Even the independent or non-profit media sources that have a lot of credibility and seem generally pretty chill will fall back on this every now and again.
You see it anytime you hear people talking about division or hyper partisanship "on the rise" in that clinical, abstract way that sounds objective. It's always in a discussion about the current state of "discourse", and it's nearly always remarked on like the story is the spike in "disagreements", and not about what the disagreements are actually about.This pervasive idea that somehow people being upset about the current state of affairs and the rise of actual fascism is some kind of aberration.
Like "Gee, people sure are arguing a lot these days. Boy howdy, they're sure a feisty bunch, aren't they?" Women literally had their right to an abortion taken away from them, we had armed fascists storming our God damn capital on the word of a President and current candidate, we had thousands die to a preventable illness because of rampant misinformation and right wing individualist propaganda, and still you hear this tone that people being really angry right now is weird.
Fucking Kurkusagst, a channel I have a lot of respect for, just the other day dropped a video blaming social media on the mounting political and social divisions in our country, and implying all will be well if we just stopped using big media platforms. Social media is definitely part of it, but anyone seriously acting like it's the primary reason people are fucking pissed right now has to be some well-off straight white man, because the rest of us have some pretty damn good reasons to be pissed. I don't need Twitter or Reddit or Facebook to make me angry, I just need to be paying the fuck attention.
It's insulting to every women, every LGBT person, every non-white person, and every single person struggling to make a living right now to imply "social media is just getting us riled up."
https://youtube.com/@kurzgesagt?si=w3MTquS3_Dsj9lVY
Kurzgesagt - I heavily support what they do and have purchased from their shop multiple times. I have not watched the new video however.
Oh I love these videos! I actually was already half through the social media one already and had lost it in my history. Thanks for reconnecting me 🙂
It doesn't really seem that way. I only ever hear about how evil Republicans are and how starving and precious the Democrats are. I think you're all fucking stupid for thinking stances on subjects need to be clumped together in categories. I want universal healthcare, basic income, and the right to carry a gun for the next time police come to wreck my life over a false accusation made by a violent asshole!
•
Do things typically go well for people who use firearms against police? Is this some sort of crazy shit that I’m too Canadian to understand?
Very definitely not if you're black. Two famous cases of police murder- Breonna Taylor and Philando Castile involved legal gun ownership and use. The former involved her boyfriend shooting at police because he thought they were home invaders. They didn't care.
The world is not normal or healthy. I've done absolutely nothing wrong and been punished by police and schools repeatedly. My record is a lie.
If I'd done the shit they do, it would be called slander, kidnapping, and torture.
This is you trying to discredit me, and you're actually labeling it genuine. I wonder what percent of people are stupid enough to buy it.
and the right to carry a gun for the next time police come to wreck my life over a false accusation made by a violent asshole!
"I want the right to execute public officials for doing their lawful jobs (for once) when I am accused of a crime and must go through the processes everyone must in order to ensure some modicum of justice instead of rampant crime or vigilante action"
Uh, gonna go ahead and say that's the fucking stupidest thing I've heard today.
I've been through the process. They forced a guilty plea out of me by holding me indefinitely. There's nothing right about any of the times law has come after me. You can dress it up pretty all you like. I shouldn't have to be helpless when facing unfair treatment and conditions I cannot mentally tolerate.
Yeah it's a shame you didn't have your gun when you were held by the police indefinitely. Surely, if you had murdered a few cops they would have let you go.
Nah, they'd have killed me and that's better than being subjected to their jail conditions. If also have killed them and maybe they will be less inclined to push random innocent people so far afterwards. I feel no empathy for them after what they've put me through. None.
Of course! Because no one is allowed to be a police officers anymore other than the ones already on the job, so if you kill one, their numbers go permanently down! That cop you kill to stop them from pushing random innocent people around will never be replaced by another cop. You would definitely have done something very useful.
•
maybe they will be less inclined to push random innocent people
So far thinking that guns will solve this problem has ingrained an “us vs them” attitude, led to no-knock raids and militarization of police. How’s that working for you?
A gun isn't going to solve that problem, buddy, unless your intention is to commit suicide by cop.
I'm not gonna give you identifying details random stranger. The story is obviously much longer than that, but I don't expect anyone to believe me and it's not worth the effort to type out on my phone at work.
Well hey man, if your goal was to make a bunch of strangers think that you're a crazy and probably dangerous jackass, then congrats because you're fucking nailing it right now.
If your goal was anything other than that, you should probably either take more consideration about the things you say or at the very least be willing to explain or elaborate on the mad ramblings flowing from your frothing mouth.
But you do you do, I guess. Just preferably far as fuck away from me.
edit: minor typo
•
Even if stipulate to your inference that you were treated wrongly in many ways, attempted murder is not a reasonable response to most of them.
We’d all be cheering for you to get a huge settlement, for any illegal cop activity to be severely punished (for real), for fame and notoriety over a victory for the little people …. But instead you come across as someone unstable enough that you should not have access to firearms.
You ever read one of those heartwarming stories about a woman who paid somebody's medical debt?
I've actually got no idea where you're going with this, so I'll bite. Yes, I've heard stories like that.
