what is the right term of Phenomenas ;
The Majority People Which Afraid loosing their Majoritiness and become Minorities .
so They ( The majority ) use everything to defend their Majoritiness .
in example; discrimination , etc .
is it somekind of Phobias ?
and is there already any study about this ?
See the western democracies, especially the United States… Majoritarianism was a main reason our Constitution was written to avoid absolute "democracy" — we even wrote into that document the guarantee of republican government, to each and every state. (Few people remember this… :( )
Your question is sensible: It's been studied for three or four thousand years, in the west… (For some reason, not so much in the east.) Discrimination is a curious thing: Are you aware of the non-PC definitions of the term? :)
———————————————————————————————————————
BTW:
"Etc." is not an example — it's an indication of an inferior intellect (or one conditioned to absolute acquiescence*) and should be kept to one's self… :)
———————————————
* Are you the King of Siam? :)
is there already any study about this ?
It's been studied for three or four thousand years, in the west
i found this unhelpful.
if there is already study about that , so what is the study about the phenomenas mentioned above ?
an inferior intellect
i dont noticed any rules everyone should have uber intellect .
so i 'll keep doing that ...
at least until there is Constitution , nor International law about that .
Are you the King of Siam?
why i should answer this question ?
i found this unhelpful.
Lol, something he's probably heard before.
You'll have to excuse him. He gets grumpy.
...
Ochlocray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy), or mob rule, was touched on by the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy.
Majority rule has been counter acted in most modern democracies by constitution or more specifically the Bill of Rights. Such ideas are where you get Human Rights from. Attributing inalienable rights to all people regardless of majority rule.
Then there's Supermajority. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority)
Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to a "tyranny of the majority". Supermajoritarian rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule required to end a filibuster in the United States Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures of this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable. Supermajority rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two alternatives is the status quo, and privilege it against being overturned by a mere majority.
Where in most legislative members can vote to stop something and requires more than a simple majority to do it. So completely unsupported ideas don't just run away with themselves.
Should get you started anyway. ;)
Bloody 'ell?
Let me get a glass of good wine, this is a promising thread...
Are you the King of Siam? says Oakdale....
why i should answer this question ?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Fantastic.
A well know man to all of us once gave this quote - "Tyranny of the minorities."
A well know man to all of us once gave this quote - "Tyranny of the minorities."
Unknown, to me… Care to name him?
Lol, something he's probably heard before.
You'll have to excuse him. He gets grumpy.
Quite true — but I am less than abashed. :)
Ochlocracy
Mobocracy is too wide .
it need to go more specific , such as individual Syndrome .
take the sample in your country .
the Majority should be Christian , and the minority should be non-Christian .
the one with christian ideology , eventually will suffered with majority syndrom .
on the other hand,
it seems
majority/minority only existed in the Racist Community .
the anti thesis is ; if we are not a racist , we do not care about groups , identity, ideology , class, colors, etc .
thus, the sintesis ; we are a racist .
Majority rule has been counter acted in most modern democracies by constitution or more specifically the Bill of Rights.
Or, even at a much more effective way, by a KIng that
is himself the "constitution", meaning the
guarantee that majorities are not acting against the Nation's perenity.
Simply because he doesn't need a majority to be in power but just one thing, to have his People. A King whithout a People is not a King.
Those are the important things, not "democracies & pseudo-majorities".
You may notice that I refuse to follow the trendy, country-destructing way about from where Power comes from and how decisions must be taken.
A King whithout a People is not a King.
On the other hand, people don't need a King or a Sultan for being a nation.
Ah-hah, Oakdale I will reveal the man who concocted that very appropriate expression. He comes from a main Scottish city, drinks Irn Bru (diet version), smiles when you call America democratic. Or is that all too difficult?? :)
On the other hand, people don't need a King or a Sultan for being a nation.
No?
Try to demonstrate it Krake... assuming that you know the difference between a Nation and a Country or a State.
I suppose you do.
A nation doesn't need neither an asshole called King nor one called President, for it's identification.
Cultural heritage of a nation shouldn't be mixed up with a character.
In fact no it doesn't. You can perfectly have a Nation of tribes with some Council of the Elder instead of a King.
If happens that some Nations aren't nations of tribes and when there's an united People there's a need for a King.
Speaking about tribes, there was a time when northern barbarians had elected Kings. They change it when one of them remembered to use a very modern argumentation - the need for stability.
And so he nominated his son for the next King to be (and probably needed to cut a few heads amongst the oposition.) Stability was invented. :)
the anti thesis is ; if we are not a racist , we do not care about groups , identity, ideology , class, colors, etc .
The social behaviors that make you identify with a group and support its dominance are evolutionary. Even if there were no races groups will still form and differentiate. Thinking differences between racial groups with different ideologies is based solely on racism is a distraction. The problem is distinguishing between sociology and psychology. You won't stop groups identifying with ideology and too often race is the only difference we see when the dust settles. (Which
is fascinating.)
But now you identify a "majority complex" with primarily racial motivations. But that's just labelism. You've over generalized and created a list that has no relation to its self (so "ect" has no meaning, btw). Subscribing to points that make no sense..? What
do you think a racist is? And I suppose you thought you were
better than that? (Interesting :sherlock:)
peaking about tribes, there was a time when northern barbarians had elected Kings. They change it when one of them remembered to use a very modern argumentation - the need for stability.
