The listed excerpts are actually quite tame compared to what the actual plan is.
slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security
invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directing the DOJ to pursue Trump adversaries
create a federally funded "American Academy" that would deliver online courses and grant free degrees that excluded "wokeness or jihadism". The plan would also be funded by taxing the endowments of major universities
every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method
I stopped looking, not because there was any shortage of further crazy shit. There’s plenty more.
Yeah, and there's a fair amount of money behind this push.....which like....I'm not American, don't live in the States, but my sister and her wife do...and I've gotta figure out how to get them the fuck out if things go Trump again....
Edit: also, living in the UK I run into loads of people who go "Well, if Trump gets in again, that's not really our problem..." but like....the USA makes they're problems everyone's problem. And another Trump presidential term would be a huge problem for the rest of the world....
Yeah, I've been following UK politics by way of TrashFuture podcast and I gotta say... your immigration plan is to deport people to Rwanda and your government just endorsed a Trans-Panic Committee to decide whether teenagers can consent to gender-affirming care.
And these are the moderate Labour Party positions. Liz Truss wants to do worse.
God damn, dude. Finding the worst people to run the country is not a competition. You can just let the Yanks have this one.
They look at our right wing propaganda machine to see what "works." They also get the added "benefit" of our toxic sludge that is online political discourse to feed off of. They don't need new issues as they have a repository of shit to pick from...
Why does Americas #2 export need to be toxic right wing bullshit....
Finding the worst people to run the country is not a competition.
I'm only here on a marriage visa, I'm not a P.R or citizen yet, so I'm not allowed to vote against having these bigots and con-men in power.
Also, while labour is somewhat moderate, the Tories are in power, and they're a bunch of fucking nut jobs. Labour can't decide what they stand for anymore, which means they will stand for nothing, and the rest of the available parties will never get to power again.
The available options are shit, just like in the States. And the Yanks think they invented having a shit government, but lemme tell you, the Brits have been fucking up their own government and foreign governments for a lot longer the the US has been a thing.
As a yank who’s followed British politics for a while, I wouldn’t blame labour’s bullshit on the tories. They seem to have done the same thing in response to thatcher that the Dems did to Reagan “ok sure we can be the neutral centrist party, we’ll be conservative while you be regressive”. When I see actual left wing ideas coming out of the UK it’s either from your queer folks, a small and vulnerable actual left wing, or from the SNP. Even now with the tories wildly unpopular Labour seems to be taking the attitude of “we should reach across the aisle and offer to do what they propose”.
But you are right we learned how to govern from two sources, you and the Iroquois confederacy, and the Iroquois functioned (they still do, but they did then too).
In a similar situation here in NZ. On a perm resident visa through partnership, can’t vote, keenly interested in being on my best behaviour here. Labour wasn’t amazeballs, but the current coalition is like watching a pack of dogs with diarrhoea tear through a quiet town. You just know it’ll be on someone else to clean up after them.
Baroness Jenny Chapman, a frontbencher who was Sir Keir’s political secretary, was asked whether Labour would axe the scheme if 10,000 migrants had been flown to Rwanda by the time of the election.
The peer, who was a member of the shadow cabinet, replied: “If it did, as a major major leap with a thought experiment, then we might be having a different conversation but there is absolutely no evidence this is going to work.”
It's a very ambitious list. The executive branch will be a smoldering wreck before they even get started. Let's hope we get a 2028 election because 2032 and 2036 will be all about rebuilding.
create a federally funded “American Academy” that would deliver online courses and grant free degrees that excluded “wokeness or jihadism”.
I gotta say, this is hilarious both in how it delivers lip service to a popular idea (free public higher education) and outright mangles the implementation so its guaranteed to fail (why the fuck would any serious employer value an anti-wokeness degree?)
every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders
Also like I was radicalized in college without my courses including any of that shit. Nothing drove me to the labor left harder than having it drilled into be how I’ll need to explain human suffering in dollars in my ergonomics class. And like the teacher wasn’t wrong and he was very conservative.
Over in ![email protected] I got banned for posting about Project 2025. They claim it breaks rule 2 which is to only post pro-conservative or anti-liberal posts. Fucking echo chamber over there.
Projection is the game. You see these wackos all over YouTube bemoaning “my comments keep getting deleted” (which doesn’t seem true), yet go on their turf and they’ll happily silence you as that’s different.
Reminds me of “the only moral abortion is mine”. The only people being silenced is us, what we’re doing might look the same but trust me bro it’s not.
Especially with how poor their moderation is. Wintermute regularly deletes comments they disagree with, Momo is left to insult people and rage with near impunity, and it regularly spouts misinformation/disinformation. It's an example of how NOT to run a community.
You're free to say anything I agree with, unlike in those liberal channels where I'm censored for speaking my personal truth.
But you're not free to violate the terms of service of the contract you signed when you walked in. In very plain bold text I wrote "Don't say anything I don't like". And you agreed to it by being here.
Wait, what? Why would they even deny it? It’s all of the issues they love to scream about. How is that something they would possibly think they could or should hide?
I always felt that lemm.ee was more conservative (and capilistic). They seem less progressive, more modernist. The issue is it's hard to tell since it federates with other instances, so I mostly have to go by usernames made off that instance.
I see what you mean now. I meant I see many of the lemm.ee accounts as conservative compared to other instances (more Democrat than progressive). Of course I haven't done a scientific aanalysis, it's just an observation I made as I post and look at usernames. Obviously, it's not going to be everyone as Lemmy leans toward the progressive left.
I mean, I dont hate Landlords, so I guess I count as MORE conservative than the average lemmite... Lemming? Still not conservative enough to not take that as slightly insulting though xD
I joined lemm.ee during the migration and picked it because they didn't defederate too much with other instances. When they refused to federate with Threads, my choice to use lemm.ee was reaffirmed.
That's as political as my choice ever got. I personally lean fairly left.
Searching for radical democrat brings up Republican propaganda. Would you be able to explain what you mean by being philosophically "radical Democrat?"
To me it boils down to the great quote, of John Dewey, "The solution to the ills of democracy is more democracy."
I want the institution of mass multi-seat electoral offices and the mass expansion of elected offices and the election of those offices via Multi-Seat STAR voting (rate your enthusiasm for all the candidates, the two highest average candidates go to a runoff that seats whoever is rated higher on more ballots, repeat with the two highest rated remaining candidates until all seats are filled)
It's not like anywhere else, here or any other place, isn't an echo chamber... they're just generally more so. It's a really disturbing place but let's not pretend any other place is objective and fully accepting of different views.
Bro, there are echo chambers and there are fascist hangouts, and while a fascist hangout (project2025 favoring forums) is a subset of echo chambers, not all echo chambers are Fascist Hangouts.
Lemmy as a whole is an echo chamber too. Look at how things blew up in this post. This is an extreme scenario, not every conservative cares about project 2025. I have conservative family and coworkers who are conservative because they hate change and want to live in the “good old days”, not because they worship trump or are nazis… And yet everyone here thinks “all conservatives are evil”.
Nah, that's ancient. Racial segregation, like with the Jim Crow laws, will probably do fine for a start. Maybe also take back women's voting rights. Needless to say that homosexuality gets banned as well again. I mean, it's a rather modern phenomenon that it has been legalized at all. /s
You guys are thinking way too extreme once again. My grandfather voted conservative his entire life and yet was friends with the blacks and columbians next door. He was the first in his town to let his wife drive a car.
Why was he conservative then you ask? Because he was raised religious and he felt like liberals were attacking his religion. That’s it. Now granted this was in Canada, before Trump and project 2025, but conservatism is an idea, not a party in one country.
I don't say that each and every single conservative is an evil asshole who wants to let certain groups of people suffer. But even if the individual reasons for voting conservatives seems innocent, it's not as innocent what such a party could ultimately do (or actually did in the past).
Even though his only motivation might have been that he saw his religion threatened, voting conservatives still shows a lack of critical thought in my opinion. What about the other goals the conservatives pursued back then and today? Voting them will give them the power to achieve those. Sure, maybe his religion will be protected that way. But what about all of the suffering the other goals will (or did) cause?
It's a decision to make of what's worse on the greater scale. Picking a party just because of one point on their agenda with which someone can identify, but ignoring the rest, seems like a short-sighted and potentially very harmful idea to me, which might – in the long run – even be detrimental to the one who voted for such a party.
It feels like voting for a party which will bring doom and damnation over the whole world, but at least you get to pet a puppy once a week.
It’s not a lack or critical thinking. He was working all day, then cooking for the family, then barely had an hour or two to himself. In a primarly conservative town, without internet, and about 3 channels on TV, how do you expect him to learn or care about politics? He voted conservative like everyone else and moved on.
Also keep in mind that most conservative parties in the world aren’t like the US, they don’t want to “bring doom and damnation over the world”.
So it's not a lack of critical thinking, but not being able to take the time to critically think about one's decision is not a lack of critical thinking?
I don't think it's responsible to vote for a party if one is not able to critically think about their choice. Then he maybe shouldn't have voted at all, if there was really no time to think a bit about it. And it really doesn't take that much. However, the limiting the available information is indeed a problem to form such critical thoughts. Still, making a choice despite knowing one is not able to form a well-informed opinion, is again a sign of a lack of critical thinking to me.
No, of course they don't want to. They just do.
My wording was a figure of speech of course, but still, in my experience and from what I can tell, conservative parties have been more detrimental to the progress and benefit of a society as a whole than being beneficial.
There was no slavery in this part of the world, there wasn’t a single person of color in my hometown until the early 2010s.
They want religion to get its power back and/or they want to keep their wealth. There is probably more, but none of them want immigrants out, guns or that project 2025 shit.
A lot of people here turned conservative due to the covid measures, which were more extreme than pretty much anywhere else in North America.
What "good old days" exactly are you describing? I expect it wasn't as good as they think, and was especially bad for many who weren't white, hetero, and male.
Well yes, the people I’m describing were white cis christian males. Of course it wasn’t as good as they remember, but the human brain tends to exagerate memories over time. A lot of conservatives are getting old and most of their life is behind them. Can you blame them for looking back rather than looking forward? Most people don’t care about politics and will vote for the side they slightly lean towards without a second thought.
I can blame them, yes. Because they want their comfort and well being at the expense of, and without regard for others. If they get their way they’ll drive our country back to a dark age for a short bit of expected (and likely not received) comfort, then die, leaving all of us still around to suffer the consequences.
I won’t hate them because the reality is they are just fools being taken advantage of by those in power. But that doesn’t remove their culpability. The old are meant to plant trees, not burn them down.
See this is what I’m talking about. They aren’t fools for having a different opinion. MAGA followers that do it because of trickle down economics might be fools, but most conservatives in most non-US countries aren’t this extreme.
