831–840 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it progress?
It is. But unfortunately, most people are not willing to separate the concept of progress from something that is magically inherently good. Same as with evolution or agile development :-)
I wonder if two party system is really so different from one party system since it's the systems of bureaucracy is what dictates lives of people and those pretty much stay the same and evolve very gradually in the direction of profit for the wealthy. Maybe it's more stable because it gives each half of the population their own enemy to hate, and periodical "wins" over that enemy? Maybe China will learn this trick eve…
10 years ago I'd have agreed that the parties are the same. Now I can't say that, and looking back, I was simply uninformed. I don't think the US government bears any resemblance to authoritarian nations who lock up journalists left and right. The truth is the federal government isn't very strong at all; it's the citizenry who do the heavy lifting, whether that means reporting, growing businesses, or defending our se…
Also power comes from the people in single party system as well. They are the one who build economy and meaningfully secure their own environments through various non-obvious systems.
Single party system wouldn't be that strong without people just going about their business and building up wealth for the government to reasonably exploit.
Parties are not the same. They can't be. But both taken together along with the systems that they interact through they can be seen as single entity. And relations of this single entity with the rest of society are not that different from relations between single party system and country it rules. Any differences come from the fact that two party system has stronger grip and more stability thanks to delivering one thing that people need and single party systems are struggling to credibly provide, and enemy to hate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who is genuinely left wing will easily recognize that neither party in the US represents their interests.
Correct, the Democrats are a weak willed party of centrists more concerned with maintaining the status quo as opposed to implementing progressive legislation that will help people. The GOP has become a cult of personality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Useful to what end? So that people can easily label an idea such that tribal followers can quickly decide if they are on board? I can't think of great applications, only negative outcomes from such a simplified labeling of people and ideas.
As Karunamon said in a sibling comment, labels facilitate reasoning. Yes, labels have their inherent risks, especially such vague labels as left and right (as applied to politics). But we live in an age of political parties. It seems we can't do representative democracy without them, for better or worse: And given that, we need a language to talk about parties' politics in broad terms. And then we inevitably come up…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
10 years ago I'd have agreed that the parties are the same. Now I can't say that, and looking back, I was simply uninformed. I don't think the US government bears any resemblance to authoritarian nations who lock up journalists left and right. The truth is the federal government isn't very strong at all; it's the citizenry who do the heavy lifting, whether that means reporting, growing businesses, or defending our se…
Similarly in one party system, system of power is even weaker. That's why it resorts to locking up journalists and has to resort to violence against public bit more often than two party system does. Also power comes from the people in single party system as well. They are the one who build economy and meaningfully secure their own environments through various non-obvious systems. Single party system wouldn't be that…
That's insecurity in my book, not weakness. Locking up and disappearing people over what they say shows the government has power over the people, not approval from them.
> Also power comes from the people in single party system as well. They are the one who build economy and meaningfully secure their own environments through various non-obvious systems.
I agree, but in a dictatorship the people are held back from what they could contribute.
> But both taken together along with the systems that they interact through they can be seen as single entity.
Perhaps they seem that way from far away, but the parties can and do change their positions over time and they compete with each other to please the public. A single party system may also respond to the people's will but since speaking your mind publicly is forbidden, you never really know who made a given decision. Someone may get blamed for it but you won't know if they were the true decider. That's why you see the same party maintain control, the top decision makers cannot be held accountable. Mao is still revered despite causing widespread famine, for example.
> Any differences come from the fact that two party system has stronger grip and more stability thanks to delivering one thing that people need and single party systems are struggling to credibly provide, and enemy to hate.
That's right, in a multi-party system the people can hold the previous admin responsible for any failures by electing a new party or individual. It's not so much about people needing an enemy as it is about acknowledging that all people make mistakes. It's hard to get people to publicly take responsibility for their actions and it's next to impossible for that to truly happen when a single party rules. In a multi party state, the losing party has a chance to come back and usually that involves some admission of error, otherwise the public may view them as stubborn. In a single party state, mistakes are either excused forever, or if you fall out of favor, then you have less chance to recover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't think it's a transphobic slur I highly suggest you talk to some trans folks about what is or is not a transphobic slur, because I can almost guarantee that they'll tell you it's a transphobic slur (yes the politics of the Rocky Horror Picture Show have gotten a bit weird in the last ten-fifteen years)
We are under no obligation to play along with those who pretend that their mental illness is normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, false equivalences. However, the current state of affairs is more like far left far right [Overton Window] perceived perceived far left far right Why is "both sides" or "they started it" or "what about" the only other retort that always comes up?
I'd say it's more like this: far left center far right [Western O.W.] [US Overton W.] [ Gab users* ] [ Twitter users* ] *: 90% of users, because there will always be outliers.
There aren't nearly enough leftist talking points on Twitter as it appears to your rightist brain, and there's plenty of homophobia, "feminism has gone too far", "it's okay to be white", worldwide anti-immigration sentiments, and (still!) Trump supporters. Maybe they're bots or whatever, but the talking points are there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just think people should acknowledge the role that socialists played in helping him rise to power. I think practically everyone, including myself agrees with that. And I pointed that out in my original posts. Power doesn't occur in a vacuum and the Nazi's capitalized on peoples (mostly unfounded) fears and anger to grow their base. My original point was that the Nazi's themselves were not socialists. Referencing…
Hitler wasn't the only Nazi. Some socialists, like Gregor Strasser, weren't merely supporters, they were full members and even leaders of the Nazi party. Their brand of Nazism survives to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism So I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were.
I never said that.
> I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were.
I never claimed that none of them were.
Making it sound as if I and others are talking in absolutes and manufacturing talking points around that is a waste of everyones time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definition of fascism 1 often capitalized : 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
> forcible suppression of opposition You mean like... censorship?
Also no not exclusively censorship, there are many parts to that definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a false depiction. I haven’t used Parler much but checked it out a few times and did not encounter a single piece of content advocating violence, talking about Jewish people, using the n word, or partaking in any kind of racism. Your claim that these are repeated ad nauseum suggests you never actually visited any of these sites and are just criticizing them without basis.
https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png is a Parler post with a racial slur and 25k upvotes. The court documents ( https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-a... ) from their case against Amazon contain other examples of hate speech.
I have no problem with platforms allowing any and all speech, since it actually just allows stupid speakers to beclown themselves.
Free speech is the most liberal idea there is - as Voltaire famously said, "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."