Error

At first, I didn’t see why this was even newsworthy. “We need to extinguish the Left” just sounds like typical right-wing motivational crap to me. Then I actually read the article:

"The only thing that's good enough is completely and totally destroying the political left in this country. Destroy it," Sabatini said.

"I'm talking about defunding government agencies, defunding bureaucrats, defunding government schools and going 100 percent private school like Florida's making gestures at right now.”

So, he’s talking about gutting the country. This isn’t just some moron shooting his mouth off at the bar, either. That’s not great.

This is why I'm constantly getting involved in politics, local and national...We need to counter this shit before it becomes a reality forced upon all Americans. We need to bring back consequences for saying such out of pocket shit.

Yup. I used to vote for people based on their opinions regarding the issues, regardless of party. I’m afraid to do that anymore. I’m not willing to further the career of some spineless, unprincipled tool who will ignore their own judgment and just vote along party lines. I still pay attention to people’s opinions, but if they’ve got an R next to their name, I can’t risk voting for them.

It’s not the way the system is supposed to work, and it frustrates me, but I don’t feel like I have any other ethical choice.

I feel the same way. I'm very left leaning to the point that I'm probably Progressive, but I recognize the need for an opposition party - as long as that party operates in good faith. I wouldn't want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad. Maybe we'd see a lot of progress in the short term, but corruption would intensify and it would end really badly.

However, the key part of this is "operates in good faith." I don't think the Republicans do this anymore. They prioritize attacking people living their lives and culture war stuff over everything. With every issue, they don't ask "how can we help people." Instead they ask "how can I turn this into a culture war/battle against woke in order to get more political power?" They'll shatter every norm and rule to gain slightly more power and it's tearing the foundations of this country apart.

At this point, a great Republican with sane positions could emerge (don't ask me from where or why they'd still be in the Republican party) and I wouldn't vote for them.

So I'm going to take issue with a few things here. Progressive is not left. Socialist is left capitalist is right. It's very frustrating to hear people keep making this claim. But it's absolutely understandable considering the propaganda and indoctrination many of us in the United States go through. Now as far as progressive goes. The better term to describe it is pro-social democracy. Social democracy is inclusive. The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are loosely pro-social democracy and Republicans are authoritarian or anti-social democracy. Though they are both solidly right-wing.

If Republicans disappeared tomorrow we would not have to worry about finding an opposition party. The lot of us pro-social democracy socialists would instantly split off and form a party that represents us. And between the two of us. Both pro social democracy parties. We could stand to fix a lot of the problems capitalists have made. Not mistakes, problems. They did this shit on purpose. Just some food for thought and perhaps something you had not thought about or been aware of before.

I wouldn’t want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad.

I agree with the spirit of where you're coming from, but I don't think this is a realistic risk. More than two major political ideologies effectively exist already, but their coalitions are the parties themselves due to the limitations inherent in the US voting system.

The Democrat party already encompasses a broad spectrum of political philosophies, and they're not in the same party because they want to be. They are a de facto coalition of whatever the Republican party isn't. This is because the US leans to the right on the Overton window, and the two-party government of the US forces the role of the leftist party into being the kitchen sink coalition. This regretfully gets wallpapered over by the "radical left" narrative talking point that Republican media chestbeats over relentlessly, to the point where the average American never makes this connection.

If I were to wave my magic wand and enact voting reform that doesn't empower a two-party system, we have at least four parties worth of politicians in play:

  • establishment liberals, neoliberals, etc.
  • everyone in the democrat party who is to the left of them (who would realistically form more than just one party)
  • non-MAGA conservatives (Republicans who jumped ship to Democrat already/are too indoctrinated to consider it, conservative politicians who don't agree with party leadership but maintain status quo for their careers)
  • Far-right Freedom Caucus types. McCarthy would already backstab these guys in a heartbeat if his speakership was politically viable without them. The fact that Republican leadership cares more about ego than principles is what put them into this predicament. (largely a consequence of what safe primaries have done to political strategies, but that's another rant)

You can split this up even further by pointing out libertarians (ones that aren't really just conservatives who don't want to be Republicans anymore) and others, but it's enough to make the point. Let the Republican party collapse. Something else will immediately take its place, and as long as their replacement recognizes that the Freedom Caucus is what sank them, maybe they can steal enough of the right leaning Democrats to where they no longer need the far right crazies to be politically viable. A system that accommodates more than two parties would be better still, but congress critters are never going to vote in favor of something that weakens their own power. Voting reform will have to happen at the state level.

I'm very left leaning but I don't think we as a society are necessarily ready for the optimal societal structure, and I know I don't know what the best path to getting us there is.

I'm not against opposition parties, I think that we ideally need a bunch of distinct viewpoints at the table, but all of those distinct viewpoints should meet some minimum bar of human decency and respect.

Right now I think some of the stuff the GOP fights for is demonstrably below that bar, and I am not referring to the quiet and unheard constituents, I'm referring to the people with the loudspeaker.

Some examples of viewpoints that don't get a seat at the table are pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-sexual abuse, pro-fake medicine, pro-corporate ownership, etc. An opposition party is not a party that supports these things, an opposition party would be one that says "hey rather than letting X company corner the market and have a de facto monopoly, we break them up so they have less control", or "hey instead of invading another country militarily, we offer humanitarian aid instead", or "hey if we're going to rework the economy to have more freedom and respect for the consumer, instead of socializing production of resources we adopt more competition-oriented free-market regulations". The thing is, this isn't what any opposition party is doing.

(I'll also admit that I was a fool for thinking that big tech hate by the right was ever going to lead stronger regulation of the big tech corporate empires, it's just hollow and blind hatred, all bark and literally no useful bite.)

tl;dr: I don't think we can shift to an optimal societal structure overnight, but there are already concrete steps to take along that path that we could and should have already taken yesterday. None of my judgements are based on "is it too hard?" just "will it work, and if it won't work yet what can we do to get to a situation where it will be possible?" Under no circumstances do I think sitting around doing nothing and waiting is the correct decision.

I was sort of masking my thoughts so they may have come out unclear, so I will be more clear:

I think that the future of humanity requires us to become space-faring. Our current ownership model is fundamentally incompatible with us being space-faring and successful at it. We can't transition all of society to a space-compatible structure overnight, it would end in failure since it would cause immediate mass revolt.

I don't think we should wait to make changes to society though. I just think we need a transition and I'm willing to work with anyone who has good-faith proposals on steps we can take now to eventually get there.

From my point of view there's never going to be a time where we can shift overnight because we can't handle that extreme of a shift.

One concession of a space-compatible society unfortunately is the "complete" freedom we have today and the concept of ownership. In a space-compatible society every person must play their part. Only after essentials are covered would people have freedom and ownership, but even still both would be restricted and it would be semi-meritocratic. Security would also become paramount.

Things like single-payer health care and education are relatively basic and realistically speaking should be inoffensive short-term steps that we take. The best time for those steps was yesterday, the second best time is now. Things like UBI would be the step after that, and role-optimization would come after even UBI because that's when we begin to lose some freedom. I think role-optimization is something we can't even implement yet but would cause riots and it would take a generation or two with the previously mentioned things before it could be applied society-wide (it's already something that will be required for early space colonization).

The ethical choice is to vote Democrat. The alternatives are Republican, which is not gonna happen for most of us here, and Independent, which in a 2 party system means you're wasting your vote. The metaphorical choice is "do you want COVID or do you want cancer?" I think I know which one I want.

How does someone get involved?

Vote, remind others to vote, share factual political information, promote union activity, promote media literacy, talk about history.

If we go private schools I will fully be unable to afford to live with my family in this country. If I start seeing this pushed for I am burning down private schools in the dead of night. They want us broke and dead and to have no choice. Society is supposed to help people live easier. This is absolute bullshit and nefarious.

I am burning down private schools in the dead of night.

Be the change you want to see in the world, don't let your dreams stay dreams.

Hahahaha. You won’t be going to private schools silly. That’s for the gilded children of the neonobility. No. You won’t go to school. It’s only a life as a poorly paided overworked labourer for you. You’ll start when you’re 5 years old. Gotta pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

That’s their plan.

Private in this context means charter, which is still state funded. Furthermore with more market share there would be enough demand for affordable private schools, as seen in India where government schools are infamous.

I mean, there have been examples of government funded vouchers ending up going to scam charter schools because Republicans are also deregulating private schools. There are lots of horror stories about charter schools.

I'm sure there are, personally I prefer decentralized schooling and ending mandatory schooling. My experience in public school was terrible for me, by far the worst experiences of my life.

"I personally prefer the united states become an uneducated backwater because I didn't like public school"

I simplified it for you.

Stop strawmanning what I said, it's not a discussion or argument- it's just insulting. And, no, saying people shouldn't be forced to do unpaid labor for 13 years of their lives forced to sit in desks when their body is built to move and learning things that honestly are not, and will not be useful for the vast majority of them. If it were about basic knowledge there would just be one test and when you pass it you don't have to go to school anymore. But it's not.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice, I do support the choice. I just don't support false imprisonment

Wow, you're actually insane.

Edit: also it sounds to me like you straight up don't understand the point of education.

What do I misunderstand about the point of education? Also you're just insulting again.

I was going to give you a real answer but I took a little trip through your history and I think I understand what you're saying now, this conversation is over.

Oh sweet Jesus you weren't kidding.

Yeah I don't engage with those people if I can help it. Ostracisation is the answer.