They just happen to have different priorities. Believe that a strong army is more important than education. Place themselves and their families and friends before others.
I swear the amount of people that think their side is 100% right and the other is just idiots is too damm high.
This is Canada though, so no Trump. You say their motivation won’t matter, but while for the end result you are right, keep in mind that a lot of people don’t care about politics. There are many things to care about in life and we can’t care about everything with the limited time we have. They were however told to never waste a vote. So they vote, with their somewhat limited knowledge, and this is what happens.
Getting banned for different views (assuming they were presented in a civilized manner) creates echo chambers. Surpressing other opinions will uniform thinking and perception. That enforces echo chambers.
Sure, Lemmy leans a lot more to the left due to it's user base. That doesn't necessarily mean it's an echo chamber as a whole. You can easily evade snowballing effects here by sorting your posts differently, e.g., scaled. There is no algorithm which tries to keep you on the platform by serving you stuff you like and hiding stuff you don't like. Thereby again, defying what's typical for echo chambers.
You can voice your views and opinions and sometimes surely get downvoted to hell for that. But as long as it doesn't break any "be nice" rules it's usually going to be still visible and seen by others. People might disagree, but you are not surpressed. Thereby again, not an echo chamber.
It becomes problematic though if specific instances or communities ban you for having a different (harmless and civilised expressed) opinion. That will indeed create echo chambers as only that is allowed which is similar to the common tone.
And admittedly, having a user base which is dominated by politically left leaning users, seems not to be helpful in terms of diverse political discussions (although I don't see how conservatives have ever been objectively or ethically right about something :p ), but from my experience this hasn't become a problem here, since even left folks love to shoot each other in the feet and have diverse and deep (often fruitful) discussions.
It isn’t as big as some other places, yes, but to say it isn’t one doesn’t really sound true either.
an echo chamber is an environment or ecosystem
in which participants encounter beliefs that amplify or reinforce their preexisting beliefs
In the months I’ve been on lemmy, not once have I encountered a right-wing post, yet I see left-wing posts multiple times a day. By definition, how is it not an echo chamber? I suppose lemmy as a whole might not be, but the resulting lemmy I browse sure is.
That may depend on the instance you're on and the communities others from your instance susbscribed to as well those you subscribed to.
Also, sorting matters a lot. If you go by popular post, i.e. hot or top, it's not surprising to see many rather left-leaning posts as it's the result of a majority of like-minded people. In that case you're absolutely right and make a good point. If you then change to scaled for example you may encounter more diverse posts. I saw a bunch of pro-NRA posts just yesterday by changing the sorting.
But that are the posts. In the comments that picture may become different. It's not as rare to me to encounter opposing views and sometimes clearly stuff which I wouldn't categorise as politically left.
...only under the push over the last 15 years or so to treat sex as wholly irrelevant, ot the point I was accused of transphobia for describing the TERF viewpoint as being about sex, not gender - essentially TERFs aren't concerned with whether you identify as a man or woman gender-wise but whether your sex is female (and thus you are good and safe) or male (and thus you are an evil, dangerous monster who preys on females, regardless of your gender identity).
Once upon a time (hitting a tipping point around 2010 or so), whether it was hetero- or homo- sex was definitely seen as being about the sex organs of the people involved and not how they identified.
Not really. In queer spaces it was always mixed depending on the time place and situation, with a general default to “if there’s a reason for it to be considered homosexual the law will probably say it is so we will too.” But also you have folks like Christine Jorgensen who was hailed as cured from homosexuality by transitioning. With trans people you generally had the idea that your sexuality was the orientation of the group you ran with, so stealth straight trans people were seen as straight by those who dealt with them, but the straight trans people in drag scenes were generally seen as gay. You even wind up with weird shit like how for a time in the 80s and 90s in lesbian discourse trans lesbian meant ftm but transsexual lesbian meant mtf. Also homosexuality and heterosexuality as a concept didn’t enter our culture until the Victorian era before which at various times places and people it was was seen as anything from inherently an intersex condition to a sin made of free will
They're obsessed with sex, but imaginary sky daddy said it's bad, so they resist it as best they can while lashing out at anybody who visibly enjoys it as proof that they themselves are superior for resisting, and not the festering pile of shit that their own subconscious mind accuses them of being.
(Why else does every vocally anti-gay conservative man get caught with rentboys?)
What’s even worse, is that there are people dumb enough to think you’ll actually believe them when they try to tell you that both sides are the same thing.
If the democrats hold "civility" and "precedent" more highly than outlawing a candidate who, by their own admission, would plunge the country into fascism, then democrats are complicit.
Dog, take a look at what has happened this week alone (under a dem president): arguing in favor of unprecedented levels surveillance to any president, sending billions of dollars to a genocidal regime, the revelation that like 40% of democrats are in favor of mass deportations...
Fascism is already here. Just because it is being formally codified in Project 2025 doesn't mean it has yet to arrive. Democrats, and liberalism in general, are unable to stomp fascism.
While I agree, it's still important to vote Democrat just to keep things from getting worse even faster while we drum up support for a better solution.
Na fuck that. Voting Democrat is voting against progression. Progression will be achieved by igniting the masses. You fuel the fire and the new growth is what will grow to the old forest for your grandkids kids who will never know or thank you will live in. Vote Trump and burn the fucker to the ground.
It's not enough to just burn it to the ground - the right people need to be behind the fire, or the only people to survive will be the wealthy with all their money and power.
If we work on spurring the people to rise up, buying time until enough people get on board, we can make real positive change; if we allow capitalism to destroy the country, the working class will die and the upper class will just move somewhere else.
The only logical conclusion to that line of thinking is, 30 years from now, voting for the candidate who supports 5 genocides as opposed to the candidate who supports 10 genocides. It is a liberal and fascistic strategy. Any vote within the American electoral system, which is kabuki theater, does nothing other than to refine capitalism and the regime.
I love how unhinged your argument is, essentially boiling down to “Voting is a waste”. Get out of here with that noise. You “both sides are the same” fools are just foreign disinformation agents, or useful idiots.
Bud, what? We need a revolution, yes, but it takes time to build it up - we're not going to overthrow the government tomorrow. So, what do we do while we're building up that support? Keep the country stitched up with the knock-off duct tape that is the democrats. Yes, the entire thing is coming apart at the seams, and pieces are falling off, but it's better than letting people actively break it further. There will be no revolution if there's nobody left to rise up.
Not only this, but our populace keeps shifting socially leftward. Hence why we have legalized gay marriage and why trans rights are even able to be discussed openly. The dems have been forced to shift their stances from the 90s on these issues bc of their core demographic shifting to the left.
Take note that lgbt rights, privacy, universal healthcare, and sensible climate change policies are no longer fringe, they are at the forefront of what the youth wants. Dont believe the lie that things will only get worse from here if we compromise on status quo joe.
The country is changing whether we like it or not. Either the leftward trend of the majority continues and those who wish to be elected fall in line, or we vote for the biggest boot youll ever see in ur lifetime.
Social acceptance of queer people is falling. Maybe if we're talking about the prospects of revolution, we shouldn't wait until social acceptance of queer people is so low that no one wants to work with us to make necessary change. I'm not saying revolution has to happen before this upcoming election since numbers aren't changing that much (even though falling acceptance is always scary), but "society will generally move leftward" isn't something that should be trusted or expected.
From a study of 22,000 adults published march of 2024:
Support for non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans has dropped four points in the past year, from 80% in 2022 to 76% in 2023.
Even young Americans, aged 18-29, show a gradual decrease in support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws over the last three years, declining from a peak of 83% in 2020 to 75% in 2023.
Support for same-sex marriage has declined among Americans in the last year, dropping from 69% to 67%.
Call it speculation, but those are minor dips on the whole- any upward trend will come with temporary dips. The strides weve made in queer acceptance since, say, the mid 2000s, are staggering. The dips we notice come as the queer acceptance and gender equality movements have expanded to include fighting for trans folk, as well. We werent capable of even discussing trans rights up until recently, now it is a hot button issue.
Meanwhile, the average conservative is not the donald trump monster a lot of us are continuously made to believe in by the media we consume. The conservatives i work with on the daily are very quick to point out that they are accepting of gay ppl under far less conditions than they were even 10 years ago. As in, im not talking about, "not that theres anything wrong with that," but outright, "such and such coworker whom i hold in high esteem is/was gay," and then pretending that they were never part of the antigay crowd in the before times in the first place. The overall cultural shift in this country over the past 20 years has been astounding to see. I will grant that those same individuals might still have reservations towards gay adoption, but they do not feel like that is a safe thing to openly talk about.
I hope you're right, but I honestly see our current political options as being the government's response to our own successful pulls toward the left. "You want to force our Dems to support ever more left-leaning ideals? Well, we'll just push our Conservatives ever further to the right, so you feel compelled to vote even for a moderate democrat to prevent them from getting power!" The government has just as much ability to force our hand as we do on it - or, more likely, even moreso. I believe this election is an example of that.
Mmm, despite what the FUD crowd here on lemmy would have u believe, the dems are not so keen on donnie dump and co. as their adversaries. They want to retain power, too. Dr. Fascismo is a massive threat to that end. On the flip side, biden and the rest of the old guard care little if we want lgbtq rights to be engrained in law, support abortion outright bc they want women to be happy spenders of money, and see climate accountability as a threat to their lobbyist friends only at the far end of that spectrum- otherwise they will vote to placate.
Obviously far leftist politics can only come via direct action, but even then democrats are a smaller boot to deal with and should be embraced as the enemy of our enemy.
It's been achieved several times, and I'm sure you'll remember it the instant you have an opportunity to talk about this or that elected socialist which the CIA had a hand in deposing.
From a historical basis, it's almost more important that countries like America achieve revolution through electoralism, because it would the revolution direct oversight to abolish and reform the machinery that has been used to reverse electoral revolution elsewhere in the world.
Especially with how much effort goes into trying to rig the system against the possibility, a strong enough electoral victory even for a para-socialist coalition will open the door to exponential electoral capture back from the right.
Filibuster reform can take use to voting rights law, voting rights law can take use to congressional expansion, congressional expansion can take us to voting system reform and multi-seat districting, those can take us to unabashed leftists running independently or in a proper American Worker's Party, and with the electoral viability of a solid leftist AWP, the sky is the goddamned limit, but to reach the heavens, you still gotta lay the brickwork down here on earth, and that means ya gotta vote.
The the heritage foundations wishlist for fascism. The heritage foundation is responsible for all of the conservative judges that get "chosen." They hand a list to Republicans and those are the candidates that are picked from. The heritage foundation is top on my list of "things that really need to die in a fire."
