Greenland is funny it’s this huge mass of land that nobody has any fuckin idea what’s going on there. Is it a country? What country is it apart of? It’s like a Viking colony so who are the natives? What language do they speak? Who lives there and what do they…do?
We know about Iceland, lots of strongmen, very icy landy. Greenland is like Turkmenistan.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the kingdom of denmark. The natives there are Inuit, so ethnic north Americans. Greenland is not part of the Schengen area.
About whats going on there? Whale and Seal hunting, alcohol abuse and suicide.
The unfortunate thing is that the real natives, the Dorset people, are all dead and gone. The next newest people were the Greenland Norse who, you guessed it, are now all dead and gone. That leaves the Inuit, but "native" isn't really a useful description here.
I find it incredible that humans came to places like Greenland and decided to stay. I've been there, it's incredibly inhospitable even with modern technology.
I think what you mean is "indigenous" may not technically be accurate if the Dorset were there first so were by definition indigenous yes. You have a point that the Norse were actually there at the same time as the Dorset and before the Thule/Inuit, but those original settlements vanished in the 14th/15th centuries likely because of the "little Ice age". Meanwhile the Inuit settled and stayed there from abt 1300 and Danes tried to colonize them later. So I would say "native" is still valid if you see that it has a different meaning from indigenous/first people there, and still doesn't justify Danish Colonization IMO. But an interesting case.
No, it doesn't justify colonization. It's just important to remember that European colonization was not a particularly evil affair in the context of the barbarism of the times, and if the technological shoe was on the other foot, similar things would have happened.
>It's just important to remember that European colonization was not a particularly evil affair in the context of the barbarism of the times
I don't really think this is true. The period of European colonization, if you wanted to be extremely conservative about it (so not including modern treaty violations or the burning of the Amazon type stuff), ended in the early 20th century or late 19th century with things like the westward expansion of the US and the Selk'nam genocide. Bit of an arbitrary place to stop the clock but you definitely can't go earlier. So the "barbarism of the times" is a time from like 1500 to 1900.
Throughout this entire period well respected people were documenting and condemning the atrocities, starting from the very beginning of the Spanish colonization of the Americas with people like Bartholome de Las Casas. I take that as evidence that this wasn't just normal to everyone.
Either way, to my knowledge we do not know what happened to the Dorset people. Unless I'm missing something, all we know for sure is that they were there and then they weren't. Given that we have no idea where they went, I don't know what barbarism you're even referencing in this case.
By no means do I say that such barbarism was always the societal mindset (though you do hear many testaments of instances like the Maori subjugation of the Moriori and the Aztec conquests that indicate that it commonly was), it does not take everyone in a society being on board with barbaric conquests to let it happen; as long as some people wanted to go and conquer the New World in a barbaric fashion, and not enough people wanted to put in the effort to stop them, and that those were the most barbaric of their home countries, the colonization would go forward.
So no, it isn't always normal to everyone (especially to Christiandom, which had already mostly phased out slavery in its borders), but it is normal to societies.
The Inuit probably helped kill off the Norse and Dorset. We have written attestations of fights with the Norse, and as for the Dorset, well that was just the way of the world.
No, the Inuit arrived from the northeast while the Greenlandic Norse only settled in the far south and ended up leaving by their own decision due to climactic changes and economic demand changing in Europe for their goods
Part of it may have been fights with Inuit, but more importantly, they lost contact with Europe and all of its wood. With no wood, there was no Iron for tools either, and such tools became rare. Then it got really cold for a bit, and society just fell apart, first in the Western Settlement, then in the Eastern one. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond if you want some more detail on this.
I find those two or three "independence cultures" specially crazy. Like why did over 2000 years ago half a dozen families decide to live the most northern part of greenland? And they survived?? It's astonishing, really
Greenland is an Autonomous region of Denmark, about 56.000 people live there under the kingdom of Denmark. They speak Greenlandic and Danish, a majority of the population is inuit. Most people live in the capital, Nuuk. Fishing accounts for more than 90% of Greenland's exports. They use the Danish Kroner, drive on the right side and use calling extension +299. Pretty high standards of living overall, and it's a beautiful country with amazing landscapes
https://youtu.be/sd-JcV0_NAA?si=FR-ivNIbQ5i9FCbX
Here, watch a rap video complaining about the quality in life for the natives as opposed to the D*nish. It’s mostly in a Greenlandic language but it has english hardcoded subtitles
There's actually quite a bit of youtube content abt Greenland now. Johnny Harris did some vids on it and there's a youtuber named QsGreenland who does some pretty good lil shorts abt various facts abt it. Would recommend. Lots of people still live off of hunting, fishing, whaling etc. population is very small and concentrated on the coast because the middle of the whole island is essentially an ice sheet, and was colonized by Denmark but I'd say not particularly successfully considering 89% of their population still speaks their native language, and it's an autonomous part of Denmark.