The Democrats and the Republicans are both on the side of Capital, the Republicans just want fascism as well. The left is the side that is demonized by the media just as much as the fascists.
Everyone is demonizing and censoring everyone and playing innocent. Fuck literally everyone who uses labels and uses filters to suppress others. Why can't we just sit here and argue about the actual subject points individually like decent goddamn human beings?!
•
Why can't we just sit here and argue... like decent goddamn human beings?!
This you?
I think you're all fucking stupid
Everyone calling you stupid and telling you to shove your stupidity up your ass is not censorship. You aren't being suppressed, you are being evaluated, and if that makes you feel like you should shut up, then the free market of ideas is working.
Yeah no, that's all fine. We're talking about Nexus mods here though. What they did was censor.
And they completely have that right, seeing as they own the website? Where did this come from? What are you on?
Yeah, and Facebook similarly has the right to their mass influence and control over who sees what around election time. I think they shouldn't have that right though. Facebook is not a person. Companies aren't people. Their capacity for doing damage should be open to audit. There's a reason your food requires a list of ingredients.
that's all fine
It never is, sry for the "reddit" hivemind, corners of the Internet are different as you know, 🤷♂️.
And lemmy.world censored lemmygrad.ml and hexbear and others by defederating with them, as well as enterprises and the government.
That's not censorship. Both lemmygrad and hexbear are alive and well and freely available to anyone interested in what they have to say. By your definition I'm "censoring" Fox News by not watching it.
Honestly, that's a complication that needs to be considered and can be used against us if we do the regulating wrong. There's so many people in here who just have a side and wanna rage against me because I'm not bleating their tune. This isn't about gayness or gay aversion at all. My problem is that the avenues for free speech may as well be abandoned because nobody goes there and exposure is determined by money. The Internet is the best we have and it's being used against truth. My bone is to pick with censorship itself and more specifically when it's done with large audiences.
That's more of a centrist take. It makes perfect sense for trans allies to demonize transphobes, for example. Nobody is advocating against constructive conversation, but sometimes views are genuinely rooted in malice and thus cannot be reasoned with.
Keep your labels to yourself, and no it doesn't make sense to demonize, ever. Take literally myself for example. I'm into futas and whatnot, but lots of gay dudes genuinely freak me out. It's not the gayness, but some other creepy shit that comes packaged with it. I was literally stalked in the shower by multiple dudes in the homeless shelter and staff did nothing. I had a dude in jail who convinced the COs to make him my celly because he thought I would hook up with him and when I denied him he became violent about it. This is just the two most strand out examples. Gay dudes actually creep me out. You gonna demonize me for that?
I'm not sure you want to take a middle ground between being transphobic and being a trans ally, as that's just transphobia. The transphobes should, in fact, be shunned and demonized for being bigots.
Homophobia ain't cool either.
Your problem is that you're calling it what is not to have an easier time ridiculing and sounding cool. Malice and fear are not the same. Don't give the malice camp allies from the fearful camp.
But you're the one who brought in assigned labels to begin with?
That's why we can't "just sit here and argue", because you'd eventually end up arguing against yourself. Thanks for cutting out the rest of the loop the "but my free speech" people would normally need to be guided through before the conclusion was reached.
Weirdly, most people I hear about being "censored" are able to tell everyone in the world how censored they are.
I want universal healthcare, basic income, and the right to carry a gun for the next time police come to wreck my life over a false accusation made by a violent asshole!
The only things Republicans care about in this list is guns. Perhaps you can give us some examples of policy proposals the GOP has made in the last few years that don't involve removing rights from people and consolidate presidential power?
You're forgetting the other two inconsolable topics in G.A.G.
Did you learn nothing in school about the major parties and their stances? I'm not exactly defending our indoctrinating school system here, but my point stands the same. You're super simplifying literally just for the sake of demonizing your opposition. Either that, or you actually believe the strawman shit.
Toss the labels. The only people being offered as president choices are both just different flavors of rich who don't care about you. Let guns abortions and gays rot because they'll never be solved. Consider right to repair or employee exploitation. Make progress where it's actually possible!
I'm simply asking for proposals by the GOP that look to solve issues, not remove rights, or consolidate power. It really shouldn't be hard if they exist. But then again, we are talking about the same group that put out in 2020 that their party platform was just "Whatever Trump wants."
Why engage with the label? You're only going to come up against tribalism that way. They think Democrats are baby killers trying to take away their means to protect themselves and encourage their kids to do stuff they think is yucky. That's what the labels are doing for them, so they band with their group and fire shots the other way without thinking just the same. The labels make every attempt at improving life worthless while the rich among us exploit the drama.
He’s not talking about the label he’s asking a very good, specific question:
Name a policy proposal or decision made by the GOP as it stands since 2016 that has been aimed at helping anyone, improving anything, or otherwise taking steps to accomplish anything outside of stonewalling democrats and stripping rights away from conservatives “out groups”, and consolidating power/attacking election rights.
I will even open this up to include state level legislation.
Go ahead.
I suppose that :
In their point of view, the economical success is thanks to them.
Their conservative take on what they perceive as excessive "progressivism" is saving America from making a mistake.