Some real "high integrity" content includes:
Rooting out democrats/liberals from federal positions.
The previously mentioned banning porn.
Defunding NOAA and privatizing the national weather service that people literally depend on for their lives. Privatize as in "you no longer get access to life saving weather information unless you pay us.
Etc...
Edit: there's a good list of a few more from @mozz in a comment below that I'll tack on here:
slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security
Invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directing the DOJ to pursue Trump adversaries
Create a federally funded “American Academy” that would deliver online courses and grant free degrees that excluded “wokeness or jihadism”. The plan would also be funded by taxing the endowments of major universities
every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method
you’ll actually believe them when they try to tell you that both sides are the same thing.
I mean, look at that last batch of legislation on Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and TikTok that got passed through both houses by wide margins. There's definitely a political consensus on certain issues, particularly when it comes to advantaging American private businesses or pursing certain foreign policy objectives.
You might get a dispute over whether we should be arming Ukraine against Russia or kicking off a fight between Taiwan and China instead. But there's near-zero daylight on Israel, and its not hard to see why. Same with the TikTok ban, which US social media companies have been salivating over for months.
Ukraine needs to be funded, and the only way dems could get that piece of legislation was to throw in israeli support, but that is not all that bipartisan in congress, only in the streets do i see both conservatives and social liberals both sporting "support Ukraine" stickers. The GOP wanted to pass even more aid to israel that failed.
Not as sure on Taiwan, but agreed that banning Tik Tok was absolutely bipartisan. Also true that US social media companies mist be salovating over that one, but that is not why it was passed. Tik Tok is being banned bc it enables a foreign adversary to spy on our citizens. This one keeps being framed as a privacy issue, but unlike things like the patriot act, there is actual reason to close Tik Toks back door.
I mean, it's quite a departure for a party that whinges about the First Amendment to straight up move to the government controlling what can be published, i.e. actual literal censorship. But hey, conservatives aren't very logical.
I mean...if the loyalist redcoats had won, you'd have health care, gun control and there wouldn't have been a civil war, slavery would just have ended like it did in the rest of the empire.
Big jump in logic here. The decay of the British empire wouldn't even be a thing if the crown held the states. As long as we're playing pretend I'd say it would have ended up worse for everyone.
Lol. Why not pretend the Byzantine Empire would still exist if they had North America? I was talking about a much tighter period of time, roughly 50 years. Canada was essentially self governing by the late 1800s.
It is right up there with the same people arguing for abortion because one should be able to decide what medical procedures (including drugs) should be done to them also arguing for COVID vaccine mandates, i.e. arguing that people should be forced to take a drug.
But then that's one of my biggest grumps about pro-choice arguments (and I am pro-choice) - there's a tendency to argue that supporting abortion is just an application of some broader principle but also to have abortion be the only controversial case where that principle actually applies.
Except nobody was physically forced down and vaccinated against their will. You can still choose not to be vaccinated, but choices have consequences. I'm not saying the government should arrest people for not being vaccinated, but people, institutions, companies and hospitals should definitely have the choice to not want to let those people inside.
Nobody is coercing you to do anything when your employer doesn't want people spreading disease in their company. Nobody is coercing anyone if e.g. hospitals refuse to hire someone who hasn't had certain vaccinations. It has nothing to do with coercion. It has to do with the fact that actions and choices have consequences. You don't get to willingly disregard (the safety of) everyone else and expect to be welcome everywhere.
If I choose not to shower, and stink to high heaven, some employers won't hire me. If I choose not to wear shoes, or walk around in my underwear, I will be denied access to many places. Does this mean I am being coerced to shower and wear clothes?
Actions have consequences. It's just that simple. You can always choose to not do x, but when it's a requirement for y, you won't get to do y unless you do x. And speaking of rights, what about everyone else's rights to not have to sit/work/eat/wait next to Typhoid Mary? Or is it really your opinion that whatever someone does, their right to do whatever is more important than the rest of society? Do you think businesses should be forced to allow anyone inside no matter what? Employers are not allowed to set requirements for their employees?
I think he was saying not that it happened, but that people wanted it to happen really really bad, and that many of those same people who wanted it (or supported it, not achieved it), also support pro choice when it comes to what amounts to an ideologically similar issue (my body my choice, bodily autonomy.)
Tbf, if he is indeed saying that, he's right, pro-choice people did want forced vaccinations by law, though you're also right that they did not get forced vaccinations by law.
Before any reactionaries jump down my throat, I'm pro-choice myself and am simply trying to clarify what looks to be a misunderstanding in these couple comments here.
I've never known anyone who wanted to physically force people to get vaccinated. I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates. Don't want to get vaccinated? Sure, that's your choice. But other people get to choose not to be around you, and this includes your employer or any store owner or transport company, etc.
Holy shit you're stupid.
If someone has a highly infectious disease that will kill people, why the fuck should you be allowed to just go to people in buildings and spread that shit?
Fuck me you people are dumb as shit. Either dumb or an evil narcissist.
Idk whether the misunderstanding comes from not knowing what a mandate is, but above you say:
I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates (an authoritative command especially a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one)
But then go on to say that you didn't mean "the definition of mandate" by your use of the word "mandate," instead you meant a new definition created by you that boils down to voluntary association, not "mandates."
So, which is it? Do/did you support the government forcing people by law to get vaccinated (mandates), or do you simply support people's right not to employ or hang with people on the other side of their vaccination opinions (voluntary association)?
Please stop, you're so transparent. Vaccine mandates already existed in places, which has never meant that people are physically forced to get vaccinated. Like in schools, or when you want to work in a hospital. There are mandates. Don't want to get vaccinated? Then you don't get to work there. You'll never be physically forced to vaccinate.
When my employer wanted everyone to get vaccinated, that was also called a mandate. People could still not get vaccinated, it's their choice, but then they weren't allowed in the building. No government violence required.
There, plenty of mandates that have nothing whatsoever to do with physically being forced to get vaccinated. Just that when you choose not to, there are consequences. Actions have consequences, who knew?
If you still insist on pretending not to understand this, think of it this way: If you choose to not shower and never wear clean clothes (this is the choice you make), nobody will physically force you into a shower. But when you're walking around smelling like weeks old sweat and garbage, your employer will definitely not let you come back to work (and this would be the consequence). Same goes for walking around like a virus dispenser.
Honestly I'm more confused as to why you pretend there weren't people calling for prison for the unvaccinated. We agree that voluntary association is good, why deny there were also people who wanted a government mandate?
Sure though, I suppose you're right, "employer mandates" is a thing, I concede that point (well, at least that it still doesn't mean optional, but it doesn't necessarily mean governmental). That doesn't change the fact however that people were calling for more than that, people were calling for arrests, maybe not you but those people did exist. It is that which the above poster was comparing to abortion, not the much lighter version you're talking about.
Yes I have, scouts honor. I mean, they were stupid people, but they were people who wanted to imprison people for not being vaccinated nonetheless. One may say that opinion would automatically qualify one as a stupid person btw, but I mean they were independently stupid.
In any case we've found the crux of the issue, you don't believe those people existed. Well, they did.
Literally nothing to actually help the nation or solve problems.
Just culture war, and only culture war.
And unfortunately by the looks of this comment section, it works. It forces people to focus on the culture war aspect of it and not the lack of actual progress, or the changes behind the scenes while we all fight over the culture problems and the real dismantling happens out of view.
Oh, actual progress? Oh boy it's my time to shine!
As per moderator request, a unique comment for you. Enjoy
Individuals ought to have the liberty to vote for the candidate who truly embodies their interests. By replacing the prevalent First Past the Post voting system, citizens can confidently support third-party candidates without fear of a spoiler effect. This shift would foster electoral competition, thereby enhancing the caliber of candidates accessible to all. Moreover, it would incentivize greater political participation and voter engagement. Progressing state by state, we can empower voters to select representatives who align with their values while effectively weighing their votes against undesirable candidates. Start with your own state today!
Hey, listen, go for it. But when we've got cops storming school yards and beating up professors, I gotta say. This probably isn't going to be the freest or fairest election of my lifetime.
It makes sense, recently in NC we unbanned gender-affirming care for Government funded medical programs, as the Judge ruled that since the legal team arguing in favor of the unban showed that trans healthcare is not substantially more expensive (for insurers) than everyone else's and there was enough evidence to show that the care could not be considered elective under these cirucmstances, that discrimination was the only possible motive for barring it and since those arguing in favor of the ban had no arguments that hadn't been debunked..... the ban was lifted and now Government Funded Medical Programs in NC HAVE to cover Gender Affirming care
If the Judge wasn't allowed to talk about LGBT Discrimination, and was forced to frame it in terms of "States Rights" then the ban wouldn't have been lifted
It was an invention by Adolph Hitler himself, coined the big lie (grosse lüge), a lie so big that people wouldn't believe someone would/could make such a big lie, hence they'd believe it.
I'm probably not explaining it very well, here us a Wikipedia link to get you going:
If this were reddit, you would be flagged for inciting violence against political groups.
But this isn't Reddit, this is Lemmy where we're allowed to have functioning fucking brain stems and don't need to coddle people literally trying to murder half the population.
Thanks! Big help, reading material and historical facts like this are the innoculation against falling for Far Right Ideology! Keep fighting the good fight!
Edit: Wow Hitler actually had Germany thinking the Holocaust was a Counter-Genocide in order to negate the Jewish Genocide of German people, which wasn't even fucking happening to begin with? That... sadly tracks...
All the extremists/fascish/religious extremism/... have had lots of their power taken away (history before for example 1900 is wild if you read between the lines. Just Horrible.), so they try to make smart talk where like 90% makes sense.
Yes, but "unlawful or contrary to the public interest" is the language the 2025 drafters have used in the past to argue that people involved in a literal violent insurrection should not be prosecuted. In this case we're not talking about forming a more equitable justice system, we're talking about celebrating the attempted overthrow of the government.
It will always trip me out how Mitt Romney went from being the GOP nominee for president in 2012 to a reviled RINO in less than a decade by not moving. He's the same guy with the same positions and the party shot far to the right.
Consider that in 1965, someone wrote a book about how great it would be if cars had seat belts, and then everyone agreed and cars got seat belts. That's what happens in a government that at least tries to care (about white people, anyway). Conservatives have spent the last half century making sure that nightmare never happens again.
