I propose that a grassroots initiative is started with the intent to develop a new system for implementing democracy, the goal being to run in parallel with the current system and then one day replace it.
And since "people are too dumb" for us to adopt direct democracy is a legitimate complaint, it might be a good idea to address that problem simultaneously. Teaching epistemology and logic to the masses would yield massive benefits across the board imho.
> I propose that a grassroots initiative is started with the intent to develop a new system for implementing democracy, the goal being to run in parallel with the current system and then one day replace it.
You backpaddled. So you still want democracy? What you actually want is to organise a coup. A shadow government that one day replaces the official one. You want a coup.
In your initial comment you complained about democracy itself therefore signaling you would prefer a totalitarian regime. Wanting a coup and a totalitarian regimes goes hand in hand.
> Teaching epistemology and logic to the masses would yield massive benefits across the board imho.
Very well, do it!
Maybe then you will realise this last comment is word salad.
> What you actually want is to organise a coup. A shadow government that one day replaces the official one. You want a coup.
coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
Technically, you are dealing with your imagination of what I want - I do not desire this, and no such claim exists in the text that I wrote.
> In your initial comment you complained about democracy itself therefore signaling you would prefer a totalitarian regime. Wanting a coup and a totalitarian regimes goes hand in hand.
Consider carefully this word: "signalling". What does it mean in this context, precisely?
>> Teaching epistemology and logic to the masses would yield massive benefits across the board imho.
> Very well, do it!
How am I doing so far?
> Maybe then you will realise this last comment is word salad.
This sounds like a fun epistemological exercise: do you have the ability to articulate why that comment "is" "word salad"? Do you mean this in a comprehensive sense...it "is" "word salad" to all observers, or do you actually only know that it appears that way (as opposed to "is") to yourself?
1. By backpedalling I mean that at first you said "As are people who blindly support "democracy" and the subsequent actions that are taken by the people elected (typically re-elected) "by the people"." and afterwards you said "develop a new system for implementing democracy". If you claim that people blindly support democracy, you imply that democracy is a bad thing and afterwards. Furthermore, by using "democracy" and "by the people" in scare quotes, you are implying you are not satisfied with election results. Afterwards, you claim you are actually in support of democracy. If you are against representative republics and prefer direct democracy, then say so and don't complain that people blindly support democracy.
2. "grassroots initiative is started with the intent to develop a new system for implementing democracy, the goal being to run in parallel with the current system and then one day replace it" There is no conceivable situation in which a government would accept a paralel government to function. The only plausible way for governance to switch is abruptly, either peacefully (a monarch abdicating, a change following a referendum, etc.) of by force (a coup or a revolution). The notion that a government would create a situation in which all state institutions would answer two masters is absurd. And I believe it shows that you do not understand what a government actually is.
3. I should not have used the word "signaling". I forgot it is a loaded term in English. I meant "implying". And I believe that your initial comment (in which you compare democracy believers with flat earthers in terms of dumbness, you complain about the validity of elections and blame military incursions on them) paints a clear picture. Based on the military adventures part you are referring either to the USA, Russia or China. Since we can rule out China as undemocratic and Rusia as a non-functional pretend-democracy that leaves only the USA. In this case, since you are using the scare quotes with regards to elections, you are implying that you are unhappy that Biden won over Trump. You are implying you believe the election was stolen.
4. "Teaching epistemology and logic to the masses" how are you doing so far? I would say zero progress. I am ridiculing the idea that you find it feasible to propose such a thing. If teaching anything to the masses would have been anywhere close to easy, humanity would not be in the mess it is today. You truly believe you can teach ... TO THE MASSES. Go for it. If you succeed that will earn you at least a Nobel prise. I believe the existence of flat earthers proves the opposite. It is possible to teach many people, but not the masses. Some people are immutable in their determination to not learn.
5. This is what I meant by word salad. You display a lack of understanding about governments and about the ease of teaching people which leads you to propose absurd solutions.
6. If what you want is actually a transition to a direct democracy in which the citizens assume responsibility, that is actually plausible to achieve. But not by creating a shadow government and not through a pie-in-the-sky teaching project.
Seems like someone doesn't like you and I discussing this topic in this way (I'm referring to both of our comments being [flagged]).
Stranger, can you articulate why people shouldn't discuss this aspect of reality? Are there some specific ideas in here that you'd like to keep out of public discourse?
And since "people are too dumb" for us to adopt direct democracy is a legitimate complaint, it might be a good idea to address that problem simultaneously. Teaching epistemology and logic to the masses would yield massive benefits across the board imho.