Isn’t that a picture of kamala?

I bet the party has sufficient power to restrict access to birth control. Seems crazy to consider, but if things got serious enough, I feel like they are capable of doing it.

That wasn’t so hard, was it? People tripping over themselves to find a gotcha and forgetting to use a little common sense.

Well it does pledge to the republic and to the values of the republic. Which is appropriate for a republic.

Lemmy and reddit are closets in one room of one floor of one building, where they kick out anyone who won’t scream “Fire!” along with them. Those are echo chambers. Anyone telling you that half of the country is fascist, is pushing an agenda and using fear to influence you. Or they have been influenced and are simply propagating the propaganda.

Lol are you serious? You gotta step outside the echo chamber every now and then.

It’s for their own party members, same reason Democrats call Republicans fascists.

They tried that with me once, but I showed them and got a different job.

Government can throw you in jail.

Yes, or lemmy.

This is not what a matriarchy would look like at all, since men are physically stronger overall. A matriarchal society would have to be based on respect or some other acknowledgement by men that women should lead, since a domineering, physical, might-makes-right society would not end up this way. Not sure why or how (some) women feel the need to physically subjugate men and rule on men’s terms, to use the rules of patriarchy to form a matriarchal society. It simply can’t work.

No, actually most people aren’t blood thirsty lunatics who are willing to kill their political opposition. Most people are able to disagree with others without wanting them dead.

I guess it comes down to whether the laws are just or unjust, if the state that makes the laws is good or bad. When you have a clash of cultures that are not compatible with each other, or different states with incompatible ideas, there will be a winner and a loser, where the winner makes the laws and therefore determines what constitutes “terrorism”. But just because one culture won, doesn’t mean that it is just or good. It could be the good guys in charge, or just as easily the bad guys. It depends not so much on good or bad, but on military power. So how do you know when it’s the good guys in charge? If the “bad guys” of today, the “terrorists”, were in charge instead and you and I were on the other end of the power dynamic, would it be a better world? Would we be resorting to violence against citizens and against the state in order to further our political cause? Hard to say. Most of us would probably assimilate into their culture, but certainly some of us would be the new resistance, the new terrorists, killing innocents because we believed that strongly in our cause.

But this is all based on the assumption that laws and power dynamics will always exist, that they are in fact necessary. Someone will always be in charge, and others will wish they were, and will be willing to resort to violence to get the power or to break the laws. Do you envision a world where power dynamics and laws don’t exist? I can’t see it.

Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don’t recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.

No, but I’m also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn’t really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it’s more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I’m just not sure what you mean.

This is the standard that was applied when a few nazi flags showed up at convoy rallies. You either need to reclaim the cause for your protest, or admit that it actually stands for something else and then ask yourself if you want to be part of that.

It’s entirely possible that the question has never been considered, and that it is technically legal. In that case we should probably close that gap, and soonish.

The problem with politics on lemmy is that it isn’t a discussion at all, but a one-sided circle jerk. Almost every post is some flavor of Right Wing Bad, and any attempt at nuance or calling out hypocrisy results in a sea of downvotes and what appears to be shadow bans. There are no dissenting opinions allowed. If you spend your time consuming heavily moderated and filters content, it’s going to produce anxiety. But more importantly, it isn’t even reality.

A million? How did you get that number? How many died directly as a result of covid? (Estimated 1.2 million total, depending on your source) And how many of them actually could have been prevented if everyone got vaccinated as soon as they could have? How many died from covid despite being vaccinated? It’s not like it was available or even as effective as everyone initially hoped. It actually blows my mind that everyone forgot how evil and influential the pharmaceutical industry is, the lengths they would go to, how absolutely filthy rich they got. I remember for decades they got in trouble for fudging efficacy data or even straight up fabricating, bribing politicians and doctors, and now years later we still got people like you going to bat for them. White knighting for big pharma… what a world.

I tried finding numbers on how many could have been saved if everyone got vaccinated who could have been, but they vary wildly depending on assumptions. Most of the answers to my questions above can’t even be found because nobody did the math besides sources you would diregard anyway. Boy do I ever wish we could have an honest conversation about it instead of political partisanship coloring everything about it.

Yes well, there is always a way to justify actions you support and condemn those that you don’t support. The only way to avoid an authoritarian regime of one kind or the other is to hold certain rights to be inviolable and above the scope of government. If you give the government power to remove your rights under certain circumstances then they will create those circumstances in order to use that power. Come on, you know this. And even if was for a cause you support this time, next time it might not be.