Gotta keep the cogs (workers) oiled (safe) to prevent premature wear (worker deaths) so you don't have to replace cogs so often because oil is cheaper than getting a new cog. That seems more akin to the Scandinavian model to me. Our system of "make more money than the previous year at all costs" means that the oil can get thinner and thinner every single year because planned obsolescence puts cogs out of service around the end of their natural life (so they have to work until they die) or even prior to their natural life (workplace deaths/disability), there are a ton of cogs to choose from, so replacing is less of a financial detriment, and the healthcare/pharmaceutical machine greatly benefits from the cogs that are hurt from the capitalism machine. This is the reason why republicans can easily do shitty things (that push capitalism to its limits) and why democrats have such difficulty doing what people want them to do (that goes against capitalism).
If we're sure about being steadfast in this economic system, RCV has to be pushed as a ballot measure to calm things down a bit. A few states are getting RCV, but it's not nearly enough. And while people wait for the next election and the one after that and the one after that for things to possibly get better, their friends and family are dying from this system. So expect protests, police forces, and prison systems to get bigger and bigger.
I hope the Catholics in the US never have to face the day that they reap what they sowed. The unholy alliance they have with the evangelicals won't last. And historically has always been the case. I hope they never experience it because I give a shit about people.
Only a secular government can have minorities, and most secular governments aren't even that good at that.
No. It's not. It's close. They're mocking the person who took any side. There no side to not commit xenocide and the democrats will knot not do it. We don't have much time left. Their might be one "president" left after this one. I assure you it don't matter who because everyone will die on this planet.
it really is. I posted one comment, woke up the next day being called a genocide supporter, having my comment removed (don't know why, didn't read the rules, nor will i) and being banned.
It's not our place to understand these other people. All we need to do is do what we can to advance peace's interests and be prepared for the inevitable.
I'm interested, but can someone provide more context? What is this document, who wrote it, who is actually pushing it, etc.
Like if you went to the RNC and a presenter said "here's the plan" and everyone in the room erupted in applause that's one thing, but if one crazy person wrote this up wearing a tin foil Nazi maga hat and said "LISTEN THIS IS THE PLAN" to himself and posted it on Twitter then that's a whole different deal.
It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.
This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. The project will build on four pillars that will, collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative administration: a policy agenda, personnel, training, and a 180-day playbook.
The project is the effort of a broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025. With the right conservative policy recommendations and properly vetted and trained personnel to implement them, we will take back our government.
The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is being organized by The Heritage Foundation and builds off Heritage’s longstanding “Mandate for Leadership,” which has been highly influential for presidential administrations since the Reagan era. Most recently, the Trump administration relied heavily on Heritage’s “Mandate” for policy guidance, embracing nearly two-thirds of Heritage’s proposals within just one year in office.
Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Trump administration, serves as the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel, serves as associate director of the project.
It's every right wing "think tank" at work and combining forces into fascist-voltron. The Discovery Institute, the Eagle Forum, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Moms For Liberty, Pro-Life America, Turning Point USA and many others. It's basically the playbook for the next conservative government.
The Heritage Foundation is once again facilitating this work, but as our dozens of partners and hundreds of authors will attest, this book is the work of the entire conservative movement.
In his last term Trump enacted or tried to enact two thirds of the policy recommendations of the last Heritage Foundation Playbook.
Analysis completed by Heritage determined that 64 percent of the policy prescriptions were included in Trump’s budget, implemented through regulatory guidance, or under consideration for action in accordance with The Heritage Foundation’s original proposals.
Number two seems good. The fbi shouldn’t be conducting illegal investigations. The reasons they want it are not the same reasons I want it, but a stopped clock yadda yadda.
Unfortunately their definition of an "illegal investigation" is as well defined as their definition of "woke". It just means anything that they don't like and can flexibly be applied to who is doing the action.
Good luck fighting your own government for 4 years.
Unfortunately this also supports Republican goals. The less effective the government is, the easier it will be for them to ignore regulations and run their little scams, and the less support there will be for people who need it.
Another aspect of Project 2025 is for Trump to appoint select individuals vetted to ensure that they will uphold and enforce the core tenets of this christo-fascist manifesto.
There's a nonzero chance that a future Republican President will do a NAFTA-to-USMCA style "abolition" of the FBI, where the name plate on the building gets changed and James Comey gets fired again but everything else stays functionally the same.
Nah, I think for that to be done a reshuffle of the US intelligence apparatus needs to be carried out, a department of domestic intelligence, tasked with protection against plots of domestic terrorism and a department of foreign intelligence, tasked with gathering and disseminating intelligence to our strategic allies, and also protecting the lives of American citizens abroad through preventative intelligence gathering, IE by extracting them if they are deemed in danger, not by starting a coup because the local government wants to initiate a forced sale of their property in that country.
Create those departments, background check every active agent and worker currently in the intelligence apparatus, and remove everyone who hails from the ideological lineage of the Kissinger days.
Their plan doesnt call for a "nazi purge." it calls to end any investigation of crime that involves a Republican.
Why make up a completely different scenario just to "both sides" and give the GOP cover for their actual plan that dismants the rule of law as long as youre on their team?
i wish. i consistently 'spout' the worldview of someone who has been fucked over by your country multiple times. the us literally sponsored the project 2025 stuff in here, hence why i find this very ironic.
There are plenty of countries with similar approaches towards law and censorship. I would reference those to see what's possible before I would base my opinions solely on America's prior history.
That is demonstrably false, legal sanction is what allows sex workers to be able to call the authorities on suspicious behavior towards them without risking their own arrest in the process.
I think it's a matter of enforcement than legislation. In Northern Ireland, prostitution is generally illegal but it's basically enforced only when the police suspect human trafficking. So they can raid a brothel, then arrest them for prostitution, get them somewhere safe, find out they were trafficked and drop the charges and get them help.
The listed excerpts are actually quite tame compared to what the actual plan is.
I stopped looking, not because there was any shortage of further crazy shit. There’s plenty more.
Yeah, and there's a fair amount of money behind this push.....which like....I'm not American, don't live in the States, but my sister and her wife do...and I've gotta figure out how to get them the fuck out if things go Trump again....
Edit: also, living in the UK I run into loads of people who go "Well, if Trump gets in again, that's not really our problem..." but like....the USA makes they're problems everyone's problem. And another Trump presidential term would be a huge problem for the rest of the world....
Yeah, I've been following UK politics by way of TrashFuture podcast and I gotta say... your immigration plan is to deport people to Rwanda and your government just endorsed a Trans-Panic Committee to decide whether teenagers can consent to gender-affirming care.
And these are the moderate Labour Party positions. Liz Truss wants to do worse.
God damn, dude. Finding the worst people to run the country is not a competition. You can just let the Yanks have this one.
They look at our right wing propaganda machine to see what "works." They also get the added "benefit" of our toxic sludge that is online political discourse to feed off of. They don't need new issues as they have a repository of shit to pick from...
Why does Americas #2 export need to be toxic right wing bullshit....
Wait, what’s #1? It’s freedom, right?
It's "the news".
Its how we get our hooks into you, so we can dissolve your NHS and replace it with our vastly more profitable private health care system.
I'm only here on a marriage visa, I'm not a P.R or citizen yet, so I'm not allowed to vote against having these bigots and con-men in power. Also, while labour is somewhat moderate, the Tories are in power, and they're a bunch of fucking nut jobs. Labour can't decide what they stand for anymore, which means they will stand for nothing, and the rest of the available parties will never get to power again. The available options are shit, just like in the States. And the Yanks think they invented having a shit government, but lemme tell you, the Brits have been fucking up their own government and foreign governments for a lot longer the the US has been a thing.
As a yank who’s followed British politics for a while, I wouldn’t blame labour’s bullshit on the tories. They seem to have done the same thing in response to thatcher that the Dems did to Reagan “ok sure we can be the neutral centrist party, we’ll be conservative while you be regressive”. When I see actual left wing ideas coming out of the UK it’s either from your queer folks, a small and vulnerable actual left wing, or from the SNP. Even now with the tories wildly unpopular Labour seems to be taking the attitude of “we should reach across the aisle and offer to do what they propose”.
But you are right we learned how to govern from two sources, you and the Iroquois confederacy, and the Iroquois functioned (they still do, but they did then too).
Yeah, I'm Canadian buddy.
Edit: I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, just to tired to formulate a proper response, might come back to this tomorrow.
In a similar situation here in NZ. On a perm resident visa through partnership, can’t vote, keenly interested in being on my best behaviour here. Labour wasn’t amazeballs, but the current coalition is like watching a pack of dogs with diarrhoea tear through a quiet town. You just know it’ll be on someone else to clean up after them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/24/labour-could-keep-sunaks-rwanda-policy-successful/
It's cowardly triangulation intended to straddle the issue, rather than denounce the policy.
The UK gets whatever the US gets, it just sometimes lags by a few years depending on how long it takes for the US to excrete it over here.
As seen with all the decisions made by the Tories over the last decade.
While that's partly true, Boris was your own fault. Let's just blame the Australians.
Rupert Murdoch and his consequences have been a disaster for the anglosphere
Yeah we’ll take the uk and Canada down with us. Honestly probably the EU and we’ll try for Russia as well
I doubt even Trump can fuck the UK harder than its fucking itself rn.
It's a very ambitious list. The executive branch will be a smoldering wreck before they even get started. Let's hope we get a 2028 election because 2032 and 2036 will be all about rebuilding.
I gotta say, this is hilarious both in how it delivers lip service to a popular idea (free public higher education) and outright mangles the implementation so its guaranteed to fail (why the fuck would any serious employer value an anti-wokeness degree?)
Government small enough to fit in your vagina.
The public: "We want free public higher education!"
Fascists: "Okay, we'll use tax money to shove PraegerU down everyone's throat."
The public: "Wait, no, not like that!"
Also like I was radicalized in college without my courses including any of that shit. Nothing drove me to the labor left harder than having it drilled into be how I’ll need to explain human suffering in dollars in my ergonomics class. And like the teacher wasn’t wrong and he was very conservative.
Over in ![email protected] I got banned for posting about Project 2025. They claim it breaks rule 2 which is to only post pro-conservative or anti-liberal posts. Fucking echo chamber over there.
Same as r/conservatives was.
Projection is the game. You see these wackos all over YouTube bemoaning “my comments keep getting deleted” (which doesn’t seem true), yet go on their turf and they’ll happily silence you as that’s different.
Reminds me of “the only moral abortion is mine”. The only people being silenced is us, what we’re doing might look the same but trust me bro it’s not.
So much for free speech
Free speech is what I want to say, not what you want to say. Duh, loser!
Free speech gets lip service over there. I don't know why the admin tolerates that community.
Especially with how poor their moderation is. Wintermute regularly deletes comments they disagree with, Momo is left to insult people and rage with near impunity, and it regularly spouts misinformation/disinformation. It's an example of how NOT to run a community.
Don't forget their founder is banned from .world for promoting pedophilia.
