I don’t know anything about paid subreddits, but I’m talking about the notorious and overreaching censorship of Luigi Mangeoni, including people getting warnings for simply upvoting those posts. This was mentioned in some mainstream news articles so it’s a reasonably big wave.
…the leaders generally get to make the laws, so I don’t think legality is a useful safeguard.
I dont think its good, but its people right to have the leader they choose.
Well, that’s all well and good in an idealistic liberalist abstract, but in reality it often leads to (and Romania’s own history did lead to) mass suffering, extermination of minorities, and getting invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union after their fascist leader Codreanu allied with Hitler. So, it’s best nipped in the bud, no matter what the majority believe.
Șoșoacă, in fact, is under investigating for commemorating Codreanu in public.
Trying to fight against the rights of the majority of the population is a dangerous battle only previously tried by authoritarian dictatorships and similar regimes.
That’s definitely not limited to authoritarian dictatorships. Seeing as you’re posting from an aussie instance, Whitlam’s dismissal comes to mind, along with lockdown laws (whether the majority approved or not).
Also worth mentioning, in Romania, political left and rights seem to be flipped.
The left-right framework just isn’t useful. As you’ve pointed out, it’s relative and changes massively between each country.
This video helps explain in more depth and proposes a more useful, effective political model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k
im sorry Carl Marcos is too advanced.
they keep saying 'In one word; ’ and then writing a whole paragraph. and why do they keep making economics all political?
What part of communism relys on everyone being on the same page?
Hey OP, I just want to say from experience the reddit bashing usually dies down a bit after a quick spike of reddit refugees like we’re seeing now.
No. I am against the simplistic idealistic approach of just unconditionally allowing the most popular candidates to rule, especially given the surrounding circumstances like mass media propaganda turning this nice idea into a pay-to-win scheme, and the broken implementations in most countries (FPTP, systematic voter disenfranchisement, etc.). Just look at how that turns out in the USA, repeatedly. There are many other ways democracy can be structured. Most ‘democractic countries’ have extremely broken federal electoral systems which fail to represent the voting people, despite it seeming democratic on the surface with elections.
Who gets to decide the leaders now? If you live in a modernized country and a federal candidate does not have the support of the rich owning class, they won’t have much chance at competing with airtime on television and news, support of paid ‘influencers’ and other celebrities, commercial advertising spots, social media astroturfing campaigns and all the other ways to make a candidate seem important enough to have a chance of winning. The bottom line is, realistically speaking, the only viable candidates at leading on a federal level are those promoted by the ultra-rich, every other candidate and party is fringe. I assert that you effectively having to choose between candidates pre-selected by the owning class is not a valid democracy. Even if you have the right and the freedom to do due diligence and vote for a minor party which is closer to your views, that freedom is ultimately useless in a popularity contest influenced by mass media. That minor party, in real life, never had a fair chance of winning, no matter how popular their policies are.