How is democracy any better than a totalitarian government? In

>>2334207
I think your getting totalitarian mixed up with authoritarian. Totalitarian means that the govt has great influence in every aspect of life/society while authoritarian is just more centralized and strict with top down decisions.

totalitarianism is garabage but so is democracy unless you live in a European city state, Switzerland or Iceland.

in a democracy if you have a shit leader you wait a few years and peacefully remove him with an election

if you have a shit dictator your only recourse is to either wait decades until he dies with absolutely no guarantee that the next guy will be any better, or rise up against him which will lead to the deaths of many innocent people, destroy the economy, and throw the entire nation into chaos. And then there's STILL no guarantee that whoever gets into power will be any better.

>>2334207
yeah people are generally starting to figure it out.

>>2334207
No one person or entity 'controls' the media. Not the Murdoch family, not Ted Turner, not (((them))), not the Bilderberg group.
0/10 bait.

>>2334214
In a "democracy" the media also controls everything you think. Hey did you hear about George Clooney or the latest kardashians? It's very important because we're telling you it is. Also, it's "time" you be personally okay with gay marriage or whatever vogue trend because it's the current year and we're telling you this is what you should think. Also Putin and Assad is the big bad enemy and you must hate him otherwise you're a traitor, that's just the way things are, trust us. Oh btw, Corbyn's plan for affordable housing is REALLY REALLY bad, trust us, we know these things, you're better off voting for the party that wants to increase military expenditure.

Yeah democracies are totally different from dictatorships.

>>2334235
>In a "democracy" the media also controls everything you think
You believing this is proof that it's not true.

>>2334235
America isn't a democracy though.

>>2334207
That's why Trump lost, right? Oh wait.

Make no mistake, although in 2015 Trump benefitted massively from the free exposure "the media" gave him (especially from television networks' focus on spectacle over substance), once it became clear he might actually win, there was a massive push against him -- particularly from newspapers like the WaPo and NYT but also from several major networks including CNN. Even Fox News only rallied behind him after he won the primary and they basically had to.

Trump, of course, called this 'bias.' In a sense he's right. In another sense, well -- is it 'bias' if an overwhelming proportion of reporters look at you, conclude that you'd be a terrible president, and present what they believe are facts that back up their position? Because that is what happened, even if orders also came down from above instructing them to do so. Regardless, whatever your opinions on the ethics of what happened, the fact is that much of the media was united against him. He still won.

Yes, media moguls are powerful, and yes, it can be a problem, but you're overestimating HOW powerful. You're also underestimating how stifling actual totalitarian governments are. Nobody ever said that representative democracy was perfect, but a limited choice is better than literally no choice at all.

>>2334207
>If you control the information you control who wins the election.
I'm pretty sure everyone's aware of this by now.

>>2334247
It's a Republic :------------------------------------------------------------------)

8====D~

>>2334235

>Corbyn's plan for affordable housing is REALLY REALLY bad

Was with you until this bit.

>>2334314
Except, again -- they didn't.

And if you think the months-long, near-universal warning cry against Trump was just another manipulative tactic from the Powers That Be, a false flag or whatever, because clearly they SECRETLY WANTED Trump to win, then ... you are wrong.

There are several exceptions, but by and large "the media" did not want Trump to win and they are not happy now that he has won.

As for you,
>>2334235
>In a "democracy" the media also controls everything you think
Obviously using the general "you," because clearly you're not talking about yourself, there. Unless you're telling me you're an avid follower of the Kardashians.

>it's "time" you be personally okay with gay marriage
>Also Putin and Assad is the big bad enemy and you must hate him otherwise you're a traitor
This point is kind of undercut by the fact that NOT EVERYBODY BELIEVES THESE THINGS. How are you not noticing that?

I hate to break it to you, but you are not the one person smart enough to see the strings being pulled, there are plenty of other people out there who are as perceptive or more perceptive than you. The puppeteer exists, but his control isn't absolute, and besides, there are other puppeteers all trying to pull the same strings, trying to do different things. A mess? Sure. It's still better than an autocracy. You'd know that if you'd ever lived in one.

>>2334207
US election. Dems controlled almost all media but lost.

>>2334207
How is X any better than Y?

Argument: X has some of the downsides of Y.
QED

In a pluralistic society, there is no such thing as "the media".

There are media outlets for the whole political spectrum. Even if the affluent, the sort of people that get higher positions in media outlets, of the US tend to be leaning towards the Democrats, there are still literally over a hundred million people reached by outlets not supporting them.
Furthermore, in this age of the Internet, anyone with a quarter brain and Internet access can publish his own news. From the obscure blogger with 3 followers, over the twitter feed read by hundreds of thousands to shit like Gawker and Breitbart read by millions, there is everything.
Lastly, media outlets aren't the only type of actor with power over information. Universities, political parties, the government, lobby groups from Christian Moms Against Homosexuals to the All-Vegan Alliance, media from other countries and your neighbour when he talks to you all either literally or figuratively publish themselves, too, and aren't reliant on media outlets to get information out there.

This reductionist conspiracy theory garbage about "the media" annoys me.

>>2334714
But this exact flood of outlets is what causes most problems in the first place. Information is drowned in a sea of blatant platitudes and worthless decoys, leading to over saturation and general disinterest.
And even if "the media" isn't a single gargantuan entity, all the tiny "counter-news" do little to actually counter the power and coverage of bigger news networks. They simply do not fight on equal terms, and it shows. You would be stupid or blind not to see that.