What the fuck? Do you have a link or anything to when this happened?
Check the mod log.
You're free to say anything I agree with, unlike in those liberal channels where I'm censored for speaking my personal truth.
But you're not free to violate the terms of service of the contract you signed when you walked in. In very plain bold text I wrote "Don't say anything I don't like". And you agreed to it by being here.
So agree with me or GTFO.
Holy shit. That place is a cesspit. Every post is downvoted to hell. What the fuck?
Lemmy is pretty liberal. I downvote their posts when they end up on my feed but it's apparent I'm not the only one.
Ironically the actual don't tread on me people are on the left.
Turns out we don't have to live under Reddit.
Turns out I don’t want anyone treading on anyone. I just happen to be a subset of the people I won’t stand for people treading on
Wait, what? Why would they even deny it? It’s all of the issues they love to scream about. How is that something they would possibly think they could or should hide?
What are the odds that place is run by a Russian...?
I always felt that lemm.ee was more conservative (and capilistic). They seem less progressive, more modernist. The issue is it's hard to tell since it federates with other instances, so I mostly have to go by usernames made off that instance.
I joined this instance because .world made joining harder during the migration, I mean I'm not HARD left, but I doubt I count as conservative
I see what you mean now. I meant I see many of the lemm.ee accounts as conservative compared to other instances (more Democrat than progressive). Of course I haven't done a scientific aanalysis, it's just an observation I made as I post and look at usernames. Obviously, it's not going to be everyone as Lemmy leans toward the progressive left.
I mean, I dont hate Landlords, so I guess I count as MORE conservative than the average lemmite... Lemming? Still not conservative enough to not take that as slightly insulting though xD
I joined lemm.ee during the migration and picked it because they didn't defederate too much with other instances. When they refused to federate with Threads, my choice to use lemm.ee was reaffirmed.
That's as political as my choice ever got. I personally lean fairly left.
As a Radical Democrat (the philosophy not the party, although I am registered and vote dem) I am offended
Searching for radical democrat brings up Republican propaganda. Would you be able to explain what you mean by being philosophically "radical Democrat?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy?wprov=sfla1
To me it boils down to the great quote, of John Dewey, "The solution to the ills of democracy is more democracy."
I want the institution of mass multi-seat electoral offices and the mass expansion of elected offices and the election of those offices via Multi-Seat STAR voting (rate your enthusiasm for all the candidates, the two highest average candidates go to a runoff that seats whoever is rated higher on more ballots, repeat with the two highest rated remaining candidates until all seats are filled)
It's not like anywhere else, here or any other place, isn't an echo chamber... they're just generally more so. It's a really disturbing place but let's not pretend any other place is objective and fully accepting of different views.
Bro, there are echo chambers and there are fascist hangouts, and while a fascist hangout (project2025 favoring forums) is a subset of echo chambers, not all echo chambers are Fascist Hangouts.
Lemmy as a whole is an echo chamber too. Look at how things blew up in this post. This is an extreme scenario, not every conservative cares about project 2025. I have conservative family and coworkers who are conservative because they hate change and want to live in the “good old days”, not because they worship trump or are nazis… And yet everyone here thinks “all conservatives are evil”.
They don't care about it, but they'll happily vote for the people trying to implement it.
Exactly. And they'll feel its effects and while they suffer they'll only say "Well, at least it's hurting my enemies worse!"
Nah, that's ancient. Racial segregation, like with the Jim Crow laws, will probably do fine for a start. Maybe also take back women's voting rights. Needless to say that homosexuality gets banned as well again. I mean, it's a rather modern phenomenon that it has been legalized at all. /s
You guys are thinking way too extreme once again. My grandfather voted conservative his entire life and yet was friends with the blacks and columbians next door. He was the first in his town to let his wife drive a car.
Why was he conservative then you ask? Because he was raised religious and he felt like liberals were attacking his religion. That’s it. Now granted this was in Canada, before Trump and project 2025, but conservatism is an idea, not a party in one country.
Your grandfather is a useful idiot who will be all surprised Pikachu face when they start packing the undesirables into trains
I don't think Poilievre is about to round up people and send them to camps. He's only out for the money.
No, but the American conservatives he supports will definitely round people up.
I don't say that each and every single conservative is an evil asshole who wants to let certain groups of people suffer. But even if the individual reasons for voting conservatives seems innocent, it's not as innocent what such a party could ultimately do (or actually did in the past).
Even though his only motivation might have been that he saw his religion threatened, voting conservatives still shows a lack of critical thought in my opinion. What about the other goals the conservatives pursued back then and today? Voting them will give them the power to achieve those. Sure, maybe his religion will be protected that way. But what about all of the suffering the other goals will (or did) cause?
It's a decision to make of what's worse on the greater scale. Picking a party just because of one point on their agenda with which someone can identify, but ignoring the rest, seems like a short-sighted and potentially very harmful idea to me, which might – in the long run – even be detrimental to the one who voted for such a party.
It feels like voting for a party which will bring doom and damnation over the whole world, but at least you get to pet a puppy once a week.
It’s not a lack or critical thinking. He was working all day, then cooking for the family, then barely had an hour or two to himself. In a primarly conservative town, without internet, and about 3 channels on TV, how do you expect him to learn or care about politics? He voted conservative like everyone else and moved on.
Also keep in mind that most conservative parties in the world aren’t like the US, they don’t want to “bring doom and damnation over the world”.
So it's not a lack of critical thinking, but not being able to take the time to critically think about one's decision is not a lack of critical thinking?
I don't think it's responsible to vote for a party if one is not able to critically think about their choice. Then he maybe shouldn't have voted at all, if there was really no time to think a bit about it. And it really doesn't take that much. However, the limiting the available information is indeed a problem to form such critical thoughts. Still, making a choice despite knowing one is not able to form a well-informed opinion, is again a sign of a lack of critical thinking to me.
No, of course they don't want to. They just do.
My wording was a figure of speech of course, but still, in my experience and from what I can tell, conservative parties have been more detrimental to the progress and benefit of a society as a whole than being beneficial.
There was no slavery in this part of the world, there wasn’t a single person of color in my hometown until the early 2010s.
They want religion to get its power back and/or they want to keep their wealth. There is probably more, but none of them want immigrants out, guns or that project 2025 shit.
A lot of people here turned conservative due to the covid measures, which were more extreme than pretty much anywhere else in North America.
What "good old days" exactly are you describing? I expect it wasn't as good as they think, and was especially bad for many who weren't white, hetero, and male.
Well yes, the people I’m describing were white cis christian males. Of course it wasn’t as good as they remember, but the human brain tends to exagerate memories over time. A lot of conservatives are getting old and most of their life is behind them. Can you blame them for looking back rather than looking forward? Most people don’t care about politics and will vote for the side they slightly lean towards without a second thought.
I can blame them, yes. Because they want their comfort and well being at the expense of, and without regard for others. If they get their way they’ll drive our country back to a dark age for a short bit of expected (and likely not received) comfort, then die, leaving all of us still around to suffer the consequences.
I won’t hate them because the reality is they are just fools being taken advantage of by those in power. But that doesn’t remove their culpability. The old are meant to plant trees, not burn them down.
See this is what I’m talking about. They aren’t fools for having a different opinion. MAGA followers that do it because of trickle down economics might be fools, but most conservatives in most non-US countries aren’t this extreme.
They just happen to have different priorities. Believe that a strong army is more important than education. Place themselves and their families and friends before others.
I swear the amount of people that think their side is 100% right and the other is just idiots is too damm high.
You know, the good old days when you could own people and cutting edge medicine involved literally blowing smoke up someone's ass.
This is Canada though, so no Trump. You say their motivation won’t matter, but while for the end result you are right, keep in mind that a lot of people don’t care about politics. There are many things to care about in life and we can’t care about everything with the limited time we have. They were however told to never waste a vote. So they vote, with their somewhat limited knowledge, and this is what happens.
Getting banned for different views (assuming they were presented in a civilized manner) creates echo chambers. Surpressing other opinions will uniform thinking and perception. That enforces echo chambers.
Sure, Lemmy leans a lot more to the left due to it's user base. That doesn't necessarily mean it's an echo chamber as a whole. You can easily evade snowballing effects here by sorting your posts differently, e.g., scaled. There is no algorithm which tries to keep you on the platform by serving you stuff you like and hiding stuff you don't like. Thereby again, defying what's typical for echo chambers.
You can voice your views and opinions and sometimes surely get downvoted to hell for that. But as long as it doesn't break any "be nice" rules it's usually going to be still visible and seen by others. People might disagree, but you are not surpressed. Thereby again, not an echo chamber.
It becomes problematic though if specific instances or communities ban you for having a different (harmless and civilised expressed) opinion. That will indeed create echo chambers as only that is allowed which is similar to the common tone.
And admittedly, having a user base which is dominated by politically left leaning users, seems not to be helpful in terms of diverse political discussions (although I don't see how conservatives have ever been objectively or ethically right about something :p ), but from my experience this hasn't become a problem here, since even left folks love to shoot each other in the feet and have diverse and deep (often fruitful) discussions.
It isn’t as big as some other places, yes, but to say it isn’t one doesn’t really sound true either.
In the months I’ve been on lemmy, not once have I encountered a right-wing post, yet I see left-wing posts multiple times a day. By definition, how is it not an echo chamber? I suppose lemmy as a whole might not be, but the resulting lemmy I browse sure is.
That may depend on the instance you're on and the communities others from your instance susbscribed to as well those you subscribed to.
Also, sorting matters a lot. If you go by popular post, i.e. hot or top, it's not surprising to see many rather left-leaning posts as it's the result of a majority of like-minded people. In that case you're absolutely right and make a good point. If you then change to scaled for example you may encounter more diverse posts. I saw a bunch of pro-NRA posts just yesterday by changing the sorting.
But that are the posts. In the comments that picture may become different. It's not as rare to me to encounter opposing views and sometimes clearly stuff which I wouldn't categorise as politically left.
"I literally can't tell either side apart. Both sides are the same!"
"One guy is fucking me and the other is getting off watching"
Lol what a dumbass statement
Hey everyone look at this loser
"One side is clearly worse, but they're both literally in favor of human extinction."
"You're basically saying both sides are the same. Why would you say something so absurd?"
Well? Answer the question please
Seriously, when the red guys are committing 90% of the crimes why do you people always focus on the 10% the blue guys do?
I mean I know why, I just want to see you struggle to explain how you're totally not a Russian stooge, pinky promise
Because nobody here is saying they're the same.
Your tiny little caveat does not change the fact that the bulk of your message is "Democrats bad".
Libs love to purity test.
