> Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process"
Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.
There, doesn't make a difference.
> and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...]
I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me on democracy, I'm already sold. You also don't have to sell me on caring about people elsewhere, I'm sold there too.
But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical as that is simply useless for discussion.
The responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of atrocities elsewhere, because the polticians we elect deal with foreign countries in which they take place, isn't cherry picking a definition. That's directly related to what democracy is. They also said
> Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace
Would you disagree with that? If not, would you agree that part of being educated and aware is being not myopic and navel gazing, and caring about genocide elsewhere? If so, what are you even arguing?
If not, how can one be educated and aware, yet so shortsighted and selfish? Do you know an example of a person you would consider educated and aware, who shrugs off atrocities elsewhere?
> But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical
Who did though? Someone said "real democracy" and you don't even ask them what they mean with that. While I don't know what they meant with "real democracy", if I had used those words in that context, I would have meant that you can't really have values such as free speech, freedom of assembly, right to due process -- in spirit, in daily practice, in the socialization and character of people, not just on paper -- and then just turn them off when people outside of your jurisdiction get brutalized, and not care at all. It's like I would say "a real feminist" doesn't just care about their own jurisdiction, but also about the plight of women in third world countries, and so on.
With democracy especially, this kind of half-assedness then comes back to bite us, too. I don't want to derail, but I'll just say "arms exports, allies who are kind of assholes, or in turn allied with assholes, refugee crisis".... not to mention global warming and the projected hundreds of millions of refugees that warming oceans could, probably will lead to. Caring about that stuff and about democracy elsewhere does benefit me, too, "in a globalized world". Just like helping another person can help me in my own life, since that life takes place in a world wherein that other person lives as well.
> If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?
-- Hillel the Elder
That guy probably didn't have "democracy" in mind, but still. If I believe in democratic ideals, human rights, and all that, I might be cool with, say, a monarchy that's not a tyranny, if people elsewhere want that, fine... but I MUST be against people just being murdered. I certainly must be against my own government being in bed with murderers. Otherwise, I'm not a "real" democrat, I'm not "really" for the human rights I myself enjoy, but just paying lip service.
Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.
There, doesn't make a difference.
> and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...]
I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me on democracy, I'm already sold. You also don't have to sell me on caring about people elsewhere, I'm sold there too.
But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical as that is simply useless for discussion.