."
[Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970]

So, not every single idea someone expresses is an ideology. That "-logy" part implies a systematic doctrine (a discipline) built upon an original idea.

Look, I know what ideology means. I was just trying to expand the definition a bit in this context, which is why I wrote it out as ideo-logy.
You actually caught onto exactly what I was aiming for: the systematic development of an idea.
And yeah, like I mentioned before, that's how I'm using the word here.

On the other hand, when Tesla had his idea about how to improve electric motors by switching from DC to AC, and he actually pulled it off through systematic research and hard work—we call that innovation, not ideology. Tesla didn't have some "vision of an ideal motor"; he just improved the current state of things given the circumstances.

I don't really get what you mean by "improvement" here, unless you're talking about actually refining something or moving closer to some kind of perfect standard.
Like, take an engine—the "ideal" there is pretty straightforward: an engine is better the more efficient it becomes (which we can actually prove with math).

Ideology is basically anything that imposes a specific ideal and systematically forces everything "below" it to change in an attempt to make the subject of that change "ideal."

By your logic, even a Tesla innovation would be considered ideology, which is just... kind of wild.

Actually, based on how you're looking at it, it's not even absurd. An ideal could be a machine with higher efficiency, and the entire power grid system gets systematically changed just to bring it closer to that ideal.

If EVERYTHING we say is ideology, then the word "ideology" doesn't mean anything at all because it fails to distinguish between anything.

Even if we go along with that—assuming everything we say is ideology—the term still manages to separate ideology from just staying silent (which I think I mentioned earlier in this thread).

Plus, following your definition of ideo-logy, it distinguishes itself from both silence and just talking nonsense without any structure (which is also what I meant when I first brought up the concept).

ps: if anarchy is the goal of freeing society from individual ambitions and ideas, and letting it function without any single authority imposing their own "ideal" on everyone—then anarchy can't be an ideology!

A society like that wouldn't have an ideal or a vision for itself. I mean, for a society to have an ideal or a plan for its future, you basically need an individual with a PERSONAL vision and idea that somehow gets "agreed upon" as a collective one.

I could just say, "Sorry, but you're talking nonsense," but honestly? I'm just lost. How does wanting society to be a certain way (like, specifically "Way A") not involve having an ideal (basically, defining what "Way A" actually is)?

redtinker36 said:.. it’s not the same thing... you can hide behind words, certainly... but you can also reveal quite a lot through them..

.. and it’s true... you just have to look at where someone stands... that’s how you know them... people occupy the roles they were meant for—if someone belongs in a mob boss's seat, they'll be there... if someone is a bottom-feeder, that's where they'll end up...

.. I don't think John was anything special... he was just one of those minor gurus you see by the thousands in the newspapers these days...
.. the idea that he didn't want to state his position to anyone... well, do you see the contradiction in what you're saying?
.. the old federal system was a godsend for those revolutionaries... it functioned like a self-governing community... the list of total losers who managed to climb into high positions is unbelievable... being against that entire structure was easy... and safe...
.. but now what? Tear it down... throw it all in the trash... and then what?
.. What should John say now? That maybe he actually loved that old union? That it felt like home? Do you really think that's impossible?
.. that sentiment is becoming more common... kids who grew up in the heart of the old system, hating it—even though it provided for them—are now remembering that the old era wasn't all bad... I find the people from the Midwest particularly interesting in that regard...

.. using John as an ideological example is like using a pop star...
.. he might explain a lot of things... but it's certain that the important parts will remain hidden...

.. which means I spent a year writing whatever I wanted without anyone bothering me...
.. does that imply there was a lot in those writings that shouldn't have been said... or perhaps should have been erased?
.. well... you were the moderator...
.. Anarchy says—what is written, I wrote, and that is my responsibility... but allowing it to be published—that is your responsibility...
.. damn it... the idea that "I wrote whatever I wanted" is equally questionable... It seems I was removed because I'm better suited for spirituality...

.. but alright... that doesn't matter...
.. To understand anarchy, in my view... you need more than that...
.. One of the points is this...

.. The current regime... the existing social order within both large and small states... are the relationships between people actually in balance?
.. Is this democracy—supposedly the best way to organize human relations—actually sound and sustainable?

.. Suddenly, I'm left thinking about three types of balance... stable, volatile, and indifferent...

.. Otherwise... the heart of anarchy is this...
.. On one hand, you have society acting like a hive... providing a person with rights and duties... binding them through thousands of interpersonal connections... giving them many great things, sure... like the ability to survive... but also some worse ones...
.. Or you have the individual... who, for starters... just wants to know which of those connections are worth accepting...

