6 ms·

As a German outside observer I can tell you there is only one side going down the facist path. The "other side" isn't great either. Would be great to have a sa

As a German outside observer I can tell you there is only one side going down the facist path. The "other side" isn't great either. Would be great to have a sane alternative, I guess.

Amezarak 1y ago
Perhaps you are not aware that the “other side” declared Constitutional amendments by fiat, assassinated American citizens with drone strikes, lied to the courts to imprison influential Twitter users, used intelligence agencies to spy on Congress, dramatically expanded the surveillance state, declared by EO they simply wouldn’t enforce some laws on favored demographics, ordered social media companies to censor and ban users, locked people down unless they were protesting for approved causes, and engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of their enemies. Authoritarianism is not a “one side” problem in the US and until we collectively figure that out each side will continue increasing it, all in the name of stopping the other sides’ extremists.
- immibis 1y ago
  The "same side" does all of that but also a bunch more bad stuff. The equlibrium that is always reached in a first-past-the-post voting system is two parties that are mostly the same, and you vote for a party that's only slightly more of what you want (because those are the options) and your vote tells both parties which direction to move in, to chase more votes. If the party that drone strikes its own citizens and imprisons Twitter users consistently gets more votes than the party that drone strikes its own citizens, imprisons Twitter users, and builds concentration camps, then the latter party will quickly figure out that the only way to win is to drone strike its own citizens, but not imprison Twitter users, or build concentration camps. And then the former party (now losing) figures out that doing none of the above is the way to win, but maybe they still tap all communications. And so on... We got to the point we're at today step by step, with people voting for one new measure at a time, and parties taking notice of what measures people consistently vote for. The current parties did not spring fully-formed out of Zeus's forehead.
- thrance 1y ago
  Got sources for any of that?
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    Constitutional amendments by fiat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/biden-declares-there-is-now-28th-amendment-there-is-not https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/biden-dec... Assassinated Americans with drone strikes: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-kill... Lied to the courts to imprison Twitter users: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.967e555c-f886-40bc-a39d-a20a05455ce3/gov.uscourts.ca2.967e555c-f886-40bc-a39d-a20a05455ce3.137.1_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.967... Used intelligence agencies to spy on Congress: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief-history-of-the-cias-unpunished-spying-on-the-senate/384003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief... Expanded mass surveillance: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-government-surveillance-then-and-now/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gov... EO declaring that some laws would not be enforced on favored demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DACA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DACA Ordered social media companies to censor and ban users: https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-files https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerberg-joe-rogan-biden-officials-scream-curse-facebook-rcna187199 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerbe... Locked people down unless they were protesting for approved causes: referring to the BLM protests > engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of their enemies. Another reference to the Mackey case and the novel legal theories required prosecute Trump in NY, and the now known to be false constructiion of the Russia narrative. Look, many or all of these things may have been for a good cause, a good end. But the problem we're talking about is the means. Now people are using the same means for different ends. Everyone has to agree authoritarianism is bad even when it’s for really good ends or this will continue to escalate.
brightball 1y ago
I think the sane alternative has long been modeled by the US Constitution. The real test is how any model handles corruption and expunges it because no matter the ideology, people are in charge and people are corruptible. The only real model that can work is one that minimizes the power of those in charge.
- larrydag 1y ago
  The US Constitutional government is meant to be slow, methodical and gridlocked. It is supposed to take enormous compromise to get any decision created into law.
- Schnitz 1y ago
  The US constitution is outdated and vulnerable. Modern constitutions like Germany’s basic law are a lot more resilient. We are watching the US constitution fail right now, it didn’t even take smart men to start dismantling it. I hope I’ll be proven wrong, but what indications do you see right now that the US constitution is performing as intended?
  - haswell 1y ago
    I’m unfamiliar with German basic law, but considering the lawlessness we’re seeing play out in the US right now, I’m curious how/why modern constitutions are less vulnerable? By this I mean: it’s not as if the things we see playing out are lawful. Is there a structural difference that somehow prevents the same kind of lawlessness? Put another way, what stops a movement that decides to ignore Germany’s constitution from ignoring it should they somehow gain power?
    - garte 1y ago
      For starters, Germany does not give a single person the right to be king with decrees and military leadership. Also (though not an issue with the law itself) it's really dangerous only having two parties at the helm.
      - 1y ago
nerdponx 1y ago
This line of reason is actually becoming more frequently used to justify things. For years, the right wing propaganda machine has been establishing the concept that conservatism and America as a whole is besieged by authoritarian leftists and their smug out-of-outch enablers the liberals. THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat, our methods are justified. THEY have been doing this to us for years, now this is our chance to fight back.
- ethical_source 1y ago
  Are you just going to ignore the 2016-2024 state-directed viewpoint censorship on social media?
  - bad_haircut72 1y ago
    Now we have 2025-? stare censored social media. Of all the hypocrisies, people screaming "but what about THEM" while ignoring what people in power NOW are doing is the most insufferable
  - convolvatron 1y ago
    I think the appropriate response to a lack of due consideration to the bill of rights should be doubling down on the bill of rights. not setting it on fire as show of oneupmanship
- brightball 1y ago
  Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view? When you take a step back it becomes very clear that this escalating messaging is being push onto both sides of the political isle to create these feelings. I remember in the span of two weeks seeing almost identical posts urging people to train because you are going to have to fight. The wording was almost identical only one post said “leftists” and the other “fascists”. My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit?
  - 1y ago
ethical_source 1y ago
[flagged]
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- wyldfire 1y ago
  > We have the first amendment and are still free to a degree you are not and will never be. I'm not so sure about that. "It's no longer free speech [when someone criticizes the president]." [1] This seems like it's remarkably in line with "they thought they were free" because here you are, thinking you're free. But in fact, your speech is not free because all three branches failed to protect you from this and have now signaled that this will go on. What does it mean to have the first amendment if it's chilled like this and the only checks available are toothless? If SCOTUS were to review this and find that POTUS were wrong (itself a stretch), what remedy would they have? They would defer to the legislature who has already shown us that even in the face of an attempt to violently overthrow the legislature itself are not willing to use its power to check this demagogue. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-free-speech-00574219 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-fre...
  - ethical_source 1y ago
    You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally". The government threatened to revoke a broadcast license, a right to use a limited resource for the public good. Broadcast licenses come with rules to ensure the limited resource is used for public benefit: for example, you're not allowed to broadcast profanity over the air despite profanity in general being protected speech. Nobody is denying anyone's ability to communicate over privately owned channels. What Trump meant is that a network that uses limited spectrum to broadcast nonstop partisan lies isn't operating in the public interest and doesn't deserve the license. Consider the contrast with the 2016-2024 state and corporate effort to suppress inconvenient truths as "misinformation". Remember when they used naked, hard power to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story? That's what real censorship looks like. In America, you can express any viewpoint on social media and be treated fairly. That wasn't the case just a few years ago. In most of Europe, and in the UK, you can't express certain ideas. The state will literally come to your house and arrest you if you have the wrong opinions on government policy. The US does not do that.

