“…… Even the kind of possibility just mentioned can theoretically exist. But how can the opponent prove that this kind of hypothesis really occupies the mainstream in real life? You must know that hypothesis is just a hypothesis, and the spiral of silence is just an insignificant non-mainstream theory in contemporary media studies, and it cannot replace social reality.

It is also an indisputable fact that after O'Dark Horse was elected president, the American people were generally excited, and anyone with a little insight would not deny this when he opened his eyes to look at the world. Isn't it a mistake for the opponent's defense friend to try to prove that 'the media freedom brought about by the Internet can enable a small number of people with strong desires to sway the majority of people who have no desires'?"

The second and third debates of Xiangjiang University hastily organized a new counterattack and tried to fight with Feng Jianxiong.

But from the perspective of counter-attack, it can also be seen that they have abandoned the argument that the criterion for promoting democracy is to represent the opinion of the greater majority, rather than the opinion of the relatively small but strong people. It only focuses on refuting "whether the generalization of freedom of speech brought about by the Internet really leads to the drawbacks of 'rhythm and coercion', and cannot really allow public opinion to be expressed and contagious".

Seeing that the other party had taken a step back in momentum, Feng Jianxiong was naturally more tidy: "That example is just because it is more vivid, so it can be used as an introduction." Because of the survey, it is difficult for both of us to come up with concrete public opinion data that is convincing enough......"

The third debate of Xiang University immediately retorted: "We can come up with detailed data - the final election vote count has a result, and O'dark Horse did win by more than 15 percentage points!"

Feng Jianxiong spread his hands: "But you can't prove the opinion of those who didn't vote because they thought 'maybe it won't change anything with my vote' - the United States has never voted more than 60% of the legal electorate for so many years, including this time the majority of blacks have been enclosed to vote." In the past, the turnout was only a few over 40%. ”

Xiang Dasan's debate immediately grasped the details and asked: "It seems that the opponent's defense friend doesn't even know the basic common sense that 'rights can be waived and obligations must be fulfilled'. It is precisely because democracy is a right that people who are indifferent can abstain, and abstaining means that they feel that the two candidates are the same and it doesn't matter, and the final election result cannot represent their will?"

Feng: "But it doesn't matter if you can't prove that these people are really intended, or because they were influenced by social networks and even the media of the previous generation, and mistakenly thought that 'even if I go, it won't be bad for my vote'." If, because of the shackles of the media, some people who mistakenly think that they are a minority are deceived into not exercising their rights, can that also be called the promotion of democracy?

According to this, it turns out that the promotion of democracy that the opponent's defense friend thinks is to first create momentum to deter it, and then everyone receives a profound ideological education, and finally there is harmony, then it is called **"

The sophistry that follows is too discordant, but it is nothing more than chewing on the words, the two sides talk about the truth, and no one can cite data, so they can only stop there.

Feng Jianxiong seized the opportunity and began to cite his own examples to refute them in depth.

For example, he has detailed data to prove that some turning points in history, in fact, are actually a small number of people in the overall scope. It's just that the "coercion Dafa" was used, and a snowball was used to kill a small number of opponents at each specific moment in batches......

It's just that these examples seem to be even more discordant, so let's stop.

……

After an unspeakable process, the game ended.

In any case, Feng Jianxiong succeeded in showing that democracy is a beautifully portrayed shroud of saints, which no one has ever done.

At best, he is a stakeholder group.

The reason why those peasant uprisings in history ended was that they blindly co-opted the real majority at the beginning, destroyed the structure of the food chain, and led to the lack of sustainable exploitation chain after killing the rich, and finally could only disintegrate themselves, and then divide a small group of 10%~20% from the inside to enslave the remaining 80%~90% to maintain the ecological balance of the social system.

Darwin told us that the total wolf weight in a grassland should not exceed 10%~20% of the total weight of the flock, and any more wolves will starve to death, and wolves will eat wolves. And if there is less, not only will the wolf eat well, but the sheep will also feel less pain.

This data actually has a subtle scientific truth, and it was later verified by the society - for example, in the North Stick of the First Army, there are more than 1 million soldiers, and the population is only 20 million. Counting every soldier has a wife and children, so the ruling class has 5 million (considering that the military in Beibang is a high-level profession and has a hereditary motivation, then it is better to count some families of five and two soldiers, and give a discount).

After this discount, it is basically three or four million ruling class, which happens to be five to one with slaves, the golden ratio. No matter how high the proportion is, the country will not be destroyed, and there will be no sustainable development.

Of course, although the interests of the group leaders are not as good as the fantasy of "true democracy," they still have some comparative advantages over dictatorship in good conscience.

Discordant nonsense will not be expanded.

And the progress of science and technology, especially the progress of media technology, will only make the Matthew effect more obvious, make the spiral of silence more concentrated, and allow a few rhythm dogs to achieve greater results and suppress more indifferent people.

Just like some stations, people who love to read Xiaobaiwen are not necessarily the mainstream. It's just that the whites are more miserable in real life, so the expression on the Internet is more intense. AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE A DECENT LIFE IN REAL LIFE ARE OFTEN MORE DECENT, DO NOT HAVE SUCH A STRONG DESIRE TO EXPRESS, AND ARE UNWILLING TO SPEND MONEY.

So after a long time, the supply side has also adapted, and people of insight have been forced not to read the online articles by chance, and have entered a silent spiral, feeling that the online articles are so naïve and flashing.

But if you think that "School Flower Bodyguard Soldier King Dog" is the mainstream of Huaxia because of this, then people absolutely don't recognize it, it is just the mainstream of real-life losers.

In the era without the Internet, minority but similar opinions will never have the opportunity to gather so easily, and then form a majority opinion in a small community, as long as they express their desire to be strong enough, they can make the community bigger step by step, and finally make pesticide milk powder become the mainstream of society.

"Feng Jianxiong, this guy really belongs to Solzhenitsyn, who is caught. Back then, Solzhenitsyn scolded the Soviet Union in the Soviet Union and the United States in the United States. According to Feng Jianxiong's meaning, the dictatorship also scolds democracy and scolds, what kind of faction is he?"

"But there is a lot of personality to say. If you want to rely on a preset position to trap him, it is probably impossible. ”

——

Let's deal with it like this, after thinking about it, there are some words that can't be written in the body of the debate. Fast forward.