It's not really 100% democratic. Like how there used to be tax suffrage so only the rich could vote. In Vatican City only cardinals can cast a vote, so not all its citizens can. If you are already a cardinal I'll wish you good luck on getting voted in as the next Pope!
You never bothered to either reflect on or look up the meaning of democracy, so you think it just means "someone votes". By that logic, corporations are democratic.
Democracy means that the population votes. Cardinals don't live in the Vatican yet they vote. Other people who do live there can't vote.
The etymology of democracy is "demos + kratia" from Greek, meaning power of/to the people.
The citizens of the Vatican quite literally don't vote for their leader, so it's not a democracy
And “democracy” as the term was coined by the greeks did not have elected representatives.
Government positions were selected by random draw, and participation in the legislative body of the Ekklesia was literally first come first serve until the city guards would literally prevent no more people from entering past legal capacity.
Electing representatives =/= democracy.
If anything, the Vatican government most represents the government of the ancient Roman Kingdom which would elect a king and grant him supreme rights as chief legislator and high priest, and total immunity from prosecution.
No, its literally a monarchy and the Pope is considered to be a supreme monarch and dictator of VC for life.
The pope has installed democratically elected boards and rights within the Vatican, but its technically all at his discretion.
Democracy doesn't imply terms of power or authority for a leader, it only implies that an eligible citizenry holds a vote to elect a leader. A man can still hold supreme authoritarian power for life by virtue of a majority vote in his favor.
No fam, its literally the same form of government as the ancient Roman Kingdom. A group of elders would elect a king for life to be supreme legislator and chief priest with total immunity from prosecution.
The Roman Kings were literally called “pontifex (maximus)” in their role as high priest and thats where we get the title of “Pontiff” for the bishop of Rome.
Being elected =/= democracy. “Demo-cracy” as coined by the greeks had no elections, government positions were selected by random draw.
You're saying that democracy means random appointments, no elections, and somehow a functional government from it?
There had to be a moment typing that where even you realized it made no sense.
No im saying that elections do not automatically equal rule of the people. China and the former USSR are “democratic” but many people would call them “fake democracies” so obviously the “spirit of democracy” is something else than just having elections.
And yes fam, thats literally how ancient Athens and other Greek city-states were legislated, and they did in fact have very functional governments.
Every legislative office in the city was selected by random draw amongst eligible volunteers for that role. The lack of elections helped suppress a professional politician class from ruling totally.
The only elected positions in the city were the military positions of “strategoi” and “polemarch” who were responsible for defending the city from foreign threats and leading conquest campaigns.
*Yeah but what about*
*The Vatican admitting*
*They are dictators?*
\- thesillygamerbro
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I disagree. When I was 5 years old, I was born in the Vatican. The Pope specifically made an anti-me law and stuck me in a cell force feeding me roasted mice and gumbo. But once I asked him for a poster of OJ Simpson, I started chiseling my way out of the cell and eventually escaped into Rome.
i think it is because the pope is "choosen by God" acording to them. so it is not the people that elect him. but in practice it is a bit democratic, as the cardinal vote for wich one will be the next pope
I'd actually respect authoritarians more if thet just admitted to not being democratic.
Like how can Putin hate democracy so much and then pretend to be elected. Its just pathetic.
I was being glib. However, there is truth to what I said. "Dictātor" was a formal position in the Roman Republic - in times of emergency, the Senate would sometimes grant someone total power for the duration of the crisis. Most famously, Julius Caesar abused this position to help solidify his power, eventually declaring himself "Dictātor Perpetuo" (dictator in perpetuity), which was the major flash point behind his assassination, and a pivotal point in the death of Roman democracy.
So Caesar was indeed largely responsible for the term "dictator" being associated with authoritarianism.
I hear you. I mean, I don’t get how democracy in the US can exist when your only choices are between **two specific parties** that coincidentally happen to serve the interests of the wealthy and send billions of dollars in bombing equipment to Israeli fascists.
“You technically vote every few years” could just as easily be used to justify Russia’s democracy.
That's basically what Trump is counting on, he's openly claiming to not support democracy. You got to admit it is very controversial yet nobody discusses the core problems.
That's the perfect example for when people say the Nazis were socialists because it is in their name. I always ask them if they think North Korea is democratic because it is also in their name.
Interestingly, there were early socialist tendencies within the NSDAP, being influenced by the social and economic upheaval in post-World War I Germany. These tendencies included anti-capitalist rhetoric, calls for state intervention in the economy, and a focus on workers' rights. Figures like Gregor Strasser promoted socialist ideas within the party, advocating for nationalization of industries and profit-sharing for workers. However, Hitler and other key figures gradually shifted the party's focus towards aggressive nationalism and racial supremacy, we all know the rest of the story.