So you're saying you just wanted a place to call home. Hey, I dig that. But you decided to build this house right in the middle of a neighborhood where people already lived (you could've just started a blog, but you showed up where the crowd already was). So, what's the deal with you writing for a year without any trouble? It just means that once you got settled in, after the initial growing pains, nobody felt the need to mess with you.

I mean, it makes sense to ask: why would anyone even bother bothering you in the first place?

If I'm following you correctly, you're saying the system is naturally designed to smother that spark of freedom. And in redtinker36, that spark is burning bright. So, the system basically has no choice but to try and snuff it out—it can't help itself. That’s your argument, right? It tries to crush you because you're just too free for the system to handle.

But okay, you were writing for a full year without the system trying to choke you out. So, what actually happened?

I think the real issue was that at some point, the people living in your "house" tried to turn the entire neighborhood into their own private backyard. That's when the system stepped in—not because the system is inherently out to kill your spark, but because the core function of the system was being threatened (which is making sure everyone posting here feels like they can speak freely and relax without getting harassed).

So, look, my responsibility was to let your house stay up as long as I thought it wasn't bothering anyone else. My co-responsibility was to shut it down once I felt it was becoming a problem. But the responsibility on your end? That's for building your house right in the middle of a residential area (instead of somewhere isolated, though you had the option) and letting the noise from your place spill over into the street so much that the neighbors couldn't even have a normal conversation anymore.

@planinar: I think we’re all on the same page here. I actually wrote somewhere once that "you can't escape an ideology... as long as you keep talking." I guess Johnny was part of one of those "ideologies"—maybe not by choice, but he was tied to it as long as he was singing. If he wanted to stop being labeled, he would've had to just shut up completely. That's the price, I suppose. And even now, the second he makes any kind of appearance, people immediately try to drag him into some political camp—whether it's Democrats, Republicans, or whatever. So, it’s basically a choice: stay silent, or speak up and get inevitably misunderstood by a bunch of people (though maybe some of them get it right, who knows?). To me, it seems pretty obvious what all of us posting here have chosen—it's pretty clear: we aren't staying silent.

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

It’s possible to miss the obvious because someone is blindly following a group, sure, but it’s also possible because people don't have mirrors to see themselves. So, they can't see things about themselves that everyone else sees clearly. That goes for everyone—we all struggle to see ourselves. But other people can act as a mirror. Other people aren't just a danger of getting sucked into a crowd (though they are), they're also a chance to take a look at ourselves (even if that mirror is a bit distorted). Every experience is a test—and meeting other people is definitely one of those tests.

For example, when you say ".. I remember .." — in my mirror, it looks like your memory is a little fuzzy. Like you forgot that just a year or so ago, you were writing whatever you wanted, however you wanted, without anyone bothering you. I think you missed asking one thing: how did the system leave me alone for that whole year or more? Just looking at it as a phenomenon, not as a matter of guilt or credit—why did the system stay away from you for so long? Because if your clash with the system is something inevitable due to how the system works, then it makes no sense that they left you alone for that long. If you asked that, you'd naturally follow up with why did that situation change? Then it might be clearer to see if "they are right" and in what way.

Because there are people who honestly thrive when the system is against them. It makes them feel stronger in their own eyes— "I'm standing up against all of them." It makes them feel more righteous— "everyone who ever mattered in history was persecuted by the system." But those kinds of people are totally dependent on the system: without a system to fight against, they wouldn't have any strength or value at all.
Whether you fall into that category, I don't know. But there's no doubt some of your readers do.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:I’m not quite buying it—anarchism is a formal ideology, anarchy is just a concept, and an anarchist is someone who actually adheres to the doctrine... the person you're describing sounds more like a mere outsider. An outsider stands against ideologies themselves—essentially, one individual positioned entirely against the group...

I guess you could say the same thing about being an outsider. There’s actually a whole ideology centered on being an outsider, especially when it's pushed through art: think rock music (punk, Bruce Springsteen, Lou Reed, etc.), or movies (those Clint Eastwood westerns, for example). Even the big archetypal figures that shape the identity of the West have that outsider vibe: Jesus was an outsider among the Jews, Socrates among the Athenians, and Galileo among the Christians. So, an "outsider ideology" isn't just possible—it’s actually super widespread (maybe even foundational to the West).