Libs hate purity testing. We're a party of diversity. Leftists love purity testing.
Ah fair. Maybe what I mean to say is the American left loves to purity test.
That's fair. I think you had the right idea, just a slight difference in terminology.
Finally, gender is now illegal. We did it bo- I mean people
Without genders, isn't all sex homosexual?
Sex != Gender
Yeah but same gender sex is homosexual.
Then why is femboy porn so hot then?
...only under the push over the last 15 years or so to treat sex as wholly irrelevant, ot the point I was accused of transphobia for describing the TERF viewpoint as being about sex, not gender - essentially TERFs aren't concerned with whether you identify as a man or woman gender-wise but whether your sex is female (and thus you are good and safe) or male (and thus you are an evil, dangerous monster who preys on females, regardless of your gender identity).
Once upon a time (hitting a tipping point around 2010 or so), whether it was hetero- or homo- sex was definitely seen as being about the sex organs of the people involved and not how they identified.
Not really. In queer spaces it was always mixed depending on the time place and situation, with a general default to “if there’s a reason for it to be considered homosexual the law will probably say it is so we will too.” But also you have folks like Christine Jorgensen who was hailed as cured from homosexuality by transitioning. With trans people you generally had the idea that your sexuality was the orientation of the group you ran with, so stealth straight trans people were seen as straight by those who dealt with them, but the straight trans people in drag scenes were generally seen as gay. You even wind up with weird shit like how for a time in the 80s and 90s in lesbian discourse trans lesbian meant ftm but transsexual lesbian meant mtf. Also homosexuality and heterosexuality as a concept didn’t enter our culture until the Victorian era before which at various times places and people it was was seen as anything from inherently an intersex condition to a sin made of free will
Pretty sure they also hate sex.
They're obsessed with sex, but imaginary sky daddy said it's bad, so they resist it as best they can while lashing out at anybody who visibly enjoys it as proof that they themselves are superior for resisting, and not the festering pile of shit that their own subconscious mind accuses them of being.
(Why else does every vocally anti-gay conservative man get caught with rentboys?)
i want to tell a republican this now
Comrades.
What’s even worse, is that there are people dumb enough to think you’ll actually believe them when they try to tell you that both sides are the same thing.
Vote like lives depend on it. Because many do.
If the democrats hold "civility" and "precedent" more highly than outlawing a candidate who, by their own admission, would plunge the country into fascism, then democrats are complicit.
Dog, take a look at what has happened this week alone (under a dem president): arguing in favor of unprecedented levels surveillance to any president, sending billions of dollars to a genocidal regime, the revelation that like 40% of democrats are in favor of mass deportations...
Fascism is already here. Just because it is being formally codified in Project 2025 doesn't mean it has yet to arrive. Democrats, and liberalism in general, are unable to stomp fascism.
While I agree, it's still important to vote Democrat just to keep things from getting worse even faster while we drum up support for a better solution.
Na fuck that. Voting Democrat is voting against progression. Progression will be achieved by igniting the masses. You fuel the fire and the new growth is what will grow to the old forest for your grandkids kids who will never know or thank you will live in. Vote Trump and burn the fucker to the ground.
It's not enough to just burn it to the ground - the right people need to be behind the fire, or the only people to survive will be the wealthy with all their money and power.
If we work on spurring the people to rise up, buying time until enough people get on board, we can make real positive change; if we allow capitalism to destroy the country, the working class will die and the upper class will just move somewhere else.
The only logical conclusion to that line of thinking is, 30 years from now, voting for the candidate who supports 5 genocides as opposed to the candidate who supports 10 genocides. It is a liberal and fascistic strategy. Any vote within the American electoral system, which is kabuki theater, does nothing other than to refine capitalism and the regime.
I love how unhinged your argument is, essentially boiling down to “Voting is a waste”. Get out of here with that noise. You “both sides are the same” fools are just foreign disinformation agents, or useful idiots.
Lemmy is absolutely infested with this nonsense.
I've seen it a lot, yeah. I'm proud of how well Lemmy has pushed back on it.
We're not doing good enough. There's still a LOT of threads where the "both sides, don't vote" propaganda has taken over.
Bud, what? We need a revolution, yes, but it takes time to build it up - we're not going to overthrow the government tomorrow. So, what do we do while we're building up that support? Keep the country stitched up with the knock-off duct tape that is the democrats. Yes, the entire thing is coming apart at the seams, and pieces are falling off, but it's better than letting people actively break it further. There will be no revolution if there's nobody left to rise up.
Not only this, but our populace keeps shifting socially leftward. Hence why we have legalized gay marriage and why trans rights are even able to be discussed openly. The dems have been forced to shift their stances from the 90s on these issues bc of their core demographic shifting to the left.
Take note that lgbt rights, privacy, universal healthcare, and sensible climate change policies are no longer fringe, they are at the forefront of what the youth wants. Dont believe the lie that things will only get worse from here if we compromise on status quo joe.
The country is changing whether we like it or not. Either the leftward trend of the majority continues and those who wish to be elected fall in line, or we vote for the biggest boot youll ever see in ur lifetime.
Social acceptance of queer people is falling. Maybe if we're talking about the prospects of revolution, we shouldn't wait until social acceptance of queer people is so low that no one wants to work with us to make necessary change. I'm not saying revolution has to happen before this upcoming election since numbers aren't changing that much (even though falling acceptance is always scary), but "society will generally move leftward" isn't something that should be trusted or expected.
From a study of 22,000 adults published march of 2024:
Support for non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans has dropped four points in the past year, from 80% in 2022 to 76% in 2023.
Even young Americans, aged 18-29, show a gradual decrease in support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws over the last three years, declining from a peak of 83% in 2020 to 75% in 2023.
Support for same-sex marriage has declined among Americans in the last year, dropping from 69% to 67%.
Call it speculation, but those are minor dips on the whole- any upward trend will come with temporary dips. The strides weve made in queer acceptance since, say, the mid 2000s, are staggering. The dips we notice come as the queer acceptance and gender equality movements have expanded to include fighting for trans folk, as well. We werent capable of even discussing trans rights up until recently, now it is a hot button issue.
Meanwhile, the average conservative is not the donald trump monster a lot of us are continuously made to believe in by the media we consume. The conservatives i work with on the daily are very quick to point out that they are accepting of gay ppl under far less conditions than they were even 10 years ago. As in, im not talking about, "not that theres anything wrong with that," but outright, "such and such coworker whom i hold in high esteem is/was gay," and then pretending that they were never part of the antigay crowd in the before times in the first place. The overall cultural shift in this country over the past 20 years has been astounding to see. I will grant that those same individuals might still have reservations towards gay adoption, but they do not feel like that is a safe thing to openly talk about.
I hope you're right, but I honestly see our current political options as being the government's response to our own successful pulls toward the left. "You want to force our Dems to support ever more left-leaning ideals? Well, we'll just push our Conservatives ever further to the right, so you feel compelled to vote even for a moderate democrat to prevent them from getting power!" The government has just as much ability to force our hand as we do on it - or, more likely, even moreso. I believe this election is an example of that.
Mmm, despite what the FUD crowd here on lemmy would have u believe, the dems are not so keen on donnie dump and co. as their adversaries. They want to retain power, too. Dr. Fascismo is a massive threat to that end. On the flip side, biden and the rest of the old guard care little if we want lgbtq rights to be engrained in law, support abortion outright bc they want women to be happy spenders of money, and see climate accountability as a threat to their lobbyist friends only at the far end of that spectrum- otherwise they will vote to placate.
Obviously far leftist politics can only come via direct action, but even then democrats are a smaller boot to deal with and should be embraced as the enemy of our enemy.
You say "build it up", but what you really mean is "achieve revolution via electoralism" - which has no historical basis. This is liberalism.
No, I mean literally get the people on board with the idea of having a second American revolution. With guns and everything.
It's been achieved several times, and I'm sure you'll remember it the instant you have an opportunity to talk about this or that elected socialist which the CIA had a hand in deposing.
From a historical basis, it's almost more important that countries like America achieve revolution through electoralism, because it would the revolution direct oversight to abolish and reform the machinery that has been used to reverse electoral revolution elsewhere in the world.
Especially with how much effort goes into trying to rig the system against the possibility, a strong enough electoral victory even for a para-socialist coalition will open the door to exponential electoral capture back from the right.
Filibuster reform can take use to voting rights law, voting rights law can take use to congressional expansion, congressional expansion can take us to voting system reform and multi-seat districting, those can take us to unabashed leftists running independently or in a proper American Worker's Party, and with the electoral viability of a solid leftist AWP, the sky is the goddamned limit, but to reach the heavens, you still gotta lay the brickwork down here on earth, and that means ya gotta vote.
Lol gottem
Sure, if you're completely ignorant of history...
Man it's like I can hear how white the people you get your politics from are
Nobody who actually lives the difference talks like this, get off your high horse.
If voting didn’t work they wouldn’t be sabotaging it so hard.
ROFL…. I said stupid too when I was a teenager. But not this stupid.
Thanks for the laugh. I really need this.
Project 25?
Seen this mentioned twice now. What is it? Sure i can, and will, google it. Just nice to have a record here for others too.
The the heritage foundations wishlist for fascism. The heritage foundation is responsible for all of the conservative judges that get "chosen." They hand a list to Republicans and those are the candidates that are picked from. The heritage foundation is top on my list of "things that really need to die in a fire."
Some real "high integrity" content includes:
Rooting out democrats/liberals from federal positions.
The previously mentioned banning porn.
Defunding NOAA and privatizing the national weather service that people literally depend on for their lives. Privatize as in "you no longer get access to life saving weather information unless you pay us.
Etc...
Edit: there's a good list of a few more from @mozz in a comment below that I'll tack on here:
slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security
Invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directing the DOJ to pursue Trump adversaries
Create a federally funded “American Academy” that would deliver online courses and grant free degrees that excluded “wokeness or jihadism”. The plan would also be funded by taxing the endowments of major universities
every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method
Sorry kiddo, I don’t discuss politics with people that call me “dog.”
I mean, look at that last batch of legislation on Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and TikTok that got passed through both houses by wide margins. There's definitely a political consensus on certain issues, particularly when it comes to advantaging American private businesses or pursing certain foreign policy objectives.
You might get a dispute over whether we should be arming Ukraine against Russia or kicking off a fight between Taiwan and China instead. But there's near-zero daylight on Israel, and its not hard to see why. Same with the TikTok ban, which US social media companies have been salivating over for months.
Ukraine needs to be funded, and the only way dems could get that piece of legislation was to throw in israeli support, but that is not all that bipartisan in congress, only in the streets do i see both conservatives and social liberals both sporting "support Ukraine" stickers. The GOP wanted to pass even more aid to israel that failed.