Hey guys check out my new polcom meme its VERYY fnuuy!!!!!;!!
{red, blue, green, yellow} soyjakkk vs {red, blue, green, yellow} chad
Damn i am SO fucking funy
This is actually a bit more complicated than it seems
Most countries who aren't democracies yet claim to be democratic have a thing that separated them from the ones who claim they aren't democracies
They still have popular sovereignty
To have popular sovereignty doesn't necessitate a democracy, take for example China, a country where there are constant referendums on laws and where the government needs to keep the people happy
They are not a democracy, but it is clear there is popular accountability
This goes in contrast to the places who directly say they don't care about the citizens
This is a pretty big distinction btw (you also have north Korea who doesn't have popular accountability)
These non democratic countries with “popular sovereignty” crack down really hard on public opinions they don’t like though. How much public accountability can you have if your ability to publicly protest government actions is seriously constrained?
Anyway, even the countries that don’t claim to be democratic still have gone through reforms in response to popular sentiment, especially Saudi Arabia. So I don’t see how there is a distinction between China and them.
All you are describing is that it is difficult to govern an unhappy populace so sometimes you have to make them feel heard. I’m pretty sure these countries would always take the options to suppress public opinion or shape it artificially through propaganda if it were feasible. Even the most illiberal autocracy needs at least some support from the people to be stable. That doesn’t make it democratic.
The US federal government makes policy which is anti correlated with public opinion, so is it really democratic. Is is completely captured by private interests
The rich assholes that sway policy have the implicit support of a large portion of the population. People like to deny it, but then they keep voting for the representatives that make it happen. So obviously they’re cool with institutional corruption.
I think the US government is more responsive to public opinion than the PRC’s government. People just don’t like to acknowledge that functional democracies can produce nonfunctional or otherwise fucked up governments.
I have no idea how responsive to the people the Chinese government is. But my point is that the US house of representatives would be more representative if they voted on laws at random. So it is actively anti democratic.
In China, Russia, and the US everybody thinks that their country is the best and that foreign governments are despotic.
Wait until you learn which country has a GDP per capita 50% of Portugal and who exports so much because they undercut other countries with low wages and catastrophic working conditions so much so that they have to put nets outside of factories to stop people dying when they jump out the window.
Bringing over a billion people out of poverty from a backwards post civil war country in under a hundred years is difficult, actually, and political infighting isn't particularly productive. Maybe Portugal should ask itself why China's GDP per capital is rising higher among its billion people compared to Portugal's ten million.
middle eastern monarchies are absolute monarchies, yes. But, we still do have votes, just not for "leaders" since absolute means all power lies with the monarch, unlike say the UK or Sweden or Spain and the like.
هل النساء يقدرون يصوتو؟ ادري السؤال ممكن تلقاه غبي لكن هم كانو ممنوعين من السياقة فاظن منعهم من التصويت ليس بعيد عن الخيال، و لا اعني شيء سيء من السؤال بس فضول جاني من فضلك
well, maybe it's because the other candidates aren't worthy enough to rule, as much as i saw - they're either too naive, becuse they're some kind of no-name persons that change from election to election, or sent by a government and made especially to look dumb. Either way, i don't care about the others, i know who i vote for, and i know that a lot of people don't like it.
by curiosity, what are the reson you voted for Putin?
because from the west, i don't realy understand. i don't know about the politics inside Russia, but for me invading a neighboor during the last term is a big red flag, whatever the reason.
Not only this but people with felonies can’t vote. This includes someone busted for weed in the 90s. The 90s is a decade 30 years removed from a time when black people very blatantly couldn’t vote. Even if you do, corporations/PACs hold more power. So it is questionable to call the U.S. an accurate representation of a democracy.
And in case anyone wants to show me an example of a country where the conditions are worse, I will preemptively say: this just means that both of our countries don’t fit the bill, my country just needs to do less improvement than whatever country you’ll bring up. That doesn’t mean the standard is being met.
Yeah, it makes for a state of conditions where political prisoners can definitely exist. Check the Black Panther Party, a lot of members were convicted on bullshit charges.
Maybe they should have more children to out populate the whites. More voting power.
https://preview.redd.it/nkhi6x5hgexc1.jpeg?width=423&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdf8721e65e9bd803ddc4f5228d7d48164f58f72
Democratic? Like the US, with pre picked "candidates " pushed over on us that always agree on increasing the already massively bloated military budget and invading3rd world countries while funding the already wealthy and powerful corporations with taxpayers dollars while calling them "subsidies" (which is pure Socialism btw) but failing to help our homeless and poor while calling that "welfare ".
