4 ms·

I think of constitution as a contract between the citizens and the state and the (judiciary?) Like, constitution both defines the rights of citizens and the li

I think of constitution as a contract between the citizens and the state and the (judiciary?) Like, constitution both defines the rights of citizens and the limits of those rights and the same goes for the states. I feel as if the creators of constitutions think that it is a set of checks and balances... Just as if how a citizen violates something written in the constitution, the state can punish it. In the same manner, I believe that the constitution thought that if the state violates some constitutional right of citizen, then citizens can point that out and (punish?) the state as the legitimacy of state is through that constitution which they might be breaking... I concur (fancy word for believe which I wanted to share lol) you are talking about america. The thing is, revolutions are often messy and so much things are happening in america that I think that people are just overwhelmed and have even forgotten all the stuff happening in the past... Like tarrifs were huge thing, then epstein news then this I think autism thing by trump. Like, the amount of political discourse is happening less and idk, oh shit, just remembered the uh person deporting thing which was illegal which was done anyway If these things happened in isolation, they would all have huge actions against govt. but they are happening back to back and so everyone's just kinda silent I think, frankly I believe overwhelmed. I believe that just as in nepal, in america everyone is whining on social media but nobody's taking action. Nepal blocked social media and so people in nepal were kinda forced to take action irl and it worked kinda nice in the end tbh So maybe its social media which is enabling this thing.... which is funny to me as I am doing the same thing right now lol All for sweet internet points tho.

gameman144 1y ago
> I concur (fancy word for believe which I wanted to share lol) you are talking about america. Just a heads up but concur means "agree", not "believe"
- _9ptr 1y ago
  I assent to that statement
  - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
    Made me have a good ol chuckle / laugh. Kinda liked it, so thanks lol
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  It was a grave tragedy and a miscalculation from my side. An error that should be discussed for generations :sob: /jk IN all fairness though, I don't know why I wrote concur, I just thought of it and thought it meant believe... What would be a fancier word of believe if I may ask ya that you would suggest me to use.. Also I am sorry that I made a mistake tbh, I hope ya get it and thanks for correcting me!
DangitBobby 1y ago
A large portion of the population either does not believe or does not mind the violations of our constitution to achieve their desired outcomes. As an American, it came as a surprise to me that we do not, in fact, have broadly shared values about our system of governance. This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally.
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  The thing I find most interesting about your reply is how it demonstrates that we live in wildly subjective realities.
  - smcin 1y ago
    Specifically, how? GP's claims can be factually substantiated. Pick whichever you claim can't.
    - ux266478 1y ago
      He isn't calling the claim subjective, but underlining what the claim posits entails that we live in subjective realities.
- LexiMax 1y ago
  > This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally. The latter has been on my mind for quite some time. The logical conclusion of "people can't govern themselves generally" kind of gestures at religion as a solution - after all, if man cannot govern themselves, why not rely on a higher power to manage them? Of course, the problem with that point of view is that from the atheistic perspective, there is no higher power, and from the agnostic perspective, whatever higher power there is is inscrutable and beyond our ken. This then leads me to the conclusion that religion is ultimately a creation of men, and are thus prone to the same power-corrupting vices as any other institution created by men. Except that leaves no real solution the problem of the governance of people. And it's a quandary I see no realistic chance of escape from.

gameman144 1y ago

> I concur (fancy word for believe which I wanted to share lol) you are talking about america. Just a heads up but concur means "agree", not "believe"

_9ptr 1y ago
I assent to that statement
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  Made me have a good ol chuckle / laugh. Kinda liked it, so thanks lol
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
It was a grave tragedy and a miscalculation from my side. An error that should be discussed for generations :sob: /jk IN all fairness though, I don't know why I wrote concur, I just thought of it and thought it meant believe... What would be a fancier word of believe if I may ask ya that you would suggest me to use.. Also I am sorry that I made a mistake tbh, I hope ya get it and thanks for correcting me!

DangitBobby 1y ago

A large portion of the population either does not believe or does not mind the violations of our constitution to achieve their desired outcomes. As an American, it came as a surprise to me that we do not, in fact, have broadly shared values about our system of governance. This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally.

frumplestlatz 1y ago
The thing I find most interesting about your reply is how it demonstrates that we live in wildly subjective realities.
- smcin 1y ago
  Specifically, how? GP's claims can be factually substantiated. Pick whichever you claim can't.
  - ux266478 1y ago
    He isn't calling the claim subjective, but underlining what the claim posits entails that we live in subjective realities.
LexiMax 1y ago
> This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally. The latter has been on my mind for quite some time. The logical conclusion of "people can't govern themselves generally" kind of gestures at religion as a solution - after all, if man cannot govern themselves, why not rely on a higher power to manage them? Of course, the problem with that point of view is that from the atheistic perspective, there is no higher power, and from the agnostic perspective, whatever higher power there is is inscrutable and beyond our ken. This then leads me to the conclusion that religion is ultimately a creation of men, and are thus prone to the same power-corrupting vices as any other institution created by men. Except that leaves no real solution the problem of the governance of people. And it's a quandary I see no realistic chance of escape from.