Not as sure on Taiwan, but agreed that banning Tik Tok was absolutely bipartisan. Also true that US social media companies mist be salovating over that one, but that is not why it was passed. Tik Tok is being banned bc it enables a foreign adversary to spy on our citizens. This one keeps being framed as a privacy issue, but unlike things like the patriot act, there is actual reason to close Tik Toks back door.
Tik Tok was banned because social media companies didn't want competition.
No, it wasn’t.
Yeah it was.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/summary?id=D000033563
9th biggest lobbyist group. Now tell YOUR friends at Meta that no one is buying their shit here and you should astroturf elsewhere.
ROFL! My friends at where? Do you make blanket assumptions at everyone you talk to, or am I special?
Not denying it.
That bill was a compromise, not a consensus.
I mean, it's quite a departure for a party that whinges about the First Amendment to straight up move to the government controlling what can be published, i.e. actual literal censorship. But hey, conservatives aren't very logical.
Always remember that if the conservatives who claim to love the US, had been born in 1750, they would have been Loyalist Redcoats.
I mean...if the loyalist redcoats had won, you'd have health care, gun control and there wouldn't have been a civil war, slavery would just have ended like it did in the rest of the empire.
Big jump in logic here. The decay of the British empire wouldn't even be a thing if the crown held the states. As long as we're playing pretend I'd say it would have ended up worse for everyone.
Lol. Why not pretend the Byzantine Empire would still exist if they had North America? I was talking about a much tighter period of time, roughly 50 years. Canada was essentially self governing by the late 1800s.
It is right up there with the same people arguing for abortion because one should be able to decide what medical procedures (including drugs) should be done to them also arguing for COVID vaccine mandates, i.e. arguing that people should be forced to take a drug.
But then that's one of my biggest grumps about pro-choice arguments (and I am pro-choice) - there's a tendency to argue that supporting abortion is just an application of some broader principle but also to have abortion be the only controversial case where that principle actually applies.
Except nobody was physically forced down and vaccinated against their will. You can still choose not to be vaccinated, but choices have consequences. I'm not saying the government should arrest people for not being vaccinated, but people, institutions, companies and hospitals should definitely have the choice to not want to let those people inside.
"Choices have consequences" is not something that should be said in regards to a government coercing you about a matter of your rights.
Nobody is coercing you to do anything when your employer doesn't want people spreading disease in their company. Nobody is coercing anyone if e.g. hospitals refuse to hire someone who hasn't had certain vaccinations. It has nothing to do with coercion. It has to do with the fact that actions and choices have consequences. You don't get to willingly disregard (the safety of) everyone else and expect to be welcome everywhere.
If I choose not to shower, and stink to high heaven, some employers won't hire me. If I choose not to wear shoes, or walk around in my underwear, I will be denied access to many places. Does this mean I am being coerced to shower and wear clothes?
Actions have consequences. It's just that simple. You can always choose to not do x, but when it's a requirement for y, you won't get to do y unless you do x. And speaking of rights, what about everyone else's rights to not have to sit/work/eat/wait next to Typhoid Mary? Or is it really your opinion that whatever someone does, their right to do whatever is more important than the rest of society? Do you think businesses should be forced to allow anyone inside no matter what? Employers are not allowed to set requirements for their employees?
Long answer to a different point, don't care, try responding to what I actually said.
It's the exact same point. You disingenuously calling it "government coercion" doesn't change anything.
But thank you for pointing out you don't actually care. Means I don't have to waste more time on this. I wish you a pleasant day.
Oh ok (fucking retard) you're right
Dude that's so rude and doesn't net you any points in your argument. Gotta respect people.
No....no I don't.
I think he was saying not that it happened, but that people wanted it to happen really really bad, and that many of those same people who wanted it (or supported it, not achieved it), also support pro choice when it comes to what amounts to an ideologically similar issue (my body my choice, bodily autonomy.)
Tbf, if he is indeed saying that, he's right, pro-choice people did want forced vaccinations by law, though you're also right that they did not get forced vaccinations by law.
Before any reactionaries jump down my throat, I'm pro-choice myself and am simply trying to clarify what looks to be a misunderstanding in these couple comments here.
I've never known anyone who wanted to physically force people to get vaccinated. I did know many people, myself included, who absolutely wanted mandates. Don't want to get vaccinated? Sure, that's your choice. But other people get to choose not to be around you, and this includes your employer or any store owner or transport company, etc.
Choosing not to be around someone is you leaving, not them.
No, it's also choosing not to let them into your building.
That is an entirely different point
Holy shit you're stupid. If someone has a highly infectious disease that will kill people, why the fuck should you be allowed to just go to people in buildings and spread that shit? Fuck me you people are dumb as shit. Either dumb or an evil narcissist.
Oh look. Intentionally misunderstanding a basic point. You're so clever. No one noticed.
I have, so we're at an anecdotal Mexican standoff it would seem.
"Mandates" doesn't mean "optional," in fact it's quite the opposite of that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate
Idk whether the misunderstanding comes from not knowing what a mandate is, but above you say:
But then go on to say that you didn't mean "the definition of mandate" by your use of the word "mandate," instead you meant a new definition created by you that boils down to voluntary association, not "mandates."
So, which is it? Do/did you support the government forcing people by law to get vaccinated (mandates), or do you simply support people's right not to employ or hang with people on the other side of their vaccination opinions (voluntary association)?
Please stop, you're so transparent. Vaccine mandates already existed in places, which has never meant that people are physically forced to get vaccinated. Like in schools, or when you want to work in a hospital. There are mandates. Don't want to get vaccinated? Then you don't get to work there. You'll never be physically forced to vaccinate.
When my employer wanted everyone to get vaccinated, that was also called a mandate. People could still not get vaccinated, it's their choice, but then they weren't allowed in the building. No government violence required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#Private_mandates
There, plenty of mandates that have nothing whatsoever to do with physically being forced to get vaccinated. Just that when you choose not to, there are consequences. Actions have consequences, who knew?
If you still insist on pretending not to understand this, think of it this way: If you choose to not shower and never wear clean clothes (this is the choice you make), nobody will physically force you into a shower. But when you're walking around smelling like weeks old sweat and garbage, your employer will definitely not let you come back to work (and this would be the consequence). Same goes for walking around like a virus dispenser.
Honestly I'm more confused as to why you pretend there weren't people calling for prison for the unvaccinated. We agree that voluntary association is good, why deny there were also people who wanted a government mandate?
Sure though, I suppose you're right, "employer mandates" is a thing, I concede that point (well, at least that it still doesn't mean optional, but it doesn't necessarily mean governmental). That doesn't change the fact however that people were calling for more than that, people were calling for arrests, maybe not you but those people did exist. It is that which the above poster was comparing to abortion, not the much lighter version you're talking about.
No you haven't, you fucking liar
Yes I have, scouts honor. I mean, they were stupid people, but they were people who wanted to imprison people for not being vaccinated nonetheless. One may say that opinion would automatically qualify one as a stupid person btw, but I mean they were independently stupid.
In any case we've found the crux of the issue, you don't believe those people existed. Well, they did.
Equating abortion and vaccine mandates is stupid. Pregnancy can't be transmitted.
Mandates for people already recovered from Covid was anti-scientific though.
Literally nothing to actually help the nation or solve problems.
Just culture war, and only culture war.
And unfortunately by the looks of this comment section, it works. It forces people to focus on the culture war aspect of it and not the lack of actual progress, or the changes behind the scenes while we all fight over the culture problems and the real dismantling happens out of view.
I mean, this is beyond culture war. This is tyranny of the state. We're not exaggerating when we say they want to put us in the camps.
This is important shit we're talking about, not a distraction.
Oh, actual progress? Oh boy it's my time to shine!
As per moderator request, a unique comment for you. Enjoy
Because the old people already have money and are bored as hell, so they need culture wars to get riled up while having nothing to do all day
"This shit has to be fake..."
2016 Trump flashbacks
Ah shit. It's not fake. Please vote.
Hey, listen, go for it. But when we've got cops storming school yards and beating up professors, I gotta say. This probably isn't going to be the freest or fairest election of my lifetime.
Probably won’t be. Might be the most free election you have going forward though
That's been a trend since Bush v Gore
Ohhhh taking away my gender and rights as a transgender American protects my rights, I see I see.
No it protects their rights. Gotta remember we aren’t real Americans
Yeah if you keep throwing uno reverses at the uno reverses you can create a black hole to stow your rights in for safe keeping!
If the term Abortion isn’t allowed to exist in any possible law then does that make it legal?
They want to protect free speech, by creating an enforced list of banned words?
Well, they want to ban these words from appearing in laws, not from being used by anyone. So I guess it only deprives the government from free speech.
It makes sense, recently in NC we unbanned gender-affirming care for Government funded medical programs, as the Judge ruled that since the legal team arguing in favor of the unban showed that trans healthcare is not substantially more expensive (for insurers) than everyone else's and there was enough evidence to show that the care could not be considered elective under these cirucmstances, that discrimination was the only possible motive for barring it and since those arguing in favor of the ban had no arguments that hadn't been debunked..... the ban was lifted and now Government Funded Medical Programs in NC HAVE to cover Gender Affirming care
If the Judge wasn't allowed to talk about LGBT Discrimination, and was forced to frame it in terms of "States Rights" then the ban wouldn't have been lifted
Ever heard of the great lie?
No
It was the lie created by the Nazis, and they obviously knew it was a lie.
Ya wanna elaborate there buddy? Nazis lie all the time
It was an invention by Adolph Hitler himself, coined the big lie (grosse lüge), a lie so big that people wouldn't believe someone would/could make such a big lie, hence they'd believe it.
I'm probably not explaining it very well, here us a Wikipedia link to get you going:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Cheers and fuck all fascists, btw!
If this were reddit, you would be flagged for inciting violence against political groups.
But this isn't Reddit, this is Lemmy where we're allowed to have functioning fucking brain stems and don't need to coddle people literally trying to murder half the population.
Thanks! Big help, reading material and historical facts like this are the innoculation against falling for Far Right Ideology! Keep fighting the good fight!
Edit: Wow Hitler actually had Germany thinking the Holocaust was a Counter-Genocide in order to negate the Jewish Genocide of German people, which wasn't even fucking happening to begin with? That... sadly tracks...
Ha ha yes guess who would flag it.
All the extremists/fascish/religious extremism/... have had lots of their power taken away (history before for example 1900 is wild if you read between the lines. Just Horrible.), so they try to make smart talk where like 90% makes sense.
And thank you, I'll try keeping fighting!
