Let's discuss.
Discussion Would you rather have a dictator who controls every aspect of society and kills whoever criticizes him or a democracy with all it's problems?
I like liberal democracies and my civil liberties. I don't even understand why this a point of contention.
I'm fine living by my own rules in my forest tbh
Because a lot of people are getting more and more nihilistic and angry and they feel an iron fisted dictator who controls society and keeps people in line is better then what we have know.
This is something that only the person in charge/near the person could support.
I don't know. I feel like a lot of men would support a dictator if he actually managed to fix the problems we have right now. I genuinely believe someone like Hitler could be voted into office by angry older zoomers.
They are reactionaries labouring under the delusion that an autocrat would have their best interests at heart and that his or her successor would continue to put their interests first.
No, thank you. There is inherent moral value associated with democratic and transparent political institutions.
Congrats on your first post.
Right now the only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is a violent rape and a violent gangrape.
I think that's an extremely amateurish way of characterizing democratic authority. But do go on.
Which is why "democracy" generally refers not to individual leaders but to comprehensive political structures, institutions, and values. In any decent society, a Hitler-esque official would be held to account by a legislature, an independent judiciary, and civil society groups.
Last edited:
I'm talking about American politics. Right now your voting for two parties: One that out right hates you and the other just wants to use you. There is no winning.
Can’t see poll
D
Neither tbh
dont know what either means im low iq cel
Dictator. The average human doesn’t have the mental capacity to rule his/her own life.
I thought this was closer to political theory; a discussion on whether democratic authority is legitimate and desirable, as opposed to other forms of authority.
You should've formulated your argument as some variant of "two-party political systems are problematic". A couple things you need to consider:
1) A two-party political system is neither necessary nor sufficient for a society to be described as liberal and democratic.
2) The United States is not a flawless model of what the majority of political scientists would characterize as a liberal* democracy. In this context, the United States has some issues: voter disenfranchisement, religious influence, a highly flawed criminal justice system, extensive state surveillance, and a political culture where meaningful political participation is heavily influenced by race and social class. Indeed, many Western democracies struggle with these issues to some extent, but that does not mean one ought to conclude that democratic authority is normatively undesirable. If anything, one could possibly reach the conclusion that these societies are insufficiently liberal and democratic.
*I am using "liberal" and "liberalism" to vaguely describe any philosophy that supports individual rights and civil liberties. I am not using "liberal" or "liberalism" in the colloquial American sense.
Last edited:
I hate this world.. Democracy is a cancer. It ruins everything and allows corruption and propaganda to run rife but you can't see it. At least in a Dictatorship it is obvious that the government is screwing you and everybody else around you. Democracy is just a quiet Dictatorship. You think anyone has a say? It's all been planned to fall the way it has, even down to your votes. Brexit however was probably one of the most divisive votes ever and has opened my mind and shown me that Democracy isn't free.. if the Elite do not like where you are saying they or one of their familiars swill openly attack you in broad daylight and no one will step in to help you... for fear of standing out or in sheep like Schadenfreude at the outsider being punished.
Whoever loses, Israel wins.
Majority rule is retard rule.
Huh?
Can't go on the site at work in case someone is monitoring me.
You can change the theme where it says fastbanana instead of incels if that helps. The option is at the bottom of the page.
"One idiot dictator can never be as incompetent as a whole parliament full of idiots"
That's better
If I can be the dictator then yes ngl
Whoever chose dictatorship is just a low IQ who is too blind and blames democracy and capitalism. No buddy. Your aspect is your problem. Not democracy, not capitalism. You won't be better in communism. You would be worse. Imagine having restricted access to Internet, imagine having a few hours per day of Internet, imagine restricted access to video games, rationalised food. Would you like that? Shut the fuck up, your genetics are your problem, not the political system
A republic plutocracy like most self proclaimed "democracies" is not a democracy.
Anarchism and libertarian socialism in the broader sense are the only legitimate form.
Anarchism and libertarian socialism in the broader sense are the only legitimate form.
