• floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      The so-called paradox of tolerance is that a tolerant society can only survive if it’s intolerant of intolerance. There seems to be an analogy here: should a democratic society allow voting against democracy? I wish this were just an interesting theoretical question, but it seems we’re about to find out what happens when it does.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 days ago

        And even if we shouldn’t allow voting against democracy, what does that look like in practice? Republicans have been voting against democracy for decades, that’s why we’re so Gerrymandered. Only now they’re just blatantly saying it.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 days ago

      So why isn’t the DNC forming a national push for Ranked Choice voting? Stopping the Republicans is bigger then preserving the democratic party.

      Joe biden needs backup on the debate stage. We need more chances to defeat the republicans. We need more then two viable political parties.

      All that is possible with electoral reform. We don’t actually need to wait for federal reform. How we vote is controlled at the state level. This means all those blue states can push through this much needed reform with little Republican resistance.

      We deserve the *freedom * to vote for someone who best represents us, secure in the knowledge that our vote will still be counted even if our preference didn’t won. We deserve to be free of the spoiler effect.

      The only thing standing in our way in blue states is the democratic party. Don’t they care about beating the Republicans more then being in power?

      • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 days ago

        The DNC doesn’t care about beating the GOP, they care about maintaining their donors. Given that third parties have more popular policies, they would lose power by implementing ranked choice voting.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 days ago

          In states where RCV has been gaining momentum, it’s because voters have demanded it. A given candidate is more electable if they support RCV, even though it makes the party worse off long term.

      • Jumpingspiderman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Ranked choice and similar electoral systems are a direct threat to the monopoly on power held by the Dems and the GOPers- which is why we don’t have some sort of a ranked choice balloting system instead of first past the post.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 days ago

        It’s only about 20-30% who want the orange king imo.

        2/3 of the country is actually progressive - if only we had someone for whom to vote.

        • GulbuddinHekmatyar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          You sure?

          This nation was built from settler-colonialists who thought themselves to become the new pure free proprietors of capitalism… Besides, a social democracy a la Denmark would merely put bandages upon this as a solution…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      Half the country doesn’t have a democracy.

      Voter turnout peaks at around 150M participants in a country with 340M people, and only during a period in which postal voting was nationalized. Normal turnouts can dip into the single digits, particularly in municipal elections when races can be held with little notice and candidates operate with virtually no name recognition.

      Partisan voting is overwhelmingly the method people use to pick their candidates, because so many of these people are invisible to the lay voter. Districts are enormous and heavily gerrymandered. Voting blocks are packed and cracked to minimize their influence. It is more difficult to cast a ballot than to buy a gun (particularly for people who are young, migrant, or poc). Significant portions of the population are explicitly disenfranchised by state and local law even in the face of popularly passed constitutional amendments that guarantee them voting rights.

      What we have is a marginal group of enfranchised participants split between corporate liberalism and corporate fascism. And as the fascists lose ground, they are hoping to subject the remainder of their political opposition to the same draconian disenfranchisement tactics we have long since deployed against everyone else.

      • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        Not using the exact same title of a journalist is not “editorializing” anything. They ripped out a top article just because it included a quote from inside the article in the title. This is not stale corporate Reddit (which went 10 years collecting users before having that rule) so there is no reason to have a rigid rule like that on Lemmy. But if that is not allowed in their particular community, then they need to explicitly make that a rule and enforce it fairly because that would be important for their readers/submitters to know. If they make up new reasons on the spot to justify removing something then that is censorship.

        Now an entire advanced discussion that was well underway was nuked and has to be reproduced here because a mod thought that there was an automatically implied “All Reddit rules apply here to” without telling everybody else.

        • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          12 days ago

          Feel how you feel regarding “size of community” or whatever. I’ll say I’m grateful you had somewhere to post it because I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise. But it doesn’t change there is a rule of that community, defined in the sidebar appropriately, and your title didn’t conform to standards. Censorship is a serious accusation, this doesn’t clear it.

            • ksynwa@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              12 days ago

              Why against posting the article in the post body? I find that pretty useful.

              • Akasazh@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                12 days ago

                To prevent takedown requests from media outlets that feel you have cost them clicks.

                • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  is this really an issue? citation requested, it’s easy to posit but I honestly can’t see sites giving a shit about small aggregators like lemmy.

          • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days ago

            “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.”

            I could be wrong, but I think this verbage was just added. Which is fine, because I suggested to mods that they make any rules about this explicit after they nuked the whole discussion. The only message to me was that it was nuked because of an “altered title”.

            Even so. My “title fairly describes link contents”. Check. I changed it exactly to “be more descriptive”. Check. So it still confirms to even the new standards. But at least now there is something that vaguely relates.

            Censorship is a serious accusation, this doesn’t clear it.

            It is serious enough for me to be glad that Lemmy has multiple sites to post things so that no one set of people are gatekeepers to information. I knew there was a reason why I loved the fact that Lemmy is decentralized.

            • xthexder@l.sw0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 days ago

              That’s the same rule text as December 30, 2023: https://archive.ph/RRbPv

              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.

              They did not change their rules today.

            • eldavi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              i ran into the same issue on lemmy.world; it tracks for their crowd.

      • Master@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        12 days ago

        It does seem more like censorship in this instance.

  • GulbuddinHekmatyar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    To be fair, these people kept on screaming for years about how they’re a constitutional republic… not a democracy…

    Not that this is a good thing, of course…

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      Republics ARE democracies, that’s what stops them from them just being a dictatorship. They’re literally too stupid to be pedants.

    • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      Iran and Russia and China are constitutional republics. It means nothing. Just another GOP dog whistle.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      They say that ONLY because the word republic sounds like Republican and democracy sounds like Democrat…it doesn’t go any deeper…that is why it has appeal to them, not the facts behind it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      they’re a constitutional republic… not a democracy…

      Its such a tired line, coughed up by people who aren’t familiar with what “democracy” or “republic” actually mean.

      Screaming about the Tyranny of the Deep State while doggedly insisting American democracy isn’t supposed to exist in the first place. Barking like rabid dogs, because you see Chinese Communists and Radical Islamic Extremists hiding in every shadow, while insisting we bring in more cheap oil and manufactured goods to subsidize our consumer economy. Angry memaws and pepes demand their kids pump out more blue-eyed blonde-haired babies to Save The White Race, but nobody wants to spend another thin dime on Medicaid or public daycare or curb the crippling economic impact of higher education.

      The contradictions in the American system are really rearing their ugly heads.

      • GulbuddinHekmatyar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        I’m merely saying the message… these people go on vibes-based analysis/superstructure, though subconsciously, in their heart, they want to protect their settler-colonial interests of the economic base

        I mean, the classification of ‘white’ was probably invented to do so…

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          It keeps fucking changing. You’ve got anti-Castro Afro-Cubans running around self-identifying as white. You’ve got East Indian crypto-scammers identifying as white. You’ve got FOB Taiwanese and Filipino ex-pats who barely speaking a lick of English identifying as white. You’ve got Latino used-car dealers and LA Deputy gang members identifying as white.

          Meanwhile, Republicans still joke about pasty faced Bill Clinton being our First Black President.

          The term exists entirely as an excuse to do violence to one’s neighbors.

      • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 days ago

        Do you really think the Military would be undivided about slaughtering civilians in the event conditions worsen to the point of revolutionary action?

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 days ago

          There’s going to be military men and women who are leftists and rightists - in a civil war we would see this. There’s definitely going to be active military men and women who will defend the government for the sake of the government as a whole (regardless of left or right).

          • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 days ago

            That generally is historically false. Not every revolution involved a civil war. If conditions for revolution are present, the military typically ceases to defend the state in any meaningful capacity. Outsiders moving in and compradors exist, but not at an equal scale.

            • StaySquared@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 days ago

              I didn’t state that “every revolution involved a civil war”…

              I would imagine, not stating as a fact, that the government agencies like the FBI/CIA/NSA/DHS etc… would be defending the government and even then, there would be splinter groups amongst these agencies.

              • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 days ago

                Why do you believe they would maintain loyalty in the event a revolution broke out? Would they kill their friends and family?