Well I am slightly of two minds about it. Looking in their post history it looks like they posted a selfie and appeared to be quite young. I think kids are allowed to be ignorant and wrong for a little while. Oftentimes they're little more than blank slates parroting what their parents or relatives indoctrinated them into. Only actually learning what things really are once they start becoming more independent and experiencing for themselves. I have some hope that this one with some experience and maturity might come to learn. But I definitely don't blame people for not watching to be free life coaches to the unwilling. But yes when they're over 30 and still acting like that usually then there's little hope for them.

well I'm glad some people still try. either way, I just discovered this kid mods this community, so i'm out. I didn't leave reddit to go to another politics community run by people who support traitors.

Oof. Damn you are on point today. Point taken.

I'm 20

And that's still a child. And your overall attitude really shows it. If you were 30 years old that would be an insult. But you're still at the age where it's somewhat understandable.

You're not wrong that public education failed you. But you are wrong the charter schools etc would do better. Everywhere else in the world even in the places that do better than us, they use public schools. Because they work. The problem with our public schools. Is that a number of groups. Judging from your opinions many of whom you would side with have worked hard to sabotage our schools over the last half century or more. Make a commitment to never stop learning. And to never stop questioning what you think you know. As someone well over double your age it is some of the best life advice I could give to anyone.

How could I act that's not childish? What specifically must I change to not act like a child?

But you are wrong the charter schools etc would do better.

I think it's possible that some would. I agree it's hard to nail down the incentives for charter schools but I do think there is room for competition and choice in the space.

Everywhere else in the world even in the places that do better than us, they use public schools. Because they work. The problem with our public schools. Is that a number of groups. Judging from your opinions many of whom you would side with have worked hard to sabotage our schools over the last half century or more.

I live outside the US. The public schools here are not good, nor are the private. They are effective for some students, but they are not empathetic. Also, public schools do not work in many places, such as the most populace country.

Make a commitment to never stop learning.

I'm not opposed to learning. After all, if you've seen my profile I posted a ton of microbiology resources I've been reading/watching lately. I want to learn what is valuable to me, in a way effective for me. The internet provides a much better vehicle for that than mandatory schooling for me- and I'm sure many others.

I think it's possible that some would

I'm sure you do. But the problem is it's not about thinking. It's about knowing. I'm sure there are some who would benefit from having unlimited budget and personal attention. But at what cost to everyone else? There's one question which instantly dismantles charter advocates arguments. That they cannot and will never be able to answer. Charter schools get to choose their students. Public schools cannot. Therefore the data from both will never be directly comparable. How do you normalize the data to be able to have any meaningful informative comparison? The greatest minds out there still haven't been able to do it to date. Also it's important to note that many other countries with better educational outcomes also have public school systems. Which strongly points to public schools not being the problem directly. More likely the curriculum and cuts that have been forced upon them.

I'm not opposed to learning. After all, if you've seen my profile I posted a ton of microbiology resources I've been reading/watching lately.

That's great. But I also remember seeing a hot take on the Microsoft FTC events as well. And let me just say, as someone who's been a Blizzard customer for 30 years and a gamer for almost 40. These acquisitions and consolidations have always been a bad thing long term.

The ultimate key to education and wisdom. Is to learn how little you actually know. Then building up the critical thinking skills to identify who the experts are, and where to find the information should you need it. And that is unfortunately something that's never been harder these days. All our media is incomplete coverage if not outright indoctrination and propaganda.

The PBS videos on YouTube are pretty decent though. Journey to the Microcosmos, Eons, Space Time, Monstrum, Storied, and Other Words are all great. And are actually a really good argument not only for public education, but expanding it as well.

Have a good evening!

one test and when you pass it you don’t have to go to school anymore.

In America it's called the GED. I know this because a friend of mine took it at 15 and started community college immediately.

In my state you still have to be enrolled in some form of education until you are 18. My dad did the same.

Cool, have fun trying to compete economically with China and Europe with optional education in math and science. Your idea sounds nice in theory, but it's completely divorced from reality.

I'm not a nationalist. I don't see a need to compete economically on a national level. International markets aren't zero sum.

Can you read this? Thank your elementary school teacher for their effort.

My parents taught me to read. In elementary school my teachers told me I wasn't allowed to ask questions.

May I ask, Did all your teachers do this, or one in specific? Did your teachers refuse to teach you to read and the burden of literacy was solely on your parents?

May I ask, Did all your teachers do this, or one in specific?

In elementary school it was roughly half or more of them. There were a couple good(from my perspective obviously) teachers at that school, but it might have been below average.

Did your teachers refuse to teach you to read and the burden of literacy was solely on your parents?

I imagine they would have, but most people in my classes learned from their parents.

You're personal life aside, cause I understand middle/high school is the worst, what do you mean by "decentralized schooling" and what does that mean in your view? Is it curriculum or who "runs" the building?

I think there should not be a centralized curriculum and instead schools can choose to teach different things and students choose what schools they go to(which is partially how it worked in my city). Also, it would be great if students could choose to enroll in classes that they thought were interesting and useful to them- and not enroll in others. But, the most fundamental thing, if you think schooling is about basic education than you should just be able to test out of it. My mom and grandma are both public school teachers, and both have agreed with me that the top performing academically in 9th grade know more of the curriculum than the bottom 20% of 12th grade graduates.

Also, the worst for me was actually elementary school.

As a public school teacher, from the bottom of my heart, fuck you!

Also, please follow rule 3 and rule 6.

My mom and grandma are both public school teachers. I had a few good public school teachers throughout my education. One of my good friends is a public school teacher. I never said people working in public schools were evil. I said it is immoral to trap students there against their will.

Charter schools are hell for educators and students don't benefit. The reason why conservatives push for charter schools is because then they don't have to worry about the separation of church and state. Basically they want public schools, but with Christian nationalism. This means they'd strip schools of scientific rigor, tell us Teachers to teach that God made the heavens and earth a couple thousand years ago, people rode dinosaurs like cowboys, and we're all either going to heaven or hell. I have parents who push for this already. Their agenda is more of the same, anti intellectual, Christian nationalism.

Charter schools are hell for educators and students don’t benefit.

Charter schools are not a monolithic entity, I'm sure some are terrible- but I've also seen some that seem to be good, obviously I've never been enrolled in one but at least in the public school district I went to it was terrible for a lot of teachers- and harmful to my education and mental health.

The reason why conservatives push for charter schools is because then they don’t have to worry about the separation of church and state.

There are a lot of non-religious charter schools, I am not a fan of religious schools- but it is not my place to impose my beliefs on other people's children.

This means they’d strip schools of scientific rigor, tell us Teachers to teach that God made the heavens and earth a couple thousand years ago, people rode dinosaurs like cowboys, and we’re all either going to heaven or hell.

Do you think people should be able to homeschool or pay for their children to go to a private school?

Charter schools are not a monolithic entity, I’m sure some are terrible- but I’ve also seen some that seem to be good, obviously I’ve never been enrolled in one but at least in the public school district I went to it was terrible for a lot of teachers- and harmful to my education and mental health.

No reason to speculate. Charter schools have been studied extensively:

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/

To summarize the conclusions of the study:

  • It makes no fucking difference if the school is charter or not unless you're a Black or Latino kid in a big city. At least from the perspective of test scores.

This suggests that there's really no advantage to charter schools unless you're using them as a means to limit class sizes in big cities (which is where that measured effect of improved scores for Black and Latino students comes from). In other words, 30+ years of studying charter schools has once again proved that the biggest factor in improving test scores is smaller class sizes. Every other factor from curriculum to "good teachers VS bad teachers" to teaching styles to how many hours kids spend in classrooms is all nothing in comparison.

Having said that, charter schools have some major statistical advantages over regular (funded via socialism) schools:

  • They don't have to take all students. In any given year a regular school has to adjust the number of teachers and classes based on enrollment. If there was a single-year baby boom (e.g. a big storm came through ~6 years ago) they'll have to hire teachers and somehow "find room" for kids they weren't sized to handle. This makes the logistics of a charter school much simpler than a regular one and has an enormous impact on measurements of "efficiency".
  • It's far too easy for charter schools to force out kids they don't like (e.g. underperforming or special needs).
  • Charter schools don't have to follow the same curriculum as regular schools. This means they can "teach to the test" far more than regular schools can. This gives them a huge statistical advantage over regular schools that have to give kids a more well-rounded education.

...but forget all that for a moment: The fact that even after 30+ years of evolution charter schools still aren't outperforming regular schools indicates that they're a waste of time. If we actually wanted to improve education in this country there's a few simple changes we can make that would have vastly more impact than charter schools:

  • Reduce class sizes. The fewer students per teacher the better they do!
  • Start school later for older children. High school kids should not be waking up at 5AM to go to school! Study after study has shown this has a great big negative impact on academics!

That's it! Do those two things and the science says our kids will be better educated. Everything else is just shifting the deck chairs around or just wishful thinking ("let's make all teachers great teachers!").

BTW: If we want teaching (as a profession) to improve over time we should probably start by paying them more and making it a more stable career. You know, to keep them around instead of having them get so dissatisfied that the majority leave the profession after a few years. Other things like not passing idiotic "Don't say Gay" laws would also help in this regards.

If you went to a charter school they're just gonna let you go wandering around willy nilly?

I've been a teacher in various countries around the world. Some, mainly third world countries, do just let kids go do whatever if they don't want to learn. These kids usually end up pumping gas, working a cash register, or some other low skill low wage job.

If you went to a charter school they’re just gonna let you go wandering around willy nilly?

No of course not. I think both public and charter schools should allow it however.

These kids usually end up pumping gas, working a cash register, or some other low skill low wage job.

It's not my place or your place to tell other people what's best for them. They should have the right to choose to do what they want. There is nothing demeaning about working in a low skill or low wage job obviously it is a bad situation if the wage is too low- but it isn't always. One of the jobs I've had that I enjoyed the most was delivery, my other jobs have been "skilled".