"Delete and prevent the use of these terms to protect
freedom of speechmy fragile and extremely traumatised psyche"Fixed that for them
Tbf I don't trust the FBI any more than I trust the CIA or the NSA or the ATF, I'm on board with looking at those agencies and their activities.
That's about it though, and I don't really trust the republicans to do it either, so..
Yes, but "unlawful or contrary to the public interest" is the language the 2025 drafters have used in the past to argue that people involved in a literal violent insurrection should not be prosecuted. In this case we're not talking about forming a more equitable justice system, we're talking about celebrating the attempted overthrow of the government.
Yes, but they're speaking in code.. They need the FBI to stop investigating republicans, Those that the law protects but does not bind you see...
Hey USA,
good luck...
We're gonna need it
"Protect free speech by censoring free speech"
Protecting your right to say slurs to minorities.
There is no good conservative alive today. Conservatism is a plague long overdue for a cure.
They call the good ones Liberals now
It will always trip me out how Mitt Romney went from being the GOP nominee for president in 2012 to a reviled RINO in less than a decade by not moving. He's the same guy with the same positions and the party shot far to the right.
Is this project 2025? Like policies for the voter minorities that mentally liven in the 1950s.
I have a feeling that the 50s were far more progressive than the plan outlines.
Yeah, this is more of an "Iran 1979" kind of plan.
Consider that in 1965, someone wrote a book about how great it would be if cars had seat belts, and then everyone agreed and cars got seat belts. That's what happens in a government that at least tries to care (about white people, anyway). Conservatives have spent the last half century making sure that nightmare never happens again.
Gotta keep the cogs (workers) oiled (safe) to prevent premature wear (worker deaths) so you don't have to replace cogs so often because oil is cheaper than getting a new cog. That seems more akin to the Scandinavian model to me. Our system of "make more money than the previous year at all costs" means that the oil can get thinner and thinner every single year because planned obsolescence puts cogs out of service around the end of their natural life (so they have to work until they die) or even prior to their natural life (workplace deaths/disability), there are a ton of cogs to choose from, so replacing is less of a financial detriment, and the healthcare/pharmaceutical machine greatly benefits from the cogs that are hurt from the capitalism machine. This is the reason why republicans can easily do shitty things (that push capitalism to its limits) and why democrats have such difficulty doing what people want them to do (that goes against capitalism).
If we're sure about being steadfast in this economic system, RCV has to be pushed as a ballot measure to calm things down a bit. A few states are getting RCV, but it's not nearly enough. And while people wait for the next election and the one after that and the one after that for things to possibly get better, their friends and family are dying from this system. So expect protests, police forces, and prison systems to get bigger and bigger.
Nah, they wanna take us even farther back to the likes of the Spanish Inquisition.
The Spanish Inquisition is too Catholic and Papist for the fundamentalist Protestant nutjobs here in the states.
Now, the question is, which is the "right" type of Protestant?
Prosperity Gospel sounds about their speed
On point.
I hope the Catholics in the US never have to face the day that they reap what they sowed. The unholy alliance they have with the evangelicals won't last. And historically has always been the case. I hope they never experience it because I give a shit about people.
Only a secular government can have minorities, and most secular governments aren't even that good at that.
So's most of SCOTUS, but that doesn't seem to bother them as long as they get their way.
These aren't reasonable people bothered by such details as glaring hypocrisy..
To the likes of the Chinese Communist Revolution
At least the Spanish Inquisition stopped witch-hunts. I'm not so sure Republicans don't want to start witch-hunts themselves.
Terminate those not in the national interest?
I bet any investigations of republicans are immediately terminated, meanwhile any “leftist” under investigation is pushed through a kangaroo court.
Why do conservatives hate free speech and freedom so much?
No no, why do PROGRESSIVES hate freedom so much whilst conservatives work so hard to make sure everyone has the freedom to own a gun and debt?
Edit: Really? The /s wasn't obvious here?
What?
I think it’s supposed to be sarcasm?
No. It's not. It's close. They're mocking the person who took any side. There no side to not commit xenocide and the democrats will knot not do it. We don't have much time left. Their might be one "president" left after this one. I assure you it don't matter who because everyone will die on this planet.
Yeah no. Whatever craziness you are talking about, I was sarcastic
I'm talking about the hidden obvious. They're both on the same side. The lesser of two evils is still a fucking GADDAAR.
They clearly are not being serious
/s, /s, /s!
It was sarcasm, which for some reason Boone picked up on
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx
Merriam-Webster
man this reminds me of that post i commented on that was on the hexbear instance...
it got removed and im pretty sure i was banned, idk what the fuck those guys are smoking over there lmao.
getting banned from hexbear is the lemmy equivalent to getting banned from r/conspiracy
it really is. I posted one comment, woke up the next day being called a genocide supporter, having my comment removed (don't know why, didn't read the rules, nor will i) and being banned.
Truly only the most hexbear of interactions.
probably just drinking bleach
smells like it with how aggressively they prune things.
It looks like some personal revenge, I don’t know why anyone would hate someone so much out of nothing.
It’s not even populism I think that would be at least lots of empty words
It's not our place to understand these other people. All we need to do is do what we can to advance peace's interests and be prepared for the inevitable.
Mi scuzi?
I'm interested, but can someone provide more context? What is this document, who wrote it, who is actually pushing it, etc.
Like if you went to the RNC and a presenter said "here's the plan" and everyone in the room erupted in applause that's one thing, but if one crazy person wrote this up wearing a tin foil Nazi maga hat and said "LISTEN THIS IS THE PLAN" to himself and posted it on Twitter then that's a whole different deal.
It's every right wing "think tank" at work and combining forces into fascist-voltron. The Discovery Institute, the Eagle Forum, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Moms For Liberty, Pro-Life America, Turning Point USA and many others. It's basically the playbook for the next conservative government.
In his last term Trump enacted or tried to enact two thirds of the policy recommendations of the last Heritage Foundation Playbook.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
It's quite literally The Plan of Republican Victory 2025.
Based on the Wikipedia article, it's the Heritage Foundation.
go to project2025.org or whatever the fuck the link for the page it, it explains it there reasonably well.
TLDR heritage foundation funded "we promise it isnt fascism please don't look" 1000 page manuscript sun tzu the art of war looking ass papers.
Number two seems good. The fbi shouldn’t be conducting illegal investigations. The reasons they want it are not the same reasons I want it, but a stopped clock yadda yadda.
Unfortunately their definition of an "illegal investigation" is as well defined as their definition of "woke". It just means anything that they don't like and can flexibly be applied to who is doing the action.
Oh definitely, but "unlawful" is just code for "that we don't like" here.
It's not like they would want their new fbi to be secrete police or anything right?
Wait, we don't review FBI investigations?
I know they mean their own independent panels etc.
I just think these agencies are going to push back and push back hard. That or quit/resign.
Good luck fighting your own government for 4 years.
Unfortunately this also supports Republican goals. The less effective the government is, the easier it will be for them to ignore regulations and run their little scams, and the less support there will be for people who need it.
The deeeeep state is illegally resisting edicts from the emperor
Another aspect of Project 2025 is for Trump to appoint select individuals vetted to ensure that they will uphold and enforce the core tenets of this christo-fascist manifesto.
box two would not be bad if true except it will be purely things contrary to republican corruption.
There's a nonzero chance that a future Republican President will do a NAFTA-to-USMCA style "abolition" of the FBI, where the name plate on the building gets changed and James Comey gets fired again but everything else stays functionally the same.
Nah, I think for that to be done a reshuffle of the US intelligence apparatus needs to be carried out, a department of domestic intelligence, tasked with protection against plots of domestic terrorism and a department of foreign intelligence, tasked with gathering and disseminating intelligence to our strategic allies, and also protecting the lives of American citizens abroad through preventative intelligence gathering, IE by extracting them if they are deemed in danger, not by starting a coup because the local government wants to initiate a forced sale of their property in that country.
Create those departments, background check every active agent and worker currently in the intelligence apparatus, and remove everyone who hails from the ideological lineage of the Kissinger days.
I'm sure Mike Johnson is on board with banning porn. Then he won't need to share his porn habit with his son anymore.
Republicans are going to steal the 2024 elections.
"The shittier oligarchs are trying to take over!" - oligarchs currently in power probably
😅😅🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Here... read through the Socialist Rifle Association's website.
SocialistRA.org
I mean, the FBI SHOULD be reviewed, audited, and have all their nazis purged, but good luck getting that done under either party.
Their plan doesnt call for a "nazi purge." it calls to end any investigation of crime that involves a Republican.
Why make up a completely different scenario just to "both sides" and give the GOP cover for their actual plan that dismants the rule of law as long as youre on their team?
Why, sure it does! It's just that it's a purging by Nazis, not of them.
House Republicans All Vote Against Neo-Nazi Probe of Military, Police
lol the us wants to do to itself what its been doing to the third world.
everyone i disagree with is a propagandist!!
you want to die by your own fascism, be my guest.
i wish. i consistently 'spout' the worldview of someone who has been fucked over by your country multiple times. the us literally sponsored the project 2025 stuff in here, hence why i find this very ironic.
i'm in one of these, see if you can guess
did i? i tend to do small corrections, if you don't want to respond, don't...
They ran out of countries to sucker and rope-a-dope, moved on to directly fleecing the proletariat.
Will never happen under Republican rule. As someone from the Midwest, I hear casual conservations about it even in the suburbs (which I find weird).
Will never happen since the FBI tends to follow the lead of the US president. No president is going to shoot themselves in the foot.
Good luck getting rid of words. The most that will come out of this one is a dictionary trailered to snowflakes.
There are plenty of countries with similar approaches towards law and censorship. I would reference those to see what's possible before I would base my opinions solely on America's prior history.
I don't understand this meme. Is this really what USA republicans are pushing? That's surprisingly reasonable and progressive
what are you smoking
I think it's sarcasm Maybe
Top one is kinda based tbh
Not even remotely, sex work is still work and trying to abolish it just marginalizes people into perilous compromising positions
Prostitution and/or seducing coomers online isn't work. Legalising prostitution just makes it harder to save people from being trafficked.
That is demonstrably false, legal sanction is what allows sex workers to be able to call the authorities on suspicious behavior towards them without risking their own arrest in the process.
That's like legalising drug dealing in case your heroin dealer scams you.
No, it's like legalizing drugs because addicts need medical treatment not nightstick beatings you wombat.
I think it's a matter of enforcement than legislation. In Northern Ireland, prostitution is generally illegal but it's basically enforced only when the police suspect human trafficking. So they can raid a brothel, then arrest them for prostitution, get them somewhere safe, find out they were trafficked and drop the charges and get them help.
It is based. However I don't know if banning porn will work.