Your argument gets into a common neoliberal talking point about our institutions. That they are infallible and that any attempt at systemic change would destroy them.
I dont know who’se fucking posts you’ve been reading, but they clearly werent mine if thats your conclusion you came to.
But then again, given your general right wing argument style of “Its okay to do bad things as long as I agree with them, who gives a fuck about consequences down the road”, I’m not entirely surprised you are choosing to respond to a imaginary arguments instead of mine.
These were in your argument. I assessed them as part of a neoliberal argument.
You are still, ultimately, arguing for the destruction of our institutions by trying to give the people you agree with special privilege to do wrong that you agree with.
This gets at the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the paradox of tolerance is how should a tolerant society deal with intolerant people or groups. By reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty, we can resolve the paradox. If a group of people, such as fascists, decided to be intolerant, they have broken the social contract of tolerance. Having broken the agreement, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement. Thus their speech in the case of the targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is not protected speech.
So denying the fascists the ability to use the mail in this way is not special treatment, but a refusal by society to tolerate intolerance. Ideally we would have systems in place to prevent disinformation campaigns, but we should rather have individuals exercising civil disobedience than nothing at all. There is no point in an institution such as the mail existing as it does now if it’s going to be used to deny people the fundamental right to exist.
My argument would be the same, That they would need to be punished severely to protect the institution of the US Postal Service, in order to prevent other bad actors from doing more of the same and destroying it from the inside.
Bad-faith actors do not care about being punished. The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life. We should not put institutions above the way of life that they are supposed to foster. To do so would defeat the purpose of the institutions.
You are as much a cancer and threat to our institutions as all the other bad actors.
The argument that sounds right wing is yours. edit: typo
The mail carriers deliver the mail. They do not censor it based on personal feelings.
The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life
He says, literally trying to undermine the institutions by arguing to allow people to undermine them, as long as he agrees with their undermining
The argument that sounds right wing is yours
Yes yes, Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Your entire argument boils down not in favor of justice, accountability and integrity, but in favor of “Let people undermine things as long as I agree with it”.
Fascists getting people killed with a disinformation campaign is not feelings. We do not have to tolerate intolerance in order to be a tolerant society. We can make the strategic decision to defend ourselves and our liberty from fascists who want to destroy us.
He says, literally trying to undermine the institutions by arguing to allow people to undermine them, as long as he agrees with their undermining
FYI I’m a woman. I’ll add my pronouns to my bio.
Eventually there won’t be a mail service if fascists kill us all.
Yes yes, Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
This is what your argument is doing.
justice, accountability and integrity
None of these ideals are embodied by a life-threatening disinformation campaign or those who would knowingly let such a campaign slide.
Changing an institution to improve the institution is constructive. Keeping an institution the same when its flaws will cause the institution to collapse is destructive.
Standing up to fascists doesn’t make us fascists. Changing flawed institutions for the better is not the same as destroying them. The way things are is how we go here. Keeping them that way is how things will get worse.
and the only flaw you can come up with is that mail carriers might be punished for doing wrong that you agree with. Wrongs that, as long as you agree with, somehow magically are not wrongs in your view.
You have argued for more fascist control of the mail than any right winger I’ve ever heard of.
Again, you and the bullshit you are trying to hide behind honeyed words are a far larger, and more immediate threat to everything.
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?
I dont know who’se fucking posts you’ve been reading, but they clearly werent mine if thats your conclusion you came to.
But then again, given your general right wing argument style of “Its okay to do bad things as long as I agree with them, who gives a fuck about consequences down the road”, I’m not entirely surprised you are choosing to respond to a imaginary arguments instead of mine.
These were in your argument. I assessed them as part of a neoliberal argument.
This gets at the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the paradox of tolerance is how should a tolerant society deal with intolerant people or groups. By reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty, we can resolve the paradox. If a group of people, such as fascists, decided to be intolerant, they have broken the social contract of tolerance. Having broken the agreement, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement. Thus their speech in the case of the targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is not protected speech.
So denying the fascists the ability to use the mail in this way is not special treatment, but a refusal by society to tolerate intolerance. Ideally we would have systems in place to prevent disinformation campaigns, but we should rather have individuals exercising civil disobedience than nothing at all. There is no point in an institution such as the mail existing as it does now if it’s going to be used to deny people the fundamental right to exist.
Bad-faith actors do not care about being punished. The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life. We should not put institutions above the way of life that they are supposed to foster. To do so would defeat the purpose of the institutions.
The argument that sounds right wing is yours. edit: typo
No, it doesnt. You’re again being disingenuous.
There is no paradox.
The mail carriers deliver the mail. They do not censor it based on personal feelings.
He says, literally trying to undermine the institutions by arguing to allow people to undermine them, as long as he agrees with their undermining
Yes yes, Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Your entire argument boils down not in favor of justice, accountability and integrity, but in favor of “Let people undermine things as long as I agree with it”.
Fascists getting people killed with a disinformation campaign is not feelings. We do not have to tolerate intolerance in order to be a tolerant society. We can make the strategic decision to defend ourselves and our liberty from fascists who want to destroy us.
FYI I’m a woman. I’ll add my pronouns to my bio.
Eventually there won’t be a mail service if fascists kill us all.
This is what your argument is doing.
None of these ideals are embodied by a life-threatening disinformation campaign or those who would knowingly let such a campaign slide.
Only because people like you are actively arguing to undermine and destroy it. And you’ll have it done before the fascists can.
Changing an institution to improve the institution is constructive. Keeping an institution the same when its flaws will cause the institution to collapse is destructive.
Standing up to fascists doesn’t make us fascists. Changing flawed institutions for the better is not the same as destroying them. The way things are is how we go here. Keeping them that way is how things will get worse.
and the only flaw you can come up with is that mail carriers might be punished for doing wrong that you agree with. Wrongs that, as long as you agree with, somehow magically are not wrongs in your view.
You have argued for more fascist control of the mail than any right winger I’ve ever heard of.
Again, you and the bullshit you are trying to hide behind honeyed words are a far larger, and more immediate threat to everything.
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?