lemm.ee

1 point

2 months ago

We shouldn’t punish people for standing up to fascists. Fascists are acting in bad faith and bad faith actors will abuse any system no matter what. We should focus on defending our institutions from infiltration by bad actors and refuse to tolerate intolerance.

report

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

and part of defending those institutions is punishing bad behavior, regardless of how much you might agree with it or think its righteous.

Because the carrier does not get to dictate who gets what mail. Their job, the entire basis of the institution, is to deliver the mail on their appointed route, regardless what it is, regardless to whom it is to.

You arguing that each postal carrier has some intrinsic right to not deliver mail they find objectionable is arguing for the destruction, not the defense, of the US Postal Service.

report

[ - ]

0 points

2 months ago

regardless of how much you might agree with it or think its righteous.

It’s got nothing to do with me or righteousness. This is about strategic decisions to defend life and liberty from bad faith actors such as fascists.

regardless what it is

Not if it’s dangerous to the people it’s being delivered to. We do not want dangerous substances or bombs sent in the mail.

You arguing that each postal carrier has some intrinsic right to not deliver mail they find objectionable is arguing for the destruction, not the defense, of the US Postal Service.

No, I am arguing that we as a society should refuse to tolerate intolerance. Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. The success of this targeted disinformation campaign would put trans people in a life-threatening situation. By refusing to spread this disinformation campaign, this Canadian woman made the strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

Here in the US, the MAGA movement, a christo-fascist movement is attempting to takeover our democracy this November 5th. Depending on the outcome of the election we me all soon find ourselves in the position of this woman. Acts of civil disobedience might be the last line of defense to prevent the worst outcomes of fascist policies. We should not allow our institutions to be the instruments of our destruction. edit: typo

report

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

You can drown your post in as much honey sweetened words as you want.

You are still, ultimately, arguing for the destruction of our institutions by trying to give the people you agree with special privilege to do wrong that you agree with.

It is not the postal carriers job to censor or filter the mail. It is their job to deliver it.

Flip the story around.

Its now a right wing mailman refusing to deliver stuff that he doesn’t like.

My argument would be the same, That they would need to be punished severely to protect the institution of the US Postal Service, in order to prevent other bad actors from doing more of the same and destroying it from the inside.

I highly doubt you’d mount such stalwart and furious defense of a right wing mail carrier, as you are right now.

You are as much a cancer and threat to our institutions as all the other bad actors.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

Fascists subverting the mail for their own ends to the detriment of other groups’ liberties would be a form of intolerance which we should not tolerate. That is what the fascists were doing in Canada without evening needing to infiltrate the mail service. We should prevent them from doing this if it happened here in the US. To do otherwise would be to be complicit in our own destruction. We should not put our institutions above our liberties. Our institutions are meant to be for our benefit and not tools for fascists to destroy us. To put it another way, standing up to fascists does not make us fascists.

Your argument gets into a common neoliberal talking point about our institutions. That they are infallible and that any attempt at systemic change would destroy them. So in my argument I’m going to talk about US institutions more broadly for a bit. My point is that our institutions are deeply flawed and without systemic change we will lose them.

Our democracy, our market economy, and our mail service are all essential institutions. However our political, economic, and public institutions are flawed. Our democracy is comprised of anti-democratic institutions such as the Senate and the Electoral College. These allow for minority rule and routinely prevent popular legislation that is supported by the majority of the population. Our economy is in the death throes of late-stage capitalism. The owner class has extracted so much wealth from the worker class the only way from them to gain more wealth is to form an oligarchy around a christo-fascist dictator. And our mail system uncritically allows for the spread of life-threatening disinformation campaigns on well researched and understood topics. Not only do these disinformation campaigns threaten groups of people they threaten our democracy as well.

Our society is a fundamentally useful tool that benefits around 340 million people. If we categorically refuse to improve upon it will eventually self-destruct. The way we are living is not sustainable or equitable. The MAGA movement is the direct result of the material conditions of late-stage capitalism that have been allowed to fester for 40 years thanks to neoliberalism. The fascist movement will only grow unless we are willing to introduce systemic change to the society that spawned it.

report

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

Your argument gets into a common neoliberal talking point about our institutions. That they are infallible and that any attempt at systemic change would destroy them.

I dont know who’se fucking posts you’ve been reading, but they clearly werent mine if thats your conclusion you came to.

But then again, given your general right wing argument style of “Its okay to do bad things as long as I agree with them, who gives a fuck about consequences down the road”, I’m not entirely surprised you are choosing to respond to a imaginary arguments instead of mine.

report

[ - ]