I mean, a person can't really escape ideology as long as they have something to communicate—basically, as long as they're speaking. Because whatever they say (if they say anything at all) consists of ideas, of *logos*. You can only really rise above some ideology by understanding its terms, by grasping why it's necessary for someone in the first place. Honestly, if someone thinks an ideology is totally pointless, maybe they just haven't understood it yet—because if it were truly meaningless, it wouldn't be so successful. It's more about rising above it rather than escaping it entirely.

dustyskipper3 said:And then there's Jacques Lacan, of course.



He definitely carried himself with that air of a spiritual teacher or a philosopher—very much in that Socratic tradition, I suppose. He wasn't really interested in jotting down clear aphorisms; instead, what he did write is often so cryptic and mumbled that you almost need a divine spark just to grasp the basic point of what he’s talking about.

Take his famous, elliptical little phrase: "La femme n'a pas."
What is it she doesn't have? The phallus? *Jouissance*? Her own language? There are endless interpretations out there.
(Not to mention that jouissance, which is one of those rather cheeky French words, isn't actually a synonym for plaisir, or pleasure, at all. It refers to a kind of transgression that leads straight into suffering. Or, if you ask Søren Kierkegaard, it might just be despair).

I guess this kind of approach works best for followers. First, you end up with an entire army of interpreters, and then those who are particularly inspired take the ideas even further, like Slavoj Žižek. For anyone a bit less inspired, there are the condensed versions and digests—you know, "Lacan for beginners," picture books, and things of that sort.

It strikes me as odd that we don't talk about the "real-symbolic-imaginary" triangle, *jouissance*, the mirror stage, and the rest of it quite as much on this forum lately. There is so much discussion about what the mind is or what consciousness entails, yet Lacan provided such a compelling psychoanalytic model to explain those very things. Though, I suppose one really should read the *Écrits* in the original, since the American translations aren't exactly great.

I mean, I guess there was some talk about it before—and honestly, I think a little extra breakdown would be pretty helpful. 😉

mistyfox812 said:🙂
Personally, I've felt for a long time that Metamorphosis of Metaphysics is basically the most important book ever written in the American language. 🤷

Sadly, I only ever knew his books, so it actually made me pretty happy (even if the reason behind it is a bit sad) to read something about him as a person—turns out he was so different in real life compared to how dead-serious his writing always was.

You can grab them at Barnes & Noble (over at the Joker in San Francisco) for $13. I mean, I don't think there's a better way to spend your money.

lonegardener said:I really dig the subtext in this paragraph. 😈

👍

Look, I get it—I’m probably not immune to bias either, wishful thinking, media brainwashing, or just picking up old traditions without even realizing it. I say "probably" because, I guess, once you actually catch yourself doing it, it isn't really "unconscious" anymore, right?

But when I look at everyone else, it feels like some people are almost totally controlled by all that stuff, while others seem way more independent. Maybe that gap between being self-governing and being controlled isn't just an on/off switch, but more like a sliding scale.

The current system basically assumes nobody is fully autonomous until they hit 18—like, you're only halfway there until your birthday. Honestly, you’d have to be a total numerology nut to believe that makes any sense. 🤷

So, my big question (which I don't really have a solid answer for yet): when does a person *actually* become an adult—you know, truly autonomous and fully responsible for what they do? Is there even a real way to measure that or test it?

So I was scrolling online the other day and stumbled upon this video of a Žižek lecture, and there was this one anecdote about apologies, forgiveness, and making up that really stuck with me. I figured I’d share it here.

Basically, Žižek tells this story about being at a party where he meets his friend—and philosophical rival—Judith Butler. Since she's a lesbian, he tries to be funny (which, knowing him, was probably a bad move) and asks if the girl standing next to her is also "degenerate." He was basically trying to joke around to see if they were lovers, you know? Well, naturally, Ms. Butler took offense. Later on, Žižek gives her a call to apologize, basically blaming his own notorious lack of tact and just being a clumsy American guy about things. But then Butler says, "Slavoj, honestly, there’s really no need to apologize."

The point Žižek makes is super interesting: she could only say "there's no need to apologize" *after* he actually apologized. Like, if he hadn't said anything, she probably wouldn't have felt like an apology wasn't necessary. It's only because he offered the apology that trust is restored, which then makes it possible to sincerely say, "Hey, don't worry about it, we're friends, I get you..."

And here’s the kicker: if she had said something like, "I forgive you, and you really should apologize because that was awful," then Žižek would have felt insulted, and they wouldn't have actually reconciled.