They should have the right to choose to do what they want.

Wait you are telling me that, at the age of 7 you were ready to make decisions that affect your entire life? If sitting at a desk for 10 years and learning basic life skills for free is abuse and gave you PTSD... As you said... Just how would you feel sitting at a gas station for 40 years, inhaling carcinogen fumes, and living at a very basic level as a result of the decisions you made as a young child? You basically had a bad experience, and I understand. I hated school as well. It's actually why I became a teacher. I don't want to be an abusive dick like my teachers were. But what you are saying is that a young child, who has no basic life skills, should just be able to leave school because it sucks. But the repercussions are that the rest of their life might suck and they're not gonna blame themselves. They're going to blame circumstances. In all honesty, aquiring an education is a privilege, and it is a recent development in society that we universally get a basic education. If it seemed like a horrible experience, well it's behind you. All I am saying is you should have a bit of gratitude for the education you received. If not that, gratitude for the education your mother received, so that she could teach you to read. You seem very intelligent, but you'd not be able to use your intelligence if you didn't have basic literacy.... And consider if your mother, herself, was illiterate and couldn't teach you. Wouldn't school be such a gift?

Wait you are telling me that, at the age of 7 you were ready to make decisions that affect your entire life?

I think anyone at any age should be able to enroll in basic education. I think the basics of what is taught in schools and truly necessary could be taught to most people in under 4 years.

gave you PTSD

I didn't say PTSD.

learning basic life skills

That is a tiny fraction of what public education is.

Just how would you feel sitting at a gas station for 40 years

You mean getting paid and providing a service of value? I'd much prefer it.

You basically had a bad experience

I personally would've been much better off not engaging in schooling at all. Everything that has been useful to me I either was taught by my parents, or the internet, or easily could have been in the 13 years I wasted in school.

But what you are saying is that a young child, who has no basic life skills, should just be able to leave school because it sucks.

Yes.

But the repercussions are that the rest of their life might suck and they’re not gonna blame themselves.

You don't know. It is easy to point out harms to changing the current system while overlooking the harms in the current system and the missed opportunities. Maybe they would more aptly teach themselves- as I did. Or, maybe they would learn from an apprenticeship. Or, maybe they wanted to be a hair stylist, they learn to be a hair stylist, they become a hair stylist- and they are happy. A lot of the advocacy for mandatory education comes from projecting what you want, or what might be best for you, onto others- imo.

aquiring an education is a privilege

It is a privilege if it is voluntary, its an obligation if its forced.

If it seemed like a horrible experience, well it’s behind you.

But it still harms millions of others.

If not that, gratitude for the education your mother received, so that she could teach you to read.

My parents were also taught to read by their parents.

All I am saying is you should have a bit of gratitude for the education you received.

The only thing of any value I gained throughout schooling was the diploma.

I think the basics of what is taught in schools and truly necessary could be taught to most people in under 4 years.

Okay. If you have a kid, pull them out of school at 4th grade. They are ready for the world in your eyes.

13 years I wasted in school.

That's your own fault. Drop out and get your GED at 16.

You mean getting paid and providing a service of value? I'd much prefer it.

Cool. Go to work. Nobody stopping you.

You want to change the system? You need more education. Substantiate your assertions that kids should drop out at 4th grade and go to work with quantitative research after you get your masters or PHD in early education pedagogy. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air about the way the world 'should be'

Okay. If you have a kid, pull them out of school at 4th grade. They are ready for the world in your eyes.

Most people includes adults who would learn it more easily. But I'd say yeah for the top 20% or so of students they'd learn more with free choice. They'd obviously still be minors so still have protections. But, I think an easier way to determine it than age is just letting people test out.

That's your own fault. Drop out and get your GED at 16.

Illegal in the state I lived in, you had to be 18 to be out of any form of schooling. Furthermore at around that point COVID had started and online school largely amounted to nothing. And again furthermore, 2/13 isn't that good of a recovery rate.

Cool. Go to work. Nobody stopping you.

I did work starting when I was 14, I would've been able to devote more and learn more from it if I weren't in school.

You need more education.

You can learn outside of formal education. That is the only way I am able to learn anecdotally.

You want to change the system?

Many have already tried see John Taylor Gatto, one of the most decorated public school teachers ever. Or, Ivan Illich, who was more of a idealogue but still proposed good alternatives, some of which have partially been created. Or John Holt, or in some ways Caleb Gattegno. Bertrand Stern, and many more. And, I'm probably not the one best suited to take any of their places, but I can still advocate for change.

It sounds like you are passionate about education reform. It'd be a shame if your passion went to waste. I strongly disagree with the dismantling of public education and replacing it with charter schools. The idea is mostly advanced by people with ulterior motives. You, from what you said, truly suffer from traditional education. I get that. As I said, I hated school also. I learn in a very nontraditional way as well. But, public education is for everyone. It's not simply a work training facility. Many of my students love school. Quite a few depend on school for daily nutrition. These are a few, among many services provided by our public school system.

Neither of us are going to be able to make fundamental changes. But I am personally providing my students with the best education that I can. Maybe your mom, not your tracher taught you to read. But I've personally taught dozens of illiterate kids to read. Not only how to read, but to understand why they read and to even love doing it.

People learn. It's what we do. I feel like I am just a facilitator in their independent education.

Actually, you'd probably be a great teacher yourself. You understand what a lot of teachers don't.

I think anyone at any age should be able to enroll in basic education. I think the basics of what is taught in schools and truly necessary could be taught to most people in under 4 years.

So... You think Kindergarten through 4th Grade is all that's necessary in life?

I don't know how to tell you this but... if you only got an education up to 4th grade you wouldn't have the necessary communication skills to write that comment. You also probably wouldn't have the necessary math skills to pay your bills or understand how interest works (so forget banking) which means you wouldn't have a cell phone or Internet plan.

It’s not my place or your place to tell other people what’s best for them.

Actually, it is! It is our place to tell people what's best for them because some things are objectively better and we can back up our positions with science. If you want to disagree with me that's totally fine. Just know that by taking the opposite position here you're arguing that it's not our "place" to tell people things like:

  • Wash your hands after using the restroom.
  • Install smoke detectors in your home and replace the batteries when they beep (don't just disable them).
  • Mixing chlorine and bleach can kill you.
  • Don't drive like a maniac.
  • Get a science-backed education or you're going to be useless/a drain on society.

Society has a duty to tell people things like this. Especially children! We have to teach them "what's best for them" because that's how society works ("we live in a society").

When you say things like, "it's not your place to tell other people what's best for them" you're basically making an argument that's pro-disease at the very least and pro-death at worst.

When a cop pulls you over for driving like a maniac are you going to argue with them, "it's not your place to tell me how to drive!"?

Progress marches on as we learn more about ourselves and the world. As our collective knowledge grows domains of knowledge become more specialized. So when a body of such specialists agree on something it is then their duty to tell us all "what's best".

And charter schools (at least by me) means "a business running the school for profit." Yes, they get public funds, but they then pocket as much of those funds as possible in profits and give the students as little as possible.

They also will turn away special needs kids because those kids tend to require more dollars per student and thus aren't as profitable to educate.

So the public schools are left with less money and more special needs kids per capita to take care of. The public schools fail more leading to more charter schools. Which leads to more public schools failing. Repeat as businesses profit and kids suffer.

A lot of charter schools are non-profit. But yeah there are plenty that are also for-profit.

They also will turn away special needs kids because those kids tend to require more dollars per student and thus aren’t as profitable to educate.

I saw a lot of accusations of that, but at least for the one most accused of that in New York- they base admissions on a lottery. Although, some students really can't be in a normal school safely or effectively.

So the public schools are left with less money and more special needs kids per capita to take care of. The public schools fail more leading to more charter schools. Which leads to more public schools failing. Repeat as businesses profit and kids suffer.

The thing is public schools have had increasing funds, I went to public schools with a good amount of funds and it didn't really in my experience change anything for the better. But, I think the best way to save money is allowing students to opt-out if they don't want to take certain classes- or go to school at all.

I saw a lot of accusations of that, but at least for the one most accused of that in New York- they base admissions on a lottery. Although, some students really can’t be in a normal school safely or effectively.

Whether you know schools that do it or not, the fact is that they have the right to not allow special needs kids to go to their school. And that would be true if all schools were private. You would just have to hope your area had a school that would take your child if they have special needs or move to somewhere that does. That's not right.

Whether you know schools that do it or not, the fact is that they have the right to not allow special needs kids to go to their school.

As do public schools at least in my district, the severely handicapped students are put specifically in schools for special needs.

And that would be true if all schools were private.

I didn't say all should be private.

You would just have to hope your area had a school that would take your child if they have special needs or move to somewhere that does.

I think it would be pretty easy in a charter system to offer incentives for taking special needs students.

There are a lot of things you have claimed about your district which doesn't fit any other district I've heard of. Maybe the problem is not public schools, maybe the problem is the way people run them where you live.

I have never heard of a public school that doesn't have special education.

I have never heard of a public school that doesn’t have special education.

I didn't say that?

I said that severely mentally ill students were put into separate schools.

Maybe the problem is not public schools, maybe the problem is the way people run them where you live.

Well the exact same thing could be said about any anecdote about charter schools.

Okay, we aren't talking about "severely mentally ill students" (which, as far as I know, public schools are still required to take), we're talking about any and all special needs students, which charter schools can turn away.

And I haven't told any anecdotes about charter schools. I am talking about what all charter schools have the right to do, but, as far as I have ever heard with the apparent exception of your district, public schools have to take all children regardless of their level of educational aptitude.

