this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
219 points (97.8% liked)

politics

23545 readers
2524 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

This is at best a deeply naive take.

Either we believe in the democratic process or not. And let’s be clear, the democratic process means that if a majority votes for a tyrant, then democracy is working as intended. Using violence to avert such a result is inherently anti democratic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Bottom line: democracy has limits when it comes to groups that would dismantle democracy, even if they are voted in, because if elected, no one would ever have a voice again. Likewise, a free and fair society must be intolerant of intolerance.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t think that free, fair society is necessarily equivalent with democracy. Democracy is simply the rule of the majority, and the majority can certainly choose to live in a society that is unfair and free except for a few. In fact that is mostly how democracy has operated for most of it’s history. You can also impose a free , fair society from the top down but it would require the ever elusive Philosopher King.

I’m just saying that if you’re willing to strike first against a political faction in what is still a free and democratic country, you’re better off not pretending that democracy is your North Star. Maybe it’s equality, or freedom, or fairness or any other ideal. But whatever the ideal is if you are willing to overturn violently what has been decided peacefully through elections, then you’re not a true believer of democracy.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm not the person you were originally replying to, but I think laws should be put in place to prevent extremist parties from being put on the ballot at all. Germany has the right idea.

But failing that, if a democratically-elected government comes to power and then proceeds to dismantle democracy, then it is in the most literal sense a tyrannical government, and tyrants must be overthrown by any means necessary.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

I agree. It is a good mechanism to have though I worry that it can be abused.

This is why I always end up going to a more libertarian view of things. When there are rules, especially rules that are quite literally designed to be weapons, then there is a big risk for abuse. That’s why state sovereignty for me is such an important component of avoiding the bullshit Trump is (unsuccessfully I might add) trying to pull off. If the states are strong, then no tyrant can really fuck with them. Of course this also runs the risk of tyranny forming within a state, but in that case I think there are mechanisms to combat it, like the other states could embargo it etc.

My hope is that dems can recognize this and become the party of state sovereignty, though I think that ship has sailed for both parties.