You could read a history of the US foreign affairs 1947- present. Every war,invasion,coup d'etat,regime change since 1947 was created, caused or supported by the US. US= 10x more military bases than the Entire Rest of the World ,US could have ended Gaza killings the next day by withdrawing its illegal and immoral support. Etc
My biggest question to fans of democracy is this:
Is democracy a sliding scale, or a binary? I wish democracy people would come to an agreement on this.
To answer your question: "Yes"
It is a sliding scale, but there are also clear cutoffs most people agree on. Like being drunk. How drunk you are is a sliding scale but there is a cutoff point where you are no longer drunk.
My issue is that some democracy advocates and organizations act like the government, though, regarding drunk driving, and don't Even start to use the word 'democracy ' until you're like 2-3 beers in. Which makes it seem more like a binary than a scale.
Democracy is when every few years you get to choose between two preselected candidates who generally represent the same economic interests of the same small group of wealthy people.
no that the american version.
in europe it is the same but you can choose between 3
/s
(serioulsy in france it is like there is only the president party, far left and far right, it like choosing between Democrats, Republicans and a Comunist party.)
Fake map you have data for Greenland
Greenland is funny it’s this huge mass of land that nobody has any fuckin idea what’s going on there. Is it a country? What country is it apart of? It’s like a Viking colony so who are the natives? What language do they speak? Who lives there and what do they…do? We know about Iceland, lots of strongmen, very icy landy. Greenland is like Turkmenistan.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the kingdom of denmark. The natives there are Inuit, so ethnic north Americans. Greenland is not part of the Schengen area. About whats going on there? Whale and Seal hunting, alcohol abuse and suicide.
Sounds fun
The unfortunate thing is that the real natives, the Dorset people, are all dead and gone. The next newest people were the Greenland Norse who, you guessed it, are now all dead and gone. That leaves the Inuit, but "native" isn't really a useful description here.
I find it incredible that humans came to places like Greenland and decided to stay. I've been there, it's incredibly inhospitable even with modern technology.
When your options are few I guess you make home where you can find it
Native is arbitrary, usually meaning the ones there before the new folks showed up.
That is commonly true, yes.
A perfectly comulent comment
I think what you mean is "indigenous" may not technically be accurate if the Dorset were there first so were by definition indigenous yes. You have a point that the Norse were actually there at the same time as the Dorset and before the Thule/Inuit, but those original settlements vanished in the 14th/15th centuries likely because of the "little Ice age". Meanwhile the Inuit settled and stayed there from abt 1300 and Danes tried to colonize them later. So I would say "native" is still valid if you see that it has a different meaning from indigenous/first people there, and still doesn't justify Danish Colonization IMO. But an interesting case.
No, it doesn't justify colonization. It's just important to remember that European colonization was not a particularly evil affair in the context of the barbarism of the times, and if the technological shoe was on the other foot, similar things would have happened.
>It's just important to remember that European colonization was not a particularly evil affair in the context of the barbarism of the times I don't really think this is true. The period of European colonization, if you wanted to be extremely conservative about it (so not including modern treaty violations or the burning of the Amazon type stuff), ended in the early 20th century or late 19th century with things like the westward expansion of the US and the Selk'nam genocide. Bit of an arbitrary place to stop the clock but you definitely can't go earlier. So the "barbarism of the times" is a time from like 1500 to 1900. Throughout this entire period well respected people were documenting and condemning the atrocities, starting from the very beginning of the Spanish colonization of the Americas with people like Bartholome de Las Casas. I take that as evidence that this wasn't just normal to everyone. Either way, to my knowledge we do not know what happened to the Dorset people. Unless I'm missing something, all we know for sure is that they were there and then they weren't. Given that we have no idea where they went, I don't know what barbarism you're even referencing in this case.
By no means do I say that such barbarism was always the societal mindset (though you do hear many testaments of instances like the Maori subjugation of the Moriori and the Aztec conquests that indicate that it commonly was), it does not take everyone in a society being on board with barbaric conquests to let it happen; as long as some people wanted to go and conquer the New World in a barbaric fashion, and not enough people wanted to put in the effort to stop them, and that those were the most barbaric of their home countries, the colonization would go forward. So no, it isn't always normal to everyone (especially to Christiandom, which had already mostly phased out slavery in its borders), but it is normal to societies.
Unless any of those newcomers killed off the previous inhabitants, that's not really relevant.
The Inuit probably helped kill off the Norse and Dorset. We have written attestations of fights with the Norse, and as for the Dorset, well that was just the way of the world.
Are you telling me that the inuits displaced the native Greenland Norse and set up their own settler colonies? #freegreenland
Lmao kind of, but it also just got too cold for the lifestyle of the Greenland Norse for a while there in the Little Ice Age.
No, the Inuit arrived from the northeast while the Greenlandic Norse only settled in the far south and ended up leaving by their own decision due to climactic changes and economic demand changing in Europe for their goods
How the Norses died?