Their opposition to censorship and the right to bear guns.
They want to fight crimes, and in their view criminals wouldn't exist because they would be too afraid of being caught.
They believe that taxation is a theft, or at least excessive, and that they're protecting the u.s.a. from an oppressive government. That without them people would have an easy life so wouldn't work hard(, true to an extent, poor workers exist though, and childs of wealthy families have more interesting jobs).
They love freedom.
I.d.k., i don't know them enough to defend them, including for the (far-)right of my own country, it's a bit of a shame really, once you disagree with them their speeches aren't very informative, that's why i kinda regret not to have them to speak with.
I'm not a Republican, so I don't really follow what they're doing. I try to focus specifically on right to repair and media censorship because maintaining a normal life at the same time as keeping up with people who are dedicated to all politics isn't practical.
I'm not defending them. I'm attacking tribalism itself. The labels are meant to overwhelm and make people take sides. I cannot sit here and spend so much time addressing them and that's a part of my issue with all this.
Let guns abortions and gays rot because they’ll never be solved. Consider right to repair or employee exploitation. Make progress where it’s actually possible!
Fuck women's rights and LGBT people, you have a class war to wage, huh?
Lol! Sometimes these days I think I'm in, The Truman Show. I mean I have to be, right?.. This can't be what the culmination of human evolution has created. It's all too implausible to be true.
•
Yes, that's what the image says.
A lot of comments now seem like someone just asked ChatGPT to write a line for the attached image. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, it's literally just rehashing the post but with a cadence that doesn't fit. "I mean" sounds like your about to say something contradicting or expanding upon the post.
So do you just wake up as a curmudgeonly dingus, or does it take a few hours of the day for you to get like that?
God, how I wish that your comment actually bothered me. Instead, I'm just entertained by your username having enough letters for the term "dingus"
What chides me the most is the underlying origin of the Republican Party, the very much needed fiscal conservatism, is now missing. It’s been traded for saboteurs rigging things to fail so they can gut chunks of government.
Was "fiscal conservatism" the origin of the Republican party?
From wiki:
The new Republican Party envisioned modernizing the United States, emphasizing expanded banking, more railroads and factories, and giving free western land to farmers ("free soil") as opposed to letting slave owners buy up the best properties. It vigorously argued that free market labor was superior to slavery and was the very foundation of civic virtue and true republicanism; this was the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology.
Fiscal conservatism is just a GOP invented MacGuffin to give them cover when they employ their advisorial antigovernance strategy. Every time we put a conservative in charge they blow the deficit up and funnel money to their backers.
Then they cry fiscal conservatism when a DEM takes power and say we need to cut social programs. Fiscal conservatism is a lie people continue to believe in because they hate anyone getting a break that isn't themselves. Themselves or wealthy white men who they project their own ambitions onto.
They also see wealth as a kind of virtue in and of itself, one that should be rewarded.
I don't know, I wasnt going to do a deep dive because I already know the republican party is a reanimated corpse of the party it once was.
If you still believe the Democrats are going to come through on universal healthcare or free college, you're also part of the problem.
I feel like if our voting system wasn't skewed so heavily toward Republicans (between the Electoral College, gerrymandering being legal, and a general "states can run their elections however they want" to allow Republican-controlled states to make whatever changes they want to favor themselves), we'd see a lot more progress. Instead, it's harder and harder for liberals to vote, the votes count for less and less, and we're barely scraping to just vote out fascists (if possible).
Fix the voting system, and we might get something worthwhile out of Democrats other than undoing some of their predecessors terrible actions and giving just enough to their supporters to whet their appetite without ever leaving them satisfied.
Democrats’ only real incentive is to be better than Republicans.
I disagree with that...their only incentive these days is to NOT be Republicans. They've taken up traditional right leaning republican policy at this point and are getting away with it. For example: The ACA is terrible, we NEED universal healthcare, however, the D's are content letting big health insurance continue to rape the US. The D's have also strongly backed off climate protections, and honestly, it's too late for climate change so that's maybe moot.
The point is, they don't have any incentive to actually push policy...they just need to point and say "Republicans are bad" and the donations roll in.
There is no 3rd party. Voting for a third party candidate is no different than just not voting at all. The only message that you are sending is that you are fine with whoever actually ends up winning.
You want to voice your dissatisfaction with the system? Then vote vote more, not less. The reason you get nothing but shit candidates is because you aren't voting in the elections that actually matter the most... the small, local elections determine who is running your schools, who is running your elections, they determine who is at the base of the power pyramid. It may seem like taking out one bit of support here or there does nothing, but one drop of water doesn't make a flood. It takes constant, repeated drops to saturate the earth and let other drops build up.
Venice is sinking into the mud. The ground it sits on is unstable and slowly shifts out from below it, and it continues to sink. They are fighting to keep it up. They poor tons of money into jacking it up and trying to stabilize it, but it just keeps sinking. You want change? Be the sifting sand. Liquify the particles around you and remove the base that supports these shitty parties. And, you can't do that if the people you vote for don't win.
Dems and Reps aren't the only groups that can get things done, and I'm not talking about voting third party.
