• Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    America isn’t a democracy. It’s a Republic. Try again with Europe or other democratic nations.

    :chefs-kiss: a bonafide classic, the yankee liberal’s ultimate retreat-and-defend move

      • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        “the great mass of people don’t have any power”

        “ah but we’re not supposed to. we’re just not a monarchy”

        not the airtight case they think it is

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. They wrote a masturbatory declaration of independence about how this will be the land of personal freedom and individual rights. It’s America’s big thing, its source of national pride.

        The same people who believe that, the people who fetishize Benjamin Franklin and blabber endlessly about the Federalist Papers and watch the Hamilton musical weekly, will then turn around and say America was not even intended to be democratic from the beginning. They hold two wholly incompatible mythologies.

        Quote from the American Declaration of Independence:

        … to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

        This is clearly a call for a democracy. Chuds can squabble about what kind of democracy it was intended to be (no need to bring up the practical absence of genuine democracy) but the intent has always been unambiguous.

        • The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers.

          It was a myth in the sense that it was what the revolutionaries told themselves. But I don’t think it was a myth in that it was false. The people writing those proclamations were bourgeois and it was a bourgeois revolution they were supporting. If you look at American mythos as only applying to land owning white men, as was intended, it’s a lot easier to see that the founders likely meant what they said, just not seeing anyone outside of their intended ruling class as people deserving of the same considerations.

          • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            Totally right. By mythology I meant not necessarily the history, but the collective view of that history which has turned the events and characters into a quasi-religion. Like all myths, there is a kernel of truth.

    • davel [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

  • pooh [she/her, love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

    Albert Einstein agreed and he seemed like a pretty smart dude:

    Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

      • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Stalin, really? But I thought he would be critical of Stalin, considering he thought Lenin’s policies were unadvisable but necessary as a last resort, and he supports Lenin, so I thought Einstein wouldn’t be too keen on Stalin but just rather critically supportive…

        Edit: I edited my comments for clarification

        • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No. Einstein was a lifelong defender of the Bolsheviks, and stood by Stalin even during and after the purges. The man staunchly supported USSR even when it became controversial post-ww2. He is the highest profile advocate of the USSR during ww2.

          Given that he was a socialist before ww2 began and that the USSR rescued jews it actually shouldn’t be that surprising that a jew who lived in germany during the peak of antisemitism before the war and escaped the nazis would be quite supportive of Stalin.

          We don’t know too much about his opinion of lenin’s policies, he was vague about it. I prefer to think he sees Lenin’s approach as unadvisable because of how incredibly difficult it was and how Lenin spent his entire life on it, sacrificing himself, and arguably cut his life short. Most people think the wound he took in the attempted assassination probably contributed to his early death.

    • flan [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communists existing makes people very mad because it gives them cognitive dissonance. It’s basically the same thing as vegans existing.

    • RaspberryTuba [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re literally getting pissy because the devs won’t build a block of hexbear into the software itself. Great liberal values. (And an incredibly poor understanding of how FOSS development works.)

  • ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The server returned this error: couldnt_find_post.

    Fucking loser deleted the post. Moron probably realized how stupid this shit is, maybe I really should make an account on lemmy.ml or something so I can bully them (or they stop being a coward and make an account in an instance that doesn’t defed lemmygrad would also work thinking-about-it )

    (also yes I checked, they deleted it, not SJW admins):

    Edit: they found this post lmao

  • ScrewdriverFactoryFactoryProvider [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Capitalism is fully democratic for the bourgeoisie. Liberal democracy was conceived as a means of self-rule for the emerging bourgeois class. It’s a mechanism for resolving intra-class conflict. In the US, the inclusion of proletarians, POC, and non-men are completely incidental results of class war, allowing political mechanisms to take a hit in lieu of economic mechanisms.

    • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was, but even this is breaking down due to the increasing wealth inequality even within bourgeoisie and the mechanisms that were created to control lower classes’ participation in politics like capitalist media, electoral college, anticommunist, pro-status-quo propaganda and similar things that had got a life of their own and are eating even into mechanism of bourgeois self-rule, hindering their effectiveness. Like old realistic ghouls like Kissinger being replaced with complete idiots who have bought into their own propaganda.