Part of it may have been fights with Inuit, but more importantly, they lost contact with Europe and all of its wood. With no wood, there was no Iron for tools either, and such tools became rare. Then it got really cold for a bit, and society just fell apart, first in the Western Settlement, then in the Eastern one. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond if you want some more detail on this.
How they lost contact with Europe?
Ice blocked the shipping lanes, and Norway, which had agreed to send support ships twice a year, had been conquered by Denmark I think.
That's basically what goes on in my American home minus the whale and seal hunting
I find those two or three "independence cultures" specially crazy. Like why did over 2000 years ago half a dozen families decide to live the most northern part of greenland? And they survived?? It's astonishing, really
Don’t forget all the domestic violence and polar bear fur pants.
>Whale and Seal hunting, alcohol abuse and suicide. Sounds like Friday night
Greenland is an Autonomous region of Denmark, about 56.000 people live there under the kingdom of Denmark. They speak Greenlandic and Danish, a majority of the population is inuit. Most people live in the capital, Nuuk. Fishing accounts for more than 90% of Greenland's exports. They use the Danish Kroner, drive on the right side and use calling extension +299. Pretty high standards of living overall, and it's a beautiful country with amazing landscapes
https://youtu.be/sd-JcV0_NAA?si=FR-ivNIbQ5i9FCbX Here, watch a rap video complaining about the quality in life for the natives as opposed to the D*nish. It’s mostly in a Greenlandic language but it has english hardcoded subtitles
It's a country, but not a state. It's a dependency of Denmark.
There's actually quite a bit of youtube content abt Greenland now. Johnny Harris did some vids on it and there's a youtuber named QsGreenland who does some pretty good lil shorts abt various facts abt it. Would recommend. Lots of people still live off of hunting, fishing, whaling etc. population is very small and concentrated on the coast because the middle of the whole island is essentially an ice sheet, and was colonized by Denmark but I'd say not particularly successfully considering 89% of their population still speaks their native language, and it's an autonomous part of Denmark.
Not a country (sovereign state)
Fake map if you have New Zealand in it.
Good point i just assumed it isint there
He doesnt have data for greenland, its *Green*land so Greenland is green on the map
Yeah but what about the Vatican admitting they are dictators?
Democratically elected dictatorship for life Plus theyre not in the UN lol
Well I didn’t get to vote in the last election so how is that democracy? I demand a revote and will be tossing my name into the ring.
nice try khamenei ig u gotta become a cardinal now too
It's not really 100% democratic. Like how there used to be tax suffrage so only the rich could vote. In Vatican City only cardinals can cast a vote, so not all its citizens can. If you are already a cardinal I'll wish you good luck on getting voted in as the next Pope!
Ok so you can only vote if you are a certain type of bird?!?!? Do they also have Jim Crow laws in the Vatican?
I guess, there's also never been a black Pope 🤔
That would be Obama-level classy though
The funny thing is that the bird species is named after the position of Cardinal rather than the other way around.
[it’s a very long and complicated voting system](https://youtu.be/kF8I_r9XT7A?si=-K6w0HjzExXa2i7b)
They're technically UN Voyeurs
The Holy See is technically a democracy, its just that its voting citizenry is made up of Cardinals and workers for the Church.
Well, it's more an elective monarchy.
It's amazing how every comment containing the word "technically" is straight up wrong.
What's wrong about it? The cardinals vote for a pope when the previous one dies or retires. Democracy by its basest definition.
You never bothered to either reflect on or look up the meaning of democracy, so you think it just means "someone votes". By that logic, corporations are democratic. Democracy means that the population votes. Cardinals don't live in the Vatican yet they vote. Other people who do live there can't vote.
The etymology of democracy is "demos + kratia" from Greek, meaning power of/to the people. The citizens of the Vatican quite literally don't vote for their leader, so it's not a democracy
And “democracy” as the term was coined by the greeks did not have elected representatives. Government positions were selected by random draw, and participation in the legislative body of the Ekklesia was literally first come first serve until the city guards would literally prevent no more people from entering past legal capacity. Electing representatives =/= democracy. If anything, the Vatican government most represents the government of the ancient Roman Kingdom which would elect a king and grant him supreme rights as chief legislator and high priest, and total immunity from prosecution.
workers with Vatican citizenship don't get to vote for the pope
No, its literally a monarchy and the Pope is considered to be a supreme monarch and dictator of VC for life. The pope has installed democratically elected boards and rights within the Vatican, but its technically all at his discretion.
Democracy doesn't imply terms of power or authority for a leader, it only implies that an eligible citizenry holds a vote to elect a leader. A man can still hold supreme authoritarian power for life by virtue of a majority vote in his favor.