Okay, we aren’t talking about “severely mentally ill students” (which, as far as I know, public schools are still required to take)

Do you have any source for individual public schools(not a district) being able to turn away special needs students?

public schools have to take all children regardless of their level of educational aptitude.

Again a district yes, an individual school no.

Originally passed in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) — frequently referred to as Public Law 94-142 — requires that all public schools accepting federal funds must provide equal access to education for children with physical and/or mental disabilities.

...

Public schools are required to create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student who is found to be eligible for special education services. IEPs must be designed to meet the unique educational needs of that child in the least restrictive environment appropriate.

https://www.umassglobal.edu/news-and-events/blog/special-education-laws

So if you are correct about your district, what they are doing is illegal.

Equal access doesn't mean not segregating. My mom and one of my friends work in different districts(in different states) at specifically special needs schools. Because the district thinks it is better to segregate special needs students

Who said anything about segregating? Of course they get segregated to special needs classes. This is about whether or not schools have the legal obligation to accept students at all. By law, all public schools must accept special needs students, so the district is violating the law.

No, segrated by schools, not classes. And again, this issue could be resolved by simply passing a law requiring charter schools accept any students that apply randomly(which is not what schools in my district did- but regardless) would you then support them?

No, but for other reasons. Namely that I do not think education should be a for-profit enterprise. I do not believe that everything in our world should be a business or run like a business. Certainly not schools or prisons. We owe children more than that.

I certainly cannot agree with you that children who don't want to learn should be allowed to avoid it. Children's brains are not fully developed. They do not know what is best for them or how to make the best rational choices. This is why we don't allow children to consent to sex, something I hope you would agree with.

I am assuming from your age that you are not a parent, but even if you are, your child is unlikely to be of school age. I have a 13-year-old. Sometimes she doesn't want to learn. I still make her learn because she also sometimes doesn't want to shower or eat properly and I make her do those things for the same reason. I want a child that can do whatever they want in life, not live some short, unhappy life because they made bad choices as a child.

Namely that I do not think education should be a for-profit enterprise.

That's an understandable position, I don't agree but I understand your position on that.

They do not know what is best for them or how to make the best rational choices.

The problem is nobody can know what's best for someone else.

This is why we don’t allow children to consent to sex, something I hope you would agree with.

The difference is opting into something vs opting out of something, it is much easier to make the decision of opting out rather than opting in- as well as significantly less harmful. Furthermore, in the case of sex the child is being exploited- it is disgusting to compare this.

Sometimes she doesn’t want to learn.

Do you think you are ever at points pushing her into the life you want for her rather than what she might want? Furthermore, do you think its fair to generalize the experiences of other people's children to force your child to go somewhere for 13 years of her life? I think its important in an individualist society to recognize whats good for some, or even for the majority, shouldn't be forced on everyone. I think exercise is good for the vast majority of people- its not my place to dictate that decision for others though.

I want a child that can do whatever they want in life, not live some short, unhappy life because they made bad choices as a child.

Except for the first 18 years of it. I believe that most children want to learn if they can be convinced it is useful and interesting- same as adults. Public schooling doesn't offer that.

For more info on that, Against Schooling by John Taylor Gatto, although I don't agree with all of it. I also generally agree with Ivan Illich's proposal for how consensual schooling could work in Deschooling Society.

Do you think you are ever at points pushing her into the life you want for her rather than what she might want?

She might not want to shower. She's still going to learn that showering is necessary because she will not succeed in life if she smells bad. No, she is not free to smell bad. Her brain is not developed enough for her to understand why.

Have you ever tried explaining the reasoning to her and discussing it with her? And, do you remind her how she smells? Did you empathize with her response?

Of course, but at some point you have to tell a child to do something. Because, again, their brains aren't fully developed. This is a neurological fact.

To some extent. But I think dictating how they spend 8 hours a day for 13 years is a bit extreme.

When spending that time is the difference between success and poverty, I don't see it as extreme at all.

You seem to feel they should have full agency, so should they be allowed to consent to sex?

When spending that time is the difference between success and poverty, I don’t see it as extreme at all.

Not for the education, for the diploma.

You seem to feel they should have full agency, so should they be allowed to consent to sex?

It seems like you want me to say that- I already I explained my reasoning for not. I also don't think they should be allowed to buy hard drugs or alcohol.

I don't see the functional difference between not being allowed to consent to refuse to go to school and not being allowed to consent to have sex if this is about freedom of choice.

I already explained by reasoning, do you have any specific questions about it?

I obviously missed your explanation. Can you please restate it?

Sure

This is why we don’t allow children to consent to sex, something I hope you would agree with.

The difference is opting into something vs opting out of something, it is much easier to make the decision of opting out rather than opting in- as well as significantly less harmful. Furthermore, in the case of sex the child is being exploited- it is disgusting to compare this.

Ok, can a child also opt out of cancer treatment if they think it sounds scary? Let the child die if they want to?

It depends, but in most situations I'd say probably not. But that is also very different from 13 continuous years for 8 hours a day.

Only the amount of time spent is different. So why not? Both are choosing to opt out of something. Are you saying children should only be allowed to opt out of things that take a certain length of time?

I'm saying life unfortunately isn't black and white and sometimes in practical situations you must weigh cost and benefit.

By the way, I appreciate that, unlike Reddit, we can have such opposite views and manage to have a cordial discussion.

Yeah, I appreciate it too for the most part- although a few people have just been insulting me, honestly though I was able to have good discussions on Reddit- just not many.

That's not really an answer. And your idea that children should be able to refuse education is very black-and-white.

Just like my idea that its wrong to kill someone based on an inherent trait of them is black and white. Some issues do have clear answers in my opinion. But, generally I'd like to see some reform- since I don't think totally voluntary schooling is likely to pass. One thing I'd like is the ability for a student to test out of mandatory schooling as early as they want.

Now being able to test out of schooling I would agree with. You probably would be surprised at the perspective I have- I dropped out of high school and got a GED and there was nothing on that GED I didn't already know by the time I started high school. But I don't think I should have been allowed to opt out of high school entirely because I also learned valuable social skills that I definitely would not have if I hadn't gone.

Meanwhile, schools now make really good accommodations for children with special needs. My daughter has special needs (but is not in special ed) and the school has a lot of things they have to do legally to make it so that it isn't such an unnecessary challenge for her. It's something they have to do by law and I think it's a good thing. Let's say my daughter could test out of high school at her age- she can't, but let's say she could. Despite our prompting her to do activities, she has decided to spend most of her summer vacation at home in her room and because of that, she is desperate for any and all human contact even though she isn't aware of it. So because of that, we have four-hour conversations when I get off of work. I let her do it, but that is what she would spend her days doing if she tested out of school this early. She wouldn't be doing anything productive with her life because she doesn't know how to be productive yet. And very, very few 13-year-olds would either. That's why we generally do not allow them in the workforce.

Well I think we should extinguish the right, and defund billionaires and corporations, i.e reclaim their money (and fascists in arkham asylum)

Current inmates in Arkham: Whoa, whoa, whoa! There's criminally insane, and there's Republicans! We don't want their kind here!

There's a DC version of Red Skull?

Nah, this was a crossover.

I'm libertarian and I (unfortunately) have to vote rep. Every election day and tbh, I say both parties need to go! They're both shitholes full of shit people who just want money, just by provoking different audiences, and before you say "b-but mah lesser of to evils!" SHUT THE FUCK UP AND USE YOUR BRAIN! They don't give a FUCK about what YOU WANT! only what they want! What they want is total power. "The left" wants "The right" gone and vice versa! Then we end up having a one party system and you know what that means coughs Hitler, Stalin coughs and again, there is no "lesser of two evils" just some ideas you agree with, and some ya don't. As my father says, "We all bleed red, why can't we all just get along?"

No one is holding a gun to your head making you vote R. You can vote D. You just choose not to. What an incredibly idiotic comment.

Why would you vote for a party trying to tell you how to raise kids and what you can do in your own bedroom and what medications you can have etc etc etc if you are actually libertarian lol

Actual libertarians only vote for libertarians, the dude above who said they are, is just your standard Republican lol

I’m getting more of an enlightened centrist vibe tbh.

If you vote Republican, you're Republican, it's not that deep bro

Exactly, why would you vote for a party that is telling you how to raise your kids and what you can do in your own bedroom, i.e. why vote for the GOP, who do exactly that?

If the GOP doesn't outright restrict you, they let their corporate sponsors do it directly.

The first two words were pretty terrible and then it just sort of got worse.

How? Please explain how me not choosing to vote for a few policies I don't agree with is idiotic? OK from you're perspective you. Can't see how someone could have a differing option but that's fine. I do dem on a few issues but only because they share my views but for the majority, its the reps. that hold the most of em. I would vote for the libertarian Party but it would be useless. Still I wanna hear why you think I'm an idiot? is it because you think I'm agians human rights? Or immigration, or abortion? Let's talk!

You first preemptively chastise others for "mah lesser evil". Then openly admit you don't vote for your "party" because they wouldn't win, and instead vote for the one of two likely winners based on "close enough". That's literally choosing the lesser of two evils.

I mean only one of the two main parties is pretty clearly against abortion and it definitely isn't the dems. So like, yeah. I'd think by voting repliblican you're probably against abortion. What opinions exactly do you share with republicans?

I mean only one of the two main parties is pretty clearly against abortion and it definitely isn't the dems.

This is incorrect but an understandable interpretation because dems suck at messaging.