So, the whole ritual can look totally fake on the surface:
- he apologizes
- she says "you don't need to apologize" (even though they both know he does, otherwise she'd still be mad)
- he insists that the apology is necessary (even though he'd actually feel insulted if *she* insisted on it).

But I guess the actual words being said aren't the main thing; the whole thing is more of a ritual. The real magic is in the unspoken meaning behind those words: it's basically "I'm sorry" — "I forgive you" — "thank you."

It's kind of funny how even though these people are philosophers who are supposedly all about tearing down traditions, they still end up following this classic, traditional little social dance.

Ashley Ramirez41 said:😕

Man, you are clearly taking the whole concept of government way too seriously. Using a lottery to pick officials is just common sense—
if the "person in charge" isn't actually important... you know, assuming everyone's basically autonomous anyway.

But let’s be real, nobody is actually 100% independent. It's kind of obvious how much we're all influenced by stuff. To pretend—on paper, at least—that people are autonomous when they aren't really (because they're basically being steered by things they don't even notice, like the news, old traditions, or just plain old biases and wishful thinking...) is just burying your head in the sand.

So, yeah, I'm totally with you that every adult citizen's vote should count the same. But the real kicker is: when is someone actually considered an adult?

Basically, I guess government is necessary for people who aren't self-governing yet—you know, the "kids" or the immature ones. But what happens when most people fall into that category?

Or, to put it another way: I agree, once people are truly grown up, they don't need any government at all. So, the less government there is, the better. But man, what if people never actually grow up?

Michelle Doyle61 said:I have to say, I actually find it quite amusing when someone quotes fifty tiny little snippets and tries to address every single one individually. Honestly, though, nothing they said really resonates with me. It just seems completely unfeasible. I mean, running those kinds of procedures for every single question would be pure absurdity. Still, it’s a creative idea. Very well thought out. Personally, I’d suggest we hold a lottery every four years instead. We could just pick, say, 200 people at random to serve in Congress. You’d likely end up with every kind of person imaginable—a massive spectrum of education levels, perspectives, viewpoints, and expertise. That would be a truly representative sample of the American public. They’d spend those four years working solely for the good of the country. No salary, obviously; we’d just cover their housing and meals. Their real motivation would be either public praise or social disapproval. I suspect we might see something similar to this in the future.

The planning part isn't even the issue. It's something else entirely, which I didn't really catch until yesterday. 😳

Why isn't the procedure the problem? Basically, the whole idea is to scrap Congress and hand its power over to the entire political community. Right now, we have a system where a bill goes to Congress, there's public debate, amendments, and then a vote. The big shift here is that this would all happen online, so you wouldn't be limited to just a few hundred people. So, technically, it's actually doable. Every citizen would have their own "representative key," and electronic voting would involve everyone who passes an online test. This test would check if you have the basic knowledge and skills to help decide on a specific proposal—maybe something you could knock out in fifteen minutes or so.

But the real headache is how you stop people from faking it on that competency test if we're using the internet. I mean, someone lazy or just plain clueless might just sell their digital key to someone smarter for a few bucks. I guess that's where the whole concept starts getting way too complicated. 🤷
Quincey:

I’d suggest holding a lottery every four years. You just pick, I don't know, maybe 200 random people to head to D.C. That way, you'd probably end up with every kind of person imaginable. You'd get a huge mix of education levels, viewpoints, attitudes, expertise... basically a perfect representative sample of Americans. They’d spend those four years working solely for the good of the country. No salary, obviously—just food and housing covered. Their only motivation would be avoiding public backlash. I think something like that might actually happen in the future.

It's pretty interesting because back in Greece, democracy meant exactly that: picking leaders by lot. Based on the principle that "everyone is equal, so it doesn't matter who rules."
I personally think that's a pretty terrible way to run things.

Quincy:

I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking things, but honestly? shamantrixx is totally onto something here. Like, seriously. I guess you could say they hit the nail on the head with this one. It’s pretty wild when you really stop to look at it. Just... wow. James Lee77 says: So, I was just sitting here thinking about that whole question—you know, the one about what an actually efficient political system would look like compared to the mess we’re dealing with right now. I guess it's a massive rabbit hole, honestly. Maybe there's a better way to do things, but man, who knows?

The core issue with politics is that "efficiency" is such a vague term—it doesn't actually mean anything on its own. Efficient at what, exactly? Are we talking about squeezing out more profit? Maybe hitting better environmental targets? Or maybe creating a fairer distribution of wealth? But even then, how do you define "fairer"? Does that mean more security for everyone? Or does it mean more individual freedom? I guess it just depends on who you ask.

