We need to abandon fascism, neoliberalism, capitalism, and minority rule democracy. What we need is social democracy and we need it in every country, because it is currently the best system we have. We can have a global economy, but the rules we play by can’t allow some groups to exploit others or fail to redistribute wealth when there are economic winners.

I also blame Business Schools for not showing independent thought and propagating Jack Welch creative accounting shit

Scanning his wiki page he seems awful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch

Welch’s practices and legacy were criticized as ultimately self-destructive and a bad influence on corporate America by author David Gelles in his 2022 book The Man Who Broke Capitalism: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America―and How to Undo His Legacy.

What’s surprising about it is that two attributes outweighs all of the upsides of being a full-time employee and the downsides of an enshittified business model that makes you pay for your own gas. It speaks to how important and valuable work-life balance and coworker interactions are. edit: typo

Companies should seek to provide at least the first and higher wages. I’m not sure what companies can do about generational differences, maybe different shifts, but that seems like it wouldn’t be feasible in every case. Maybe more training. He made it sound like an attitude problem though. =/

People simply don’t care. The amount of times people talk about fleeing the country vs even changing their local government is completely out of whack. People don’t try,

People have an instinctual flight or fight response to danger. And it’s rational for an individual to consider flight in the face of the most powerful military in the world. Discussions about safety are important. Most discussions I’ve seen qualify the need to flee based on Trump taking power. Most of the people who participate in them are explicit in their intentions to vote for Kamala and the Democratic Party in general.

I for one would like to see more discussion about changing governments. However the issue is less a lack of caring or lack of trying.

expect to move somewhere else and not try and not have their problems follow them.

It’s more as this gets to, a lack of perspective. People are thinking in terms of their own self-interest. Specifically themselves and the people they care about in their immediate social spheres. This is human behavior in a nut shell. People are not considering the broader context, in part because we’ve never had fascism at a global scale before. Even in WWII there were limits to the reach of fascist nation states, some continents saw little to no direct conflict at home.

What we are seeing now is unprecedented in history. If the US becomes a christo-fascist dictatorship we are going to see the world completely divided into sphere’s of influence. Dictatorships will become completely unchecked as the US switches from maintaining the world order to expanding it’s sphere of influence in the western hemisphere. A war with Mexico is not out of the question in this scenario. Neither is Canada falling to it’s own far right.

The rise of the far-right isn’t unique to the US, it’s been happening in India with Modi, Milei in Argentina, and in the Philippines with Bongbong Marcos. The far right is taking power and entrenching themselves all over the world. Modi and friends in India are buying news outlets to keep them toeing the party line and spewing propaganda. But unless a person is a political news junkie they can easily miss all of this broader context. People aren’t being informed about the global rise of fascism, so they aren’t discussing strategies that reflect that.

That’s what an actual Door Dash driver has told me, and I would think he would be aware of the downsides of the business. He has told me his war stories and despite all of the cons he thinks it is better for him then working in his old job sector. It seems pretty telling. edit: typos

The idea has also drawn skepticism on logistical grounds, with some analysts saying its costs would be “astronomical.”

This is like being skeptical that Nazi Germany would send people to death camps because it would be too expensive.

Bryan Dunn, an-Arizona based senior vice president at Big-D Construction, a major Southwest firm, called “the idea that they could actually move that many people” out of the country “almost laughable.”

Societies have been able to move millions of people around since they developed railway systems.

What’s almost laughable is the state of denial people are in.

Last year, the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, enacted a series of restrictions and penalties to deter the employment of undocumented workers. Many immigrant workers hastily left the state even before the policies took effect, with social media videos showing some construction sites sitting empty.

This is the best case scenario in theory. Immigrants would flee to safety before the US government could harm them. However, in practice, where can they go? Many people already come here because their home countries are too dangerous for them.

This gets to a broader point. I’ve seen a lot of discussion in the past about trying to flee the country if things go wrong. There isn’t going to be anywhere to flee to that’s any safer if the US becomes a christo-fascist dictatorship. The EU is going to have to fend for itself against Russia. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan will be on their own. Unrest in North America, South America, Africa and Asia will only get worse. We are seeing a global rise of fascism along with dictatorships becoming bolder and more willing to challenge the international order. Anyway we slice it, the only good outcomes involve fascists staying out of power.