                • StaySquared@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  Probably because these agencies are far more heavily invested in our government than we know. But this is all pure speculation. There’s so many different groups, variables in the U.S. that I honestly can’t fathom what a civil war nor what a revolution would look like. We are heavily divided into all kinds of categories that I just can’t imagine it would be black and white.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        You’re by far out numbered

        Congressional approval is in the single digits. Presidential disapproval is north of 60%. I think you’ve wildly overestimated how many people actually support the current American regime. And those numbers only get worse when you start asking how people feel about Project 2025.

          • Themadbeagle@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            As opposed to your evidence based approach of using divination to determine the person you replied to in your original comment was in some sort of minority of opinion?

            • StaySquared@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              I’m just saying, I don’t take poll numbers seriously. They’re easily manipulated. Like the Chinese click farms, easy to get the results you want when technology is the medium.

              A click farm is a business or organized operation where a large group of workers or automated systems (bots) are employed to click on various online content for the purpose of artificially inflating metrics such as website traffic, app downloads, social media likes, views, and engagement. The primary purposes of click farms include:

              Boosting Online Metrics: Website Traffic: Increase the number of visitors to a website, which can make it appear more popular and attract advertisers or investors. App Downloads: Raise the download count of a mobile application, making it appear more popular and increasing its ranking in app stores. Social Media Engagement: Increase likes, follows, shares, comments, and views on social media platforms to enhance perceived popularity and influence.

              Manipulating Search Engine Rankings: SEO Manipulation: Improve a website’s search engine ranking by increasing the number of visits and reducing bounce rates, making it appear more relevant and authoritative.

              Influencing Public Opinion and Marketing: Political Campaigns: Sway public opinion by boosting the visibility of political posts, comments, and pages. Brand Promotion: Enhance the online presence of brands and products to increase perceived popularity and credibility.

              Monetary Gain: Advertising Revenue: Generate income from pay-per-click (PPC) advertising models where advertisers pay for each click on their ads. Affiliate Marketing: Increase clicks on affiliate links to generate commissions from sales or leads.

              Gaming Online Systems: Contests and Promotions: Artificially inflate participation in online contests, promotions, and giveaways to win prizes. App and Game Rankings: Increase rankings and visibility in app stores and gaming platforms to attract real users and potential in-app purchases.

              Ethical and Legal Issues While click farms can provide short-term benefits by inflating metrics, they are generally considered unethical and are often illegal. They deceive genuine users, mislead advertisers, and violate the terms of service of most online platforms. The use of click farms can lead to penalties, including account suspension, legal actions, and damage to reputation.

              Detection and Prevention Many platforms employ sophisticated algorithms and machine learning techniques to detect and combat click farm activities. Measures include analyzing user behavior patterns, IP addresses, click timing, and geographic data to identify suspicious activities.

              In summary, click farms aim to create a false sense of popularity and engagement to benefit the entities that hire them, but they pose significant ethical, legal, and reputational risks.

              Hence why I hate Democracy, it’s fake and ga… it’s fake.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 days ago

      Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government

      LMFAO…

      Naive naive founding morons…

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      The problem is that the words are imperfect and people use democracy to mean direct democracy, but it also means any form of government where the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people. So our republic, any way you cut it, it still a form of democracy. Hell we even have some elements of a direct democracy.

      And what is even more annoying is that Republicans will argue that this is why we don’t directly elected the POTUS, because we are a republic…but we could directly elect the POTUS and we would still be a democracy.

      • angel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 days ago

        it also means any form of government where the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

        I don’t see anything here that grants ultimate power to the people.

          • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            Elections where you pick between 2 parties that represent their wealthy Capitalist donors is “power to the people?”

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              Yes, because we could elect whoever we want. The way the system is set up has some faults that have it tend towards a two party system, and this should change, but ultimately the outcome is the result of the way we vote.

              • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 days ago

                Why is third party voting frowned upon then, if third party policies are more popular among the public?

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  What does this have to do with the US being a democracy? Sounds like your whole interaction here is in bad faith.

          • angel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 days ago

            It says “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”

            There’s nothing in it comparable to “the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority”.

            • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 days ago

              The Constitution is in some ways is a sequel to the Declaration of Independence, which states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. While the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, it is widely upheld as a sort of “vision statement” for US government and governance

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 days ago

    What would the FOUNDERS have done?

    -Republicans but ONLY after a classroom full of 6 year olds gets shot up!

