this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
1389 points (99.2% liked)

Political Memes

5507 readers
2159 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump in 2016:

She shouldn't be allowed to run.
If she were to win this election, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
In that situation we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial.
It would grind the government to a halt.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/donald-trump-trial-guilty-hillary-clinton-b2556563.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think the reasoning is that otherwise opponents can block political candidates by using the justice system. The opposite of what's happening now.

The founding fathers haven't theorized that this particular situation could happen.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The founding fathers haven’t theorized that this particular situation could happen.

Which you can't even blame them for, honestly. Who in the 18th century would have thought a huge chunk of the country would want a known despot?

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Who in the 18th century would have thought a huge chunk of the country would want a known despot?

Well there is the French 16 th century thinker Etienne de la Boétie who wrote a discourse on voluntary servitude in which he argued that men do tend to simp for tyrants over being free a lot of the time:

The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power while his subjects grant him that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit, would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.

[–] 5wim@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Spinoza asked "why do people fight for their servitude as if it were their salvation?"

Fear, and superstition; ideology. Under certain circumstances, the masses want fascism.

When the left buys in to the game of fear, hatred, passivity, and superstition - a game turbocharged by social media - we become complicit.

"Instead of politics, we engage in chatter. And it is a sad chatter, whose prevailing form is denunciation. The practice of denunciation debases the multitude. In the place of action, it accepts hatred, which merely externalizes the sadness of passivity; in the place of agency, it accepts fear, and pleads for security; in place of the collective democratic subject, it accepts the superstitious mob.

Superstitious mobs can only serve tyrants, as Spinoza knew well. We now face a new theocracy of our own making, one which through the chatter of social media decomposes our powers and makes politics impossible."

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/3844-why-do-people-fight-for-their-servitude-as-if-it-were-their-salvation

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks. I love me some Spinoza. I just wished they put a citation as to where to find this quote.

[–] 5wim@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Spinoza quote? As far as I understand it, it could actually be Deleuze paraphrasing Spinoza, perhaps Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, or maybe better said as "Deleuze' translation of Spinoza."

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] 5wim@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 months ago

Yes! Thank you for the interesting look at Étienne de La Boétie. Deleuze wrote Spinoza: Practical Philosophy and it's pretty cool.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

Very interesting thank you!

[–] vin@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's silly, if you're powerful enough to do that, you can just imprison them. No one probably thought about this, that's all

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's not that silly if law enforcement officials and judges are elected, like how they are in the American system. Ideally the court/justice system is entirely loose from politics.

Also don't forget that the founding fathers did all partake in sedition, many of them not really having a clear slate whatsoever.

But yeah this particular instance hasn't crossed their minds at all.

[–] vin@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

My argument being if you can convict a person through the judges you influenced, you can sentence them to imprisonment similarly as well. So it's a moot point.