> Democracy has nothing to do with minority protections. [...] Democracy includes whatever enough people [italized by me] think it should include. If people don't want such protections then there is no need for them.

You just proved my point by demonstrating your utter ignorance of the topic: Your three sentences encapsulate the textbook definition of ochlocracy (or laocracy), i. e. mob rule. Which, as already outlined, is not democracy.

I suggest you read some authoritative and up-to-date texts on democracy before embarassing yourself again.

▲

charcircuit 20 hours ago | parent [-]

>Your three sentences encapsulate the textbook definition of ochlocracy (or laocracy)

The textbook definition of ochlocracy is a small group of people taking justice into their own hands. That is not what I described in my post where I explained how they can come up with rules and processes and how to deal with things as opposed to having a mob deal with it.

▲

spankibalt 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> The textbook definition of ochlocracy is a small group of people taking justice into their own hands.

No, that's not the textbook definition.

That exchange has sadly run its course for me for I have no interest in reading tedious counterfactual clichés, especially not ones outside the scope of the thread's actual topic. One can only hope you embark on that suggested reading journey to better understand the emergence and evolution of (modern) democracy.

Good luck!

	▲	charcircuit 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No thank you. I will not be reading about what I already understand. If you want to believe a different set of definitions feel free, but you will find that you are overcomplicating simple concepts.