The flaw being that we don’t have any system in place to prevent life-threatening disinformation campaigns from being spread in the mail. People being denied the fundamental right to exist is contrary to who we are as the US. It is not a question of morality, but utility. It is a strategically sound decision for people to defend life and liberty against intolerance. The fact MAGA cultists believe they are living an alternate reality should not factor into our decision making process of what we know to be true through research and study.
If fascists takeover our democracy they will have total control of the government. They won’t need us to pass laws or amendments for them to abuse our institutions. They will have total control over all of our institutions at that point no matter what we do. Our efforts should be focused on preventing them from taking power, because once they take power they will not give it up freely.
My argument is that we should act based on utility not morality or some arbitrary notion of fairness. We should reject a false equivalency between groups that are pro-democracy and groups that are pro-authoritarian. We should also reject the neoliberal idea that our institutions are perfect and immutable. Our institutions are deeply flawed and need systemic change if we want to continue to benefit from them.
My argument for changing our institutions, including our democracy, so that we can keep them is not a threat. Nor is it more immediate than the MAGA movement’s publicly announced christo-fascist takeover. The presidential election is this November 5th.
Words are the medium of my argument. The fact my argument refutes your argument’s points does not make the words honeyed.
You are a concerntroll, sitting here wringing hands and clutching pearls while making the exact same style arguments that the fascists you claim to be so very much against make, and for the very same reasons.
There is only one objective answer that protects the integrity of our institutions, and that is punishing the bad actors. By holding them accountable and removing them from their positions when they do wrong.
Something that you, bizarrely, have taking significant umbrage with, because you don’t want bad actors (who are bad actors in the way you agree with) to be held accountable, to be punished. You want them to be free to continue to be bad actors. You want them to undermine our institutions (in ways you agree with) and to bring about their collapse. So you can replace them with something more easily weaponized against anyone that disagrees with or opposes you.
And golly gee, that sounds awfully familiar, doesnt it?
The fascists in this case were spreading a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign. 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. This in not a false concern, but a well researched fact. In this Canadian woman’s case the integrity of the mail service in Canada was being threatened by the fascists. The fascists were the bad-faith actors. With her civil disobedience, she made the strategic decision to defend life and liberty. This Canadian woman was acting in a way that was consistent with our ideals here in the US.
We should change our institutions so that they reject intolerance. This will help us prevent the self-serving agendas of bad-faith actors. Our institutions do not need to collapse in order to accomplish this. In the US, we have the capability to amend the constitution. In fact it is much more difficult to build useful institutions from the ground up, as that historically has required significant military capabilities. The integrity of our institutions is preserved by preventing bad-faith actors from misusing our institutions. Not by blindly allowing fascists to spread disinformation campaigns.
Your argument repeatedly asserts a baseless concern about systemic change for our institutions. There is no utility in being arbitrarily impartial to fascists. Turning a blind eye to their disinformation campaign would not have preserved the integrity of the Canadian mail service. Allowing fascists to takeover our democracy in the US does not preserve the integrity of our democracy. Once bad-faith actors control our institutions the institutions are lost. No amount of arbitrary impartiality before a takeover of our democracy will tie the hands of bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will use this leeway to harm groups of people while they are out of power.
Society should not tolerant intolerance. We should not be complicit in our own destruction. If we want to keep our democracy then we must stand up to fascists who attempt to take it away. Even if this means engaging in civil disobedience. We should not want our institutions to be impartial between truths and falsehoods. We should want our institutions to be committed to the truth even if that means being biased against fascists.
Yes yes, big words and upset that you’ve been called out for wanting to undermine the institutions and lots of paragraphs bemoaning the big bad evil fascists.
and somehow instead of actually dealing with that, you want to undermine the mail service, which is totally not a thing that they want to do to interfere with elections or anything.
Weird how you decry fascists yet want the same damn thing as them, with the same damn tactics.
Ignoring my argument is not a refutation of my argument. However my argument is a refutation of your argument.
We should want to improve all of our institutions. Public institutions like the mail service are no exception.
Improving a thing is not the same as destroying a thing. We should improve our institutions by using our institutions. We should not replace democracy with a christo-fascist dictatorship. Falsely conflating these two different actions is not a compelling argument.
I’m ignoring your bloviating bullshit cause its already been refuted, despite it being a masquerade and irrelevant to the point of the topic at hand, all of which is nothing but an example of you desperately trying to distract from that topic.
And that topic is mail carriers not having the right to choose what gets delivered and what doesn’t based on personal feels and opinions, and that doing such deserves to be punished to prevent others from doing the same.
Something that, when you deign to acknowledge the topic at all, have argued against, because you agree with them, and you want to let government employees do whatever undermining, institutional destroying bad behaviors they want as long as you agree with it… Which is the core component of most right wing arguments “I agree with it there for its right and moral”
I’m ignoring your bloviating bullshit cause its already been refuted, despite it being a masquerade and irrelevant to the point of the topic at hand, all of which is nothing but an example of you desperately trying to distract from that topic.
Something that, when you deign to acknowledge the topic at all, have argued against, because you agree with them, and you want to let government employees do whatever undermining, institutional destroying bad behaviors they want as long as you agree with it…
People can confirm these are false statements by reading what we wrote. It is self-evident.
