3 ms·
You can try to dismiss the fact that circumventing debate and transparency in government is authoritarian as Godwin and run your apologetics for such authoritar
by 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 agoThis 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 agoI 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?