Electoralism is purely harm reduction for leftists, no leftist policy will get through in a 2-party Capitalist state. Instead, change must happen at the grassroots level.
Organize, unionize, protest, all that good stuff.
No one is deluding themselves into thinking that will happen. The alternative, voting for Trump, however, is unacceptable.
Agreed that it's harder, but that "private for-profit industry" shouldn't exist. It needs to be abolished. Democrats loooooove their Obamacare, but all Obama did was make that industry mandatory. That's the opposite of abolishing it.
•
I believe Democrats will at least make proposals to improve healthcare coverage and free college. More importantly, there has been significant progress over the last four years or so.
Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Idk about you but that seems to make it pretty cut and dry that slavery is illegal in the US. Prison is different because when you are convicted, you are stripped of many rights. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.
So slavery exists. You can't just put an asterix next to it because they are criminals -- it's still slavery. They are still human beings.
They stopped being humans when they decided to steal that bread to feed their children!!
/s
They stopped being humans when they decided to smoke that weed growing in the ditch or eat that wild growing mushroom.
/s
It's forced labor, not actual chattel slavery in the sense that the state can't actually buy and sell prisoners and is obligated to free them under certain conditions. Nor, unlike chattel slavery, can one be born into the status of prisoner.
•
If there’s an exception to a rule then it’s not a cut and dry rule. If slavery is illegal except when it affects certain people then it’s not illegal overall.
affects certain people
What certain people? Criminals?
Because when you, for instance, kill someone, you can't just simply walk free and do whatever it is that you want? That's not an exception. Minorities in pre-1865 US (including Indians, this is coming from one himself) committed the crime of not being white with guns.
You have to pay penance of some kind, you really think the government is going to just take people's money they use to feed and house your ass for free? I work in corrections mind you (fucking hate it but it's either that or homelessness for my family) and I don't think drug users should be imprisoned for usage, violent offenders and pedophiles though? Yes, put their asses to work.
That's no more slavery than a child doing chores.
The one rule of public policy, if they can do it to anybody, they have all the precedent they need to do it to you too, even if they swear you're safe, oftentimes especially if they swear you're safe.
I was so ready to just downvote for implying criminals don't deserve rights and move on, but something about your argument does give me thought and I kinda wanna explore this more, especially since you're working in this field yourself. Apologies if this is kinda ranty, I'm processing my thoughts and why the comment stuck with me as I go.
When people are put in jail, it costs money, like you said, it's not free, so what do taxpayers expect to get out of that money? Depending on the answer to that question, yeah, it seems fair to think of manual labor as a way to offset the cost (though I doubt the taxpayer is seeing the benefits of those offset costs). I'd like to think in an ideal world however, what is being paid for is rehabilitation; turning criminals back into contributing members of society, in which case, their future productivity would ideally offset the costs to society of jailing them. I think there are enough stories of violent offenders who go on to be lawyers and such to show this is possible and what society should strive for, though I know it's not easy and may not be possible in all cases. In this case, forced, manual labor would probably be counterproductive, but arguments could be made for voluntary or even paid labor that contributes to rehabilitation.
Outside of rehabilitation, there's also the simple idea that jails are just paid to keep these people off the streets, in which case the consideration of cost is just, how badly do you not want these people in society? Following that idea, forced labor kind of makes sense, they're just in jail to be off the streets, might as well make them useful while they're removed from society, but then the argument is how much labor is ok?
Then again, if the idea is strictly punitive, any amount of forced labor becomes justified since the idea is that they are in there to suffer and serve penance. In this case I suppose the only consideration is whether the amount of penance in the form of labor fits the crime.
I'm just thinking out loud here, I don't really know anything about this topic for certain. My background though is in special education, and I know from my early studies that whenever it's tested, a lot of inmates turn out to have some sort of diagnosable learning difficulty, so I feel that the existence of jails to a large extent is a failure of society to support vulnerable people. At the same time, I do recognize that there are people who we really don't want to be part of society and whom rehabilitation might not be possible, but then if I let my thoughts go down that direction the logical conclusion seems to be the death penalty? And that's not something I'm really for, especially since there are already so many cases of wrongful death penalties.
tl;dr, I guess we really have to know what we want as the goals for jails as a society, communicate that clearly, and from there we can talk costs and the potential usefulness of forced labor.
Inmates DO have rights, most of the rights that you have, inmates have. It is namely the 2nd amendment that is taken away from specifically felons.
I do not nor have I ever supported the death penalty whatsoever, and that's aside from exactly how inefficient the process is (the process leading up to death that is). I support rehabilitation, but rehabilitation outside of prison is for people addicted to crack, math, opiods, severely addictive substances like that. The rehabilitation for a murderer IS prison.
Work is not the only form of penance, as work in penance is just community labor. The penance is also paid in reflection and reconciliation.
I think the right to vote is also taken away in a lot of cases, right? But the part about rights wasn't the main point I was trying to discuss.
I feel like reflection, reconciliation, rehabilitation, all those are processes that need to be facilitated to be effective, and at least from the outside, it doesn't seem like that's really happening in prisons. I'm not sure how prison can act as rehabilitation for murder in and of itself. I mean, in general, we know murder is bad, but there's a lot that can be behind an individuals decision to kill someone and I'm not sure how being in jail by itself deals with that. I'm sure we've all heard the examples of say, someone killing the person who they found out was abusing their child, and generally people seem more sympathetic there, but in the end, it is murder. And yes, this is a fringe situation but for the sake of fleshing out ideas, does this person deserve to be put in jail and into forced labor? I feel like most people would say no, which means that even in the case of murder, there's still some level of nuance as to what level of punishment is accepted by society.
The right to vote is usually taken away but like firearms, it depends.
The hypothetical circumstance you explained doesn't play out like you typically think, they don't always go to prison
Every rule has an exception, the better the rule the fewer exceptions. The perfect rule only has 1 exception. It's the rule of exceptions to the rules. At least the people who wrote that were aware that exceptions needed to be included. Only sith speak in absolutes, with the exception of the speaker.
Constitution: slavery is legal under certain conditions.
You: "Idk about you but that seems to make it pretty cut and dry that slavery is illegal in the US"
While I agree with you we must admit that this is not a democratic republic or a republic in any way if we acknowledge that the law allows the ability to restrict voting rights.
If it must be an absolute then even someone guilty of treason must still have a representative vote.
Which I would agree with, but that is neither here nor there about what currently is.
You: "lol I'm gonna ignore everything past that part to try and prove my incorrect point"
Edit: and also ignore the point itself. If you have to meet VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS to make something legal, then it's safe to say it is not actually legal or even technically
the media doesn't think they're equal, the media is elevating slavery because they're owned by the people who will end up owning the slaves
Spoilers: We're already slave-lite. Owned by our landlords, credit bureaus, state and federal government (taxes) and education finance system (immutable loans).
It's nowhere near as bad as real slavery was. The goal is to make us earn as much as possible for those that own us though under the guise of "freedom". Freedom is dictatorship. Freedom is being controlled. Freedom is doing the right thing as prescribed by those in power and their interpretation of law which always seems to side with those who already have the money and power.
"1984" by George Orwell.
Key tenets include:
-
Big Brother Is Watching You: This is the omnipresent government surveillance.
-
War Is Peace: This paradoxical slogan highlights the manipulation of truth.
-
Freedom Is Slavery: Suggests that individual freedom is an illusion.
-
Ignorance Is Strength: Encourages the populace to accept false narratives.
-
Thoughtcrime: The idea that thinking against the Party is criminal.
-
Doublethink: Holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
-
Newspeak: Language designed to limit freedom of thought.
-
The Party's absolute control over truth and reality.
Seems like a how to guide for the right imo.
The goal is to make us earn as much as possible for those that own us though under the guise of “freedom”. Freedom is dictatorship. Freedom is being controlled. Freedom is doing the right thing as prescribed by those in power and their interpretation of law which always seems to side with those who already have the money and power.
They keep sayin' we're free, but we're all just loose.
According to the 13th amendment you're already an actual slave state except the slaves are called prisoners.
This is literally the platform of right-populism. "Wasn't it good in the 50s when a single income for a guy with an associates was enough to support a family in a life of comfort, and a summer job could pay for university? That's why women shouldn't be in the workforce and black people shouldn't have rights."
You forgot the part where they also give these people an easy target for the miseries in their lives.
"Do you hate your life? Do you wish you were living in a mansion, eating grapes lowered into your mouth by a servant, instead of working 50 hours a week? Well, have we got a deal for you! Just try Blaming A Minority, and all your problems will disappear! But wait, act now, and we'll throw in a second minority, free! Just pay shipping and handling, and vote for our fascist candidate"
•
Why is it harder for a black man to buy a house today, when he is theoretically richer because he doesn't have to give up his money to the man you described?
In that same time GDP produced per hour worked is up over 4x what it was then. There should be more to go around for everyone.
As for women in the workforce, having twice the income earners should double the household income. But two people can't buy what one person could back then.
Hey that's not fair, as part of fascism they also want healthcare (for the right people) and education (that reinforces their prejudices).
Haha don't forget moderates.
"We should listen to both sides, I mean nazis and fascists had good ideas too!"
I see this sentiment expressed more often by tankies, enlightened centrists, and Krazy Konservative Kommenters than mainstream media sources. Usually in reference to economic policy (and in fairness, the differences there are pretty subtle if we're looking at the mainstream).
What I'm seeing in media is an attempt to listen to "both sides." It's just that one side has grown more and more detached from reality, so airing their crazy unchallenged alongside a more normal perspective makes it look like the sides are on equal rhetorical footing. It's like what you get in a debate with Donny T and Biden.
Biden: Normal liberal policy ideas, maybe we leave the queer folks alone, maybe we do a little something on climate, etc.
SmallHandsOrangeBoy: Incoherent frothing about the immigrants, the gays, the "woke mind virus"
Reporters: And here are the candidate's positions, clearly no further comment or observation is required. Best not question the froth lest we be accused of bias!
Feels like a lot of reporters are either unused to dealing with a rising fascist bloc, hampered by corporate meddling, or complicit.
