> Guillotines were made for this purpose.
So were voting booths. Calls to violence are unacceptable.
So were voting booths. Calls to violence are unacceptable.
If voting will not remove them, what will?
> Those who make peaceful transition impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. And if that happens, whoever starts first has the advantage of surprise.
Game theory is the most powerful force on the planet, and it sucks.
According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.
Ironically, this is the only line that I see that goes against the forum's expectations for decorum. What do you think you would otherwise be punished for saying? (And to be honest, I don't think the last line adds _anything_ to the discussion.)
“If” is doing a lot of work in this unsubstantiated comment.
Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians?
Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals?
What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?
> What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?
Vote for someone better. Get involved in the political process. Stop acting defeated.
Can you link some historical examples of gerrymandering being fixed, where there wasn’t a violent revolution or something similar “wiping the slate clean”?
All of these remedies were put in place through peaceful democratic processes as were solutions to countless other problems.
Gerrymandering is awful but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that only Republicans do it. Both parties do it. At least the Republicans aren't trying to import the entire third world to pad numbers and get a loyal multitude of welfare cases behind them.
>Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians?
You have the right to protest in the US, not impede and intimidate law enforcement and traffic, nor to loot and destroy buildings in the vicinity of your "protest."
>Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals?
How about the countless people censored on Twitter and YouTube, and the obvious political prosecutions of an ex president based on bullshit? I don't agree with censorship or two wrongs make a right, but these people are getting the abuse that they provoked.
>What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?
In the US, voting works. But there are evidently unelected officials in the US and around the world who control a surprising amount of policy. They work against the will of their constituents on many issues. Things are not so bad yet but I'm not sure they will never get so bad that violence would not be justified. The only reason we can vote at all is because a group of independent thinkers told a monarch to go to hell, and come get some if you don't like it. Words on paper don't guarantee your rights.
Your guilt is showing.
> How about the countless people censored on Twitter and YouTube, and the obvious political prosecutions of an ex president based on bullshit?
Is it bullshit?
How are you so certain?
Must all actions by politician be somehow “tainted” by partisan tactics without objective foundation?
Here, let me pick a random example of blatant wrongdoing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump
Explain how it would be “bullshit” to impeach Trump over that.
Would that be “political prosecution” or long overdue justice?
Sorry to hear that.
>Your guilt is showing.
Gtfo with that. I just know that has been a Democrat talking point lately, because there was some locale with Republican gerrymandering.
>Must all actions by politician be somehow “tainted” by partisan tactics without objective foundation?
No, but these were tainted by partisan politics, and also very unconstitutional. Maybe you are ok with censorship but most Americans recognize it as incompatible with democracy.
>Here, let me pick a random example of blatant wrongdoing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump
That sucks but I don't think it's illegal. And that is NOT what they went after him for over a period of 8+ years. They manufactured hoaxes about fraud, rape, Russia collusion, and an insurrection and went after him and everyone he was associated with so bad that the dude could hardly find any lawyers to take the cases. All while saying he and his supporters are literal Nazis for specific very mainstream policy preferences like "let's not import the third world or destroy American jobs with excess immigrants" or "let's not fight wars all over the world as we are going bankrupt over here"... God forbid you wear a MAGA hat, or the crazed thugs will attack you. All of these things are ACTUAL political persecution. Trump is not perfect but he is not at all what he's been made out to be.