politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Court costs for appeals should be based on the net worth of the appealing entity. Trump's entire strategy for business, politics and personal relationships for his entire life has been "my daddy left me a pile of money, so I can afford to sue you until the end of time, or you can just cut your losses and walk away now".
In other words, you are proposing to actually break the (so-called) "justice system" so that it cannot work as designed.
You do understand that the (so-called) "justice system" was designed to keep you under control while enabling the parasite class (of which Trump is a proud member) to essentially do whatever they feel like and has never existed for any other reason?
Yes. I believe that is what I said.
Okay.
But why only go half-way?
Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
No system is perfect, and no system is equal, and most importantly, people in a system will adapt to take advantage of the system. That's why it's useless to go "all the way", the system is there to keep us from just clubbing each other over the head whenever we feel wronged. It's much better that we have a dynamic and living system that can respond to loopholes and attempts to thwart it. Incremental change is the way the system should react.
It is a challenging question though. How do you afford the "little man" their right to appeal rulings, without giving the "big man" unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?
Where did you get this? At the local Fascist Fortune Cookie store? Hollywood, maybe?
Where is your evidence of this?
If you are unwilling to do away with the very systems that are designed to protect and enable the "big men" the answer is simple - you can't.
Oh, I must be a fascist because I think that going all the way back means going to a time before organized society and a structured code of law? Is that really where your mind jumps to when someone disagrees with you? Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
Ad-hominems aside. How far back is "far back" enough for you that we could build a more just and equitable system? We talking Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? 10 commandments?
Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?
What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?
I assume this is the first time you've been exposed to the fact that "Law & Order" narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?
I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don't think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.
You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn't agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won't though, because you haven't thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
As dictated by whom? You?
You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?
Fascism doesn't have a definition, liberal. It isn't - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand...
...I'll take that as a yes.
What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?
Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?
Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.
A system does not need someone to dictate inequality, there are plenty of naturally existing system that produce inequal results. I don't have to dictate shit to notice an inequitable system.
Textbook strawman there. At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.
This may be news to you, but words have meaning, otherwise you can peanut butter your knuckle wolfsbane.
Please, source your definiton for Fascism. I cited an established repository of knowledge, so far your only basis for the meaning of the word exists in the vapor between your ears.
This is a reiteration of an already refuted strawman, and supporting evidence for my assertion on the productivity of the "dialogue".
Didn't you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?
Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform, please espouse your ideas on the last equitable social code that any segment of humanity has operated under in history. Otherwise, you'll have written a lot of pointless drivel, again, without actually adding anything to the conversation.
Says the liberal after posting a reply that's wearing out my scroll button.
Yes. It actually does. Or do you think the US is fundamentally white supremacist by sheer coincidence?
Of course not, liberal! You were simply arguing for an entirely superficial change to a (so called) "justice system" that subjugate the many for the benefit of the few. Totally nothing suspicious about that at all!
Again, liberal... fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
We can play this game all night long - you can give me any "definition" of fascism you can find on the net, and I will easily use actual history to tear them into pieces with next-to-zero effort.
Do you want to?
Again, liberal... fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
Please state how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself before something begins to gel for you - it will really lubricate this conversation.
Tell me you didn't know that liberalism is a right-wing ideology without telling me that you didn't know liberalism is a right-wing ideology. Have you never wondered why you are so eager to make excuses for your fascist brethren?
No? Perhaps it's time to start.
No, liberal - I will not debate "justice system reform" with you. I have no interest in "reforming" your precious status quo so that you can feel better about the violence that maintains your position of privilege within it.
Another empty, meaningless reply.
Go ahead, cite a history or source or example other than your own made up bullshit that backs up your claim that fascism is an undefinable ideology. You do understand that your claim is literally an oxymoron?
While you're at it, find a political spectrum chart that puts liberal in the right wing. I checked about a dozen from different sources, and the closest I could find was a chart that set it dead center.
You still haven't said what time in society you would go back to as a starting point for your equitable justice system. You were however offended that I said the last time we had a truly equitable existence was before society at large appeared. A reasonable person can conclude from this that...
You have a time period in mind, but you don't want to state it because you know that I'll point out the holes in their justice system.
Or...
You haven't really thought about it, and you've made (4, I think?) long-winded posts dodging a simple point rather than admit that you can't think of such a time or society.