I know I guy who does Door Dash. He says it let’s him be his own boss where he can work as much or as little as he wants to. And he said he got tired of dealing with the new generation of workers at his old job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

France is one of the five “Nuclear Weapons States” under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but is not known to possess or develop any chemical or biological weapons.[4][5] France is the only member of the European Union to possess independent (non-NATO) nuclear weapons. France was the fourth country to test an independently developed nuclear weapon, doing so in 1960 under the government of Charles de Gaulle. The French military is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 300[6] operational (deployed) nuclear warheads, making it the fourth-largest in the world, speaking in terms of warheads, not megatons.[7] The weapons are part of the country’s Force de dissuasion, developed in the late 1950s and 1960s to give France the ability to distance itself from NATO while having a means of nuclear deterrence under sovereign control.

We should be interested in stopping disinformation in general, but we should do it on a case by case basis. Any banning of a disinformation campaign should be based on a body of empirical evidence. Which we have in the case of gender affirming care. There are numerous studies that have determined that these treatments are safe and effective.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8496167/

The UK recently had a now debunked report, commonly referred to as the WPATH files. The WPATH files are not accepted by the general scientific community and the report has been retracted. Unfortunately this report was used to spearhead anti-trans policies in the UK. This is the kind of disinformation campaign we should not want in society.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-216-instances-of-factual

https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/academia/gender-critical/environmental-progress/wpath-files/

Reputable scientific sources do agree on this issue.

do religious leaflets count as disinformation as they aren’t based on scientific fact? If not then why is there an exemption for that case and not others?

In the US, we have freedom of religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion in a way that does not harm others. We have separation of church and state. The state cannot be used to push any religion on anyone. The United States government cannot send religious leaflets to anyone. Individuals and groups can send whatever religious leaflets they want.

It is not the mail being sent that needs to be based on scientific fact. It is the restriction on the mail that needs to be based on scientific fact. There isn’t any harm in religious groups spreading their religion via the mail. There is harm in a targeted disinformation campaign attempting to ban gender affirming care.

A thorough scientific analysis is what should be the basis of any restriction on speech that is considered and deliberated by our democratic institutions. A body of empirical evidence is what should be used to upend existing norms and allowances. In the absence of a body of empirical evidence we should not restrict any speech.

We should value the Earth more than art. If vandalism of paintings bothers people more than the destruction of the Earth then they should reexamine their priorities. No to mention, the vandalism of the art is imagined, the painting is undamaged, but the damage to the planet is real. On top of that, if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions then the damage to the planet will continue to worsen.

🌍 > 🖼️

If Hitler and the Nazis are anything to go by then there is no line.

I’m ignoring your bloviating bullshit cause its already been refuted, despite it being a masquerade and irrelevant to the point of the topic at hand, all of which is nothing but an example of you desperately trying to distract from that topic.

Something that, when you deign to acknowledge the topic at all, have argued against, because you agree with them, and you want to let government employees do whatever undermining, institutional destroying bad behaviors they want as long as you agree with it…

People can confirm these are false statements by reading what we wrote. It is self-evident.

And that topic is mail carriers not having the right to choose what gets delivered and what doesn’t based on personal feels and opinions

Which is the core component of most right wing arguments “I agree with it there for its right and moral”

No where in my argument do I advocate for these positions. The decision should be based on empirical evidence.

I cite sources in my comment here:

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/16679003/10778009

Here is the link about gender affirming care:

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care

We learn what is true through observation and math. We establish things that we know to be true with scientific studies. When we see a campaign spreading information we know to be false, that would be a disinformation campaign.

Here is a comment where I cite sources:

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/16679003/10778009

Here is a source from that comment that has a comprehensive overview of gender affirming care:

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care

Here is argument from that comment supported by that source:

Gender affirming care involves helping trans people, both youths and adults, to transition to their gender identity through the use of therapy, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy. It is lifesaving care. Unsubstantiated attacks to gender affirming care are a threat to the lives of all trans people. Threatening the lives of people with a disinformation campaign is a breach of the social contract of tolerance. When fascists attempt to spread life-threatening disinformation campaigns, people at all levels of society should stand up to them.

