| Kaneman! said: The whole term is anachronistic by now, as we aren't in the cold war period anymore, it's as much a term as "the West" compared to "the East". But since those terms went with the iron curtain, then where do you draw the line? What encompasses the so called free world currently? Then, obviously I have nothing against democracy, even though there's one or two things to say about your two-party system, which definitely isn't the most democratic way to go. In any case, that's all nit-picking, I actually don't mind it too much, although I agree that champion sounds more substantial than leader. Or it should be the Avatar, and spread the virtues all over Britannia the world. |
| Ka-pi96 said: Firstly, people not liking arrogance is pretty common and really shouldn't come as a shock to anybody. Secondly, because other countries may have better ideas for how to do things, if they aren't already doing them better. And if we're talking about democratic practices then there's definitely countries that are doing it better (subjective, I know, but surely most people could agree that there are some major flaws in the US democratic process). |
It is a bit anachronistic nowadays, as is East and West. Our two party system is horrible and will probably be our undoing. And Ka-pi, absolutely a lot of countries have great ideas to do things better. I actually agree that there really shouldn't be one leader, even country wise, and the term leader does certainly imply one, even though there could be multiple leaders. At the very least it implies leaders and followers, when really the dynamic is more one of actively promoting and advancing verses passively supporting. It's definitely a phrase that could stand to be retired, and is probably on its way out already.
