[ThalesX]

They understand something which most of us have no grasp on and small chances of getting up-to-speed about, which is governing masses of people, with the realities of the situation.

How do you even know they don’t understand, misunderstand, don’t have conflicting agendas or just don’t like an idea? It’s easy to assume, especially when one has never stepped in the backstage of politics.

[krageon]

> It’s easy to assume, especially when one has never stepped in the backstage of politics.

You were making a good point until you ended up here. The backstage of politics is essentially bribery in it's many legal and not so legal forms.

[ThalesX]

I'm sorry, I'm not making any pro statement for backstage of politics. I'm saying that people who are not exposed to this, could think that they could run a better society, but ultimately they wouldn't. Coming in with high technological hopes of societal improvements while closing a blind eye to how it's actually done at this point will never work, or so I feel.

I would like a bit more context into how you feel my mentioning of backstage of politics, which is indeed how the world is run today, is detrimental to my point that old men have experience in exactly this.

[krageon]

You were making a broader point about expertise in governing many people, which I would consider as a general positive quality. When you then reduce that expertise to what happens behind closed doors, it (to my mind) becomes explicitly about bribery and corruption. Perhaps folks with experience have more experience with that as well, but it's not germane to their general competence in dealing with groups of people.

Unless of course you think both are intertwined in a way that cannot be separated. In that case we just disagree.

[ThalesX]

> You were making a broader point about expertise in governing many people, which I would consider as a general positive quality.

I guess this also depends where you lead them. Personally I don't consider it a positive quality, I consider it a dangerous quality.

> When you then reduce that expertise to what happens behind closed doors, it (to my mind) becomes explicitly about bribery and corruption.

I'm sure bribery and corruption are a big part of backdoor deals, but I'm sure also some discussions which would be impossible in the public space are taking place. Could you orchestrate a coup towards a hostile regime out in the public? Could you actually state your support of gay people when in a conservative party? There are a lot of things that can't be said in public space, but must be said in private in order to advance society. I feel.

> Perhaps folks with experience have more experience with that as well, but it's not germane to their general competence in dealing with groups of people.

I feel it is. I've seen a new wave of politicians in my country, they rode off on the excitement of the population for a new political force, but once they managed to get an ounce of power, their holier than thou attitude made it impossible to work with them and kinda crashed them in the polls. They are still getting my vote as they're against the status-quo, but damn it I wish they were a bit more 'backroom' in some aspects.

> Unless of course you think both are intertwined in a way that cannot be separated. In that case we just disagree.

This is actually where I stand. I am also considering the historical context of my country where in more totalitarian times, a bit of backroom dealing managed to create some form of space for revolution to happen.

Disagreement is healthy and I thank you for stating your views clearly. I hope I managed to do the same.