Dems really need to pivot to the mother's health rather than choice. For starters, abortions are serious medical procedures and shouldn't be taken lightly. As a result, part of the more health focused platform would be to reduce abortions as well as all the other issues facing pregnant women. They should avoid letting the argument be framed as if they "want" abortions. No one wants abortions. Dems just don't want to restrict anyone with regards to their personal healthcare decisions.

Edit: some people need to accept that dems suck at messaging or work on their reading comprehension or both.

Uh people who get raped want abortions.
No one wants abortions for /funsies/, you mean.

It was moreso meant for people prior to getting pregnant. No one is sitting there trying to get pregnant just to have an abortion. No one is longing for that. But yes in other words no one is doing it for fun.

Edit: Jesus some of you salty fucks are worse than the usuals on reddit. Clearly not reading and comprehending the comment. Just downvotes.

I feel like people see abortions as bitlrth control. You have unsafe sex and get pregnant? Well I can just have an abortions and not deal with the consequences! I also feel like abusive relationship will take a massive spike as guys no longer feel like they have to be careful, and can just fuck her as many times as he likes all the while thinking "I'm not gonna get in trouble for this, I'm not gonna have to worry about a kid cuz I can make her abort it!" Ik that sounds retarded but I kid you not when abortions are made legal (where I live anyway) we will see a huge wave of young kids coming to get them as a form of birth control. Now, if the mothers life is in jepordy, as well as the babies then why not abort it and save the mothers life? Well there is a thing called c section. What about rape? Silently putting the kid up for adoption is an option, no one has know and there are couples waiting to take kids in. Well what about women's rights!? Well, what if I told you I don't care. I only care about the babies right to life, if he/she wants to off themselves later on (which they shouldn't and should seek help) then that's their choice. We have systems in place to help these children after birth.

Lemme tell you a story: I was born at 24 weeks, a micro preemy. During my mothers pregnancy, her doctor told them that getting an abortion might be a good choice as I might not make it once I was delivered. They gave me a few weeks to live, a month at best and told me that I would prolly come out not breathing. Despite those horrible odds, my parents talked about it and decided to bring into this world, even if it was for a short while. When I was born however, I defied the expectations of the doctors, and came out screaming! Fist balled up like I was gonna punch em in the face! Of course it didnt get easier, my dad told me I was to small I fit into the palm of his had and he told that at that moment, he was so grateful he didnt kill me. They rushed me to the nicu, and hooked me up to all these monitors and tubes. I spent months in there and as a result I now have a paralyzed vocal cord and due to all the drugs, terrible tooth enamel. When they brought me home I had to stay on oxygen for a few weeks but I made it, I survived and now here I am, 24 years later healthy as I can be! Sure it hasn't been easy, and I've lost my hearing and have had to wear glasses and my mouth is one big filling lol. But I did it and I'm grateful to be alive! THAT! my friends, is truly why I'm anti abortion. To other kids like me a chance, to give them a shot at life! Because only through pain and suffering do we grow stronger as people. So don't give up on that tiny life, give it a shot and who knows? It might be the best thing you ever did!

Thank you.

I will delete this account in a few cuz apparently this isn't the instance for me, I think I might make my own!

You’re a self center piece of shit that doesn’t give a shit about others

Quite the contrary, I care a lot about people. Although you might not see it that way. Due to your own world views you see me as a pos monster set on destroying wemons lives right?

Your other words all make it very clear that you only care about yourself so I'm not taking your word that you "care about a lot of people."

If you actually did you wouldn't be arguing and voting for taking away people's rights.

“I’m not gonna get in trouble for this, I’m not gonna have to worry about a kid cuz I can make her abort it!” Ik that sounds retarded but I kid you not when abortions are made legal (where I live anyway) we will see a huge wave of young kids coming to get them as a form of birth control.

This is a "trust me bro" argument. It doesn't contribute much to an online discussion because it's speculation that cannot be affirmed or denied based on the information you have presented.

What about rape? Silently putting the kid up for adoption is an option, no one has know and there are couples waiting to take kids in. Well what about women’s rights!? Well, what if I told you I don’t care. I only care about the babies right to life, if he/she wants to off themselves later on (which they shouldn’t and should seek help) then that’s their choice.

This, on the other hand, is useful to the rest of us. It regretfully informs us that you are very poorly informed on the subject of mental health, and aren't likely to be persuaded to invest the effort that would be needed to change your mind. You have already chosen the life of a potential child at all costs and the mother is an acceptable casualty of circumstance, because she gets a "choice" in what she does with the trauma from being forced to bear a child against her will, and the fetus having no agency precludes all further discussion.

The fact that you will likely read that italicized text and think that is a checkmate argument in your favor is the crux of the issue. I apologize for not being willing to invest the energy in convincing you otherwise, but I also thank you for being honest with it. Way too much time gets wasted when people pretend that isn't the core pillar of their anti-abortion argument.

Now, if the mothers life is in jepordy, as well as the babies then why not abort it and save the mothers life? Well there is a thing called c section.

There is also something called non-viable pregnancies. They tend to be conveniently ignored by policy makers and half-researched attempts to steelman a pro-choice PoV. (aka, what is happening here)

If medical practitioners are placed in a position where they can't provide preventative care without risking a lawsuit, then the mother gets traumatized by being forced to carry a corpse to term, and at worst both die pointlessly. The baby will never develop agency to begin with, and the mother isn't given any agency either because she's an acceptable casualty. This has happened several times in recent news already: one woman nearly bleeding out on the floor of a salon, and another being forced to bear a baby without a head.

By all means, let's allow politicians to make these decisions for us in advance of pregnancies instead of medical practitioners. Politicians are equipped with an infallible combination of medical experience and psychic powers that allow them to anticipate all medical scenarios ahead of time and prescribe the correct dosage of lawsuits to their constituents.

Lemme tell you a story:

Appeals to the fear of non-existence are not uncommon, and sympathetic to a degree. Non-existence is the shit that keeps a lot of us up at night. Fear of non-existence and ignorance of mental health unfortunately don't make for good policy making.

I will delete this account in a few cuz apparently this isn’t the instance for me, I think I might make my own!

Not gonna actually help anything, that's not how ActivityPub works. You're participating on lemmy.world from your account on lemmy.fmhy.ml. It does however suggest that you are in search of an echo chamber, in which case...best of luck.

Oh neat, this is a divisive rhetorical device. Don’t actually constructively argue for a policy you prefer, just attack how people talk about it. It’s fascinating to notice bad faith republican techniques you’ve only read about.

meco03211 is pretty squarely presenting the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" branding. No harm in pointing out that some debates aren't worth wasting energy on until they're properly framed.

This was entirely the point. So often I've seen those "debates" devolve into the righty arguing against murder and the lefty arguing in favor of choice and never address the other's concerns. That's convincing no one.

You misunderstood.

abortions are serious medical procedures

This is a myth. In the first trimester an abortion is the medical equivalent of repairing a dent in a car with a suction cup. It takes anywhere from 30 seconds to two minutes and the side effects are the same as a miscarriage (e.g. cramping and bleeding).

Science VS made an excellent podcast about the science behind abortion and talked extensively about the various procedures, fetal states of development, etc: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/n8h7aag

You can just read the transcript if you don't want to listen to it. Search for this string: "Lisa explained the process to reporter Heather Rogers"

abortions are serious medical procedures

This is a myth.

Perhaps that statement was a bit broad. There are serious abortion procedures depending on many factors even if not all abortions would be called serious. The point I was making is that even the least serious options are not some desired thing. So continuing as "pro abortion" opens dems up to the idiots on the right that think normal people are relying on them as birth control. Just pivot to mother's health as the framing and then you can point to the statistics of how contraceptive access and sex ed improve all aspects of the mother's health including fewer abortions. Then point to red states and their higher abortion rates.

normal people are relying on them as birth control

If a woman wants to go through the expense (and pain) of using abortion as a form of birth control why would we stop her? It's her body. That's her prerogative.

People get stupid tattoos all the time but we don't have laws against that. It's not like a fetus can think or feel anything.

That doesn't stop the idiots from making that argument. The point is to show how rarely that's the case and to help people choose better options through sex ed.

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND USE YOUR BRAIN!

My brain tells me R wants to genocide lgbt people, while the dems do not.

there is no "lesser of two evils" just some ideas you agree with, and some ya don't.

And some ideas are less evil then others.

As my father says, "We all bleed red, why can't we all just get along?"

Then stop trying to strip people of their rights, and we'll get along a lot better.

And jews, don't forget us. Their rhetoric is identical to the early nazi party right now, that "LGBTism" is being "forced" on America by a nebulous "them." And funded by George Soros.

Just wait, when they finish with their anti trans panic and start arresting trans people for existing in public the gloves will come off and the nebulous "them" will become "the jews."

We desperately need to properly teach how the Nazis came to power. They didn't start out at "kill the jews" they started at "we need to protect children from this dangerous Jewish ideology of homozexuality being taught in schools" and "cultural bolsheviks want to brai wash their kids into their globalist agenda" and "women are too promiscuous and it's destroying children in out country."

Ah, but you've got those space lasers you can use for defense!

You value your own personal gain over the human rights of the majority of the country. No one makes you vote for them, you choose to because you’re selfish and greedy and don’t care about things that don’t effect you. Any other reason you give is a rationalization.

You don't know their motivations, don't use speculation as an excuse to insult and attack them as a person.

What motivation could one have for voting for a party that is desperately trying to institute christofascism that doesn’t imply a myopic, selfish worldview?

What does christofascism mean? And would you say all members of the GOP are trying to enforce it, such as: Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Thomas Massie?

Chris Christie, the politician famous for using his office to punish entire cities for not endorsing his re-election campaign? That one? The same one famous for being an advisor to former president Trump? The one who doesn’t support reproductive rights for women, a position famously inspired by Christian morality? Yeah, he’s a Christofascist.

