They're not stopping it because they're happy to hear people say they're doing a good job.
Ticking off those to-dos--
Destroy education
Sell immigrants to torture factories
Dismantle voting systems
Turn foreign policy over to Putin
Disintegrate the structures of US government
Make liberals cry
Look at Russian YouTubers. Many are criticizing Putin. People in China go outside to protest with white paper. The internet has made the repression we think of as dictatorship irrelevant. If they control what media is allowed to say and the schools can teach, they control society. Voting or not.
Narrowing the scope of debate. You're allowed to criticize within a range. You cannot question that Israel has a right to be an apartheid state, but you can question it's right to commit genocide. Most people are fine if they stick to narrow criticism that doesn't threaten the foundations.
Funny thing: Washington Post is not a place I would lately want to claim to represent.. .. perhaps the new editor doesn't know yet that this thing is happening, and will change his mind about their journalist attending..? Or is he actually representing bezos & the other side, so it becomes a debate?
Reminds me of a story that Jerry Lettvin used to tell. He was chatting with the panelists before a debate he was going to moderate. He came to the conclusion that he'd need to be the de-moderator so there would be something to talk about.
no no actually you see a right-wing kleptocracy with popular support is bsaically the same thing as a democracy and liberals are the ones sabotaging democracy
No one really debates anymore (I think it went out with the Clinton Administration and most of it was between tv pundits, candidates just made speeches). I'd go for a decent discussion now and then between intelligent and informed anybodies but... there's just yelling!
This kind of messaging is just pure fatalism. The bottom line is over the past 30 days. The Republicans have caused chaos but have not implemented much of anything.
That's a very poorly worded proposition, I'm not even sure if the more strongly pro-democracy side is supposed to be Yes (Trump is really a serious danger of ending democracy) or No (democracy is great and shouldn't die!).
"The age of _____ is over" can be either a lament and a warning or an aspirational statement and celebration. Totally ambiguous and confusing without more context.
I garher it's meant to be a positive, rather than normative, proposition. I don't recall if all of the Oxford Union (after whom this org is modeled) propositions are like that, but I know a lot of them are
A mix, sometimes a normative phrased in nominally positive terms. But I'm not sure what it means as a positive proposition here, either. What does it mean for the age of democracy to be over? Trends toward democratization will reverse and backslide? That's already true. All democracies will die?
Comments
Ticking off those to-dos--
Destroy education
Sell immigrants to torture factories
Dismantle voting systems
Turn foreign policy over to Putin
Disintegrate the structures of US government
Make liberals cry
STAND UP AND SPEAK OUT. 50501 IS A GREAT PLACE TO FIND WHERE AND WHEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Imagine everyone voting from their "phone". That's the obvious future, so what instead is ending?
(Have been playing/watching my brother-in-law play FFVI lately lol, have meteor suplex on the brain)
https://bsky.app/profile/illegalbussy.bsky.social/post/3lked6c2lyk2f
Hamid seems likely to argue that it’s fine, actually, perhaps even good, and there are bigger fish to fry in any case.