As a German outside observer I can tell you there is only one side going down the facist path. The "other side" isn't great either. Would be great to have a sane alternative, I guess.

Amezarak 1y ago

Perhaps you are not aware that the “other side” declared Constitutional amendments by fiat, assassinated American citizens with drone strikes, lied to the courts to imprison influential Twitter users, used intelligence agencies to spy on Congress, dramatically expanded the surveillance state, declared by EO they simply wouldn’t enforce some laws on favored demographics, ordered social media companies to censor and ban users, locked people down unless they were protesting for approved causes, and engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of their enemies. Authoritarianism is not a “one side” problem in the US and until we collectively figure that out each side will continue increasing it, all in the name of stopping the other sides’ extremists.

immibis 1y ago
The "same side" does all of that but also a bunch more bad stuff. The equlibrium that is always reached in a first-past-the-post voting system is two parties that are mostly the same, and you vote for a party that's only slightly more of what you want (because those are the options) and your vote tells both parties which direction to move in, to chase more votes. If the party that drone strikes its own citizens and imprisons Twitter users consistently gets more votes than the party that drone strikes its own citizens, imprisons Twitter users, and builds concentration camps, then the latter party will quickly figure out that the only way to win is to drone strike its own citizens, but not imprison Twitter users, or build concentration camps. And then the former party (now losing) figures out that doing none of the above is the way to win, but maybe they still tap all communications. And so on... We got to the point we're at today step by step, with people voting for one new measure at a time, and parties taking notice of what measures people consistently vote for. The current parties did not spring fully-formed out of Zeus's forehead.
thrance 1y ago
Got sources for any of that?
- Amezarak 1y ago
  Constitutional amendments by fiat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/biden-declares-there-is-now-28th-amendment-there-is-not https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/biden-dec... Assassinated Americans with drone strikes: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-kill... Lied to the courts to imprison Twitter users: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.967e555c-f886-40bc-a39d-a20a05455ce3/gov.uscourts.ca2.967e555c-f886-40bc-a39d-a20a05455ce3.137.1_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.967... Used intelligence agencies to spy on Congress: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief-history-of-the-cias-unpunished-spying-on-the-senate/384003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief... Expanded mass surveillance: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-government-surveillance-then-and-now/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gov... EO declaring that some laws would not be enforced on favored demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DACA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DACA Ordered social media companies to censor and ban users: https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-files https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerberg-joe-rogan-biden-officials-scream-curse-facebook-rcna187199 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerbe... Locked people down unless they were protesting for approved causes: referring to the BLM protests > engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of their enemies. Another reference to the Mackey case and the novel legal theories required prosecute Trump in NY, and the now known to be false constructiion of the Russia narrative. Look, many or all of these things may have been for a good cause, a good end. But the problem we're talking about is the means. Now people are using the same means for different ends. Everyone has to agree authoritarianism is bad even when it’s for really good ends or this will continue to escalate.