Christofascism is a far right political ideology that seeks to install Christian fascism. They are famous for advocating political violence against minorities, using weasel words to mask their intentions, and more. Whether or not ALL GOP members are christofascist is irrelevant, as the party platform is christofascist. Meaning, regardless of what you claim to believe, by supporting the GOP you are supporting the rise of fascism in America.

Except voting for an individual candidate is not voting for the party- its voting for one candidate! That candidate may or may not vote with the majority of their party. And there are many prominent examples of congress members of all parties not voting with the majority of their party. Also, what is Christian fascism?

Except it is. The party sets the platform, not the individual. Individuals who go against the platform, on both GOP and Democratic sides do not receive funding from the party. 95% of Democratic votes and 99% of GOP votes are cast on party lines.

Christian fascism is well defined, I guess if you’ve had your head under a rock for the last 10 years you might not have heard of it, but it’s not a new term.

Christian fascism is a term which is used to describe a far-right political ideology that denotes an intersection between fascism and Christianity. It is sometimes referred to as "Christofascism", a neologism which was coined in 1970 by the liberation theologian Dorothee Sölle.

The party sets the platform, not the individual. Individuals who go against the platform, on both GOP and Democratic sides do not receive funding from the party.

That is true and sucks, but there are some congress people who still get away with it, like Rand Paul at least used to- I haven't checked for a while.

95% of Democratic votes and 99% of GOP votes are cast on party lines.

Is that actually a true statistic or just hyperbole? If its true I'd love to see the source.

Christian fascism is well defined, I guess if you’ve had your head under a rock for the last 10 years you might not have heard of it, but it’s not a new term.

I mean my questioning is just it seems like the definitions are circular- saying Christian fascism is a combination of Christianity and fascism, but I want to understand what that means in practice.

If you’re genuinely interested in data, here’s a study.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912917722233

In practice it looks 100% like the modern GOP. Constant advocation for political violence, demonization of minorities, use of office and power to force Christian morality on non-Christian’s, privatization of public infrastructure, direct cooperation with corporations to suppress labor rights…

Christofascism "disposed or allowed Christians, to impose themselves not only upon other religions but other cultures, and political parties which do not march under the banner of the final, normative, victorious Christ" – as Paul F. Knitter describes Sölle's view.

Sound familiar?

Sölle saw three uniting themes in U.S. Christofascism at the end of the Cold War: 1) U.S. superiority; 2) the veneration of work and, in the inverse, cruelty toward those who depend on welfare or solidarity; and 3) the lionization of the patriarchal nuclear family and, in the inverse, the demonization of sexual and gender minorities.

That should sound extremely familiar to anyone who’s lived I the US at any point since the start of the 80s at the very least.

I don't have access to the study, so I can't check for myself- but I just tallied the last 15 congressional votes. There were 273 Republican votes dissenting from the majority of their party, there were 114 Democrat votes dissenting from the majority of their party.

Christofascism “disposed or allowed Christians, to impose themselves not only upon other religions but other cultures, and political parties which do not march under the banner of the final, normative, victorious Christ” – as Paul F. Knitter describes Sölle’s view.

I'd arguing that sounds closer to Christian authoritarianism or a theocracy. Fascism is fundamentally the belief that everything should be devoted to enforcing and strengthening the rule of the state over everyone. Incorporating them into the state while making sure they are subjects to it. It is the opposite of democracy- a fascist believes in people serving the state, not the state serving the people.

Sölle saw three uniting themes in U.S. Christofascism at the end of the Cold War: 1) U.S. superiority; 2) the veneration of work and, in the inverse, cruelty toward those who depend on welfare or solidarity; and 3) the lionization of the patriarchal nuclear family and, in the inverse, the demonization of sexual and gender minorities.

I'd argue this is more chauvinism and conservative nationalism than being inherently tied to Christianity. After all, that sounds like what Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager believe.

Idk where you heard that is what fascism is… The 14 tenets of ur-fascism:

  1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning.

  2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead.

  3. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous.

  4. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition.

  5. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger.

  6. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: 7.

  7. Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”)

  8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment.

  9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous.

  10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled.

  11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths.

  12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality.

  13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader.

  14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning.

And yes, of course it sounds like Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager, becauses they’re fascists. By definition. They are fascists.

Edit: spelling and formatting

Idk where you heard that is what fascism is… 14 tenets of ur-fascism

It is my personal belief that the only possible way to interpret the ideology someone espouses is to look at what they actually say about it. If you want to define Marxism, look at how Marx defined it. If you want to define Monetarism, look at how Milton Friedman defined it. If you want to define Nazism, look at how the Nazis defined it. And, if you want to define Fascism look at how Mussolini defined it. Obviously, the Nazis, nor the Fascists actually followed entirely what they espoused but I'd still say you can only analyze the ideology based on what they actually advocated rather than what they did. If you want to analyze them as people, or as a successful state- look at what they did.

The tenets of ur-fascism were developed by studying the ACTIONS of the fascists. Exactly what you claim you need to do.

No I said you need to do the opposite. The fascist ideology is what they espouse. If they don't follow what they espouse than they are acting against the ideology they espouse. Maybe they have some crypto-ideology.

You’re right, I misread. So, you think that fascists can only be fascist if they admit to it? So the Nazis weren’t fascists then, according to your definition. Only Mussolini was a fascist, by that standard. It’s a really bad standard if so, because you’d be literally the only person on the planet that doesn’t think the Nazis are fascists other than other Nazis. Hitler didn’t go up on stage and say “IM A FASCIST.” So, by your standards, he clearly cannot be a fascist. Maybe he’s a crypto fascist…

Your definition makes literally no sense whatsoever.

Either way, I don’t think you have a solid grasp on political theory or of ideology in general. Most people are unaware of their own ideology, that is how ideology works… ideology is the small lies you tell yourself that make the world go around. The lies you’ve taken as facts to make life easier. Even sentences like, “this chicken is worth $10” reflect internalized ideology. We all hold many ideologically driven positions, and unless you personally take the time to examine your own actions and thoughts, you’re likely to be unaware of them.

Also, Marx didn’t define Marxism, nor was he a Marxist. So… yeah.

I use the term Marxism because he used socialist but he was not the originator of the term socialist so it doesn't really fit this example.

Right, because the example doesn’t work.

The tenets of ur-fascism were developed by studying the ACTIONS of the fascists. Exactly what you claim you need to do. If you do that, you see the Nazis fit all 14 of these, as do most modern American neo-conservatives.

Here’sa sci hub link to the study.

https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1177/1065912917722233.pdf?download=true

Turning to the results, we see evidence of the public underestimating the degree to which their own senators toe the party line. Looking only at the control condition, the average actual party unity of the respondents' senators is 94.7%.

The party Unity was determined by taking data from voteview.org

I don't doubt their is high unity, I'm just questioning the claim that it's higher amongst Republicans, who are generally a tiny bit from fractured in voting when I've looked at votes- and from my own comparison of 15 recent votes now. Also looking here the Republicans seem to have a slightly wider spread

I'm not saying this to defend Republicans, just questioning the claim that they're more unitary in voting.

If you read the linked study, you’d see that you’re pretty typical in underestimating party Unity, the majority of people on both sides do. Your link doesn’t work at all though, so I can’t see what you’re trying to show me.

I'm not underestimating the unity. I actually tallied the dissenting votes for each party for the last 16 votes in the House

You realize there are hundreds of votes every session, right? Thousands every year. So you’re not even using 1% as your sample size. The study above used every vote across an entire year.

Listen, you asked for a source, I provided it. You didn’t know how to open it, so I provided it again in an open format. You didn’t read it, didn’t even look at it, and you think that somehow 16 votes is more representative than thousands. I’m done here, if you want to continue discussing on our fascism thread, I’ll continue there, but this line of discussion has clearly devolved to the point where there is no point in continuing it. The data is there, if you decide to read it.

Of course, also why I supplied the other source. But I am not certain Republicans are less united. I just haven't seen any evidence that they're more unitary.

I literally provided evidence. Thousands of votes, aggregated professionally and peer reviewed. You have seen evidence, you just refused to acknowledge it.

I said I couldn't find anything in the source saying that. Can you please quote it?

You did not, the only time you’ve directly referenced the provided source was to say that you could not access it. To which I responded with a publicly accessible link.

Oh maybe I didn't. I've been traveling- but I meant to. Sorry. But, can you quote where it says that?

Where it says what, specifically? That they used data from a full year of votes?

Edit: Or that Republicans are more United?

It doesn’t matter who is more United, if that is seriously what you’re focusing on, you’re missing the forest for the trees. I don’t give a fuck how United democrats are, that wasn’t at any point the topic of this conversation, and it’s fitting that you’ve pushed the goalposts from “Republicans aren’t United” to “Republicans aren’t more United than Democrats”. Both parties are United, they vote in line with their party in a vast, vast, vast, majority of instances. The Republican party platform is literally, definitively, chrisofascist.

Aside, I wish people wouldn’t downvote you. You’ve not done anything worth downvoting you in my opinion, and I’ve gone through and upvoted all of your comments, but it doesn’t do much good. You’ve been respectful, reasonable, and polite.

There's some salty ignoramuses simply downvoting comments they think are right leaning. They don't even read the comments.

It's not my fault that you failed civics in elementary school but you need to go pick up a civics book and read it, because it's very clear that you haven't got a clue how our government works.

How can you look at the GOP in congress voting lockstep with the party line and claim that you just vote for the individual?