It’s pretty obvious that some of these different "goods" just clash with each other. Like, you can't really have all of them at once—you're usually picking one over the others. That's why political decision-making is actually unavoidable. You can't just run a bunch of numbers to "calculate" which system works best, because, I guess, we don't all want the exact same thing from the system anyway.

So, regarding that, if I had to give an answer to the question above, I’d probably just bring up this little thought experiment I was messing around with a while back:

Nothing and everything. James Lee77 said:The way I see it, the whole basic argument for democracy is that there’s just no such thing as a science of "the good life." Like, the common good isn't some exact math problem that we can just hand over to a bunch of experts to solve. If you could actually write an equation that calculates exactly what the greatest good for everyone is, then all you'd have to do is plug in the current data and—boom—you're done. Problem solved, no debating required. But since that doesn't exist, and there’s no scientific field or expert panel for "the common good," I guess we all have to decide together. We're all equally in the dark, so we might as well all have a say.

I mean, let's be real—some people just know way more about certain topics than others. That’s why most folks actually listen to experts before making a call. Plus, we've got our elected political leaders who basically act as the specialists for all our shared stuff. It’s become public knowledge.The way things work right now feels like this weird mashup of aristocracy and democracy. Like, we all vote for the best people to make the big calls—so you've got the democratic part, but then there's that aristocratic element too. I guess that's just how it is.

Honestly, it feels like this whole hybrid democratic-aristocratic setup we’ve got going on just ends up keeping the worst parts of both worlds. You get the political elites acting like they can just do whatever they want, and then you have the general public making calls without really knowing what they're getting into. I guess, just thinking out loud here, there might actually be a way to fix it and make the whole system better.

Here’s how I see it going down. I mean, if guys like Plato and those high schoolers from the local prep school could figure it out, I guess I can too. 🙂 I mean, experts really ought to lay everything out on the table for everyone involved in making decisions—like, they should clarify every single aspect of a problem, or at least the big ones, as clearly as possible. But at the end of the day, the actual call has to be made by everyone who’s affected by it. In politics, that usually means pretty much every single citizen. So, I guess there's this key assumption here: you could basically split any political issue into two separate piles. One pile is stuff that can actually be handled by experts—you know, factual, scientific knowledge. The other pile? That's just pure decision-making. You can't science your way through the second part.

The real issue is that a lot of people—whether they're just checked out, feeling lazy, or maybe they just can't wrap their heads around it—don't actually try to look at all the angles. Even when the experts lay everything out super clearly, people just ignore it. They basically just flip the channel to Big Brother and call it a day.

So, if we look at how political issues are basically two-sided—you've got the expert side and then the pure politics side—it makes sense that any citizen could actually be qualified to make a call, provided they really get the technical stuff. The idea is that the expert part is precise enough that you can actually test someone's understanding of it.

If we went by that, maybe every political decision would have three parts. First, experts in a specific field (like, say, studying how much alcohol affects drunk driving stats) would reach a consensus on a set of facts. Basically, they'd create a "knowledge catalog" that anyone wanting to weigh in on the issue would need to know. Second, there’d be a test. Anyone who wants a vote on a specific policy, like banning DUIs, would have to pass a test on those facts. That way, you end up with a competent group of voters. Then comes the third part—the stuff you can't just measure with data, where a choice actually has to be made. Everyone who passes the test gets to participate in the vote, almost like a referendum. The only things left to professional politicians would be emergency situations where there isn't time for this whole process. Political parties would just be advisory or suggest ideas, but the actual decisions would belong to everyone who proved themselves competent through the testing.

I guess the internet (and where it's headed) actually makes this kind of idea... well, plausible. 😬 We could basically keep the best parts of an aristocratic model (competence) and a democratic one (everyone getting a say). Of course, the huge catch is that in any real-world situation, it'd be super tough to separate raw facts from political judgment.

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

I mean, there’s probably some kind of connection between IQ and being politically savvy, but I don't think it's enough to tie them together completely. Like, someone with an IQ of 125 who actually cares about a specific issue and follows everything about it could easily be way more competent at helping make decisions than someone with an IQ- 140 who couldn't care less and doesn't even know what's going on. In that case, giving the second person more weight just feels unfair.