And that topic is mail carriers not having the right to choose what gets delivered and what doesn’t based on personal feels and opinions
Which is the core component of most right wing arguments “I agree with it there for its right and moral”
No where in my argument do I advocate for these positions. The decision should be based on empirical evidence.
The flaw being that we don’t have any system in place to prevent life-threatening disinformation campaigns from being spread in the mail. People being denied the fundamental right to exist is contrary to who we are as the US. It is not a question of morality, but utility. It is a strategically sound decision for people to defend life and liberty against intolerance. The fact MAGA cultists believe they are living an alternate reality should not factor into our decision making process of what we know to be true through research and study.
If fascists takeover our democracy they will have total control of the government. They won’t need us to pass laws or amendments for them to abuse our institutions. They will have total control over all of our institutions at that point no matter what we do. Our efforts should be focused on preventing them from taking power, because once they take power they will not give it up freely.
My argument is that we should act based on utility not morality or some arbitrary notion of fairness. We should reject a false equivalency between groups that are pro-democracy and groups that are pro-authoritarian. We should also reject the neoliberal idea that our institutions are perfect and immutable. Our institutions are deeply flawed and need systemic change if we want to continue to benefit from them.
My argument for changing our institutions, including our democracy, so that we can keep them is not a threat. Nor is it more immediate than the MAGA movement’s publicly announced christo-fascist takeover. The presidential election is this November 5th.
Words are the medium of my argument. The fact my argument refutes your argument’s points does not make the words honeyed.
You are a concerntroll, sitting here wringing hands and clutching pearls while making the exact same style arguments that the fascists you claim to be so very much against make, and for the very same reasons.
There is only one objective answer that protects the integrity of our institutions, and that is punishing the bad actors. By holding them accountable and removing them from their positions when they do wrong.
Something that you, bizarrely, have taking significant umbrage with, because you don’t want bad actors (who are bad actors in the way you agree with) to be held accountable, to be punished. You want them to be free to continue to be bad actors. You want them to undermine our institutions (in ways you agree with) and to bring about their collapse. So you can replace them with something more easily weaponized against anyone that disagrees with or opposes you.
And golly gee, that sounds awfully familiar, doesnt it?
The fascists in this case were spreading a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign. 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. This in not a false concern, but a well researched fact. In this Canadian woman’s case the integrity of the mail service in Canada was being threatened by the fascists. The fascists were the bad-faith actors. With her civil disobedience, she made the strategic decision to defend life and liberty. This Canadian woman was acting in a way that was consistent with our ideals here in the US.
We should change our institutions so that they reject intolerance. This will help us prevent the self-serving agendas of bad-faith actors. Our institutions do not need to collapse in order to accomplish this. In the US, we have the capability to amend the constitution. In fact it is much more difficult to build useful institutions from the ground up, as that historically has required significant military capabilities. The integrity of our institutions is preserved by preventing bad-faith actors from misusing our institutions. Not by blindly allowing fascists to spread disinformation campaigns.
Your argument repeatedly asserts a baseless concern about systemic change for our institutions. There is no utility in being arbitrarily impartial to fascists. Turning a blind eye to their disinformation campaign would not have preserved the integrity of the Canadian mail service. Allowing fascists to takeover our democracy in the US does not preserve the integrity of our democracy. Once bad-faith actors control our institutions the institutions are lost. No amount of arbitrary impartiality before a takeover of our democracy will tie the hands of bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will use this leeway to harm groups of people while they are out of power.
Society should not tolerant intolerance. We should not be complicit in our own destruction. If we want to keep our democracy then we must stand up to fascists who attempt to take it away. Even if this means engaging in civil disobedience. We should not want our institutions to be impartial between truths and falsehoods. We should want our institutions to be committed to the truth even if that means being biased against fascists.
Yes yes, big words and upset that you’ve been called out for wanting to undermine the institutions and lots of paragraphs bemoaning the big bad evil fascists.
and somehow instead of actually dealing with that, you want to undermine the mail service, which is totally not a thing that they want to do to interfere with elections or anything.
Weird how you decry fascists yet want the same damn thing as them, with the same damn tactics.
Ignoring my argument is not a refutation of my argument. However my argument is a refutation of your argument.
We should want to improve all of our institutions. Public institutions like the mail service are no exception.
Improving a thing is not the same as destroying a thing. We should improve our institutions by using our institutions. We should not replace democracy with a christo-fascist dictatorship. Falsely conflating these two different actions is not a compelling argument.
I’m ignoring your bloviating bullshit cause its already been refuted, despite it being a masquerade and irrelevant to the point of the topic at hand, all of which is nothing but an example of you desperately trying to distract from that topic.
And that topic is mail carriers not having the right to choose what gets delivered and what doesn’t based on personal feels and opinions, and that doing such deserves to be punished to prevent others from doing the same.
Something that, when you deign to acknowledge the topic at all, have argued against, because you agree with them, and you want to let government employees do whatever undermining, institutional destroying bad behaviors they want as long as you agree with it… Which is the core component of most right wing arguments “I agree with it there for its right and moral”
People can confirm these are false statements by reading what we wrote. It is self-evident.
No where in my argument do I advocate for these positions. The decision should be based on empirical evidence.
I cite sources in my comment here:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/16679003/10778009
Here is the link about gender affirming care:
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care