🇳🇱
Republican: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear red ties
Democrats: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear blue ties
The post wasnt criticizing the proportion that is white for being white. Only for what they do as such a group.
that's racist
what are white people doing?
white people are/do ?
- fascist
- authoritarian
- racist towards blacks
- wear red ties
is that your position?
@mk Nope.. nothibg racist about talking about the demographics or a group and how they act
even if every politician is/does
- fascist
- authoritarian
- racist towards blacks
- wear red ties
"rich old white dudes"
..what does that have to do with how much money they have, how old they are, what sex they are and what their skincolor is?
you're a racist, sexist, ageist and wealthist.
or in short..retarded...
if you hate yourself, hate yourself quiet and don't invect other people with your sickness.
🏳️🌈
@freemo most Democrats aren't facists, and some Republicans arent either
@louisrcouture That has been overwhelmingly not my expiernce.. In face while both are overwhelmingly fascist I've foudn when it comes to the authoritative aspect of it (which is the most important IMO) the democrats are in fact a bit worse than the right.
@freemo facism is not when government does a thing you don't like
@louisrcouture Of course its not, I never claimed it was. Nor did I even suggest it was...
Authoritativism is a measure of government that has nothing to do with "things you dont like"... it has to do with how much the policies rely on force, and violence vs how much the policies try effect cultural change or other "softer" approaches.
A law that chops off your hands when you still is **very** authoritative... a law that puts you in jail for a long time is fairly authoritative too... if instead the government tries to reduce crime via investing in better mental health access, paid for by taxes, thats still a bit authoritative but far far less so... the same programs however paid for by donations wouldnt be authoritative at all.
Authoritativeism has nothing to do with what you like and everything to do with how much force a government assumes in its policies.
@freemo literally what part of Democrat party ideas today is facist
Literally almost everytthing they do... They are "big government" (controlling people with lots of rules that carry with it violent threats).. as opposed to small government (minimizing how often they make rules or exert control).
The only difference is the left is fascist-left, they make laws that force you to sacrafice your own individual freedoms for the greater good, or get a gun pointed at you and jail time. The right is fascist-right, they too make laws that force by threat of violence as the norm.. but in their case their laws simply focus on personal freedom even if it is at the expense of the collective good..
Authoritarianism doesn't seem too much different between the two... which is at the heart of fascism.
@louisrcouture To be care... I should say "Personal freedom of Americans"... they dont care about personal freedoms of anyone else of course.
@freemo so rules are facist? Is it facism if the state won't let me sell alcoholic drinks made with orange juice and rubber alcohol? Is it facism if the state won't let me drive at 120kph in a school zones? What about carrying an AK47 to the store, or asking people to wear a mask to protect everyone against a deadly virus ?
> so rules are facist?
No, In my earlier post I explained exactly what sort of rule is fascist and what isnt... I made this clear and I know your a smart guy, but that means you just applied reductivism in bad faith in an attempt to argue in an intellectually dishonest way... Dont do that, you are better than that.
Rules that are
1) Having lots of them is more authoritative than trying to have the bare minimum needed... Having rules isnt authoritative, but when you feel you need to make rules for **everything** then it is more authoritative than a party which tries to find social solutions
2) When those rules carry with them harsh penalties they become more authoritative also.. Both the democrats and republicans right now support the death penalty for example. So both are very much authoritative in the severity they are willing to attach to their rules as well.
> Is it facism if the state won't let me sell alcoholic drinks made with orange juice and rubber alcohol?
That would be more authoritative (and thus more fascist) than a government that had no rule around that.
That said I never claimed all authoritative rules, are wrong.. There is a reasonable level of authoritarianism which is acceptable, and there is a qty that isnt. Where botht he democrats and republicans are the level of authoratarianism they exhibit is unacceptable.
Not to mention both the parties int he USA support hte idea than prison should be a punishment.. So we put people away for decades with hte intent of them suffering in prison... So yes both sides are very fascist as this is the norm consequence for every law.
Other countries (not all) prison is seen as rehabilitation. Those countries are far less fascist.
@freemo @louisrcouture Prison was originally for restitution (actually paying back the theft) - which is rehabilitative. Somehow that morphed into punishment. Probably because of morphing the death penalty for murder into prison time.
Authoritarianism doesn’t seem too much different between the two… which is at the heart of fascism.
Yes but I think there needs to be private sector cooperation with authoritarian activities in order to call someone a legitimate modern fascist. I think #JacindaArdern and #RonDesantis are good examples of this.
Why is it only authoritarian if it comes from corperations? So if you have a communistic society where no corperations exist, all just the government.. communism cant be authoritative? That doesnt track.
So if you have a communistic society where no corperations exist, all just the government
I do think that would be fascism too. Fascism usually has the state take over private enterprises, or force them to do what they want, which aren’t effectually that much different from each other.
I think you are confusing specific examples of facism vs facism as a concept (which can take any form)... The definition of facism is:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
@freemo @louisrcouture I see. That’s what I get for getting my definition of fascism from #Wikipedia!