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    So go be a despotist dungeon on some remote pacific island and stay the fuck out of america

    • angel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      It’s a non-immigration country like Japan. They might make exceptions for highly-skilled scientists or footballers, but you generally can’t “move to China”

    • SUPAVILLAIN@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Oh brother I’d fucking leave YESTERDAY if it didn’t cost 5 grand plus to emigrate, while the crackers keep stuffing their hands in your pockets to collect exit taxes! If I knew, that I could emigrate to China, without having to go literally destitute, and that I’d have a job and lodgings on landing, I’d be gone on that one way tomorrow; and then all of Amerika would have to learn my name when news about a western Black man going on their Yeonmi Park about this country of crackers hits the international news cycle.

    • GulbuddinHekmatyar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      That being said, you are a bad faith troll, I tell ye that…

      1. n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others.
        • GulbuddinHekmatyar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          Ye did not address my definition and thus my argument over there, eh, you just came in here to play loose and argue with people…

    • GulbuddinHekmatyar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      You saying this is the equivalent of asking me whether a sky is azul or blue…

      Aren’t most democracies, like a representative democracy, not a direct one…

      And so is that of America… though in a different way…

    • Jumpingspiderman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Tell us you are ignorant without telling us you are ignorant. A republic of any kind is a state in which the head of state is elected. The US is a representative constitutional republic in which the representatives and head of state are elected- at least that’s the theory.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      The Real Reason Why Republicans Keep Saying “We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy”

      I think you’re seeing a real shift in conservative rhetoric because they are giving up on winning majorities. If you go back 50 years, books like The Emerging Republican Majority, and even around the period of George Bush, there was this idea, “OK, well, if Republicans want to keep winning majorities, we need to appeal more to the conservative Latino vote.” And the party has just gone in the opposite direction of that. It’s figuring out how to maintain dominance with a minority of support. And so, in that sense, I think the rhetoric is really telling. It’s a way of rationalizing the further entrenchment of minority rule.

  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    97
    ·
    12 days ago

    That is correct, we dont want a democracy, democracy is never good. As the saying goes “the most pure democracy is a lynch mob headed for the gallows.” Meaning that everyone is in agreement except the person that is about to die.

    • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      12 days ago

      That is correct, we dont want a democracy

      Yes we know that the Republicans hate democracy because their policies are highly unpopular. That’s why I posted this.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        12 days ago

        Well, the US is currently a Democratic Republic, not a democracy.

        Not sure how that fits the context, but the GOP has been pro-republic forever… it’s even in the name.

        I’ve always found it humorous that a nation that’s a Democratic Republic has essentially two political parties, one called the Democrats and the other the Republicans. Someone needs to start a Democratic Republican party as a third option.

        • grte@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          12 days ago

          The US is a representative democracy. Republic just means no monarch, so sure, it’s that, but that doesn’t actually say much about how it’s government functions. It’s governmental functions are carried out by representatives voted on in elections, thus democracy.

        • FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          12 days ago

          Ah yes, The People’s Front of Judea and The Judean People’s Front.

          When can we go past this, and agree on policies, instead of bickering about clubs.

          • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            12 days ago

            Well there’s the problem.

            More liberal ideologies are about cooperation, compromise and the greater whole. More conservative ideologies are about preservation, conservation and sacrificing for the greater good.

            So the only agreement will be where those mindsets overlap. And when one party is actively courting populism and fascism, that overlap is pretty slim.

            • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              12 days ago

              Liberalism is not concerned with “the greater whole,” liberalism is founded on individual rights and freedoms, as well as private property. Conservatives are generally far-right populist or fascist liberals.

        • puppy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          Democracy is an umbrella term meaning that citizens get to vote. A republic is a sub category of a democracy. The US is a democratic republic.

          • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            Democracy means some citizens get to vote, generally it’s the ones who aren’t slaves. In America they recently extended the vote to their nonwhite population, but the popular vote doesn’t do anything and the only parties allowed in national politics have no interest in representing anything other than their donors.

            • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 days ago

              In America they recently extended the vote to their nonwhite population

              By recent do you mean 1776?

              • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 days ago

                Women, Non-Whites, White non-landowners, and prisoners don’t count?

                Do you have any historical background on America, or do you just vibe a position into your personal belief and hope stating it makes it real?