this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
299 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3285 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Why are we trying so hard to go backwards to the 1700s?

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (4 children)

We're actually trying to go back to the Roman Empire, a Fourth Reich, if you will.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's kind of scary how close they are too succeeding. When one half of the electoral process gives up on democracy, and starts trying to take power by Amy means, it's hard to fight back against that.

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

It's only hard to fight against it because our champions are wolves in sheep's clothing. The Democrats don't want to undermine their own power either, they just want you to think they do.

[–] yemmly@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The term sounds dumb off the tongue and, you guessed it, has no actual philosophical or historical weight aside from a callback to the name for Roman emperors.

Sadly, those who are interested in regression don't access a lot of critical thinking skills, so they'll glom onto this surface level reference and see it as deep and meaningful.

[–] tintory@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

THANK YOU!

YOU KNOW HOW FRUSTRATING IT IS WHEN PEOPLE KEEP TOSSING THAT PHRASE AROUND

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Lol I find it infuriating as well. Ugh...

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Seeking a return to an idealized mythological past...? That's so classic fascist.

[–] tintory@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Roman Empire was pro choice

You are thinking of Medieval Europe

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt any of the cultures that were invaded by Roman expansion were given any choice in the matter. Conservatism always has different standards for the in group versus the out group.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I mean given that there were Roman emperors that hailed from almost every territory in the empire I don’t think your understanding of Romans is very accurate.

After 212AD if you were a free man and lived in the empire then you were a Roman citizen. There was also a surprising degree of religious freedom in the empire as well.

Using modern political group labels for antiquity is silly.

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not my understanding of Romans that is flawed, it's your understanding of freedom and choice.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point is that they were also the in group. It’s very much a flawed perspective, referring to the whole empire as conservative makes it clear.

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They were in the in-group as long as they paid taxes and followed the laws of the people in control of their lives. As long as they never disobeyed or rebelled. I urge you to look up consent before you hurt somebody.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Ok so no government has ever governed through consent in that respect so I’m not sure why that’s an important issue to bring up. No one consents to be ruled by a government, you’re just born into it in most cases and in others the one you initially didn’t consent to got replaced by yet another that wasn’t consented to.

You really are glossing over the fact that referring to a 2000 year empire as blanket conservative is ignorant and ahistorical. They were multicultural and, with glaring exceptions, tolerated alternative religions far more than most geopolitical entities through history. It’s a vast history with varying governments, both with progressive ideas for the time and regressive backslides.

Watering it down to boilerplate 21st century political terminology shows a lack of intellectual rigor in understanding this issue so I don’t think this conversation needs to continue. I wish you well.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Roman Empire was multicultural with emperors from Spain, North Africa, the Balkan’s, Syria, and others. The modern Roman obsession is all about the optics that fascists have wrapped it up in, not actual history. They were even surprisingly religiously tolerant.

They’re not actually trying to go back to that, they only want the worst traits of the empire.

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Every Empire has a period of expansion and prosperity, modern-day Republicans are trying to bring back the policies that destroyed Rome, without understanding that conservatism is always the corruption that leads to fascism.

load more comments (25 replies)