• njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Still ducking and dodging it looks like. Not willing to say straight out what your definition is. But we already know what it is. Anyone reading this can see very clearly what you’ve outlined. They know that your view of democracy is so incredibly broad that it’s absurd. That by your definition oligarchy is democracy. You don’t want to say that cuz it sounds absurd but that’s literally what all your statements add up to. It’s okay. I like to think of democracy as pluralism, the rule of the people, and if all the people aren’t participating or at least allowed to participate then it’s clearly not a democracy it’s not a rule of the people. You’re more of the white land owning male sort of definition. Which I don’t consider democracy. Cuz it’s literally oligarchy. That’s fine, just stop calling it democracy.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Not willing to say straight out what your definition is.

      I literally defined it, and you acknowledged it as tightly defined before reversing course.

      Anyone reading this can see very clearly what you’ve outlined.

      Yeah.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yes you tightly defined it. Any system in which any number of people vote. That was your definition. Then you changed your mind again and said oligarchy is not democracy. That’s why we’re still here. You defined it then you blinked. The one who reversed course was you.