| ▲ | OCASMv2 5 days ago |
| > What if that person is a threat to democracy though? What does that even mean? |
|
| ▲ | breadwinner 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Denying election results, for example. |
| |
| ▲ | cryptonector 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Democrats and Republicans both have done this routinely. It happens in every election. | | |
| ▲ | jbm 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am dating myself and making myself unemployable in SV but this was not a normal thing when I was younger. It seems to have become far more common post Bush II; the Supreme Court and hanging chads had a much bigger effect than you'd think. (Incidentally, I also remember the "Your side lost, hippies" trolls, the "Peak oil" comments, and the apocalyptic "George Bush is going to impose martial law and cancel the election, they are building concentration camps" comments. Such a wild time for internet discussion, many of these were recycled later on.) | | |
| ▲ | cryptonector 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I grant that it wasn't too common before Bush vs. Gore. But it did happen. There was in fact a great deal of electoral fraud in the U.S. in the past, too. |
| |
| ▲ | dgb23 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That depends on the basis on which they deny them. | | |
| ▲ | breadwinner 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Not if they file dozens of lawsuits challenging the election results and loses all of them. | | |
| ▲ | cryptonector 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Lawsuits are not a threat to democracy. | |
| ▲ | OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | afavour 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Just the fact that many big states don't need IDs to vote is reason enough to cast suspicion on any election, really. Why? There have been numerous investigations into this and none have ever unearthed fraud at any meaningful level. | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Utah is also a mail-to-vote state. Republicans have tried showing how easy it is committing voter fraud in these systems, but get caught and charged quickly because it’s actually not that easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | zappb 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In common parlance, it means overly right wing. |
|
| ▲ | strbean 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Adolf Hitler to the Weimar Republic. Hugo Chavez to Venezuela. Vladimir Putin to the Russian Federation. Etc. |
|
| ▲ | afavour 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Restricting freedom of speech (through "hate speech" laws and the like) is a danger to democracy then since it limits people from expressing their ideas and putting political power behind them. | |
| ▲ | chasd00 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are lots of communists, authoritarians, fascists, socialists, even neo-nazis in the US. All of which want to remove democracy however, a political belief isn’t punishable by death. | |
| ▲ | pembrook 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic? If you actually believe in democracy, nobody can ever be a “danger to democracy” for expressing their opinions…since that is the point of a democracy. Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument devoid of meaning used by people who can’t rationally argue their positions with logic. | | |
| ▲ | creata 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic? If someone decides of their own volition to become a slave, is that not their free will? Most of us believe that certain rights should be inalienable. > Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument Sometimes, perhaps, but not always. | | |
| ▲ | pembrook 5 days ago | parent [-] | | But we’re not talking about someone advocating slavery, we’re talking about US politics, which is essentially a slow motion hysterical melodrama over whether to spend 30% or 40% of GDP on social welfare, and on which programs. |
| |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic? I'd say the democratic minority might disagree but since you defined it as being democratic it's impossible to argue. | |
| ▲ | afavour 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic? Sure. When did that vote happen? |
| |
| ▲ | antonvs 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wishes to remove it, and speaks or acts in ways that further that goal. There’s a false right-wing talking point that the US “is a republic, not a democracy”. The US is both a representative democracy and a republic, but the talking point equivocates on the meaning of “democracy”, conflating it with direct democracy, and this apparently fools far more people than it should. The goal of people who push such propaganda is to weaken support for, and understanding of, democracy. There isn’t any doubt that they, and the people who unthinkingly repeat the propaganda, are a threat to democracy. |
|
|
| ▲ | tshaddox 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | cryptonector 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Incitement to violence is... not dangerous, got it. That's basically what you're saying. You're completely ignoring u/dang's exhortation, among other things. | | |
| ▲ | tshaddox 5 days ago | parent [-] | | No, I’m saying that “being a threat to democracy” is an actual thing. I’m saying that you can’t simultaneously say “calling someone a threat to democracy is inciting violence against them” and “what does being a threat to democracy actually mean?” as if it’s a meaningless accusation that can’t in fact be true. | | |
| ▲ | cryptonector 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If you're going to say that someone is "a threat to democracy" then you should be specific. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and all that. Charlie Kirk most certainly was not a threat to democracy. Many many loonies in this thread. And by the way, if someone can be "a threat to democracy" then surely it's also possible that someone could commit electoral fraud. I.e., if you and others here are so upset at those who say that 2020 was rife with electoral fraud as to call them "threats to democracy", then surely those people are equally justified in saying that the electoral fraud they think took place was itself a threat to democracy (as were the people who might have perpetrated it). You really can't have it both ways. This way of "I'm justified, you're not" lies madness. Stop it. | | |
| ▲ | tshaddox 4 days ago | parent [-] | | "Threat to democracy" is definitely broad (but not "extraordinary"), and reasonable people can disagree with specific accusations. That's not my point. My point is simply that you can't simultaneously say "calling something a threat to democracy is an incitement of violence against them" and "the phrase 'threat to democracy' doesn't even mean anything." I personally think that the accusation is not "incitement of violence" and that the phrase does have a meaning, and thus an accusation can be either true or false. I think reasonable people can disagree on certain accusations, while other accusations cannot be reasonably disputed. As an aside, I have no idea where you came up with the "you and others here" business about electoral fraud. That's a wild thing to pull out of thin air. |
|
|
|
|
