3 ms·

"It doesn't work, make it worse" is what I hear here. These are the kind of arguments that move states further towards fascism.

slg 7y ago
That is a misinterpretation of my comment. To reframe it using your language "It doesn't work now and is actively hurting us during times of emergency, so does removing this requirement make it worse?" No one here has yet to put together a convincing argument on the real world ramifications of debate on the Senate floor. I am open to changing my position on this, but I need to hear a stronger argument than someone proving Godwin's law.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  You can try to dismiss the fact that circumventing debate and transparency in government is authoritarian as Godwin and run your apologetics for such authoritarianism while two countries have just slipped into literal fascism and fascist parties literally founded by retired Nazis are pulling 25% in some European countries if you want.
  - javagram 7y ago
    This is ridiculous. Senators don’t have to literally be on the senate floor to debate, it’s the 21st century. This has nothing to do with nazism anymore than all the companies who have moved their work meetings to Zoom have become Nazis. Never mind that the “debate” on the floor is just them making speeches to to the TV camera, something they could just as easily do from home - and often do by calling into cable news or major broadcast networks. Often the speeches they are making are to a nearly empty chamber as well - you’re not seeing actual debate in most cases, the other side isn’t there listening and considering the arguments.
  - slg 7y ago
    I asked you for a reason and your answer was basically "do it my way or you are a fascist." I am happy to engage in debate or change my mind on this issue, but I need something more specific and tangible than allusions to "debate and transparency". How do these speeches on the Senate floor lead to debate and transparency in ways that can't be replicated remotely?

slg 7y ago

That is a misinterpretation of my comment. To reframe it using your language "It doesn't work now and is actively hurting us during times of emergency, so does removing this requirement make it worse?" No one here has yet to put together a convincing argument on the real world ramifications of debate on the Senate floor. I am open to changing my position on this, but I need to hear a stronger argument than someone proving Godwin's law.

guerrilla 7y ago
You can try to dismiss the fact that circumventing debate and transparency in government is authoritarian as Godwin and run your apologetics for such authoritarianism while two countries have just slipped into literal fascism and fascist parties literally founded by retired Nazis are pulling 25% in some European countries if you want.
- javagram 7y ago
  This is ridiculous. Senators don’t have to literally be on the senate floor to debate, it’s the 21st century. This has nothing to do with nazism anymore than all the companies who have moved their work meetings to Zoom have become Nazis. Never mind that the “debate” on the floor is just them making speeches to to the TV camera, something they could just as easily do from home - and often do by calling into cable news or major broadcast networks. Often the speeches they are making are to a nearly empty chamber as well - you’re not seeing actual debate in most cases, the other side isn’t there listening and considering the arguments.
- slg 7y ago
  I asked you for a reason and your answer was basically "do it my way or you are a fascist." I am happy to engage in debate or change my mind on this issue, but I need something more specific and tangible than allusions to "debate and transparency". How do these speeches on the Senate floor lead to debate and transparency in ways that can't be replicated remotely?