> Your Lisbon Treaty argument ignores that France later approved it through constitutional processes. Should one referendum permanently bind a nation against any adaptation? That's not democracy - that's fossilization.
The referendum is the government asking for the people's choice which means that if you simply ignore it and wait for a year before bypassing said choice, you clearly never really cared about the outcome of the vote.
> On Chat Control - you're using classic slippery slope fallacy. Debating specific measures against CSAM isn't equivalent to "ending all privacy" or "bringing back slavery." This kind of hyperbole reveals bad faith argumentation.
The slippery slope is you asserting that giving up my right to privacy in order to fight CSAM is not an overreach by any government. The fact that you don't realize what this proposal entails tells me you haven't probably looked at it in details.
Anybody who thinks that this proposal is reasonable or should be debated is not a friend of privacy nor democracy.
> About right-wing coalitions: When parties openly advocate undermining democratic institutions, refusing to empower them IS protecting democracy. Not all electoral success deserves governing power - see 1933 German Elections for why.
Refusing to listen to your people when your people tell you that things are not going well is how you get revolutions and blood baths. Refusing to work with them to find potential solutions to issues because you do not agree with then is what leads to things like the Syrian war.
> Your "ignoring votes" argument confuses: - Right to be voted for - Right to automatic coalition inclusion - Right to implement anti-democratic agenda
Your response to ignoring and refusing to work with parties that are supported by 1/5th to 1/3rd of a given population is simply to hide behind the "protect the democracy" mantra. It does nothing and it solves nothing. But it makes the anger and frustration of these people stew and then at some point it will blow up.
> No one's votes are "ignored" - but winning some votes doesn't grant right to dismantle democratic safeguards.
Again with the "saving the democracy" rhetoric. This is an empty argument devoid of substance. When you refuse to work with parties that represent a good chunk of your constituents just because you do not agree with them, that is not democracy, when you label them as extremists without listening to their concerns, that is not democracy, when you attempt to ban parties because they are starting to gain traction , that is not democracy.
> You're basically arguing that protecting democracy from its enemies is somehow undemocratic. That's both logically and historically wrong.
You are arguing that not listening to people and refusing to find compromises with all the representatives of a country's population is saving democracy.
I am arguing that listening to the people is what democracy is about. if that means that a far right or a far left government is elected, so what? That is the will of the people.
Anyway I can see that you and I don't agree on this topic and that this discussion will lead to nowhere. It's best to leave at that.
Fascinating how your talking points align perfectly with active measures playbooks. Let me guess - democracy is when we let its enemies dismantle it?
The Syrian war comparison is particularly... creative. Though I suppose someone's meeting their "international conflict reference" quota for the day.
Your "let's respectfully disagree" sign-off after casually mentioning "bloodbaths" is an especially artistic touch. Very subtle. Chef's kiss for that one.
But let's address your actual arguments:
- One referendum doesn't permanently bind a nation (or France would still be a monarchy);
Here's the thing: real democracy is complex, messy, requires compromise and institutional protection. It's not just "whoever gets 51% can burn it all down."
But I suspect you know this already. The coordinated voting patterns on these threads are... interesting.
The referendum is the government asking for the people's choice which means that if you simply ignore it and wait for a year before bypassing said choice, you clearly never really cared about the outcome of the vote.
> On Chat Control - you're using classic slippery slope fallacy. Debating specific measures against CSAM isn't equivalent to "ending all privacy" or "bringing back slavery." This kind of hyperbole reveals bad faith argumentation.
The slippery slope is you asserting that giving up my right to privacy in order to fight CSAM is not an overreach by any government. The fact that you don't realize what this proposal entails tells me you haven't probably looked at it in details.
Anybody who thinks that this proposal is reasonable or should be debated is not a friend of privacy nor democracy.
> About right-wing coalitions: When parties openly advocate undermining democratic institutions, refusing to empower them IS protecting democracy. Not all electoral success deserves governing power - see 1933 German Elections for why.
Refusing to listen to your people when your people tell you that things are not going well is how you get revolutions and blood baths. Refusing to work with them to find potential solutions to issues because you do not agree with then is what leads to things like the Syrian war.
> Your "ignoring votes" argument confuses: - Right to be voted for - Right to automatic coalition inclusion - Right to implement anti-democratic agenda
Your response to ignoring and refusing to work with parties that are supported by 1/5th to 1/3rd of a given population is simply to hide behind the "protect the democracy" mantra. It does nothing and it solves nothing. But it makes the anger and frustration of these people stew and then at some point it will blow up.
> No one's votes are "ignored" - but winning some votes doesn't grant right to dismantle democratic safeguards.
Again with the "saving the democracy" rhetoric. This is an empty argument devoid of substance. When you refuse to work with parties that represent a good chunk of your constituents just because you do not agree with them, that is not democracy, when you label them as extremists without listening to their concerns, that is not democracy, when you attempt to ban parties because they are starting to gain traction , that is not democracy.
> You're basically arguing that protecting democracy from its enemies is somehow undemocratic. That's both logically and historically wrong.
You are arguing that not listening to people and refusing to find compromises with all the representatives of a country's population is saving democracy.
I am arguing that listening to the people is what democracy is about. if that means that a far right or a far left government is elected, so what? That is the will of the people.
Anyway I can see that you and I don't agree on this topic and that this discussion will lead to nowhere. It's best to leave at that.