Sounds more like capitalism to me. It's over for coldwarpropagandacels.
Last edited:
It’s both.
For fuck sake...
It is. Your looks determine a lot but the current political system screws over every guy normie and incel alike.
As I see it, democracy is the lesser evil, but it is far from perfect
O
I chose democracy because even though it's a scam, ALL governments are scams, but under a dictator, we'd have even less rights than we do now. Although chances are they'd just throw us in concentration camps, you maybe could argue it's a quicker death. But to think some authoritarian system is gonna be incel-friendly is just plain delusional levels of cope.
I don't wanna be even more cucked to the government either. Being cucked to govt is no better than being cucked to a bitch.
I don't wanna be even more cucked to the government either. Being cucked to govt is no better than being cucked to a bitch.
O
People are too chaotic to rule themselves, agreed, but, what are governments made up of? People, whom we've determined are too chaotic to rule themselves, so we appoint the least trustworthy among them all to rule over other people when they can't even rule themselves. That is the paradox, I'll do a post later on (in the off topic forum) about the pros and cons of civilization, and dual matrixes (nature ie mother, and civilization ie daughter).
Dictator as we are now or democracy with no foid influence (only net taxpayers can vote, which would include the neets).
I would much prefer a dictator that's against women's rights.
On the contrary, an autocracy is honest about the oppressive nature of power and is actually more transparent than a liberal democracy, which insults the intelligence of the people and gives them the illusion of choice behind the reality of vested interests controlling everything (namely, rich people like you, who unironically endorsed Kike Bloomberg)
There is absolutely no "moral value" in hypocrisy; unless, perhaps, you are a cosmopolitan bloodsucker who regularly commutes between international airports and eats expensive cuisines.
Last edited:
If it's a right wing dictator then yes.
Same thing.
O
Govt period is a crock, we don't have governmentS (plural) we have a global GOVERNMENT (singular). It's all ran under a World Bank. It is the government that gave us inceldom, that gave us feminism. And thinking that giving them even more power is somehow going to make them overturn this is just stupid. It's edgelord attention whoring at it's finest. All government is either overtly or covertly authoritarian. It's all a scam. Politics are even more rigged than this bs dating scene. They gave us all these problems with an end result being they want total power, ie a covert global dictatorship (that is their goal). And they've got no plans on helping us.
If you think war is anything more than a business, they got you. We've got one global arms industry. They supply and instigate, and infiltrate all sides. There are no "nations" they are mere corporations, that is all they are.
this whole "free will doesn't exist" is retarded, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah some things are biologically predetermined, but it's stupid to think it doesn't exist at all, period. It would be like saying "damn I got a paper cut on my finger, oh well I am already bleeding, I might as well chop my arm off!" Right now the globalist are building brain chips that will be able to read your thoughts and edit them, and forcibly send signals to your brain against your will. THEN there will be no autonomy at all. BBC has unleashed multiple articles about this brain chip.
I don't get how people can (rightly) complain about being a slave to a system they've got no stake in, and then advocate slavery as a solution.
If you think war is anything more than a business, they got you. We've got one global arms industry. They supply and instigate, and infiltrate all sides. There are no "nations" they are mere corporations, that is all they are.
this whole "free will doesn't exist" is retarded, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah some things are biologically predetermined, but it's stupid to think it doesn't exist at all, period. It would be like saying "damn I got a paper cut on my finger, oh well I am already bleeding, I might as well chop my arm off!" Right now the globalist are building brain chips that will be able to read your thoughts and edit them, and forcibly send signals to your brain against your will. THEN there will be no autonomy at all. BBC has unleashed multiple articles about this brain chip.
I don't get how people can (rightly) complain about being a slave to a system they've got no stake in, and then advocate slavery as a solution.
Similar threads
- Poll
Experiment
Would you rather be viewed as one of the most dangerous men in your city or as a weak incel ?
- RealSchizo
- Inceldom Discussion
Emba
Users who are viewing this thread