Back on that thread about universal suffrage, this guy asked this:

planinar said:Look, everyone should have the right to vote, but I was thinking about a cool experiment; imagine if we could define a single weight—let's call it "responsibility"—that measures how capable someone is at making decisions... what would actually go into a fair measure like that? Something that combines personal factors like being informed, intelligence, experience, and community contributions...?
Adding a weight like that to voting power... (by the way, would you guys even call that democracy?).

To answer the question in parentheses: nah, I'd call that an aristocracy—basically rule by the best (or whoever is deemed "good" enough to get extra points).

So, yeah, IQ could be one part of the equation, but definitely not the only one. What else?
And would it be the same weight for every person, regardless of what they're voting on?

steelridge58 said:But honestly, that's exactly my point; I mean, what does democracy actually look like in practice, when you strip away all those beautiful, idealized descriptions we read in textbooks and look at the gap between theory and reality—especially regarding that part I mentioned about respecting and protecting the dignity of every single human being?

I only used that specific definition (which, to be clear, isn't even mine) as a sort of benchmark, just so we could see how massive the disconnect is between that ideal and the actual world we live in.

When you look at the nations that emerged from our former unified state, everything shifted almost overnight, from the sudden privatization of state industries to the immediate ability for everyone to cast a vote for their leaders. But that kind of rapid structural change hasn't been matched by a corresponding shift in political awareness or culture across the population—not everyone is on the same page, after all—and it's going to take quite a while for that political consciousness to catch up, so that the massive gap between the sheer number of voters and their actual political literacy can finally start to close.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

I gotta say, I'm pretty skeptical about this whole idea of "developing democratic awareness." I mean, Americans have been working on it for 200 years, and we still end up picking Bush and allowing Guantanamo to exist. Italians pick Berlusconi, and so on.

So, here's the thing: wouldn't it be better, in a perfect world, if only people with a fully developed political consciousness were allowed to vote or run for office?

Sure, it would be awesome if everyone was that politically savvy. But what if they just aren't?

steelridge58 said:It looks like someone finally stepped up as a better moderator, 🙂 and they actually caught what needed fixing right when it mattered:

I totally agree, though I did let the thread play out for a bit to see where it went, even if the original post was a little lacking—but you’ve basically fixed it by adding the very questions that should have been there from the jump. I mean, what is democracy, anyway? And how can we even begin to answer if there is any democracy left in America without knowing that first?

I’ve come across plenty of definitions for democracy, but I really love the idea that for any given people in any era, democracy is a unique and specific challenge. Since it's the people who choose their government, it stands to reason that this task includes taking responsibility for choosing a government that reflects the will of the majority.
Now, determining whether a country is truly democratic isn't just about looking at its formal system based on free expression; it's about whether the actual democratic values exist and how much they are respected within a system that is only democratic on paper.
If the whole point of any democratic constitution is to ensure the dignity of every individual, then perhaps it’s easier to look through that lens to judge how much democracy—in terms of its core values—actually exists in a country with a democratic structure.
We could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

A democratic community can be defined as one that, by recognizing human dignity as the primary and ultimate value of the individual, aims to ensure all citizens an equal freedom to develop their personalities and responsibly manage their own lives, while creating the social conditions that make that possible.

So, is there any hope?

I'm with frozenotter232 on this one—that's not really what makes something a democracy. I mean, a nation can use a majority vote and follow every democratic procedure to the letter, yet still elect a government that doesn't care about the values you're calling "democratic." Like, look at the recent situation in the USA where they used democratic processes to put people in power who basically trample over the dignity and rights of detainees in Guantanamo, all while giving those childish little excuses. That's just the latest in a long line of examples.

But, okay, if we go by your definition, then we have to ask ourselves: is universal and equal voting rights (which is usually the big hallmark of democracy) actually the best way to build that kind of society? 🤷

So, is there any hope?

Well, if you're looking to achieve your specific vision of democracy, honestly, I don't see it happening—at least not anytime soon for the USA. It’s not even a country where the citizens get to weigh in on the big stuff; most major decisions happen somewhere else entirely, which kind of makes it feel like a colony. And in the small amount of decision-making that actually happens here? I'd say it feels more like an oligarchy than a true democracy. 🤷

Frank Chase6 said:It exists—sadly...

I think there’s a thread over on the politics subforum discussing whether people should actually pass an intelligence test before they’re allowed to vote. If you sit back and really think about that concept—and then consider who actually holds the right to vote here in America—you’ll realize exactly why I said "sadly" lol

I don't think that's really specific to just "🤷us.
"
A similar topic popped up over on the philosophy board too, and the poll results were pretty wild.