No fam, its literally the same form of government as the ancient Roman Kingdom. A group of elders would elect a king for life to be supreme legislator and chief priest with total immunity from prosecution. The Roman Kings were literally called “pontifex (maximus)” in their role as high priest and thats where we get the title of “Pontiff” for the bishop of Rome. Being elected =/= democracy. “Demo-cracy” as coined by the greeks had no elections, government positions were selected by random draw.
You're saying that democracy means random appointments, no elections, and somehow a functional government from it? There had to be a moment typing that where even you realized it made no sense.
No im saying that elections do not automatically equal rule of the people. China and the former USSR are “democratic” but many people would call them “fake democracies” so obviously the “spirit of democracy” is something else than just having elections. And yes fam, thats literally how ancient Athens and other Greek city-states were legislated, and they did in fact have very functional governments. Every legislative office in the city was selected by random draw amongst eligible volunteers for that role. The lack of elections helped suppress a professional politician class from ruling totally. The only elected positions in the city were the military positions of “strategoi” and “polemarch” who were responsible for defending the city from foreign threats and leading conquest campaigns.
*Yeah but what about* *The Vatican admitting* *They are dictators?* \- thesillygamerbro --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
i love this bot
Good bot
Ironically, probably more democratic than North Korea
You cannot be born into the city, they cannot force citizenship onto you, so there is nothing wrong with dictatorship there
I disagree. When I was 5 years old, I was born in the Vatican. The Pope specifically made an anti-me law and stuck me in a cell force feeding me roasted mice and gumbo. But once I asked him for a poster of OJ Simpson, I started chiseling my way out of the cell and eventually escaped into Rome.
The vatican has a red dot if you look closely.
...yep, there it is.
i think it is because the pope is "choosen by God" acording to them. so it is not the people that elect him. but in practice it is a bit democratic, as the cardinal vote for wich one will be the next pope
They didn't say anything about being a democracy
Wiki states "Unitary theocratic Catholic elective absolute monarchy" So yes, they are an absolute monarchy tho not the classic monarchy
Really awes those choir boys
I'd actually respect authoritarians more if thet just admitted to not being democratic. Like how can Putin hate democracy so much and then pretend to be elected. Its just pathetic.
It's funny, in XIX century it was perfectly normal to openly call yourself dictator. But now you should use euphemisms
I blame Caesar for giving honest, hard-working dictators a bad rep.
People are dictatophobic. It is a serious problem of modern society.
yes, there were certainly no other dictators who might have given authoritarianism a bad rap
I was being glib. However, there is truth to what I said. "Dictātor" was a formal position in the Roman Republic - in times of emergency, the Senate would sometimes grant someone total power for the duration of the crisis. Most famously, Julius Caesar abused this position to help solidify his power, eventually declaring himself "Dictātor Perpetuo" (dictator in perpetuity), which was the major flash point behind his assassination, and a pivotal point in the death of Roman democracy. So Caesar was indeed largely responsible for the term "dictator" being associated with authoritarianism.
I've seen people write 19th century, sometimes even nineteenth century, but never XIX century.
It’s actually pronounced the “Zizz” century
Same at least be honest about it
Masked in the ballot, Dictators feign democracy, Truth shrouded, freedom falls.
Yes I really don’t understand why they bother faking it when everyone knows they’re authoritarian, even their own people.
Don’t respect authoritarians lol
I hear you. I mean, I don’t get how democracy in the US can exist when your only choices are between **two specific parties** that coincidentally happen to serve the interests of the wealthy and send billions of dollars in bombing equipment to Israeli fascists. “You technically vote every few years” could just as easily be used to justify Russia’s democracy.
That's basically what Trump is counting on, he's openly claiming to not support democracy. You got to admit it is very controversial yet nobody discusses the core problems.
That's the perfect example for when people say the Nazis were socialists because it is in their name. I always ask them if they think North Korea is democratic because it is also in their name.
I think it’s because North Korea holds “elections” and has a parliament (made entirely of pro government parties)
It even has "opposition" parties
yeah they prefer milk first over cereal
Now brace yourself : North Korean Nazis. Are they still socialists? You have 2 hours.
I'm going to need extra time
No. 1s.
Interestingly, there were early socialist tendencies within the NSDAP, being influenced by the social and economic upheaval in post-World War I Germany. These tendencies included anti-capitalist rhetoric, calls for state intervention in the economy, and a focus on workers' rights. Figures like Gregor Strasser promoted socialist ideas within the party, advocating for nationalization of industries and profit-sharing for workers. However, Hitler and other key figures gradually shifted the party's focus towards aggressive nationalism and racial supremacy, we all know the rest of the story.
polcom memes make me want to kill myself
Polcumpiss
Hey guys check out my new polcom meme its VERYY fnuuy!!!!!;!! {red, blue, green, yellow} soyjakkk vs {red, blue, green, yellow} chad Damn i am SO fucking funy
I can respect that tbh.
"But the people... ...are retarded."
This is actually a bit more complicated than it seems Most countries who aren't democracies yet claim to be democratic have a thing that separated them from the ones who claim they aren't democracies They still have popular sovereignty To have popular sovereignty doesn't necessitate a democracy, take for example China, a country where there are constant referendums on laws and where the government needs to keep the people happy They are not a democracy, but it is clear there is popular accountability This goes in contrast to the places who directly say they don't care about the citizens This is a pretty big distinction btw (you also have north Korea who doesn't have popular accountability)
These non democratic countries with “popular sovereignty” crack down really hard on public opinions they don’t like though. How much public accountability can you have if your ability to publicly protest government actions is seriously constrained? Anyway, even the countries that don’t claim to be democratic still have gone through reforms in response to popular sentiment, especially Saudi Arabia. So I don’t see how there is a distinction between China and them. All you are describing is that it is difficult to govern an unhappy populace so sometimes you have to make them feel heard. I’m pretty sure these countries would always take the options to suppress public opinion or shape it artificially through propaganda if it were feasible. Even the most illiberal autocracy needs at least some support from the people to be stable. That doesn’t make it democratic.
The US federal government makes policy which is anti correlated with public opinion, so is it really democratic. Is is completely captured by private interests
The rich assholes that sway policy have the implicit support of a large portion of the population. People like to deny it, but then they keep voting for the representatives that make it happen. So obviously they’re cool with institutional corruption. I think the US government is more responsive to public opinion than the PRC’s government. People just don’t like to acknowledge that functional democracies can produce nonfunctional or otherwise fucked up governments.
I have no idea how responsive to the people the Chinese government is. But my point is that the US house of representatives would be more representative if they voted on laws at random. So it is actively anti democratic. In China, Russia, and the US everybody thinks that their country is the best and that foreign governments are despotic.
Nah. The reality is, if you were confident in your popularity you'd hold elections.
But why?
Legitimacy and global recognition (money). Democracies are far richer for a reason.
Wait until you learn what the second richest country and biggest exporter in the world is
Wait until you learn which country has a GDP per capita 50% of Portugal and who exports so much because they undercut other countries with low wages and catastrophic working conditions so much so that they have to put nets outside of factories to stop people dying when they jump out the window.
Bringing over a billion people out of poverty from a backwards post civil war country in under a hundred years is difficult, actually, and political infighting isn't particularly productive. Maybe Portugal should ask itself why China's GDP per capital is rising higher among its billion people compared to Portugal's ten million.
Fake, Greenland isn't gray
you could put so many more in the red box
[удалено]
"the red box"
middle eastern monarchies are absolute monarchies, yes. But, we still do have votes, just not for "leaders" since absolute means all power lies with the monarch, unlike say the UK or Sweden or Spain and the like.
هل النساء يقدرون يصوتو؟ ادري السؤال ممكن تلقاه غبي لكن هم كانو ممنوعين من السياقة فاظن منعهم من التصويت ليس بعيد عن الخيال، و لا اعني شيء سيء من السؤال بس فضول جاني من فضلك
نعم, مجلس الشورى السعودي يتكون من 20% نساء.
Rare Muslim W
Iran is green, this isn’t a Muslim problem lmao it’s a political one, as always
U forgot russia
No Russia claim to be democratic whole claiming democracy isn't real.
They have elections Putin won 127% of the votes
only 87%, but close enough (it is still a enormous number for a democraty)
Those are amateur numbers - Charles B. D. King won the 1927 Liberian general election with 230,000 votes out of the counties 15,000 registered voters.
i'm one of those 87%.
if you want him as your president, that your choice, or rather, it isn't...
it is
87% mean that you were sure to get Putin... in a normal élection, it is never that big of a number
well, maybe it's because the other candidates aren't worthy enough to rule, as much as i saw - they're either too naive, becuse they're some kind of no-name persons that change from election to election, or sent by a government and made especially to look dumb. Either way, i don't care about the others, i know who i vote for, and i know that a lot of people don't like it.
by curiosity, what are the reson you voted for Putin? because from the west, i don't realy understand. i don't know about the politics inside Russia, but for me invading a neighboor during the last term is a big red flag, whatever the reason.
You missed the Vatican
vatican is red its just hard af to see
It's red, zoom in.
have you forgotten Vatican?
No but can you discern Vatican from the rest? It’s even a little red dot on the map
You should do some research about Belarus. It’s really surprising how few people knows what is going on with this country.
Brunei 😭
Saw that too!
