3 ms·

I don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.

by Hnrobert42 6y ago

peteradio 6y ago
> with integrity. What exactly do you think politics is?
- jshen 6y ago
  A non violent process through which differences are settled, ideally with at least a veil of integrity, or you’re likely to get the violence it was aimed to prevent.
- xg15 6y ago
  Yeah sorry, do you want fascism? Cause that's how you get fascism.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies. You may think it’s immoral or gross, but it’s in no way fascism. I hate how much that word gets thrown around nowadays.
    - vasachi 6y ago
      Oh no, fascism is always completely legal. Just morally wrong.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies. That's not a workable definition. At many points in history fascists were literally the ones writing the rules and laws. Also, it's not like the law is software proved with formal methods to prevent fascism. There are bugs and exploits that are only prevented from being problems by the integrity of political actors, and some of those can be pretty trivially discovered. The more integrity you remove, the higher the chance you end up with a configuration that results in something like fascism.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  You attempt to prevent a literal war of all against all by making various alliances and deals that please all but all small rump of violent extremists.
- newacct583 6y ago
  That's not helpful. There are "rules", and there are "norms". People follow the rules assuming that everyone is operating in good faith, and that everyone agrees the rules exist for the benefit of everyone. If rules are only there to be exploited, you end up with a disaster. I mean, sure, you can force through a nomination now and produce a wildly lopsided court. But then the democrats might just win the senate and presidency and decide that they can add four more justices. The rules allow that, too. Is that the world you want to live in?

I don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.

peteradio 6y ago

> with integrity. What exactly do you think politics is?

jshen 6y ago
A non violent process through which differences are settled, ideally with at least a veil of integrity, or you’re likely to get the violence it was aimed to prevent.
xg15 6y ago
Yeah sorry, do you want fascism? Cause that's how you get fascism.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies. You may think it’s immoral or gross, but it’s in no way fascism. I hate how much that word gets thrown around nowadays.
  - vasachi 6y ago
    Oh no, fascism is always completely legal. Just morally wrong.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies. That's not a workable definition. At many points in history fascists were literally the ones writing the rules and laws. Also, it's not like the law is software proved with formal methods to prevent fascism. There are bugs and exploits that are only prevented from being problems by the integrity of political actors, and some of those can be pretty trivially discovered. The more integrity you remove, the higher the chance you end up with a configuration that results in something like fascism.
earthboundkid 6y ago
You attempt to prevent a literal war of all against all by making various alliances and deals that please all but all small rump of violent extremists.
newacct583 6y ago
That's not helpful. There are "rules", and there are "norms". People follow the rules assuming that everyone is operating in good faith, and that everyone agrees the rules exist for the benefit of everyone. If rules are only there to be exploited, you end up with a disaster. I mean, sure, you can force through a nomination now and produce a wildly lopsided court. But then the democrats might just win the senate and presidency and decide that they can add four more justices. The rules allow that, too. Is that the world you want to live in?