The media always wants two people with diametrically opposed ideas and opinions in their tv debates. Like with climate change debates. Instead of inviting 2 people of the 99% of scientist who generally agree about human made climate change but disagree on the details they invite the disgraced 1% “scientist” with a fringe opinion who’s clearly in the pocket of big oil or a professor who isn’t even a climate expert.
So true. And it makes for good TV, plus the ragebait drives engagement on the socials (writing that made me ill).
It's not the purpose of the media to faithfully report "both sides". That's the problem in a nut shell. The idea that there are always two sides to every issue and that they are equal. That they are always equally legitimate. Media treats it like a sporting event, like a debate club. That is a total warping of journalistic principles.
The job of journalists is to report truth. To find truth and inform the people.
Center right Democrats and far right Republicans, if we're talking about how they compare with parties in other countries.
One side wants to break up families, abolish free speech, trans kids and make everyone attention slaves to big companies. The other side just wants freedom and happiness
(I dont accually believe this, just how the opposite side would make the same tweet) You cant believe the world is this black and white 💀
•
If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine,” [Ann Coulter] said in a 2007 New York Observer interview.
Holy raging badgerfuck dementia is a terrifying disease
Republican women are gender traitors just like republican black people are race traitors.
•
Correct in both cases, but the latter is especially dumbfounding. Religious indoctrination is insidious.
Being dumb doesn't make you a "traitor". There's no gender war or race war to take sides in. A lot of people are just dumb, or bad actors.
No, being dumb doesn't make you a traitor. Though it doesn't mean you aren't when you commit acts of treason while being dumb.
[Missouri State TPUSA President] Rutherford also noted that college campuses are a place where controversial ideas should be heard.
“Many students on this campus made it clear that her ideas were dangerous and unwelcome here in this pivotal moment in our country — where wrong is right and two plus two is five. When you are threatened with violence for daring to think differently, Ann Coulter is a necessary voice to bring to the table.”
Who's making fascism and democracy "equal"? The media?
I don't disagree that it's taken broadcast and print media to finally start calling a spade a spade when it comes to right wing politics in the US - and that they're still not going far enough. Trump himself is being correctly labeled as fascist, authoritarian, dictatorial; the people who fully support him are still managing to avoid those labels.
But I don't think that's the primary issue. I don't think that "the media" is the problem. Trump and his ilk have done and said fascist, authoritarian, and dictatorial things for a long time, and there are enough people who like that and want that. Chris Christie and Liz Cheney, for example, are very outspoken about the danger Trump poses, but they still carry water for the party that is on track to nominate him for the presidency.
There are plenty of people in that same situation. That's the problem. The solution is for them to find their conscience and abandon the Republican party. Maybe that will happen once the primaries get underway. Maybe they're waiting to see if someone can unseat Trump's presumptive nomination. If someone does unseat Trump in the primaries, you're still left with a party that's given him an incredible amount of support. You're still embracing that support, and you're still going to be beholden to those supporters - who have shown that they will vote you out if you don't toe their fascist line.
We can have vigorous differences on policy. We cannot have differences on the core principles of democracy, on the very structure of our government. We must agree on process. The Republican party has shown that at its core, it does not agree with the core principles of democracy, and if you don't abandon it, you are complicit.
I agree with your broader point that there's a deeper issue with American voters who want fascism, but the normalization of far-right politics with 'both sides' horse-race bullshit has fed that problem, and very often there still is pushback to Trump and his ilk being described with the correct terms in the media. Only a few (relatively) left-leaning outlets note it with any regularity.
I know I kind of went off on a rant there, it wasn't pointed at you. I follow ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC pretty regularly, and all of those are now (over the last few weeks) consistently reporting the real danger in real terms (MSNBC leads by a country mile, of course).
Really? I haven't followed CNN closely in years, but they were always pretty wishy-washy, and what articles I've seen from them recently have been very... 'both sides'.
Ah, I'm watching clips from broadcasts on YouTube. Maybe broadcast and print are handling things differently?
I'll note that ABC has been on point with a lot of scoops. They've got to have a contact inside somewhere in relation to the many notable civil and criminal trials going on.
I had checked out on CNN for a while, too, since they shifted pretty center-right, but figured I should keep up with them in order to stay aware of what that perspective is. I'll catch a Fox News bit here and there, but I'm not putting them in my feed. If you have any other suggestions, I welcome them.
Mostly just the natural progression of this level of misogyny. Implicit in removing the right of women to file for no-fault divorce, and such. Not a mainstream talking point yet as far as I'm aware.
“If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine,” she said in a 2007 New York Observer interview.
yuck..
Republicans have begun to resurrect the idea of household head exclusive enfranchisement, IE only the family patriarch can vote
I'm sure it's just a complete coincidence that this policy mostly disenfranchises women, younger voters, and renters, all of whom lean democrat.
You can't support the right without supporting their fascism, regardless of how you try to qualify it
Oh yes you "can!" Just you try voting third party (i.e not actually supporting the republicans) and telling anyone about it, dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither, and somehow simultaneously supported both from the POV of the "you have to do what I want" people.
