• Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.

    What do you think is a more ethical choice:

    a) uphold the law, knowing it will let fascist come to power and kill thousands

    a) break the law and stop him

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.

      It is precisely fascism. It’s ignoring the rule of law to achieve authoritarian aims. Why is it ok when you agree with the outcome and not ok when you don’t? But way more importantly, once you do it you cannot go back. If Biden did this and Trump ended up winning - make no mistake Biden has no authority to remove candidates from ballots - then Trump would feel completely justified in jailing his opponents.

      What do you think is a more ethical choice

      A. Because the premise of your choice is flawed. You do not know that breaking the law would stop him. You do not know -with certainty- that not breaking the law would result in that outcome. But we do know that being authoritarian to achieve aims we believe in is no better than people we disagree with doing the exact same. What would happen if Biden was successful in stopping Trump but then, because we wouldn’t ever keep unfettered presidential power… right? RIGHT? We’re the “good” guys… what would happen if MAGA Republicans won in 2028? I doubt we’d ever have another election again.

      • TheHighRoad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Uh, Trump feels completely justified in jailing his enemies already. Will it happen? I’m not excited to wait and find out.

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          True. But the one thing we’ve got going for us is that it is demonstrably wrong and we didn’t fall into the trap of proving it was justified.

          Edit: well at least two people think it’s ok to use authoritarian political power to counter authoritarian political power. Do you really think that ever works out? Note that this is very distinct from something like civil war or overthrowing the government. It’s doing the exact thing you don’t want your opponent to do.

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Ah, the benevolent dictator fallacy. Because no person or party would ever abuse power or fail to give it up once the “aim” is achieved. There certainly would be no expansion in what the “aim” is. And definitely the people we agree with are always good.

      • putainsdetoiles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I doubt we’d ever have another election again.

        With Trump in office, and Project 2025 in the pipeline, I doubt we’re ever going to have another election anyway.

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I doubt we’re ever going to have another election anyway.

          I sometimes feel that way. But I still have some faith in people, particularly Gen Z. I believe after the shit hits the fan and keeps hitting it for 4 years, that we’ll turn this around. And because we didn’t agree to make presidents kings we can actually do that.