OccamsRazer @ OccamsRazer @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

374

Joined

2 yr. ago

You can't weaken the federal government and be a fascist at the same time.

Glad we can agree that there is an actual definition for fascism, even if you aren't bothering to refer to it before leveling accusations.

Anyway the premise of states rights as opposed to Federal is that Federal laws should be very limited, aimed at protecting basic human rights, interstate infrastructure, and the military to protect the country as a whole. Then individual states can create laws that are highly applicable to their own issues, environment, culture, demographic, tax structure and so on. If a state gets virtually no tourism, but provides tons of food for the rest of the nation, then it is best served by a set of laws that are different from a state that relies upon tourism or business or manufacturing or retirees or whatever. The Federal government can't possibly govern as well as the people in the state can govern themselves. Here you are preaching about fascism and in the same breath advocating for a strong central government. Are you just messing with me? Or are you about the other kind of authoritarian government? Answer this: are you ok with forcing other people to do and think as you do?

Perhaps you could define some terms for me, starting with "violence", but also "fascist" and "brigade", because it's almost like you think violence is any policy or speech you don't like, and a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your politics. It's hard to have a discussion when the terms are so subjective, and the condition for civil discourse is that I agree with you.

The goal of any conservative movement is to resist change. It's in the name, and it's the nature of people who are conservative. There's nothing about "destroy" or "create an oligarchy" in it. Conservative is closer to the opposite of those. Also, there is very little active violence coming from conservatives, especially compared to progressive movements, and passive violence is a vague term that means whatever you want it to mean, according to your favorite niche cultural movement.

I feel like you are just throwing around terms without even understanding them or applying any critical thought to them.

What do you think it would it look like if it did?

And you place the blame for all of that on Republicans? What a good little for soldier you are.

I'm of the opinion that where there is understanding, there can be no hatred. Or if you hate someone, it's because you don't actually understand them. And I don't mean trying to understand in the smug, condescending way that CNN or Reddit uses, which is basically "Republicans dumb", but I mean understanding the urge to be self reliant, to value family, country, or religion. But I don't mean agree with either. That is not the same as understanding someone. I read an article concluding that people from broken families are more likely to be left wing, and it has to do with reliance on government to provide security, as opposed to one's own self or their family. Does that make conservatives stupid, greedy, or full of hate? No, they just had a different life experience that formed their impression of what society should be like. Reality is it's even more complex than that, and certainly not as simple as "Republicans stupid and full of hate". People in power know this, but they also know that understanding and empathy with opposition only gets in the way of them winning. So politics inevitably becomes about winning by any means necessary, including vilifying the opposition.

Exactly what violence are you referring to?

Right, so hatred of Republicans is justified in your mind.

Edit: The paradox of intolerance can be used to justify intolerance just as easily as it can be used to justify not being tolerant of intolerance. So which is it? Most people who refer to the paradox of intolerance aren't spending much time reflecting on that, and instead jump right to using it to feel good about demonizing their opposition.

Republicans aren't more hateful than Democrats. On a macro scale, the political party you most identify with says very little about your capacity to hate "others". That capacity is instead part of human nature. If you think your party is above that, then you are deluding yourself or are not recognizing hate when it's directed at the opposition. Either not recognizing it, or justifying it by first vilifying and demonizing the opposition.

Dude, it's because your point is stupid and ignorant.

When you say "Republicans", are you referring to politicians or to the roughly half of the country that votes Republican? Because I kind of agree with your take if it's regarding politicians, but even then it should apply to all of them. If you are referring to everyone who votes Republican, then you are so far off base that I don't even know where to start.

Uhh... Haha?

To me it's a little bit different when it's groups of people who want to murder each other for personal reasons, compared to a mentally ill person wanting to lash out at society by murdering indiscriminately. I wish we bothered to talk about them differently, since they illustrate different problems within society and will have different solutions.

Well sure, except that problems with social media are everywhere, even in suburban and rural areas where kids have plenty of places to go.

Actually you are probably right about him shifting. There are a lot more anti vaxxers now, after COVID, than there were before.

Ok, so everything conservatives stand for is wrong? And everything progressives stand for is objective truth? Or are you only referring to climate change?

Also Trump is not an anti vaxxer. Don't you remember "Operation warp speed"? Maybe you should find more variety in your news sources.

Also, discussions during COVID regarding school closures and vaccine mandates are not the same as denying vaccine efficacy. I hope you aren't confusing those issues. Yes I'm sure there were anti vaxxers on the news from time to time, but you seem to think it was super common. That's not what I remember at all.

When you say "one side" what exactly are you referring to? Maybe that will help.

Progressive and conservative are two different approaches for policy. If the truth is known then there is no point discussing it. If the truth is unclear or the implications of that truth are unclear, then there needs to be discussion.

Your example about both sidesism, bringing on an anti vaxxer, is either a deliberate straw man or a minor example that isn't a good representative of the media trying to discuss both sides.

But your last point I agree with completely. Neither progressives nor conservatives have the complete truth.

There's almost always a both sides, or even infinite positions on complex topics. With the election it's pretty straightforward, either you believe in the system or you don't, but the other examples you mentioned have tons of nuance to discuss when it comes to policy. What exactly do you do about climate change? And what about vaccines? Should you take all of them? Should everybody be forced to take all of them? What happens to you if you refuse? How about people with negative reactions to some vaccines? What about when certain vaccines were found to have severe side effects and were later removed? There's risk/benefit to be discussed and the question isn't nearly as simple as right and wrong. This is true for most topics, and assuming that one political party embodies the truth on every topic, that's it's the best approach for every person, is naive at best. There must be discussion, at least a progressive voice and a conservative one in order to avoid stagnation in the latter and over reaction in the former.