Or are you just being deliberately obtuse in order to muddy the water for observers so people will be more receptive to your regressive arguments?

I actually did pretty well in my political related classes, I didn't take civics but various other US history classes, human geography, etc.

How can you look at the GOP in congress voting lockstep with the party line and claim that you just vote for the individual?

Okay I just checked for the past 15 votes(as of July 14th at 15:34 CEST) here is my source

I tallied every vote dissenting from the majority for each party and I actually threw in a 16th because one was a repeat vote just with more members(even though it had a different result):

TOTAL
rep dissents 273
dem dissents 114

HR 2670 amendment: 18
rep 0
dem 9

HR 2670 amendment: 19
rep 1
dem 1

HR 2670 amendment: 20(vote 1)
rep 4
dem 0

HR 2670 amendment: 20(vote 2)
rep 4
dem 0

HR 2670 amendment: 21
rep 3
dem 2

HR 2670 amendment: 22
rep 0
dem 2

HR 2670 amendment: 24
rep 3
dem 17

HR 2670 amendment: 27
rep 41
dem 0

HR 2670 amendment: 28
rep 98
dem 49

HR 2670 amendment: 29
rep 1
dem 0

HR 2670 amendment: 30
rep 74
dem 5

HR 2670 amendment: 31
rep 8
dem 2

HR 2670 amendment: 32
rep 9
dem 0

HR 2670 amendment: 33
rep 25
dem 0

HR 2670 amendment: 34
rep 0
dem 27

HR 2670 amendment: 38
rep 2
dem 0

So, I wouldn't say dissenting from majority votes are particularly one sided.

There definitely is a lesser of two evils lol. One party takes corporate funding and shit but actually makes and passes legislation for stuff like drug decriminalization andgreen energy. The other party is just blatantly taking away people's rights and blaming everything on "wokeness."

Also if you think they're equally bad why are you even voting republican at all.

Have you ever noticed that the people who say that both sides are the same split into two groups: the liberal side that doesn’t vote, and the conservative side that always votes Republican?

It seems like there are fewer and fewer in that second group lately.

Sort of like how anti vaxxers used to be a fringe group of crunchy granola lefties but took a hard right turn a couple years back.

What a bunch of bullshit

Yeah, I think they made that pretty clear awhile ago. In the interest of keeping their broader coalition together--every last piece of it--they've largely abandoned any pretext at compromise and co-existence.

Pushing the moderates away with this was inevitable, so they've pivoted to pushing radicalization to try to compensate for that in the long-term. Bolster recruitment with passionate, divisive rhetoric and all. It's pretty hard not to see some similarities with historical precedent, if you've any serious study in history, so this has done a little more than merely raise eyebrows.

The issue is largely that these idiots are a mob and the casual US citizen keeps saying "It's all talk, nothing bad is going to happen, etc." When in reality this is exactly how fascism and nationalism began it's rise to power in Germany, Italy, etc. In the past the Constitution and legal system shutdown these agendas in the US. However, in the last 20-30 years the Republicans have done a lot to weaken and undermine the legal system and set in motion incremental phases that have slowly made this more acceptable to the average person.

In short money in politics through lobbying has allowed a lot of greasing of the wheels to undermine our govt and the average person doesn't want to be jobless/homeless so they say "not my problem" until it is too late.

💀

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

— German pastor Martin Niemöller

While I would never suggest, nor condone this man being forced to deepthroat a live flamethrower on live stream, I would jerk off to it.

(Tastefully and with respect, of course.)

Fuck each and every Nazi puke. Fuck each and every GOP member and fans that supports them. Fuck the fucking rich bastards who fund them, and profit from them.

My friend, I laughed my ass off to the first half of this then pumped my fist in the air for the second. Thank you, sincerely.

Lmfao. Y'all both need to grow up.

My dad used to talk about how democrats were evil and should be put in camps to be exterminated. And the worst thing the country ever did was allow women to vote.

I used to think he was an insane person. Now I realize he simply was a republican ahead of his time. He died in 2012.

To be fair, dude didn't write that until it was actually true...

He was all about the Nazis in the beginning, he was an active supporter of them up thru the Holocaust.

The thing was he hated the Jewish people because of their religion, and the nazis hated them by their genetics.

So Niemoller thought if they crossed over to his brand of Christianity then the nazis should leave them alone, but he was still a self avowed anti-semite. His views eventually led to him being imprisoned in Dachu.

Yes, that was the whole point. He went on a lecture tour through Germany after the war which was all about how he was complicit (like many Germans) for not speaking out after the war. His intended audience were other Germans who he wanted to accept personal responsibility as well. Because way too many Germans washed their hands off the Nazis atrocities after the war claiming to have been ignorant of their crimes.

You're the first comment on Lemmy that made me realize I need to turn off image preview in the comments.

"caught" on camera. this is a dogwhistle, just like moms for liberty "accidentally" quoting hitler or donald trump calling white supremacists "very fine people" and telling them to "stand by" for post-election violence if republicans lose. They say some shit like this, and the people who need to hear it hear it loud and clear, then our lapdog media, owned by the people who fund the campaigns of these violent right-wingers, runs the segment where they walk it back and tell everyone that everything is fine.

What left?

America's left wing is more right wing than Britain's Conservative Party...

This is by design.

The true left has no representation or is ineffectual. Bernie Sanders is a moderate.

As is tradition.

I call them Republicrats.

Some of these people need an enemy so bad they can't see past their own clenched fist. I also believe they've put so much effort into clenching they think it would be a waste to unclench it before hitting something. You could offer then a lifetime of peace and prosperity and they'd turn it down. The worst part is that they're dragging good folk down with them.

I think it’s more so that Rs don’t have any popular policy proposals whatsoever. Fuck up your kids’ access to education and healthcare? Strip you of every last dollar and funnel it all to the billionaire ruler class?

These are incredibly unpopular positions, so instead they galvanize support by strawmanning “the others” as some kind of threat which must be stopped.

He goes on and on about defunding the government, like dude, aren't you running for a government position??

Once again, the Right sees this as a WAR. Not a figurative war, but a literal war - with weapons and victims and actual physical attacks.

Once again, the Left sees this as just a damn game which they never take seriously and can't be bothered to see Republicans as a very serious threat to this country and our way of live. While the Left posts stupid memes online thinking they eviscerated the other side through humor, the Right is stockpiling supplies, forming militias and training with assault rifles.

Even when we catch these right wing nuts attacking the capitol, the best we can do it give them a slap on the wrists.

The Democrats are playing politics, the Republicans are fighting a war of extermination.

This is a very nice concise way of saying it, but I will add one more layer.

Elected Republican politicians are fighting a war, Republican voters are fighting a war, elected Democratic politicians are playing politics, all while Democratic voters are sitting home and playing games and thinking this is all a meme.

This is a very nice concise way of saying it

No it's not. It's a facile, extremely disingenuous interpretation of people you disagree with.

Don't be an intellectual stooge of extreme and dishonest rhetoric.

Some right-wing people see it as war, some left-wing people also definitely see it as war. There are also plenty of left and right wing people who don't. It's not exactly fair to generalize either.

Yes, the wings aren't cohesive things. The far right seems to have a more armed presence tho.

caught? this is his open rhetoric, caught lol

They’ve gone full mask white hood off now.

FTFY

If you are lesbian, gay, or bi then you're a damn fool. Do you really think the bigots will stop at demonizing trans people if they manage to eradicate them? No. You will absolutely be next. Then after you it'll be another group. Fascists always need a boogey man to rail against. You're participating in a moral panic no different than the satanic panic of the 1980s. Get your head out of your ass.

Ah, good old Christian values. WWJD.

I expect nothing less from the GOP/Nazi party.

The left is on fire recently! We need to extinguish them so they aren't all so hot. GOP gay-panic

And there will be no consequence.

Ribbit

Trump only won because the dems nominated Hillary.

They only nominated her because Bernie would've actually threatened the status quo.

You've heard it here folks: Americans would rather have fascism than communism.

Hillary got more votes than Trump. Gerrymandering, misinformation, and general racism towards the last guy swung moderate voters to Trump.

I don't believe the restrictions on the democratic process would have resulted in Trump's victory is Bernie won the nomination.

Hillary lost because she took the rust belt for granted when it wasn't. She ignored states she could have won to focus on states she didn't win.

Her former president husband told her she was making a mistake with her campaign and she blew it off.

She lost because she was unelectable.

She was far from the best candidate (obviously), but it was a very close election. She won the popular vote -- but it was the electoral vote that matters. Trump won a few key states by very tight margins ... states that Hillary didn't invest campaigning in.

Hillary absolutely could have won that election had she run her campaign more competently.

No, the Democratic leadership and the corporate news media would rather have fascism than communism.

I hope that means you fully intend to vote...

I mean, is this really news to anyone?

Not for me, the left has been pretty open to murder since it's inception, even now the "eat the rich" phrases permeate the internet as a whole. It's only fair both sides get the chance to think themselves the moral high ground even in fact neither have it

I think there's something critical that's being missed here.

Pray tell, when was the last time the Democratic chair called for the extinguishment of the right? What about any party leadership? I don't worry too much about extremist senators or legislators, because in that regard, yes, there's always stupid idiots there. The difference here is that you basically have the whole ass republican party has eradication of the left as a party platform.

Clearly, I talk about the left in general. It's a very popular slogan advocating for murder and it had been for a long time. And all things being equal, if they can advocate GLOBALLY for murder, why can't these guys locally? Same shit different shitter

You know, I hope you'll forgive me for thinking it's a wholly different matter for people on the internet talk shit about eating the rich than for the chair of one of our two functional national political parties to casually discuss plotting political violence against the other party. Realistically, I think folks on the internet would cool it with some honestly pretty modest reforms; I think it's fair to say that much of the "eat the rich" sentiment is rooted in resentment for the state of things, but can the same be said of this guy? What reforms would bring him off of advocating for the removal of people who like different policies? We're talking about an authoritarian here, someone who wants the left out because they stand between him and his party just doing whatever the hell they want.