We aren’t going to be able to come up with a definition for all possible disinformation campaigns. We do not know everything. However such a definition is not needed to prevent specific disinformation campaigns. And it is possible to know things. Things we know to be true should be held up as the truth. We wouldn’t want the mail service to spread a disinformation campaign advocating for putting exposed radioactive material in people’s homes. We know radiation is harmful to carbon based life.

Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire is not protected speech. Which is a specific rule about a specific kind of disinformation in a specific circumstance. But we have free speech. So free speech is not a 1 or a 0. Free speech rests on the foundation of the truth. If we know the truth about some topic that is critical to life, we should not allow spreading falsehoods about that topic. Gender affirming care should not be an exception to this principle.

Ignoring my argument is not a refutation of my argument. However my argument is a refutation of your argument.

We should want to improve all of our institutions. Public institutions like the mail service are no exception.

Improving a thing is not the same as destroying a thing. We should improve our institutions by using our institutions. We should not replace democracy with a christo-fascist dictatorship. Falsely conflating these two different actions is not a compelling argument.

The fascists in this case were spreading a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign. Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. This in not a false concern, but a well researched fact. In this Canadian woman’s case the integrity of the mail service in Canada was being threatened by the fascists. The fascists were the bad-faith actors. With her civil disobedience, she made the strategic decision to defend life and liberty. This Canadian woman was acting in a way that was consistent with our ideals here in the US.

We should change our institutions so that they reject intolerance. This will help us prevent the self-serving agendas of bad-faith actors. Our institutions do not need to collapse in order to accomplish this. In the US, we have the capability to amend the constitution. In fact it is much more difficult to build useful institutions from the ground up, as that historically has required significant military capabilities. The integrity of our institutions is preserved by preventing bad-faith actors from misusing our institutions. Not by blindly allowing fascists to spread disinformation campaigns.

Your argument repeatedly asserts a baseless concern about systemic change for our institutions. There is no utility in being arbitrarily impartial to fascists. Turning a blind eye to their disinformation campaign would not have preserved the integrity of the Canadian mail service. Allowing fascists to takeover our democracy in the US does not preserve the integrity of our democracy. Once bad-faith actors control our institutions the institutions are lost. No amount of arbitrary impartiality before a takeover of our democracy will tie the hands of bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will use this leeway to harm groups of people while they are out of power.

Society should not tolerant intolerance. We should not be complicit in our own destruction. If we want to keep our democracy then we must stand up to fascists who attempt to take it away. Even if this means engaging in civil disobedience. We should not want our institutions to be impartial between truths and falsehoods. We should want our institutions to be committed to the truth even if that means being biased against fascists.

The flaw being that we don’t have any system in place to prevent life-threatening disinformation campaigns from being spread in the mail. People being denied the fundamental right to exist is contrary to who we are as the US. It is not a question of morality, but utility. It is a strategically sound decision for people to defend life and liberty against intolerance. The fact MAGA cultists believe they are living an alternate reality should not factor into our decision making process of what we know to be true through research and study.

If fascists takeover our democracy they will have total control of the government. They won’t need us to pass laws or amendments for them to abuse our institutions. They will have total control over all of our institutions at that point no matter what we do. Our efforts should be focused on preventing them from taking power, because once they take power they will not give it up freely.

My argument is that we should act based on utility not morality or some arbitrary notion of fairness. We should reject a false equivalency between groups that are pro-democracy and groups that are pro-authoritarian. We should also reject the neoliberal idea that our institutions are perfect and immutable. Our institutions are deeply flawed and need systemic change if we want to continue to benefit from them.

My argument for changing our institutions, including our democracy, so that we can keep them is not a threat. Nor is it more immediate than the MAGA movement’s publicly announced christo-fascist takeover. The presidential election is this November 5th.

Words are the medium of my argument. The fact my argument refutes your argument’s points does not make the words honeyed.

Changing an institution to improve the institution is constructive. Keeping an institution the same when its flaws will cause the institution to collapse is destructive.

