let's all remind ourselves that democracy and ochlocracy are two different things.

ochlocawhatchamawho?

this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

actually, that article is horrible.

even by wiki standards.

don't read that. let me find something better....

it's important. what we're seeing across the world is this idea that if people just go sit in a square or a park then that's enough to affect serious change.

tommy d.
I don't think we have the technology to make this kind of thing practical, or universally beneficial.

jessica amber murray 
i'm not sure what you mean, exactly. i'm going to finish my thought first, though.

of course, that's preposterous. the ideal is supposed to be people getting together and creating parallel systems. instead, people are getting frustrated that the sit-ins aren't getting the government to sort of just "get it" and are reacting in violence and anger instead. it's a dangerous spiral.

there was a narrative that began a few years ago that seemed promising, but it's quickly proven itself hopeless. we've learned that social media is just an elaborate spying tool, and that movement after movement is unable to provide anything other than masses of people that expect that merely showing up is enough to fix problems.

there needs to be a really conscious shift in focus away from demonstrations with this idea that the state will fix it if we yell loud enough and towards the idea that we need to find ways to fix it ourselves.

i'm not going to post another article, but that's democracy v ochlocracy.

now, thomas, i think you're talking about the problems of large populations with direct democracy? i could see how you thought that's where i was going, but i think it's clear now that it wasn't where i was going.

that being said, i do agree it's difficult to have a large direct voting democracy (although i do think the technology is better now than it's ever been) but i don't really think it's necessary that everybody decide on everything. i think what's more important is that people are able to decide on things that affect them. that doesn't actually require a parliament. it just comes out of living. it would be really impossible to avoid in just about any other system than the one we have, where we ship food around all over the globe.

i mean, what we've got to show over the last few years is a handful of military coups, the return of fascism, broken promises and shattered and co-opted movements.

we're not doing this right.

tommy d.
Personally, I think people should focus less on the shortcomings of movements like Occupy because the demographics involved there were hardly universal. While a wide variety of people and ideas participated, I found it was generally more "sheltered" types.

jessica amber murray 
well, what i think the world is coming to grips with is the reality that the new right's vision is not sustainable. it's convenient to call young people "sheltered" for rejecting the world that their parents created for them, but at some point it's going to have to click that that vision isn't working. unfortunately, what's becoming clear is that the failure of these movements is a part of the failure of neo-liberalism. that is to say that the system has created a generation of young people that have been educated so badly that they're incapable of building an alternate vision. i think connecting that together is important: the system is failing, and we're not able to come up with anything other than a list of hollow complaints, because the system failed to turn us into anything worthwhile, which is the reason it's failing.

that's absolute brokenness.

i'm going to otherwise avoid the discussion of critical race theory. it's another symptom of a generation that lacks critical thinking skills because it wasn't taught to them. i don't see it as a cause.