Wherever it is rooted, or however you consider it, the expression, it's still advocating for murder. No one has immunity in that case and if advocating for murder makes you authoritarian, then basically all leftists claiming to murder the rich are authoritarians.

And if they can, why can't others? It's not only a privilege you have just because you have less or more money than others.

Otherwise cut the pretend virtue signaling and start getting your purge on

I'm going to stick with my assessment that this is kind of missing the problem here. I'm not saying that advocating for murder is okay. I'm saying it's a lot less okay that the chair of one of our two real political parties, who represents the sentiments of a group of people who can realistically be charged with controlling the government, is in favor systematic violence against a little over half of America because he doesn't like their political views. To say that it's the same as the eat the rich calls on the internet because they both advocate for murder is mistaken at best because of the probable actions that could be taken because of those narratives.

I think the realistic worst case scenario of eat the rich narratives is that one and exactly one billionaire catches a pipe bomb, and I honestly think that's a big stretch because most of the eat the rich narratives revolves around agitating for reforms. The point here is that it might spur an individual or a small group of individuals to personal violence. It's not a good thing, mind, but let's compare. I think the realistic worst case scenario of the GOP advocating for political violence against the left is that the government gets weaponize against the left. The government in this case meaning the NSA mass surveillance program(s), the justice system complete with militarized police, the military, the corporations that contract and cooperate with the government, and more. In the US, small violent groups like the KKK have done awful things. The US government has, many times, done things that were orders of magnitude worse.

The consequences of this kind of thinking in government are spectacularly bad, and aren't excused just because there's bad actors on the internet.

Well it's Florida so he likely just clenched his nomination, and his election.

Come at me. I'll defend myself and won't be the only one leaving in a bag.

Sever the serves.

Cowards will do as cowards will do.

Lolololol okay bro bro good luck

🧯

Terrorist says terrorist things. More at 11.

For once I agree. Then extinguish the right. Then we won't have opposing political parties and people can work together toward common goals.

Sometimes I like to imagine myself libertarian… then someone points to Kansas and New Hampshire. I realize now Atlas was Shrugging because he couldn’t afford for someone to pick up his trash or protect his property because the government was gone.

It's just empty rhetoric to try to garner some kind of support from radicalists. It's a power grab among right wingers who have nothing left to latch onto except hatred for an unknown, undefinable enemy.

"Extinguish the left" is not really an attainable goal, just like no one can define "woke", it's whatever you want it to be. Just like fighting "terror" all over the world was stupid, fighting a "war" on drugs, it isn't possible to "win" because it has no definable goal posts.

Yet it's dangerous talk because it means people will freak out and start attacking everyone they don't like. Crazy people will go on a shooting spree, thoughts and prayers all around but nothing will change and we're right back to where we started.

Those that eat this up are disenfranchised, angry at something completely different that's happened to them in life and they're taking that frustration out on people that don't even affect them because the manifestation of their frustration onto a person is easier for them to understand

Extinguish the left is very much an attainable goal in their view. They almost stole the presidency in an insurrection. They were literately going to murder Mike Pence. The next time around we might have a more competent conservative president who manufactures an emergency and then we are literately fucked.
Something like 'murder a fuckton of people' doesn't need an easily definable goal post: that there are always more people to murder who don't quite meet your standards is a FEATURE, not a bug.

And there is effectively nothing we can do about it.

To be fair, there's lots of people here who wouldn't mind if the right was extinguished, so what's the point?

Except the right is a lot more serious about it and much more willing to back it up with violence.

eh, the large number of mass shootings in America lately tell a different story with an unusually high number of perpetrators being trans people.

[citation needed]

Let's be real though: you're just a sad troll.

FUN FACT: This Sabbath guy is actually a mod of lemmy.world's 'World News' community. Yayyyyy.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you must be a sad troll. Woke logic.

Okay, glad you shared with all of us your view.

You're free to have it, and everyone else is free to criticize it. You're horrendously biased, that's why you're focusing on the statistically insignificant number of trans people who commit murder while ignoring the overwhelming majority of people who do that are white and right-win.

Even if you're not a troll, you are not arguing in good faith. You're supporting an agenda and ignoring facts that go against it.

Because even after adjusting for their portion of the populace, white right-wing males still commit exponentially more murders.

No, it's not always us vs. them.

The ones who specifically out themselves as neo-nazis leave no room for ambiguity. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

I think you think you're arguing with the wrong person.

Just as you claim liberals are conflating their opposition into some sort of Christian boogie-man, you're conflating me to agree with them.

I don't. I'm merely pointing out your biases and arguing in bad faith.

Seems like your anti-trans agenda is spilling over into comments that it doesn't really belong. That's how strong your bias is.

Okay, man. You need to calm down and think rationally about the situation.

It really seems like you're arguing with someone else; this idea of the 'absolute liberal' you've cultivated in your mind. I'm not them, and neither are most people.

How about you get out of that habit? You can't project and then claim 'reverse uno' when it's called out as though you have a point.

I mean, you can, but nobody will take you seriously.

No, it's completely true based on the manifestos and social media profiles of the killers.

They're proud to tout their neo-nazi rhetoric, and the neo-nazis are happy to accept it.

Again, a false take. I understand your need to die on that hill, and rest assured, you probably will. Brainwashing is severe.

No. It's statistically true.

Lol left has been doing that, so let's not pretend left is pure and innocent in terms of violence.

Let's go 1:1 left and right violence. I'll go first, Dylan Roof, 2015, killed 9 and injured 1. Motivation: white supremacy/neo-nazi ideology.

Your turn.

Never said the left was pure and innocent, just that the right tends to be more violent.

Your assumption*

Wow, this sub is dogshit. I don't support censoring people like you, but I just want to say: this so reddit.

I say stupid shit!!!

People call me out for stupid shit!

I double down on my stupid shit!!

People downvote me!

MY FREE SPEECH!!!

Not sure why you're talking to me...

Free speech works both ways.

Stop being such a snowflake and learn to take some criticism on your chin.

Any real man wouldn't care what other people think of him because he's secure in his position. Are you one of them? Or are you one of the boys complaining about voting on a digital platform?

What are you talking about? This is my only comment on the thread, you've clearly mistaken me for somebody else.

I don't want them extinguished. I just don't want them to have any decision-making power. The threat of them getting a majority or the presidency is a great motivator.

And yet that is how democracies work. So if you aren't for a democracy, what are you for? /eyeroll

edit: this is why this place will become another reddit. Many of you are still redditors at heart. You claim to be antifascists, but are in fact the fascists and don't even know it. Hoodwinked, the lot of you.

We've been deceived, bamboozled and very possibly hornswoggled into horseshoe theory practical applications

Not if you asked Reddit there isn't.

Well, he never said either of those things, so it's moot, no?

By extinguishing leftism? Then there would be no left without a single murder.

Extinguishing an ideology is not murder. I don't support it (I'm a moderate leftist myself), but it isn't murder.

I never expected to have a use for the de dicto - de re distinction, but what he wants to do is eliminate leftists de dicto (that is, make it such that there are no leftists) rather than de re (that is, take everyone who is currently a leftist and make them not exist). The latter would be murder. The former is not, although it can still fuck right off.

Well, considering the astonishing number of mass shootings by trans people lately, I would say that distinction is quickly becoming lost on both sides.

Yeah. 0.11% of shootings perpetrated by Trans people is so astonishing. Meanwhile, the 54% carried put by white Christian males we can just ignore, right?

Questionable numbers. Questionable take. See, it's easy to know who the angry trans kids are, because they announce themselves shortly before going on a shooting spree. White Christian males... like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris? What you think anyone who is white and goes shooting is a devout Christian? That's how brainwashed you are?

There’s been an astonishing number of mass shootings by trans people lately?

I know Marjorie Taylor Greene was trying to claim that the mass shooting that happened in Philly recently was done by a trans person, but that was proven incorrect.

Similarly for the recent Nashville shooting, there’s been no actual proof that the shooter was trans, just more conservatives saying that without anything to back it up. Almost like they have an agenda they are trying to push rather than actually caring what is true and what isn’t true before announcing it to the country.

Are there more recent incidents than these two that don’t even seem to have been committed by a trans person?

There’s been an astonishing number of mass shootings by trans people lately?

I know Marjorie Taylor Greene was trying to claim that the mass shooting that happened in Philly recently was done by a trans person, but that was proven incorrect.

Similarly for the recent Nashville shooting, there’s been no actual proof that the shooter was trans, just more conservatives saying that without anything to back it up.

Are there more recent incidents than these two that don’t even seem to have been committed by a trans person?

He should know a bit better that this democracy thing doesn't work with only a right wing?

I think that’s the idea

I mean what where they thinking would happen when they keep spouting "eat the rich" every five seconds. It's not like you eat something without killing it in the process 😉

More tribalist BS which will be followed by even more tribalist BS from 'the other side.'

Here's another 'ism for the US to worry about: atavism.

I think you'll find "the left" to be indifferent and dismissive towards idiotic GOP politicians talking out of their ass.

Not sure why you're being downvoted.

This is definitely just red meat for their tribe.

The US is split into two tribes, and anyone who doesn't adhere to either is immediately 'wrong' by the people who do.

I'm being downvoted because people are in denial.

Massively leaning into the "they are in denial about being in denial" stage