3 ms·

Just a reminder that as far as Republicans are concerned it's the Democrats who are undermining the pillars that hold up our society. When everyone has a comple

Just a reminder that as far as Republicans are concerned it's the Democrats who are undermining the pillars that hold up our society. When everyone has a completely different list of those pillars I tend to assume that the system is actually quite resilient.

pdonis 2y ago
> the system is actually quite resilient "Resilient" in the sense of keeping itself going, and the politicians who benefit from it in office, yes. That doesn't mean the government is actually doing a good job at what it's supposed to be doing according to the Constitution. We the people, on the other hand, I think are indeed much more resilient than the "elites" give us credit for being.
falcolas 2y ago
The pillar in question - the judiciary - will be hit pretty hard by the two-hit-combo of the removal of the statue of limitations for challenging regulations, and courts having the burden of going through an entire trial instead of a quick hearing. Granted, it's not the judiciary who will really suffer, it's the people who use the judiciary as their wait time skyrockets. The pillar might not fall, but people are probably going to fall off of it.
malcolmgreaves 2y ago
Not all perspectives are equal. Do you consider a flat earther's perspective to be equal to a scientist's?
- lolinder 2y ago
  I consider any perspective held by approximately 50% of the population to be worth the time it takes for me to understand it and accurately articulate it. This comment exemplifies the kind of unthinking elitism that landed us with Trump in the first place. You treat half the population of the United States as non-persons whose perspective you can't be bothered to even attempt to understand and then you're surprised when they elect an extreme candidate rather than try to engage with you?
  - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
    So… Is this your long-winded way of admitting that you would actually entertain a flat earther’s opinion to be equivalent to a scientist’s? Not sure there’s any other way to interpret what you wrote other than you think reality takes a back seat to a popularity contest fueled by lies.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - lolinder 2y ago
      I think that when you disagree with 50% of the population you should at least take the time to actually understand what they believe instead of just inventing your own caricatures. You might actually learn something, and even if your views remain unchanged simple self preservation calls for you to understand the people who are consistently voting out your preferred platform. Beating a straw man is easy but doesn't accomplish anything.

pdonis 2y ago

> the system is actually quite resilient "Resilient" in the sense of keeping itself going, and the politicians who benefit from it in office, yes. That doesn't mean the government is actually doing a good job at what it's supposed to be doing according to the Constitution. We the people, on the other hand, I think are indeed much more resilient than the "elites" give us credit for being.

falcolas 2y ago

The pillar in question - the judiciary - will be hit pretty hard by the two-hit-combo of the removal of the statue of limitations for challenging regulations, and courts having the burden of going through an entire trial instead of a quick hearing. Granted, it's not the judiciary who will really suffer, it's the people who use the judiciary as their wait time skyrockets. The pillar might not fall, but people are probably going to fall off of it.

malcolmgreaves 2y ago

Not all perspectives are equal. Do you consider a flat earther's perspective to be equal to a scientist's?

lolinder 2y ago
I consider any perspective held by approximately 50% of the population to be worth the time it takes for me to understand it and accurately articulate it. This comment exemplifies the kind of unthinking elitism that landed us with Trump in the first place. You treat half the population of the United States as non-persons whose perspective you can't be bothered to even attempt to understand and then you're surprised when they elect an extreme candidate rather than try to engage with you?
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago
  So… Is this your long-winded way of admitting that you would actually entertain a flat earther’s opinion to be equivalent to a scientist’s? Not sure there’s any other way to interpret what you wrote other than you think reality takes a back seat to a popularity contest fueled by lies.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I think that when you disagree with 50% of the population you should at least take the time to actually understand what they believe instead of just inventing your own caricatures. You might actually learn something, and even if your views remain unchanged simple self preservation calls for you to understand the people who are consistently voting out your preferred platform. Beating a straw man is easy but doesn't accomplish anything.