You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-1 points

organized society and a structured code of law?

Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?

Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!

What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?

I assume this is the first time you’ve been exposed to the fact that “Law & Order” narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives?

I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don’t think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.

You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn’t agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won’t though, because you haven’t thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

inherent inequality,

As dictated by whom? You?

I don’t think that is a fascist view.

You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?

Fascist by definition

Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…

You might consider reading up on… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

…I’ll take that as a yes.

Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive

What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?

which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.

inherent inequality,

As dictated by whom? You?

A system does not need someone to dictate inequality, there are plenty of naturally existing system that produce inequal results. I don’t have to dictate shit to notice an inequitable system.

I don’t think that is a fascist view.

You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?

Textbook strawman there. At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.

Fascist by definition

Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

This may be news to you, but words have meaning, otherwise you can peanut butter your knuckle wolfsbane.

Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…

Please, source your definiton for Fascism. I cited an established repository of knowledge, so far your only basis for the meaning of the word exists in the vapor between your ears.

Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive

What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?

This is a reiteration of an already refuted strawman, and supporting evidence for my assertion on the productivity of the “dialogue”.

which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?

Didn’t you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?

Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform, please espouse your ideas on the last equitable social code that any segment of humanity has operated under in history. Otherwise, you’ll have written a lot of pointless drivel, again, without actually adding anything to the conversation.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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.
  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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 440K

    Comments