303
submitted 11 months ago by tintory@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 84 points 11 months ago

Why are we trying so hard to go backwards to the 1700s?

[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago

We're actually trying to go back to the Roman Empire, a Fourth Reich, if you will.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Yeah, it's kind of scary how close they are too succeeding. When one half of the electoral process gives up on democracy, and starts trying to take power by Amy means, it's hard to fight back against that.

[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

It's only hard to fight against it because our champions are wolves in sheep's clothing. The Democrats don't want to undermine their own power either, they just want you to think they do.

[-] yemmly@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[-] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 11 months ago

The term sounds dumb off the tongue and, you guessed it, has no actual philosophical or historical weight aside from a callback to the name for Roman emperors.

Sadly, those who are interested in regression don't access a lot of critical thinking skills, so they'll glom onto this surface level reference and see it as deep and meaningful.

[-] tintory@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

THANK YOU!

YOU KNOW HOW FRUSTRATING IT IS WHEN PEOPLE KEEP TOSSING THAT PHRASE AROUND

[-] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

Lol I find it infuriating as well. Ugh...

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 3 points 11 months ago

Seeking a return to an idealized mythological past...? That's so classic fascist.

[-] tintory@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

Roman Empire was pro choice

You are thinking of Medieval Europe

[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

I doubt any of the cultures that were invaded by Roman expansion were given any choice in the matter. Conservatism always has different standards for the in group versus the out group.

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I mean given that there were Roman emperors that hailed from almost every territory in the empire I don’t think your understanding of Romans is very accurate.

After 212AD if you were a free man and lived in the empire then you were a Roman citizen. There was also a surprising degree of religious freedom in the empire as well.

Using modern political group labels for antiquity is silly.

[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

It's not my understanding of Romans that is flawed, it's your understanding of freedom and choice.

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

My point is that they were also the in group. It’s very much a flawed perspective, referring to the whole empire as conservative makes it clear.

[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

They were in the in-group as long as they paid taxes and followed the laws of the people in control of their lives. As long as they never disobeyed or rebelled. I urge you to look up consent before you hurt somebody.

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago

Ok so no government has ever governed through consent in that respect so I’m not sure why that’s an important issue to bring up. No one consents to be ruled by a government, you’re just born into it in most cases and in others the one you initially didn’t consent to got replaced by yet another that wasn’t consented to.

You really are glossing over the fact that referring to a 2000 year empire as blanket conservative is ignorant and ahistorical. They were multicultural and, with glaring exceptions, tolerated alternative religions far more than most geopolitical entities through history. It’s a vast history with varying governments, both with progressive ideas for the time and regressive backslides.

Watering it down to boilerplate 21st century political terminology shows a lack of intellectual rigor in understanding this issue so I don’t think this conversation needs to continue. I wish you well.

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Roman Empire was multicultural with emperors from Spain, North Africa, the Balkan’s, Syria, and others. The modern Roman obsession is all about the optics that fascists have wrapped it up in, not actual history. They were even surprisingly religiously tolerant.

They’re not actually trying to go back to that, they only want the worst traits of the empire.

[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Every Empire has a period of expansion and prosperity, modern-day Republicans are trying to bring back the policies that destroyed Rome, without understanding that conservatism is always the corruption that leads to fascism.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago

Men who are terrified of the loss in power. They can't stand the idea that they could ever be held accountable.

[-] hh93@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

I believe that's also a reason for the rise of racism we see today

People subconsciously know that their wealth (even if it's not much it's still better than that of people born in most parts of Africa or Asia) is mostly built on exploiting those people historically

Then either you have to give up some of that power and wealth if you accept that they are just as human as you or just have to draw a line and look down on them

[-] tooren@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 11 months ago

This is not because of sexism?

[-] schwim@reddthat.com 20 points 11 months ago

It seems just the American religious right are doing that. There just seems to be many more of them than I first imagined.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

I think they're just really loud. Most people aren't like that. But since the republican party can't seem to win elections fairly anymore, they've decided to throw the rules out and go for fascism.

[-] schwim@reddthat.com 16 points 11 months ago

Didn't we get to that point by the loud ones being able to vote their chosen into office though? That's the part that surprises me, that there were enough of them to get the proper people in office to dismantle the country's democratic process.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

A lot of it was a coordinated effort to gerrymander. They lost the popular vote by almost 7 million votes in both of the last two elections. There's also been a lot of foreign countries targeting misinformation and propaganda campaigns in the U.S., Russia, China, Vietnam, Iran.

And we've been buying it unfortunately. They've been attempting to sow anger on the left and the right, and make it seem like everyone is more extreme than most people are, which has furthered the divide on both sides of the political spectrum.

Unfortunately, there's also roughly 20-25% of the population who just eats this crap up, and they're the extremists now dominating national headlines.

Sadly, the electoral college is the reason we are in this mess right now.

[-] poprocks@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Because religion is the root of all evil

[-] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Hmm, what was very powerful in the 1700s, that lost so much power nowadays...

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
303 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3521 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS