343
‘Prison or bullet’: new Argentina government promises harsh response to protest
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
343 points (97.0% liked)
World News
39005 readers
1012 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. Argentina has had an issue with right wing, backwards ass idiots for a long time. They're getting what they wanted
Is funny to claim people are "backwards idiots" when it's literally the first time in history this political spectrum (anarcho-capitalist) has been elected. What's fresher than a first time ever?
They can call themselves whatever they want this decade, they're nothing new.
In that case would you mind explaining what they are that has already been there and has only gotten a glow up?
I bet historians and economists would love to be enlightened
They are fascists. Those existed before.
It appears that we have different definitions of fascism
"A far right political ideology that is anti-democratic, ultra nationalist, and totalitarian"
Which... yeah doesnt fit at all to his so far 7 days of government
Are you really talking about the guy that denies Videla's regime crimes? A guy that is a friend of far-right leaders around the world?
He hasnt done such thing? During Presidential Debates he literally brought them up...
And someone having friends that think alike? What a crazy concept! Just like Peronism that reivindicated dictators around the world and has ties with Maduro's Venezuela and China, even selling part of the country to them
Glad they didnt win.
"You too" is not an excuse.
And I don't even know what the actual fuck is peronism. Some things look like right wing, some look like left wing, some are cult of personality, some are near anarchist, ... Maybe because I haven't understood it.
I agree, "you too" is not an excuse, but that wasn't what I was trying to imply. For clarification it's a matter of pick your poison because it doesn't matter the person nor the space they belong to, bad apples are gonna be there so wether you prefer those bad apples to come from china or united states is really the only choice you can make.
And there is a saying in Argentina that if Peronism doesnt make sense to you, it means you understood it perfectly. The deal here is that it's been the power that's dominated the country since it's inception... and look how that's going
Then the problem comes from having to chose between Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche and the solution would be to have someone that knows a little about ruling a country.
I mean for what we were discussing, there really is no solution?
And if you actually just radically changed topic... there's really not a problem? There's two pathways that if theoretically executed have pros and cons (if the candidates actually comply to their promises) and choosing is at best a conflict
Lol, if you think this guy is anything other than your run of the mill fascist, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Ah yes, fascists. Not like those werent in power until 2 weeks ago and the opposing candidate to Milei wasnt using government power to investigate, accuse and imprison (if not kill) those who made campaign against him
Not that has anything to do with Milei, but when you consider that... and the fact that Milei has done nothing but comply to his campaign promises you gotta wonder whos the real fascist... or even the definition
"The state is not going to pay for the use of the security forces; organizations that have legal status will have to pay or individuals will have to bear the cost"
The state sending invoices to accused protesters is a about the least ancap thing I've ever seen. Such a fresh take.
German police as well as courts of account have actually been lobbying to make football clubs pay for the operations they cause for quite some while. Would be tied to events with a commercial orientation attracting crowds > 5000 people or something along those lines.
Considering that the security forces will only incur when protesters take away the fundamental right of transiting the streets... which is a crime, an Invoice instead of prison is rather light
Now is it anarcho capitalist? Well people paying for their actions and its consequences being a law sounds rather anarcho-capitalist to me
Man, you sure are making a good argument against anarcho-capitalism.
The principle of no-agression and respecting the other's freedom are literally the principles or Anarcho-capitalism
This measures ensure that those are enforced, how is it against anarcho-capitalism?
I never signed no no-aggression treaty and as ancaps don't consider social contracts valid I'd say I'm free to to whatever the fuck I want.
What are you on about?
Are you confusing principles and ideals of an ideology for an instated regime? Or what's your point here
I didn't say anything about any regieme. I was speaking plain and simple Ancap ideology which is so obviously broken (as I demonstrated) that it's funny. It's a collection of soundbites, sounding good to neoliberal edgelords, masquerading as principles, which break apart as soon as you connect them up because they contradict each other. As, to wit, the "everyone is bound to non-aggression" and "there's no such thing as a social contract" thing. I don't even have to bring up that private property is violence in itself.
I don't know who's interpretation of Anarcho-Capitalism you are following, but since ther has never been an Anarcho Capilist government in the world (which sounds ironical) it's all just ideas and interpretations, of which seem you are grabbing the worst of the pile.
Rothbard's definition includes in the fundamentals of the Contractual Society being voluntarily approached and free of violence or harm, which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended. There is no contradiction
Also, to what you said about "demonstrated" something, mind linking to what you have? There's nothing around here like that
So I must have the opportunity to live outside it. How does Ancap theory limit land ownership, and the defence of that land by force? If you don't then nothing about Ancappery is voluntary.