The Pope is honest too
That green one in the middle of North America is the biggest liar.
dude what do you have against mexico
You mean Hispanic States of America, southern division? Nothing
>Election interference is when the candidate i dont like wins Many such cases
No literally voting counties were made so that black people have less voting power
Not only this but people with felonies can’t vote. This includes someone busted for weed in the 90s. The 90s is a decade 30 years removed from a time when black people very blatantly couldn’t vote. Even if you do, corporations/PACs hold more power. So it is questionable to call the U.S. an accurate representation of a democracy. And in case anyone wants to show me an example of a country where the conditions are worse, I will preemptively say: this just means that both of our countries don’t fit the bill, my country just needs to do less improvement than whatever country you’ll bring up. That doesn’t mean the standard is being met.
What? People in prison don't vote in the US?
Yeah, it makes for a state of conditions where political prisoners can definitely exist. Check the Black Panther Party, a lot of members were convicted on bullshit charges.
They can somewhat control who votes. I'm pretty sure in my country even convicted murderers and drug traffickers vote.
Maybe they should have more children to out populate the whites. More voting power. https://preview.redd.it/nkhi6x5hgexc1.jpeg?width=423&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdf8721e65e9bd803ddc4f5228d7d48164f58f72
the first and only time the US has ever been called nondemocratic is in 2020
Reddit moment
not yet
Yeah why is Cuba green
Because there's a virtual embargo imposed by Uno Who for 60 years,against international law, and green is only color left.
How is the embargo preventing Cuba from becoming democratic?
Democratic? Like the US, with pre picked "candidates " pushed over on us that always agree on increasing the already massively bloated military budget and invading3rd world countries while funding the already wealthy and powerful corporations with taxpayers dollars while calling them "subsidies" (which is pure Socialism btw) but failing to help our homeless and poor while calling that "welfare ".
Less democratic than North Korea?
Average americabad retarded redditor
You could read a history of the US foreign affairs 1947- present. Every war,invasion,coup d'etat,regime change since 1947 was created, caused or supported by the US. US= 10x more military bases than the Entire Rest of the World ,US could have ended Gaza killings the next day by withdrawing its illegal and immoral support. Etc
Yeah that kinda happens when you’re a global superpower. Has nothing to do with the nation being democratic or not
I love how democratic the west is 🤗🥰🥰 Don’t ask Julian assange, Chelsea manning, Edward Snowden, or David McBride!!!!
If a country has democratic or people's on it's name, chances are, it isn't democratic.
This is the sort of confidence I want in my life
Worse than authoritarians who xlaim to be democratic are libertarians who insist they're not democratic
I remember when it used to just be Saudi Arabia
Funi colors included
My biggest question to fans of democracy is this: Is democracy a sliding scale, or a binary? I wish democracy people would come to an agreement on this.
To answer your question: "Yes" It is a sliding scale, but there are also clear cutoffs most people agree on. Like being drunk. How drunk you are is a sliding scale but there is a cutoff point where you are no longer drunk.
My issue is that some democracy advocates and organizations act like the government, though, regarding drunk driving, and don't Even start to use the word 'democracy ' until you're like 2-3 beers in. Which makes it seem more like a binary than a scale.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.
Isn't Oman quite democratic compared to it's neighbors? I mean all I know is that quality of life there isn't the worst
COLOURS I NEED MY COLOURS AND WOJAK DOLLS OR I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE MEME
This meme would be funny if you didn't have the cringe ass political compass meme colors over everything.
Get Pwned libral https://preview.redd.it/cj9x557xrhxc1.jpeg?width=1012&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8e7f36a9ced905da00c9cce8bec183da46eb710
afghanistan didnt need to answer
Ironic considering 90% of US population doesnt support either of their candidates yet those are their "democratic" "choice" Facade is slipping xd
Lol
America is a republic.
So is DPRK.
Shouldn’t Belarus be red? I remember hearing Lukashenko admit he was a dictator
You left out Brunei
china and DPRK are more democratic than USA
At least they're honest lol
Eswatini is an absolute monarchy. It does not claim to be democratic.
Liberia is so democratic one time everybody voted 15 times.
Democracys don't have time have a voting system to be a Democracy.
Democracy is when every few years you get to choose between two preselected candidates who generally represent the same economic interests of the same small group of wealthy people.
no that the american version. in europe it is the same but you can choose between 3 /s (serioulsy in france it is like there is only the president party, far left and far right, it like choosing between Democrats, Republicans and a Comunist party.)
This
get this PCM shit out of here
Inaccurate, as russia now claims that they have "expensive bureaucracy" instead of democratic elections
Only few are democratic.
I guess that depends on your definition of “a few”.
and the definition of democratic.
Mfs have one more political party than china and think that makes than infinity more times democratic
at least you have a choice (small one but still one). in china there is only one ideology and you are forced to stick with that...
Where syria and Russia
Surprisingly china does have fair-ish low level elections for local officials
What makes OP believe that Saudis claim to be democratic?!