Yea dictionaries are usually better as wikipedia isnt trying to define a word, its trying to explain its history, which are slightly different things.
@freemo I don’t think most politicians are racists tbh
Depends on the definition of the word.. im using racism based on the threshold most on the left use it, which is much lower than someone on the right like you
For example "If you dont vote for me you ain't black"... He probably didnt think that statement had any hate behind it in his mind.. but I'd still consider that racist.
For example “If you dont vote for me you ain’t black”… He probably didnt think that statement had any hate behind it in his mind.. but I’d still consider that racist.
Well, I think it’s a bit unfair to take #JoeBiden’s statements as indicative of the attitude that most members of the #Democrat party has towards black people. That dude used to kick it with the #KKK and support segregation, which most Democrats haven’t done.
@realcaseyrollins I mean thats fine.. but he also won both the super delegates and the party election...
If we agree he and much of what he says is racist then its hard to deny the democratic party, having supported him, isnt racist.
I do agree with you Biden is far more racist than your average member. But the average member wills till violently object to calling him racist... which suggests to me they condone what he has said and done
@freemo
The longer we keep a two party system the further we will keep this red v blue mentality. I wonder if I will ever see an independent sworn in before I die of climate change.
@Darkayne While the two party system isnt helping , and yea partly the cause I think people becoming polarized is such a deep rooted issue at this point im not sure if we will ever truely see sanity
Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Everyone that votes for party that has an agenda of "doing something" other than dismantling the gang of thieves, known as government, are Authoritarian Tyrant Worshipers.
It is useless semantics what to call it.
And many of the slaves were convinced that their own enslavement was better for them than "free men", so it is understandable to be "nervous" on how it could possibly work without these institutions of evil.
I don't have that answer, but I totally agree with the image you posted. Society is THAT absurd.
I ronically slaves remaining slaves for their own good was **not** just an invention of slave owners (though perhaps that happened too)... It was a legitimate concern for some slaves. Being free was often a death sentance.
Obviously in the long term being free has been great for them and it is obviously the right thing to do. But in the short term it meant certain death for many with no food, work, job, and just the fact that without a master people will be a lot quicker to kill you. If you had a kind and generous master (of course not many did) I can see why objectively you might want to remain a slave givin the conditions in the world at the time for a free black man.
Yes. And why people today are so set on having a Master to "protect" them. Fear is the primary weapon of people who want to assert control over others.
Because someone needs to organize our collective resources to achieve greater works.. even if the people do this through elected and selected charities, they have no choosen a "master" over that aspect.
As long as there is no coercion and violence against individuals, then that is fine. But I presume you will argue that there must be, in which case I am not on-board.
Classical rebuttal; "Someone has to pick the cotton."
Ok so how do you deal with people who generally today are only handle with violence or coercion.
How do you stop someone who is harming or torturing another without using force?
Presuming you are ok with using biolence to prevent a greater violence then who gets to determine that? Is it a court? In which case your back to governments that use violence... Is it some ransom individual? In which case you are back to a mob applying that violence.
"How do you stop someone who is harming or torturing another without using force?"
I have repeatedly pointed out that self-defense is the only justification for violence. And it is a right I have, hence I can delegate that right to someone else. I don't have to, but I can.
How does that work when your locked in a basement of the evil commune and they are torturing you... you wont have any way to call or obtain someone to defend you, and you cant defend yourself... So shit out of luck and you just die your dropped your guard for a moment?
> Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Except its literally not. The primary definition of democracy doesnt even use the word majority:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
In fact while there are other secondary definitions that include majority, those definitions apply only when used more generally (as in not specific to the context of national governments)
In fact we only need to look at example to know what you said is false, The USA, the UK, and effectively every nation in the world, doesnt have a simple majority to win. In fact all these nations are designed to have some mechanism to ensure a simple majority, a tyranny of the majority, isnt possible.
You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
Remove the "majority" if you like, it is still Authoritarian, just a matter "how much".
> You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
You can, and we do. The electorial college is an example of that, it ensures that most disseperate cultures and their regions have some agreement on votes... it isnt purely majority based (you need to get close to a majority but can win even without one)... but also is fairly balanced so fringe ideas cant win either.
It is a prime example of democracy that is not a simple majority.
I don't object to Libertarians or libertarians, I was one in practice (didn't know the terms) when I was young. But I can't reconcile "law" with "freedom", no matter how it is "legislated". All laws we agree on are not needed, hence other laws are enforcing some people's will on others, and that is what I finally realized, maybe 15 years ago or so.
There are two aspects to this... one is that laws are vastly over used to negative effect... sure we agree here.
The other is if ALL law is counter to freedom... and the answer is, no, unless you getinto rediculous things like "Making murder illegal infringes on my freedom to murder people"
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
i think lysander spooner put it quite fittingly
>If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.
>
>But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed—by any power inferior to that which established it—than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men—whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name—to set up their [PAGE 12] own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.
@freemo
do i need to explain to you why it's normal for countries that a further away from the equator to have white-skin-people and by extension white-skin-people in the government?