this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
194 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3477 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
[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, I'm not, which is why I brought up States' Rights which is doing exactly that while the conservative federal government is abandoning it's role to protect individual liberty. The States Rights issue stopped being economic long ago.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure you can. What you're doing is removing federal protections of individuals so that states can fasciststially abuse them without consequence.

Wanna explain why Louisiana is planning to criminalize librarians and how that isnt fascism at all?

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like you are working from a different definition of fascism.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm going by the 14 tenets outlined by Dr. Lawrence Britt

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I read through the 14 tenets and kept thinking it was stupid, vague, biased, and perfect for applying to whatever you don't like. Not only that but it could be easily applied to any authoritarian regime, Communist, fascist, or whatever. And then I looked into it a little more and it turns out that he isn't a doctor at all, just some magazine contributor for a leftist magazine. I assume you looked it up just now, but you may want to look into it a little more carefully before you base too much on that. There is actually a lot of discussion and criticism around the validity of those points.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh gee I wonder by whom?

There are others with similar tenet lists as well. They absolutely apply to all the anti-American, freedom-despising MAGAt fascist shitheads and their psychotically deranged egomaniacal leader. Is that your crowd?

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There is a lot of space between calling out inconsistencies, agendas, and extremists on the left, and being a right wing extremist. If you think being able to criticize obviously agenda-driven lists, or to see nuance or weaknesses in them is some kind of litmus test for extremism, then perhaps it is YOU that is the extremist.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They do not exist in that space. Meanwhile conservatism has solved zero problems and has no intention to. They cannot be trusted with or allowed to govern.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying that I exist in that space between.

The role and benefit of conservatives in any society is to resist reactive or bad change, to resist the creation of new problems, which is the mistake that progressives are prone to making. You need both. I agree that conservatives cannot be trusted to govern alone since it will result in stagnation in the long term, but also neither can progressives be trusted to govern alone. In reality you can't actually get rid of either, because society will simply shift until you have both again.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There are no progressives in US government and there haven't been any progressives in US government for at least 50 years if not more. Nobody is existing in the space in between because there is no in between. This is been a Non-Stop rightward- lurching regime for nearly the entirety of my life.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Lol ok. I think this conversation has run it's course.