• MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      7 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
        ·
        7 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
          ·
          7 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
            7 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
              ·
              7 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
                7 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
                  ·
                  7 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
                    7 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
                7 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
                  ·
                  7 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
                    7 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?

              • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 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
        ·
        7 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.