And so he nominated his son for the next King to be (and probably needed to cut a few heads amongst the oposition.) Stability was invented. :)
Nothing about that makes it the only way to gain stability. Or the best way. Or even a good way. Only a way.
For every good king there's a bad one.
Nothing about that makes it the only way to gain stability. Or the best way. Or even a good way. Only a way.
It was not only a way, it was the only way, as History shows.
Anyway my remark was about the legitimacy of power. Majorities aren't the only way and even less the most desirable way of legitimating power.
On other words, parlamentary democracy is a fraud and not even "the worst besides all other systems".
It was not only a way, it was the only way, as History shows.
How medieval of you.
Anyway my remark was about the legitimacy of power. Majorities aren't the only way and even less the most desirable way of legitimating power.
On other words, parlamentary democracy is a fraud and not even "the worst besides all other systems".
A good point to make. Only I'm not really in a majority
ruled State. The majority doesn't even take their say. We still live in a time where ideas come from few and let pass by a few more. To call it what it is it's Representative. The closer to the Federal Gov. you get the less I feel even that is true. So yes it's a fraud. But in saying that you affirm it's the same thing you speak of reflavored.
If you look at what the US is supposed to be and what the EU tries to be the future lies in united groups contributing say to a large and diverse
supergroup. Coupled with what seems to be the ever finer breakdown into substates - majority rule, especially in any pure ethnic form, is nonsense in a global community. Of course there are many other ways to go about it. But eventually we need to find a system that works for us all together that doesn't involve ethnic cleansing. It's a weak point that has to kill the opposition to exist. Yet this is how power changed hands in this grand history you mention and still progress was made. Of course caves and huts provided good enough shelter to survive for our ancestors, so why not just do that? I know, a poor argument to make to a subsistence farmer. (:P) But you won't be doing it like they did. You take the full knowledge of modern times with you and go by choice when you go. One can only assume Government of people should do the same.
Oh, no! This is a silly argument… "You take the full knowledge of modern times with you and go by choice when you go." That is nonsense: When things fall apart what is taken away is bits and pieces, seldom anything as connected as knowledge.
Things will fall apart, if much of the world reverts to "tribal" government… And that is what will happen if nation-states fail and give way to tribalism. (Or the sites of tribalist ideology, which will not long survive without modern technology.) The human race cannot revert to a more primitive stage, and continue… It can only do one or the other.
What do you think a racist is?
racist is when the one decide what is racist and what is not racist .
the one is deciders of everything .
Oh, no! This is a silly argument… "You take the full knowledge of modern times with you and go by choice when you go." That is nonsense:
Okay. But that is literally what the founding fathers did. Studied what came before and aimed to build in the chance for people to make a choice.
ensbb3, I appreciate your viewpoint. But our country's founders had not the "full" knowledge or wisdom of their forebears… They had their own viewpoints, what they themselves knew of history, and what they would discern from these (note: I don't say could): We were (…much to the chagrin of our continental "betters" we seldom fell under the spell of their evils…) otherwise occupied, and making our own mistakes.)
Had we known what our European brothers should have known, we would have created a new Eden!
But they -as yet- know next to nothing, as do we…
We're all human.
But our country's founders had not the "full" knowledge or wisdom of their forebears
Oh, the word "full" was your main problem with that?
Let's take a look... :rolleyes:
Of course caves and huts provided good enough shelter to survive for our ancestors, so why not just do that? I know, a poor argument to make to a subsistence farmer. ( :P ) But you won't be doing it like they did. You take the full knowledge of modern times with you and go by choice when you go.
The comment was made to Belly. Hyperbole? A bit, but he has access to whatever he wants here in the information age. (Especially about farming.)
One can only assume Government of people should do the same.
Bit of a closing remark there. I was sure you'd understand...
Had we known what our European brothers should have known, we would have created a new Eden!
("Eden"? What silly nonsense! A garden with two people in it requires no government.)
Are we done here? I think we're done here.
The comment was made to Belly
Who's Belly?
If you look at what the US is supposed to be and what the EU tries to be the future lies in united groups contributing say to a large and diverse supergroup.
The problem is not what you look to, the problem is
if you like what you look to.
When you demisse to accept or refuse, you turn yourself immediately dispensable. Good that people don't forget that.
Who's Belly?
Ha! Oops... That would be you.
Short for Belfrager could be "Bel" - and because y/ie is fun to tack on to any thing, "Belly".
The problem is not what you look to, the problem is if you like what you look to.
People can tolerate amazing amounts of subjugation. The real problem is, can whomever get away from it if they don't like what they "look to"? If not then people seem to accept life as is and even find some happiness. People are resilient.
People can tolerate amazing amounts of subjugation. The real problem is, can whomever get away from it if they don't like what they "look to"? If not then people seem to accept life as is and even find some happiness. People are resilient.
That's a speech of mediocre conformism and I think that "resilient" has the opposite sense. Change happens because people symply don't accept life "as is".
You must not forget the anarchist motto,
We want the impossible and we want it now! :)
That's very much the nature of the human soul.
The comment was made to Belly
Who's Belly?
Your fat twin. :P
"Who's this motorcycle?"
"Belly's"
"Who's Belly?"
Belly's dead baby... Belly's dead..."
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXvfkoVpAl8[/video]