Standing up to fascists doesn’t make us fascists. Changing flawed institutions for the better is not the same as destroying them. The way things are is how we go here. Keeping them that way is how things will get worse.

We should ban any disinformation campaign that we as a society, through research and study, know to be a disinformation campaign.

We should ban any hypothetical authoritarian pro-trans party and their leaflets because they’re an authoritarian party.

We shouldn’t ban something for being woke because woke is now a fascist taking point to demonize the left and something being woke is not a real basis for something to be harmful.

There is a difference between personal mail and disinformation campaign leaflets. No one should be banning Christmas cards unless they are part of a targeted disinformation campaign to deny people the fundamental right to exist.

We as a society have chosen to leave this to individuals. This November 5th, the MAGA movement, a christo-fascist movement, is attempting to takeover our democracy. People in positions of leadership and power saying no to fascists attempting to subvert the results of the election may be all that stands between us and that christo-fascist takeover.

It would be better if there were systems in place to stop disinformation campaigns, but in this Canadian woman’s case, her civil disobedience was the only system in place. We might soon find ourselves in her position. Where civil disobedience is the only recourse to prevent the worst outcomes of fascist policies. So we should not discount civil disobedience out of hand.

Also, fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will attempt to undermine our institutions for their gain no matter what we do. So our efforts should instead go to preventing bad-faith actors like fascists from taking power.

I am copying this here, because it’s what refutes your argument’s central point. We should not factor in what fascists will do into our decision making process. Fascists will try to destroy our way of life no matter what we do. So instead of worrying about trying to appease fascists, which has never worked, we should focus on keeping fascists out of power. If the fascists takeover our democracy, we aren’t getting it back for free. So we should want individuals to engage in civil disobedience to prevent fascists from taking power and enacting their policies. To do otherwise would make us complicit in our own destruction.

Freedom of speech rests on the foundation of the truth. If we elevate lies to the level of the truth we will lose our freedom of speech. There is no utility in tolerating intolerance. In humoring a known disinformation campaign we do not dissuade the fascists, who are always looking to see what they can get away with. Nor do we safeguard our liberties, but instead lay the groundwork for them to be taken away. If we let the fascist decide what is true then it is the fascists who decide what we speak.

They do not censor it based on personal feelings.

Fascists getting people killed with a disinformation campaign is not feelings. We do not have to tolerate intolerance in order to be a tolerant society. We can make the strategic decision to defend ourselves and our liberty from fascists who want to destroy us.

He says, literally trying to undermine the institutions by arguing to allow people to undermine them, as long as he agrees with their undermining

FYI I’m a woman. I’ll add my pronouns to my bio.

Eventually there won’t be a mail service if fascists kill us all.

Yes yes, Gaslight, Obstruct, Project

This is what your argument is doing.

justice, accountability and integrity

None of these ideals are embodied by a life-threatening disinformation campaign or those who would knowingly let such a campaign slide.

These were in your argument. I assessed them as part of a neoliberal argument.

You are still, ultimately, arguing for the destruction of our institutions by trying to give the people you agree with special privilege to do wrong that you agree with.

This gets at the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the paradox of tolerance is how should a tolerant society deal with intolerant people or groups. By reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty, we can resolve the paradox. If a group of people, such as fascists, decided to be intolerant, they have broken the social contract of tolerance. Having broken the agreement, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement. Thus their speech in the case of the targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is not protected speech.

So denying the fascists the ability to use the mail in this way is not special treatment, but a refusal by society to tolerate intolerance. Ideally we would have systems in place to prevent disinformation campaigns, but we should rather have individuals exercising civil disobedience than nothing at all. There is no point in an institution such as the mail existing as it does now if it’s going to be used to deny people the fundamental right to exist.

My argument would be the same, That they would need to be punished severely to protect the institution of the US Postal Service, in order to prevent other bad actors from doing more of the same and destroying it from the inside.

Bad-faith actors do not care about being punished. The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life. We should not put institutions above the way of life that they are supposed to foster. To do so would defeat the purpose of the institutions.

You are as much a cancer and threat to our institutions as all the other bad actors.

The argument that sounds right wing is yours. edit: typo