Then there must not be capital accumulation: For resources are power and accumulation of power corrupts even the most virtuous mind.
So if you, or ancaps collectively, own all the land which prevents me from exercising my inalienable right to not be part of any of their fiefdoms then they are violating that contract, and will be rightly apprehended by their goons.
I think the social contract thing came into the general anarchist vs. ancap discussion because social contract theory leads to a lot of things Ancaps don't want, such as universal welfare, so people at least on the internet started dismissing it entirely. But it just so happens that you made your own contradiction so I didn't need to recourse to that, you built a contradiction into your description of ancap fundamentals: Congratulations, you back a political suicide cult.
Names mean nothing, their actions are fascist
In that case, could you please number the "Actions" they've done that deem them fascist? It's been 7 days of government, im sure you'll have no issue narrowing them down in such a timeframe. I would like details if you are able to provide, thanks!
Okay sure,
Number 1: Threatening to jail and/or shoot protestors.
That was a fun game, thanks.
Thanks for the summary, unfortunately I must correct some inaccuracies on the provided bullet points
Number 1: The threat of Jail is only for those protesters who incur on Blocking Public roads and or depriving other citizens of their right to freely transit, which has always been against the law, which makes them Criminals. The threat of Jail is only for criminals. And the claim of shooting protesters is from someone NOT in the government, in fact they are opposition so it's not attributable to the government in any way.
Hope this helps to make a clearer vision of what they have/are actually doing, would you please be so kind to update the list so we can see how many fascist things they are doing with that clarified?
Exactly, they should only protest out in the woods where nobody will be inconvenienced.
Not out in the woods necessarily, but it certainly wouldnt make a horrible protest place either.
They just have to do it like how Argentines protested against The Minister of Economy ot the Previous Government (Milei's opponent in the presidential elections) where they manifested, called and paid by no one (unlike these "Piqueteros" the article talks about), on a Sunday and blocked no streets or pathways. Simple as that!
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Are you... advocating violence?...
I literally just said a peaceful manifestation without violation of the other's right is possible and has been done not even too far back.
And also, these "Piquetes" aren't peaceful at all. It is violent to stop workers from going to work, threatening their income necessary to sustain their life, it's a crime under the hood of enforcing a right and that's why they should be repressed. Those who don't incur on the people's freedom to go to work and live peacefully shouldn't be of course.
Removed under rule 6:
"Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time."
Was John F Kennedy advocating for violence when he said it in 1962? Or do people have a right to violent rebellion when they are opressed?
It was a genuine question, Im at a Loss of what are you trying to say or imply
I'll stand by my claim that a peaceful protest that doesnt violate anyone else's rights is not only possible, but should be the norm where these "Social" Organizations have only done the contrary in Argentina thus far.
I'm sorry if my very clear comments have confused you. Try reading through the chain again.
Im asking for a clarification or otherwise rewording of the meaning you tried to give with a dubious quote from a Past Era because It's not clear how it interjects with the topic at all
If you're not willing to provide that, I guess this convo is over
Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
Sure, have a good day!
There's been a gazillion times people from that particular political spectrum, that is, neo-feudalists, have been in power.
No actual anarchist ever has ever considered ancaps to be anything else than that, ancaps plain and simply aren't anarchist. You cannot be an anarchist while supporting systems of rule such as, to wit, capitalism.
"Ancaps arent Anarchists"
Yes... exactly. I see you understand why they are called different things
Ancaps are called Ancaps by Anarchists for that reason, yes, not because "anarcho-" wouldn't otherwise be indicative of actual anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, the list is endless. Luckily we got spared Anarcho-withoutadjectivesism.
Either they're trying to appropriate our good reputation, or they're just clueless idiots. Or both. Very likely both.
Or... neither?
Words have meanings beyond the people that use them, if the meaning is appropiate for representing something, it shall be used.
Is not like "Phobia" is on many "Phobias" just for the sake of it.
No, words don't have meaning to Ancaps or they would never have chosen the "anarcho-" prefix.
What would have you chosen instead then? Something more precise would be good to know.
Neofeudalism. Ancaps are people who want their own little fiefdoms just that instead of justifying their rule by the grace of god, they justify it by the "grace" of the unregulated market. Which they, as neolibs generally do, like to equivocate with the free market.
Bro half the country doesn't know how to read wtf are you talking about they aren't backwards idiots?
I think you just cracked the code who the "Backwards idiots" you so speak of might be