brightball 1y ago

I think the sane alternative has long been modeled by the US Constitution. The real test is how any model handles corruption and expunges it because no matter the ideology, people are in charge and people are corruptible. The only real model that can work is one that minimizes the power of those in charge.

larrydag 1y ago
The US Constitutional government is meant to be slow, methodical and gridlocked. It is supposed to take enormous compromise to get any decision created into law.
Schnitz 1y ago
The US constitution is outdated and vulnerable. Modern constitutions like Germany’s basic law are a lot more resilient. We are watching the US constitution fail right now, it didn’t even take smart men to start dismantling it. I hope I’ll be proven wrong, but what indications do you see right now that the US constitution is performing as intended?
- haswell 1y ago
  I’m unfamiliar with German basic law, but considering the lawlessness we’re seeing play out in the US right now, I’m curious how/why modern constitutions are less vulnerable? By this I mean: it’s not as if the things we see playing out are lawful. Is there a structural difference that somehow prevents the same kind of lawlessness? Put another way, what stops a movement that decides to ignore Germany’s constitution from ignoring it should they somehow gain power?
  - garte 1y ago
    For starters, Germany does not give a single person the right to be king with decrees and military leadership. Also (though not an issue with the law itself) it's really dangerous only having two parties at the helm.
    - 1y ago

nerdponx 1y ago

This line of reason is actually becoming more frequently used to justify things. For years, the right wing propaganda machine has been establishing the concept that conservatism and America as a whole is besieged by authoritarian leftists and their smug out-of-outch enablers the liberals. THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat, our methods are justified. THEY have been doing this to us for years, now this is our chance to fight back.

ethical_source 1y ago
Are you just going to ignore the 2016-2024 state-directed viewpoint censorship on social media?
- bad_haircut72 1y ago
  Now we have 2025-? stare censored social media. Of all the hypocrisies, people screaming "but what about THEM" while ignoring what people in power NOW are doing is the most insufferable
- convolvatron 1y ago
  I think the appropriate response to a lack of due consideration to the bill of rights should be doubling down on the bill of rights. not setting it on fire as show of oneupmanship
brightball 1y ago
Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view? When you take a step back it becomes very clear that this escalating messaging is being push onto both sides of the political isle to create these feelings. I remember in the span of two weeks seeing almost identical posts urging people to train because you are going to have to fight. The wording was almost identical only one post said “leftists” and the other “fascists”. My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit?
- 1y ago

ethical_source 1y ago

[flagged]

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
wyldfire 1y ago
> We have the first amendment and are still free to a degree you are not and will never be. I'm not so sure about that. "It's no longer free speech [when someone criticizes the president]." [1] This seems like it's remarkably in line with "they thought they were free" because here you are, thinking you're free. But in fact, your speech is not free because all three branches failed to protect you from this and have now signaled that this will go on. What does it mean to have the first amendment if it's chilled like this and the only checks available are toothless? If SCOTUS were to review this and find that POTUS were wrong (itself a stretch), what remedy would they have? They would defer to the legislature who has already shown us that even in the face of an attempt to violently overthrow the legislature itself are not willing to use its power to check this demagogue. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-free-speech-00574219 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-fre...
- ethical_source 1y ago
  You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally". The government threatened to revoke a broadcast license, a right to use a limited resource for the public good. Broadcast licenses come with rules to ensure the limited resource is used for public benefit: for example, you're not allowed to broadcast profanity over the air despite profanity in general being protected speech. Nobody is denying anyone's ability to communicate over privately owned channels. What Trump meant is that a network that uses limited spectrum to broadcast nonstop partisan lies isn't operating in the public interest and doesn't deserve the license. Consider the contrast with the 2016-2024 state and corporate effort to suppress inconvenient truths as "misinformation". Remember when they used naked, hard power to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story? That's what real censorship looks like. In America, you can express any viewpoint on social media and be treated fairly. That wasn't the case just a few years ago. In most of Europe, and in the UK, you can't express certain ideas. The state will literally come to your house and arrest you if you have the wrong opinions on government policy. The US does not do that.