4 ms·
America has corrupt elections. From Gerrymandering, Voter Database purges, Voter Suppression through closing polling places, making it hard or impossible to vo
by Jonnax 6y ago
America has corrupt elections.
From Gerrymandering, Voter Database purges, Voter Suppression through closing polling places, making it hard or impossible to vote by mail.
All of it is intentional.
And it won't change because those who are elected are the ones that set the rules.
- sneak 6y agoIt can absolutely change if those who are elected are physically removed from their rule-setting positions by the disenfranchised. Historically, you can’t cure fascism by voting, even in situations where the elections haven’t been compromised.
- pc86 6y agoJust to be clear, you are advocating removing government officials by violent means? Please explain the difference between that and domestic terrorism. To say American elections are "compromised" is both a gross exaggeration and a Dunning-Krugeresque oversimplification. Gerrymandering is absolutely a problem and needs to be dealt with. It's the primary (no pun intended) reason for the polarization of our elected officials. Having a non-partisan commission determine districts would help, but how to appoint those officials is not a solved problem.
- sneak 6y agoMy comment didn’t advocate for anything; I am not sure where you got that from.
- pc86 6y ago> if those who are elected are physically removed from their rule-setting positions > you can’t cure fascism by voting Perhaps advocating was the wrong word but I only see one way to interpret those two statements side-by-side.
- sneak 6y agoIt seems common for Americans to read or hear statements, infer an unsaid statement X, and then assume X was the thing explicitly being communicated by the speaker, even though X was never said, which then elevates X higher than any other thing that was actually said. It seems to happen automatically and without conscious decision to do so. I’ve written about it before. You should probably be aware of this habit/bias, because I think you may have just performed it. https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/ https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/ If and when the time comes to take up violence against the state, you may rest assured that I will not be subtly implying it, I will be shouting it loudly.
- piva00 6y agoYou are building a strawman, the observation from OP in no way condones any violent attitude. It is a historical fact that authoritarianism in general (monarchies, despots and so on) has only been brought down through violence, the comment you are replying does not advocate or imply that, you are the one reading that. Malice is in the eye of the beholder.
- pc86 6y agoI'm not building a strawman (at least not intentionally!), and I don't mean to imply malice. Believing in violent overthrow of a tyrannical government is a perfectly logical belief, albeit one that will get you in trouble with said government. For most people, there is a point at which they would take up arms against their own government. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing. Is there any other way to take the comment in question?
- piva00 6y agoSo I did create a strawman, I'm sorry for that.
- Schiendelman 6y agoYou raise an interesting point: How would you differentiate revolution against a fascist government from terrorism?
- pc86 6y agomlonkibjuyhv has it exactly right, I think. At their outset, revolutions and [domestic] terrorism are usually indistinguishable. The American Revolution was certainly viewed as terrorism by the Crown, whether they had that word for it or not. History is written by the victors, and to a certain extent the worthiness of your cause is determined decades or centuries later by whether or not you were successful.
- Schiendelman 6y agoThat makes sense. In that case, then, is saying something 'is domestic terrorism' the right test of whether it's the right thing to do? It sounds to me like if you used that gauge you'd never overthrow a fascist government.
- mlonkibjuyhv 6y agoWell that is easy. If you succeed it is a violent revolution, if you fail it is domestic terrorism. Nothing new here.
- pas 6y ago> Historically, you can’t cure fascism by voting, even in situations where the elections haven’t been compromised. Could you show/explain what kind of data do we have on this? How sure are we of this result?
- Grue3 6y agoIf voting doesn't matter, why do authoritarian governments try so damn hard to suppress it? Riddle me this.
- sneak 6y agoThe appearance of legitimacy helps dictatorial regimes a lot. They try to suppress it because a lot of people do it. The fewer people who vote and their vote doesn’t match the person or group who remains in power, the less crowd control that needs to be carried out with troops and violence after the election, the fewer inconvenient facts about post-election violence that need to be explained away to the supportive base with narratives and lies. Even authoritarians don’t like spending money they don’t have to. They also try to suppress protest groups of any kind directed at any branch of the state, economic privacy, obtaining arms, private communications systems, and any and all things that might pose any kind of threat, even if only one to their image of legitimacy (such as pepper spraying peaceful protesters if protests get too large). The election outcome, if favorable to the violent dictatorship, will be publicized widely and attempts to dispute it shut down. If unfavorable, discredited and disregarded, and any protests against it swiftly and violently quashed.