Address the point, or tacitly admit you have no intent to debate in good faith and kindly fuck off.
I'm waiting for your "definitions" with baited breath, liberal. Go on.
I hope this will not take you long.
Liberal... are you trying to tell me that you need to check sources to tell me that your ideology is left or right? You didn't actually know that before deciding that your canned feels should be taken seriously in a political argument?
Yeah... that's peak liberalism, all right. The grandiose entitlement is characteristic.
Do tell, liberal - what else don't you know but should be granted "honorary expertise" in?
Did your sources explain to you that liberalism is pro-capitalist, liberal? Did your sources explain the complementary and close relationship between capitalism and fascism to you, liberal?
No? I guess your only explanation for the reasons why capitalists funds fascism into power within liberal nation states is "for shits and giggles?"
A "reasonable person" wouldn't be faking knowledge on subject matter that they barely have working knowledge about, liberal. I think that we've pretty much established that you don't conform to that description.
No, liberal - defend your ideology, and defend your ideology's proximity to fascism. You know... the ideology that you had to "check sources" for find out whether it was left or right?
Ah, so you've chosent the tacit admission that your argument is bullshit, you have't actually thought about what you reacted to, and you'd like to kindly fuck off, but you just lack the self control to behave like an adult in conversations.
Also, classic gish gallop. One, or maybe 2 addressable point at a time please.
Not willing to put any of your copypasta "definitions" to the test, eh liberal?
Why am I not surprised?
You mean... apart from?
At least fascists and tankies have the gumption to try and defend their beliefs - you liberals duck and dive out of an argument simply because you are too damn fragile to handle the fact that liberalism is, in fact, an ideology.
It would be comedic if it wasn't so damn real.
Let me open with this. I didn't claim to be a liberal, that is a label that you applied to me. I don't think it's an unfair assertion, but at the same time, I am not constrained to the ideological boundaries of that label.
Liberal, (at least where I'm from) means that you interpret the rules of society with some leeway. Language in laws or rules, no matter how specific, cannot encompass edge-case scenarios, so some human intuition and adjustment of a law or rule is required in order to for it to function with it's intended purpose. Briefly put, Liberals in my country beleive that laws should fit to society, rather than the opposing conservative construction, that society should be fit to the law.
Since you refuse to accept a definiton for fascism, and on multiple occasions, declaring that it is undefinable, it makes it a useless term to compare to. You might as well be asking me to compare liberal ideology to CPU architecture or the concept of cottage industry. If you won't accept a definiton for fascism, and are afraid to provide you own, then it is logically impossible for someone to use it as a comparative.
Now, I have addressed your silly roundabout 3rd grade logic. Please, with some decorum, address your point, that there is/was a time in human society post-cave-dwelling, where the social/justice system was fair and equitable. In case you forgot, that is the point that started you on this useless, indefensible and idiotic tirade. Or you can tacitly admit you don't have a point, and you can kindly fuck off.
You don't have to. If you view the world through the lens of liberal ideology, you are a liberal - regardless of the labels you self-apply.
Then you misunderstand your own ideology. Liberalism allows absolutely no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of private property, for instance. In complete contradiction, it allows no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of (so-called) "rule of law" - a contradiction, of course, that can only be solved by ensuring the law doesn't apply to those who own the largest share of all the private property.
So where is this "leeway" you speak of?
Oh, I never said I'd refuse a definition of fascism - I've read far more of them than you have. None of them actually manages to "define" fascism. Look at my second paragraph - it's childishly easy to demonstrate the logical contradictions in your ideology - liberalism has so many inherent contradictions that it, too, is extremely difficult to define satisfactorily. Fascism comprises an ideological framing that contains absolutely nothing inside it that is coherent or consistent in any way whatsoever - are you starting to see the problem with "definitions" of fascism?
The worst of them, by far, are the ones written by liberals - no surprises there. Liberals are desperately anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very status quo (you know... "rule of law" and "private property" and associated schtick) liberals are invested in preserving. They are anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very violence that is used to enforce the liberal order.
The Marxist ones are quite a bit better - but still fail to hit the mark. I'm just going to go ahead and assume you didn't even know those existed before now.
Not my point at all, liberal. Your logical fallacy. Remember this?
I requested you provide any evidence to prop up this silly Hollywood trope that you knee-jerk conflated with reality faster than Ben Shapiro snorts copium.
