#majoritarianism

[liskantope]

There's an issue when talking about people who are near the center of the political spectrum, and I think it lies in a nuance between the terms moderate and centrist.

A moderate refers to someone who holds political stances that happen to be near the average of the prevailing clusters of opinions on each side of the issue (within the contextual time and region). My impression is that "centrist" has a different connotation, and a worse one in the way that many -ist terms tend to have negative connotations at least among intellectuals who promote freethought: for instance, Darwinist and evolutionist are mainly used by those who oppose the theory of evolution because the -ist suffix suggests ideological adherence rather than something more scientific-minded (I've always tried to avoid calling myself an evolutionist for this reason).

Similarly, calling someone a centrist seems to suggest that they're adhering to a meta-ideological agenda, one which some people no doubt do pursue: that of choosing, as a rule, stances which reflect the average of the opposing sides. (I've certainly seen people accused of being "radical centrists" if they're perceived to take this philosophy too rigidly.) There are possible defenses for this: one could take something akin to majoritarianism as a guiding light, for instance, where they figure that humans as an overall population tend to be correct about things on average -- sure, we differ widely on certain issues, but the number of people too far on one side is always going to be balanced out by the number of people too far on the opposite side. I personally find this an extremely doubtful assumption. I also tend to think that some people use it as a cover for laziness: there's no need to research issues on your own in an open-minded manner if you can just take the average of the opinions you see around you as the formula for the correct stance.

So according to my interpretation of centrism, it's something I (and I think many others) view unfavorably. But it would be an unfair to conflate this with someone who arrives at their opinions in a freethinking way without reference to the major political parties' stances or how they perceive the camps that most other people belong to, and finds that their views happen to lie near the center on most issues -- in other words, centrists should not be confused with moderates. And I suspect that a lot of hostility towards moderates comes from such a conflation.

[indizombie]

Nike remains vocal about injustice here in America, but when it comes to China, Nike remains silent. You do not address police brutality in China, you do not speak about discrimination against the LGBTQ community, you do not say a word about the oppression of minorities in China, you are scared to speak up. Who makes your shoes in China? Do you even know? There are so many forced labor factories in China. For instance, Uyghur forced labor, it is modern day slavery, and it is happening right now in China. Don't forget, every time you put those shoes on your feet, or you put that t-shirt on your back, there are so many tears and so much oppression and so much blood behind it all.

Enes Kanter

[gettothedancing]

Democrats Aren't Losing Faith In Our Constitutional System. They Just Don’t Like It.

The “House popular vote” now joins the “national popular vote” and “Senate popular vote” (a particularly dishonest one considering California didn’t have a Republican on the ballot) as fictional gauges of governance used by Democrats who aren’t brave enough to say they oppose the fundamental anti-majoritarianism that girds the Constitution.

It’s not a civics problem, either. One hopes liberal activists like Ken Dilanian, who wonders “how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority,” understand sixth-grade civics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn’t give “disproportionate weight” to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate. Krugman only finds this idea “disproportionate” because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.

Also, rural America doesn’t “bully” people like Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. The non-“forward moving” America—those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington—doesn’t very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.

It should be noted that these majoritarians throw millions Americans aside to make this argument. We don’t know how a national majority would vote. There are many millions of Republicans in New York and California who don’t involve themselves in the futility of state politics. There are more Republicans in California than there are in Wyoming.

But as you can see on Election Day, liberals have made “democracy”— a word mentioned zero times in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence—into a sacramental rite. Getting more votes in an election outweighs the inherent rights of liberty that are laid out in the document. Unless, of course, that right happens to incidentally intersect with some advantageous partisan idea, like birthright citizenship; then Democrats become strict originalists. Everything else is up for discussion. Well, up for discussion now. It wasn’t a big topic for the hundred or so years Democrats were vastly overrepresented in the House.

[insightfultake]

Faith Over Rule of Law: India’s Dangerous Tolerance for Majoritarian Chaos

In theory, secularism is a promise. In practice, it is a negotiation. And nowhere is this negotiation more visibly skewed than on the public roads of Delhi and its adjoining regions during the annual Kanwar Yatra.

The Kanwariyas, mostly young Hindu male pilgrims, undertake this journey carrying sacred Ganga water to pour over Shiva lingas in temples across northern India. For years, this pilgrimage was a quiet affair, a deeply personal expression of faith. Today, it is a performance. A spectacle. A test of who controls public space, and who is allowed to bypass the law.

[indizombie]

When you're only 3% of the population, you rely on the other 97% to do the right thing," she says. It comes down to human compassion [but] there's still a blame the victim mentality - as though what happens to us is what we deserve. Maybe future generations will change that narrative.

Raylene Nixon, mother of Steven Nixon-McKellar

[aghila]

Despite the challenges posed by GST rate inflation in pump, grinder, and OEM industries, as well as the significant setbacks faced by the textile industry due to central government policies over the past decade, Coimbatore has remained resilient.

This resilience can be attributed to the robust infrastructure developed by successive Dravidian governments, the presence of reputable educational institutions, the establishment of Tidel parks, favorable climatic conditions, and the enduring spirit of its people.

To suggest that Coimbatore's development hinges solely on the intervention of a BJP is not only inaccurate but also disrespectful to the contributions of Dravidian leaders spanning generations.

From Diwan Bahadur Rathnasabapathy to present-day governance, their efforts have played a pivotal role in shaping the city's progress.

In the aftermath of the bomb blasts in Coimbatore, many individuals who once sought livelihoods in the city departed, leaving behind a community determined to restore normalcy.

However, among those who returned, a faction emerged— individuals who, instead of contributing positively, sought to assert dominance over local businesses. These individuals, often identified by their support for particular religious affiliations, engaged in practices that suppressed native enterprises.

Absolutely, democracy empowers us to make informed choices based on the principles of justice, equality, and secularism. It's crucial to assess candidates based on their commitment to these values rather than succumbing to divisive narratives or majoritarian dominance. Each vote is an opportunity to uphold the ideals of a pluralistic society and ensure that the voice of every citizen is heard and respected.

[apveng]

Second class bogie

India’s Muslim passengers

[tongueofgod]

Poem for the Cruel Majority by Jerome Rothenburg