• MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    So basically mob-justice.

    Because witch hunts have never gone wrong and were always justified.

    “This man loves other men, that’s weird, let’s kill him.” - apparently no one ever

    Also relevant meme: 4f16b8fa-df8d-4462-8eaa-c8e526a647fb

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      “justice is not handed down from above and is therefore unfair” < words of the utterly deranged

      • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        8 months ago

        You mean the process, that is democratically decided by elections with a bunch of checks and balances in the process?

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Just lol. Is that why there’s billionaires hoarding all the wealth while billions starve? Is that why Palestine is being genocided? Is that why we’re headed full-steam for a climate apocalypse?

          There’s no “democracy” nor “checks and balances”. There’s only a sad farce.

          • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes, because the democratic nations have democratically decided, that we want to consume more than is wise, that we want to retaliate for Oct 7 and that private property is cool, even if a few have more.

            I agree, that mob-rule would remove billionaires, but how would it stop climate change, if there are no regulations against emissions?

            Palestinians idk. In nationless anarchy it would not be a structured military, but let’s not pretend there wouldn’t be massive amounts of bloodshed.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              None of that is “democratically elected”. Those elections are a farce and I would go as far as to argue that no democracy which decides to kill 30.000 children and perform genocide is legitimate.

              And nobody is talking about “mob rule”. We’re talking about anarchism.

              • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Idk, what to tell you m8, but your idea of what’s happening in the middle east seems way off.

                Among Jewish interviewees, 88% give a positive assessment of the performance of IDF forces in the war until now.

                source

                The majority of Israelis want the war.

                • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Which is why this “democracy” is a farce. Thanks for proving my point.

            • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Half elected officials with power are appointed not elected. The Supreme Court took away women’s bodily autonomy. There was no popular vote for any of them not a single one. Also just because I vote someone in doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do. Wouldn’t it be more expedient to just use direct democracy so I can actually have a say?

              “Your options are conservative A or B, and whatever actions they take are necessarily ones you voted for and agree with!”

              • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                OK, that’s some US issues.

                But if enough people want something, it’ll happen. It’s just that 50% of the US hates the other 50% and vice versa.

                Abortion has long been a contentious issue and will probably be a big part of the election. Republicans are currently shooting themselves in the foot with that.

                • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  If enough people want something it’ll happen… how? Like no seriously how? Is there some reason that the people shouldn’t be allowed to directly vote on things? Are you saying that elected officials are reliable in implementing the needs of their constituents? Why is politics so contentious then?

                  • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I don’t think there is a moral reason against direct democracy. You just need enough people to get on board with the idea. But in america the Republicans would loose a lot of power, so they won’t vote for it.

                    Elected officials are relatively reliable. Maybe not for needs, but for wants. Biden for example made increasing demands of Israel, as popular opinion (of his voterbase) shifted. Sadly nobody cares about smaller issues, so there isn’t really pressure to change e.g. right to repair. Maybe on local level smaller stuff can change.

                    Politics is so contentious, because the algorithms feed us different realities. If I was reading conservative news 24/7 I might also start thinking that climate change doesn’t exist, the gays are coming for my children etc.

                    There is similar stuff on the left, just not as widespread. Democratic voters are on average moderate CNN-watching boomers.

                    No idea how to fix this. Similar issues are starting here in Germany, but a bit less. I think the “Tagesschau” and similar news are probably a big reason Germany is relatively moderate compared to others.

            • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yes, because the democratic nations have democratically decided, that we want to consume more than is wise, that we want to retaliate for Oct 7 and that private property is cool, even if a few have more.

              Which party is against this? I live in a blue state in America and will gladly vote for them.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Homophobia comes mainly from the will to govern over other people, by shaming their natural and harmless sexual behavior, and is often dictated by some religion. As power structures like to cooperate, be they corporations, states, or churches; sometimes they like to push each others.

      Before you ask: yes, some corporations are doing pride shit to appeal to a wider audience and legitimize their power in the modern world. But others like Xitter are helping state and church powers, as they have a common interest in keeping and expanding their own power.

      If you also ask: many churches flourish when the state defunds social safety networks, as they can step in to replace them with church-based charities. I work in a state-owned retirement home, and I can first-hand experience it. Secularism is very compromised as churches had to step in to donate stuff, but that was never a charity, as they demanded the secular state of the institution to slowly eroding, because “religion provides comfort to the soul”, and thus mental health care gets the axe first.

      Authoritarians in general are excel in giving simple answers to complicated questions. Science? No, god did it. Our economical system is inherently flawed? No, a cabal of evil Jews that don’t want to go back to the holy land did it. An anti-authoritarian project failed due to complicated reasons? No, they simply weren’t authoritarian, and didn’t have a good tyrant to stop the bad tyrants.

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which would you rather? One king/governed/whoever that says being gay is bad, or a majority of the population that says being gay is bad?

      At least in the second example, you have >50% of the population being happy. And more likely >80% would be happy otherwise you’d just have the 49% fight back and make life miserable for everyone.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you had 50% saying stuff like that, you wouldn’t even have an anarchist society anyway.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Exactly. We have ~50% saying that now, whoch is why I think an anarchist society on a large scale isn’t feasible to transition to anytime within the next few decades at least.

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            There’s years in which nothing happens, and then there’s weeks in which years happen. Don’t underestimate how quickly radicalization can happen.

                • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Who’s “we”? <1% of the population? Good luck enforcing your views, we can’t even enforce democracy with a majority (debatably) that believes in it.

                  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    An anarchist revolution won’t happen until we have enough people doing anarchist praxis anyway. My point is that material circumstances quickly radicalize people. I don’t necessarily think there’s much hope for the US to avoid civil war at this point, but in any case if the radicalization happens to be towards anarchist praxis, then you won’t get another leader on top.

                    I don’t know what you tell you mate, I don’t have an answer to your nihilism. Either perform and agitate for an anarchist praxis to avoid a new dictator, or passively vote and wait for the inevitable fascist decent. It’s your choice in the end.