[alexvoda]

Lack of coherence is a major benefit for a sacred text. It allows the cult clerics to be flexible, to pick and choose what they like, what is socially acceptable at the time.

A rigid sacred text that claim things are one way or that something must be done someway will inevitably fail when reality shows that things are some other way or that the results of some other action are better.

[mistermann]

Sounds a lot like "Democracy, our most sacred institution". Defend it blindly, with your "good faith" "critical thinking".

[alexvoda]

I do not see what point you are making. Care to reformulate?

[mistermann]

Cultural norms are often described (and perceived) as being ~sacred (beyond reproach, discussion, etc).

After the events of January 6 at the capital (the "literal" coup attempt), "Democracy, our most sacred institution" quickly coalesced as a common sound bite across the mainstream media complex.

As religious people are reluctant to question the axioms of their religion (as a consequence of psychological conditioning, at least in part), I propose the same general phenomenon (and causes) exists with respect to "facts" and power structures within culture.

To be even more clear: I believe that "democracy", the flavors that are currently practised in this era, are highly illusory...and, I also believe that most people have ~"cognitive viruses" within their mind that activate when any criticism of democracy arises, plausible artifacts of which can be seen in massive quantities across social media conversations. /r/politcis is famous for this sort of thing, but on certain topics it is not difficult at all to find the same thing on HN.

[shrimpx]

This is kind of a tangent, but driving the J6 conversation toward “sacred democracy” is a red herring that focuses away from the real issue, which is jockeying for power by playing dirty and bending the rules to create unexpected outcomes.

For example McConnell inventing a rule from thin air that you can’t fill a scotus seat in an election year. Then cynically breaking his own “rule.” Or Trump insisting Mike Pence “can send the votes back to the states.” Or submitting “alternate” electors who would break the pledge to match their votes to the majority vote. Or install a DOJ puppet AG who would seize voting machines.

This has nothing to do with whether America should be a democracy or not. It’s all about whether we should normalize a toxic culture of scummy power jockeying.

[mistermann]

> the real issue, which is...

One problem I have with claims, sincere as they may be, about "the" issue is that there are many, many thousands" of "the issues" in circulation. It's a lot like God(s): how shall we tell which "the one" is THE "the one" (is there only one?). And, I suspect the underlying epistemology/cognition of each resembles that which underlies religion more than a little.

> This has nothing to do with whether America should be a democracy or not. It’s all about whether we should normalize a toxic culture of scummy power jockeying.

I think it may be worth noting that for any given issue, whether it has "nothing/anything to do with" something else is often subjective (such as in this case), and also that the mind has a tendency to render subjective matters as objective at runtime (more so with some topics than others).

I am not opposed to democracy per se, I am opposed to fake democracy (or fake anything for that matter), where "fake" means approximately "what it says on the tin does not match the product inside"....kinda like the picture of a Big Mac on a poster vs what you get when you actually buy one.