4 ms·
> All that matters is that everyone calls it the Department of War, and regards it as such, which everyone does. What you just described is consensus, and fram
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
> All that matters is that everyone calls it the Department of War, and regards it as such, which everyone does.
What you just described is consensus, and framing it as fascism damages the credibility of your stance. There are better arguments to make, which don’t require framing a label update as oppression.
- krapp 7mo agoI'm not framing consensus as fascism, I'm pointing out what the consensus is within the current fascist framework, and that consensus is that Congress doesn't make the rules anymore. And that consensus is shared by Congress itself.
- jibal 7mo agoBeing honest increases credibility, not damages it. > framing a label update as oppression That strawman damages credibility.
- RIMR 7mo agoThe president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences. Just as one example, they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps. Other companies now follow their illegal guidance because they know that they will be threatened too if they don't comply. There is a word for when the government uses threats to enforce illegal referendums. That word is "Fascism". Denying this is irresponsible, especially in the context of this situation, where the Government is threatening to force a private company to provide services that it doesn't currently provide.
- drstewart 7mo ago[flagged]
- inigyou 7mo agoIt means something violates the law. Am I right?
- drstewart 7mo ago[flagged]
- freeone3000 7mo agoThe National Security Act of 1947, as amended on August 10, 1949, establishes the name of the executive department overseeing the military as the Department of Defense.
- drstewart 7mo agoGreat. Where does it prohibit alternative names?
- freeone3000 7mo agoThat would be a significant free speech violation, so it doesn't. However, the idea that an "alternative name" should be espoused by the executive branch means that they do not believe Congress should set the name of the department. Which is a point of contention, as Congress set the name about sixty years ago. The act was already amended for a rename in 1949. The problem isn't the name. The problem is the idea behind renaming it unilaterally: the idea the President has more authority than Congress.
- OkayPhysicist 7mo agoRenaming the DoD does directly contradict the National Security Act of 1947, which renamed the Department of War to the Department of the Army, and put it under the newly named Department of Defense.
- vibeprofessor 7mo agotrue, if everything is 'fascism' then nothing is
- thatswrong0 7mo agohttps://archive.ph/YSAWU https://archive.ph/YSAWU Except this administration is certainly fascist, and the renaming is yet another facet of it. That article goes through it point by point.
- vibeprofessor 7mo ago[flagged]
- alpaca128 7mo agoSo I take it you consider them not doing great at "releasing the Epstein files", or did you just not vote for that?
- alchemism 7mo ago[flagged]
- zimza 7mo ago[flagged]
- virgildotcodes 7mo agoThis is all such wild display of fully absorbed propaganda, even your very first bullet point, just... incredible: > Dismantling government bureaucracy/corruption Trump has done more to benefit financially from the presidency, to offer access and influence to anyone who will funnel money into his enterprises or give him gifts, than any president in our history. How could you possibly write this in good faith? When Trump said he could shoot a person on 5th avenue and people would still vote for him, do you recognize yourself at all in that statement?
- 7mo ago