• trolololol@lemmy.world
    5·
    5 hours ago

    In my country you need to be accused of being a communist in order to be arrested. Well sometimes there were no accusations just arrests, but at least we were an official dictatorship.

    Signed: anywhere in South America in the 80s. Thanks Obama McArthur

    Epiphany: are climate scientists a tool of communist hoaxes? Dang, you’re all getting arrested soon aren’t y’all

    • zildjiandrummer1@lemmy.world
      9·
      7 hours ago

      Gonna get downvoted, but conservative ideals should be present to some minor extent to balance things out. I don’t mean modern conservatives or Republicans, but the concept of fiscal conservatism (e.g. preventing waste in the military). I’m not talking about the fIsCaL cOnSeRvAtIsM that current Republicans preach either, like hollowing out social programs to give tax cuts to their buddies. So yeah that’s of course not what we have now, but there should be a healthy balance for that kind of thing.

      • SolidShake@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 hour ago

        You won’t get downvoted. Ideally you’d have both parties suck it up and work together and combine ideologies. But… well you know… Babies

      • Transtronaut
        20·
        6 hours ago

        The problem is that what you describe is not conservatism, it’s just basic competence in governance. It’s an impressive achievement of the radical right that they have managed to get people to conflate the two.

        • zildjiandrummer1@lemmy.world
          3·
          5 hours ago

          Sure that’s fair. Whatever you want to label it, there needs to be some kind of balances against full progressivism so it doesn’t go extremely far to the left. I say this as a pretty far left progressive in most things, but have some minor conservative ideals (such as individuals wanting to support themselves without relying on outside sources). Again, I’m well aware that’s not modern Conservatism in the US these days.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    87·
    14 hours ago

    Nervous laughing … as the police keep pounding at my door

    Yeah, it’s going to be hilarious to be fighting in WWIII while everyone tries to convince themselves that it isn’t WWIII

    • peregrin5@lemm.eeEnglish
      70·
      14 hours ago

      Hopefully it’s just Civil War II and not WWIII. The rest of the world doesn’t deserve to be dragged into our shit.

      • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        14 hours ago

        Whether it’s because of us or fascism is just trending globally, the rest of the world is already thoroughly dragged into our shit. We’re not the only ones having this fight, we’re just the most-visible and possibly farthest-along outside of Russia, Turkmenistan, North Korea, etc.

      • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
        12·
        14 hours ago

        It will be WWIII either way. A US civil war would leave a massive power vacuum, and a whole bunch of candidates trying to fill it.

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        12 hours ago

        … like I said WWIII while everyone tries to convince themselves that it isn’t WWIII

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        12 hours ago

        [breaks down the door] … never realizing or admitting that they have the wrong house

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            1·
            9 hours ago

            Ok then. Why don’t you explain to the class what conditions are requires to sensitive, since you seem pedantically obtuse to getting the point of why people might leave specific details out.

            • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              9 hours ago

              Edit: I originally had a very hostile response here because the “obtuse” comment struck a nerve.

              Some people aren’t “obtuse” by choice.

              Many people, especially neurodiverse ones, look at your behavior and find it “obtuse” if not outright disingenuous and obfuscatory.

              I realized you may also be feeling frustrated and maybe didn’t mean to be uncharitable and hostile to differently operating minds.

              I may not understand what you were trying to imply, but it crossed my mind that this may be beside the point because the actual point is that we’re living in a situation where, if people actually said out loud what was REALLY on their minds, it would get them in trouble. And this is because the world is extremely dangerous and volatile right now, we’re all probably feeling very much IN DANGER from it, and not being able to talk about it honestly and plainly is indeed VERY PAINFUL.

              So I retract my reflexive and poorly considered demand that you explain yourself, and I merely instead suggest that the person you were responding to wasn’t trying to entrap you. I was just as confused about the implication as they were, I surmise, but merely knowing that the implications are … “Spicy” … is enough.

              Sorry for being mean about it.