Edit: See?
dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither
The fundamental core of the GOP strategy is to disenfranchise voters. When you vote for a hopeless third-party candidate you are disenfranchising yourself - i.e. doing the GOP's work for them.
•
Yet unlike the left saying there's no difference, the GOP sees votes for third parties as unfavorable to them anyway.
They don't want the socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarian party to grow and steal their votes.
There's three levels of support you can have for either party. 1) Giving them a vote. 2) withholding your vote 2) withholding your vote, and voting for their main competition.
Acting like a vote for third party, and a vote for the other side of a the dichotomy are the same just wrong. There would be a big difference between millions voting third party vs switching to the other side of the aisle.
Aren't people tired of voting for a party because they dislike the other one though? You're disenfranchising yourself by doing that. I just want to vote for a party because I actually like them.
It's mathematically impossible for a third party to win because they split the vote with whichever of the major parties they are most like. Since this is so you are in effect voting for whomever they are most unalike. EG greens are voting for Republicans Libertarians might as well be voting for Democrats.
You would do better to stand better folks in the primary of the party that is closest to the third party or move for something like approval voting that would make it possible to vote for them in good conscience instead of pretending like you don't know how our electoral system works.
Voting for a third party is a vote for apathy. No matter which side you lean towards voting for a third party shows that you don't actually care about the outcome. It feels nice, and I'm sure you proudly proclaim that you're the only one trying to do anything, but it's a vote for apathy.
This is the same argument that led to the red scare in the 50s. Want to unionize your workplace? That's not the only union you want! Want to bring an anti consumerism message? Literally communism! It's much easier to group undesirables together so you can marginalize the libertarians, evangelicals and business class in one fell swoop by labeling them Fascist
•
If you vote for a Republican, you’re effectively supporting fascism. That’s what American politics has turned into.
That argument holds ground in some European countries where left and right parties are actually left and right. In a country like the US where the left is right and the right is fascism, they did the grouping themselves.
I'd like to point out that the political compass is a really bad construct for understanding politics. Ideology is made from smaller factors such as economics, tradition, religion, intellectualism, and other institutions. Fascism came out of socialist circles, as did Nazism. The modern political compass came out of the cold war and helped both sides justify themselves: the communists who wanted to be as far from the Nazis as possible and the Americans who wanted to be seen as the voice of the moderates. (Don't look at the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact or Jim Crow)
The Republican party promotes Right wing populism. Elements of that include autarky, isolationism and conservatism.
Fascism is a very specific ideology, and while the leader of the Republican party Trump has some things in common with it, he is not on the war path like a true fascist would be. He is less imperialist than previous presidents. He wants to pull out from NATO and abandon the Kurdish people in Syria. Again, Trump is a populist. He did not come out of socialist circles preaching an anti-elitist message.
•
Depends on what you mean by “being on a war path”. Imperialism isn’t a strict requirement for fascism, and he’s very much on a national war path. Wikipedia describes it like this:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
I think the only part he might not fit is “strong regimentation of economy”.
oh no no no. don't you see? they are right, they don't HAVE to elaborate. But in turn if YOU don't explain your point of view, you're a fascist in hiding. IN fact, even if you DO lay out your argument, it's wrong just because they say so. Is this your first day on the internet? heavy on the /s
You're 100% right. You'll still get downvoted and so will I for saying this, because people vote with their emotions here.
I don't think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences discussion.
If a comment is actively hateful and/or breaks rules you'd report it instead, as is the case in alot of Lemmy instances.
right? if you say something the lef... i mean lemmy users don't like, you just get SHOUTED down instead. cause if you screetch loud enough it makes it true.
•
It’s useful for gauging the general opinion on a subject, or for “exposing” fake affirmations without having to dig comments.
It does bring its issues, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. Plus it’s not like Reddit where you just have the balance, people indeed have the tendency to ignore/comment snarkily on “-5” comments, but if they see a “+10/-15” they often realize it’s a controversial opinion and might weigh in.
How is anyone on Lemmy silenced by downvotes? Just basic feelings of shame because some people on the internet didn't like what they said?
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what's happening just above this comment. Turns the place into an echo chamber.
How does it turn the place into an echo chamber? Why would anyone let that silence them? There are zero repercussions for a downvote on Lemmy.
Is your ego really so fragile that "people don't like my comment" is enough to make you stop talking?
90 million people or whatever they claimed the outrageous number was voted with their emotions in 2020.
I don't think I've ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism. However, I've heard plenty on the left say they support communism. Also, the right has plenty of problems to draw upon without acting like the crazy fringe is the norm. This twitter post is insane and really not a convincing argument.
Go ahead and downvote because you don't like hearing it all you want, but you know it's true.
I don't think I've ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism. However, I've heard plenty on the left say they support communism
Cool whataboutism, but the two aren't remotely comparable. Fascism is an ideology of violence. Communism, as described by Marx, is an ideology of common ownership, lack of social classes, and the obsoletion of currency.
Both sides are not the same.
Nah its patently false. Christian nationalism is business as usual on the right now and thats just American fascism.
