Why do people put politicians on pedestals?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Libertine
    sex dwarf
    • May 2002
    • 17860

    #1

    Why do people put politicians on pedestals?

    It makes it easier to hit them
    /(bb|[^b]{2})/
  • High Plains Drifter
    Confirmed User
    • Jun 2005
    • 2341

    #2
    They got the money, power, and fame. And its all tax-deductable.

    Comment

    • polish_aristocrat
      Too lazy to set a custom title
      • Jul 2002
      • 40377

      #3
      and i was expecting another essay from you...
      I don't use ICQ anymore.

      Comment

      • Libertine
        sex dwarf
        • May 2002
        • 17860

        #4
        Originally posted by polish_aristocrat
        and i was expecting another essay from you...
        I'm working on one about the digitalization of democracy and the democratization of technology right now. You're welcome to read it when it's done.
        /(bb|[^b]{2})/

        Comment

        • polish_aristocrat
          Too lazy to set a custom title
          • Jul 2002
          • 40377

          #5
          Originally posted by punkworld
          I'm working on one about the digitalization of democracy and the democratization of technology right now. You're welcome to read it when it's done.
          you should write it after your China trip
          I don't use ICQ anymore.

          Comment

          • Libertine
            sex dwarf
            • May 2002
            • 17860

            #6
            Originally posted by polish_aristocrat
            you should write it after your China trip
            Going to China on May 28, deadline for the essay is June 15
            /(bb|[^b]{2})/

            Comment

            • reynold
              Too lazy to set a custom title
              • Oct 2002
              • 51271

              #7
              Originally posted by punkworld
              I'm working on one about the digitalization of democracy and the democratization of technology right now. You're welcome to read it when it's done.

              sounds very insightful. I'll watch out for that one.

              Comment

              • Libertine
                sex dwarf
                • May 2002
                • 17860

                #8
                Originally posted by reynold
                sounds very insightful. I'll watch out for that one.
                It isn't as good as it sounds, really. I basically argue that the ever-increasing role of technology (especially the internet) within both the democratic process and human life in general makes democratic control of or at least influence on technology highly important. Yet, at the same time, the growing complexity of technology and the increasing level of specialization needed to understand specific aspects of technology make it more and more difficult for the general population to participate in the shaping of and control over democracy. Technocracy, therefore, is inevitable. Meanwhile, solutions to this problem, specifically the concept of "deep democracy" proposed by Andrew Feenberg (which involves public participation in the very design of technology), amount to nothing more than a broadening of technocracy, since only those with advanced knowledge of the relevant aspects of science and technology can be a meaningful influence in any technological issue. At this point, "deep democracy" becomes a misnomer, the better term being "broad technocracy".

                In other words, complex technology cannot be governed through the democratic process or any variation thereof, however desirable that might be. There is no alternative for technocracy, however, there are different variants of technocracy that can be chosen from.
                /(bb|[^b]{2})/

                Comment

                Working...