You have provided... absolutely none.
No no, you're faaaaaar tooooo smaaaaart to commit to an actual definition, or even general framework of what fascism is. Despite this, you still expect other people to defend against your internally checked, rapidly shifting goalpost of what qualifies as "fascism". Put your money where your mouth is, you trollish coward, define, even in loose terms, what fascism is, so that we may actually discuss it. If you can't do that, then you're not actually making any points here, you're just swimming circles in a pool of your own bullshit.
My assertion here is that there has not been a perfect, equitable society in human history. This is why I'd rather work to fix the society we have, than throw out the everything and live without society, yah know, because I like the things society brings, like running water, electricity, flushing toilets, refrigeration, videogames... You'd get the idea of your head wasn't up your ass. The evidence I'll provide for this claim, is that there has not been a completely just society in human history. If you'd like to refute this claim, you can simply name one. But you can't, because you are wrong, so you won't, and instead you'll dilly-dally and dance around while hurling labels that you don't understand at people while implicitly arguing that words don't have a real meaning.
Oh... now we're no longer talking about "definitions," are we? We have now shifted to "general frameworks?"
And you accuse me of shifting goalposts?
Yes, liberal - I still expect you to defend your ideology and your ideology's proximity to fascism.
We are discussing it, liberal - which part of this...
...are you having a hard time understanding? We are discussing the very roots of fascism - which happens to be the very same roots of your precious liberal status quo.
Are you anxious to ignore that too, liberal? For someone that claims to not be "constrained to the ideological boundaries" of liberalism, you sure seem to be acting no different than a bog-standard liberal pearl-clutcher when it comes to confronting the fascism that violently enforces your precious status quo for you.
Do tell, liberal... where were you when antifascists were actually fighting neo-nazis, klan-boys and their pig-friends in the streets a few years ago? Let me guess... heckling the antifascists from the sidelines? Like a good liberal is supposed to?
Will you be doing the same come November?
Why are you peddling the same pretexts and justifications for fascism that the alt-right peddles?
The ideological gap between you and fascism seems to be shrinking with every exchange.
Soooo... as you have provided zero evidence to prove that your zombie-fiction tropes will come to pass as soon as fascist violence doesn't enforce your precious liberal order for you, I must assume that you are simply too squeamish to admit your endorsement of said fascist violence (as long as it isn't aimed at you, of course)
I'd say we've come to the point where there is only one thing left to be discerned... why do you even bother hiding it?
Yes, because you have refused in any way to communicate a meaning of the word. That's on you, not me. Literally your doing, and it's the core premise of 90% of your statements, but you can't even tell us what means.
Do tell... just how far down the liberal-to-fascist pipeline are you?
Can't really tell you. Since you have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of what either of those words mean.
Oh, that I have to concede. I don't even think you'd be able to tell.
Kindly fuck off. You can't even address the core component of our original discussion. I'm throwing the final gauntlet here. You name a time, place, or system of government that was fair and equitable in the last 8000 years, and I'll write an apology to you, admit you are far superior, and delete everything except that statement from my account . If you can't do that, then don't even bother fucking replying. I'm just going to copy-paste a reply calling you a moron and pointing out that you have failed again to rise to the most basic level of honest discourse.
Stop projecting your evasiveness onto me, liberal - you've been desperately ducking and diving the "core component of our original discussion" from your second reply onwards.
Your attempts to distract from the fact that you have provided zero evidence to back up your initial claims is as transparent now as it was back then.
Please feel free. Now that lemmy.world is overflowing with liberals there are mountains of evidence lying around proving how quickly you lot start chanting fascist narratives as soon as anyone threatens your precious status quo - your contribution makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
You are a moron and a coward. You won't even try to defend your statements. The only way you know to react to conflict is to hurl meritless accusation of fascism. By your own admission, you cannot describe what fascism actually is. You can fuck off anytime.
Stop projecting your evasiveness onto me, liberal - you’ve been desperately ducking and diving the “core component of our original discussion” from your second reply onwards.
Your attempts to distract from the fact that you have provided zero evidence to back up your initial claims is as transparent now as it was back then.
Please feel free. Now that lemmy.world is overflowing with liberals there are mountains of evidence lying around proving how quickly you lot start chanting fascist narratives as soon as anyone threatens your precious status quo - your contribution makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.