• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    Tbh I just don’t think I’m going to be able to make sense of what you’re talking about.

    Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity

    But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.

    So, only in the first year or so is it possible to enact policies aimed at improving society, but then afterwards you can still pass policies that somehow meaningful despite not being aimed at improving society(?) and the latter isn’t actually governing(?).

    None of this makes any sense. If there are “various means” available to pass policy, then why would it not be “actually governing” to use those means? And if the policies passed through those means aren’t aimed at improving society, then in what way are they meaningful? And for that matter, why can you only enact policy that has nothing to do with improving society during that time period?

    Honestly, I’d just suggest scrapping this point entirely and finding a different way of phrasing what you’re trying to say.

    • neatchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      No thanks. I’m done trying to explain it. I’m curious if others are having as much trouble understanding or if you’re being intentionally obtuse, but there is no other way to say what I’m trying to say. It’s complex and nuanced. There is no simple or concise way to say it. So I’m done here. Have a good one 👋

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        I started out more confrontational tbh but then just got confused by what you meant and have been legitimately trying to figure it out, I’m not being intentionally obtuse.

        It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you’re enacting policy that improves society through whatever means available, then you’re actually governing, if you’re not doing that then you’re not. Very simple and straightforward terminology. Whatever distinction you’re drawing seems meaningless and arbitrary to me.