America first? Fascism. MAGA is the same, look at Trumps veterans day speech
The tiki torch "Jews will not replace us" crowd was very fine people on both sides according to him.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., declared in an interview that “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”
There’s Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”
They legislate against civil liberties then call anyone who opposes their attacks 'groomers'
Return to tradition. Reject modernism. Elevate irrationalism (denial of science). Disagreement is treason (or 'grooming', the new way of saying indoctrination, but a blanket condemnation of indoctrination is self incriminating for Christian nationalists). Demagougery, exploit fear of difference, tear down diversity. Attacks on immigrants to elevate 'patriots' (read white nationalists). Veneration of authoritarian leaders. Hyperfixation on chauvinism (Proudboys) conquest and war iconography. Selective populism, double speak where moms for liberty means book burning and parental rights means don't challenge my bigotry by teaching acceptance. Goes on and on.
They wont outright say fascism is good right away. It dogwhistles and doublespeak until they hold enough power.
Communism ≠ Fascism. I'm terribly sorry that every single "Communist State" literally couldn't be a communist state any more than The Congo and North Korea are Democratic Republics. Just because someone calls themselves something doesn't make them a member of that ideology.
Communism at it's core requires a dissolution of both The State (The federal government,) and an abolition of currency. The closest you'll find to any society like this would be the aboriginal societies in Siberia, Australia, North and South America, and Africa.
Fun fact: The Native Siberian reigndeer hunting tribes were so communistic that Russia/The USSR under both The Czar, and Lenin and Stalin didn't have any clue how to deal with them, so much like Mao, they disrupted their way of life and caused some pretty massive famines.
No so called "Communist" country has been anything more than a right wing authoritarian dictatorship which is about as far from communism as you could possibly get.
Before you propagandized capitalists come at me,: "Democracy doesn't work because The People's Democratic Republic of The Congo, and The Democratic Republic of North Korea are nothing but authoritarian fascist dictatorships, so all attempts at democracy, much like The US under Wilson, Trump, Harding and Coolidge, will automatically fall into authoritarian fascist regimes."
I mean who doesnt want the country you live in to provide education and healthcare, other than nazis and fascist? Whats the middle ground you refer too?
No, no, you see, the Republicans who worship a cult of action and engage in strident anti-intellectualism and encourage violence against minorities are definitely not fascist, they're just Economically Anxious or whatever the fuck the in-vogue term is.
Pulling up the ladder so nobody else can climb up.
The new 20 year effort of the American conservative.movement.
because there are more than those two issues. but go ahead and feel the moral high ground you're seeking.
•
But aren’t those two issues true? And aren’t they extremely important?
Thing is, in the current US system you can be either: Republican, Democrat, or letting other people pick your poison for you. So the first one is people who don’t want education and healthcare, the third is people who don’t care, and the second is everyone else.
Obviously people don’t fit neatly into two camps, but the US right camp has trenched itself in so deep that it’s baffling it has more than 10% of voters.
But aren’t those two issues true? And aren’t they extremely important?
I never said they weren't. And you're still wrong. There's a such thing as nuance, but you're missing the point, so I'm just going to leave it here. Have a great black or white life.
•
In what am I wrong? Aren’t US elections basically asking you to choose between a party that wants to cut healthcare and education and one that doesn’t, with no other options in between?
Seriously. I would be willing to bet that I vote in lock step with OP, which means there's some rabid conservative out there who is doing the same thing by claiming I'm part of "the side" that accuses them of ... wanting to bring back slavery? What a great way to alienate actual moderates and look really fucking sane while doing it.
OPs basically just selling the argument against themself at this point.
This thread is fucked. Lemmy is worse than reddit when it comes to the "if you don't agree with me 100% then you're a fucking nazi fascist"
I made a comment about not buying into this hyperbolic strawman shit slinging and most of the replies are "so what do you believe" or "what do you think conservatives believe" and trying to say I'm "not arguing" with them so my words are invalid.
I just don't think this ITS ACTUALLY FUCKING SALVERY THEYRE ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS is doing anything but making us look like turds
Don't forget women can't vote and can't own property apparently too. Where the hell did that even come from?
I assume the title is aimed at that both parties badmouth one another in extreme, cherry-picked and oversimplified ways right?
The media cares about one thing: money. Outrage=views, and they'll report whatever they think will generate the most outrage.
Image Transcription: Tumblr
mikemaeshiro
[A screenshot of a twitter post which is transcribed below]
Rebekah Jones, @GeoRebekah
Everyone seems to agree that a revolution is long overdue in America
One side wants to bring back slavery, nazis, fascism, and women not being allowed to vote or own property.
The other side just wants healthcare and education.
The media thinks these two things are equal.
I would never want to be a part of a revolution. I would only ask the same things the founding fathers fought for. Representation. Anyway you slice it, my voice will never be heard because I am not a part of the wealthiest people in this country.
No, I am only a part of the majority...
Well one side helps the rich and the other hurts them
But one side helps their viewers and the other hurts them
So I can see both sides
The issue is that there are sides. And only 2 at that. Neither serves the people very well or we would have sane healthcare costs, wages, housing, transportation. We would also not have as much pollution in our air, soil, and water. "Both Sides"cater to political campaign donors above all else. That is the problem.