everyone to the right of and including bernie sanders needs to be arrested and re-educated. america is a sick society full of damaged people and they need to be dealt with. im not being hyperbolic, the survival of our species, the planet, and every species on it depends on it. for too long fascists have destroyed the planet and the “liberal democratic institutions” our society is built on, while liberals sat by and watched them do it at best while helping them do it the rest of the time. they built the prisons for us already. we need to make use of them.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the US will need a cultural revolution after a socialist one and it will be the most difficult undertaking communists ever do. There won’t be re-education because Americans were never educated in the first place. It will require isolating reactionaries from one another so they don’t fall backwards into old habits. Some people will spend the rest of their lives away from society because they will reject every attempt to educate them decades later. And even more will be so extreme, they would rather die than accept capitalism failed.
Even when socialists fix everything wrong in their lives, American reactionaries will still cling to the myths of the old empire.
I agree but I’ll go a step further. The US needs a 1917-style double revolution (because let’s be honest, if the current state is toppled by revolt American communists will not be leading it initially), followed by a gruelling civil war that will inevitably occur, followed by a great purge to root out all the remaining counterrevolutionaries still in the public institutions and military, and finally a cultural revolution to re-educate the masses and/ or send capitalist roaders to the countryside.
Anything short of this will not allow Socialism to become a reality and instead you’re just gonna see a bunch of Balkanized North American states committing multiple genocidal wars against each other until China/ Russia/ EU is forced to step in to resolve the chaos.
until China/ Russia/ EU is forced to step in
why the hell would anyone do anything to help Americans out in that situation anyway, it’s not like Americans have ever done anything to help anyone else out. Rest of the world has its own problems to deal with.
Two words: nuclear weapons.
It will require isolating reactionaries from one another so they don’t fall backwards into old habits
How the fuck are you going to do that in the age of the internet? Niche groups of reactionaries have been finding each other better than any time in history.
Serious question. I see absolutely no possible way to do it without incarceration.
Responded to another person below. One idea is to have them in jobs programs where they work among committed socialists in a limited capacity where they can’t sabotage anything or hurt anyone.
And how does that isolate them from connecting with other reactionaries where they’ll revert? They still have free time out of the workplace unless you’re doing incarceration.
Coopt their trusted sources. Post-revolution Fox News will keep operating, but use the reaction to guide them in directions that are less destructive and away from counterrevolution. Let them vote™ and fight the power in ways that can be entirely controlled.
These aren’t brain geniuses we’re talking about here. Most won’t ever know their favorite schlop outlet has been hijacked. It is trivially easy to get most chuds to agree to communist ideas if drenched in “own the libs” dressing.
All these people do IRL is regurgitate whatever they last heard on Fox, Infowars, or whatever their preferred flavor of reactionary news is. No incarceration needed if you convince these people that the global pedophile cabal is your hand curated list of scumbag landlords and finance capital leaches. Imprisioning them would only strengthen the forces of reaction. Better to guide them in a useful direction.
We have to get rid of a significant amount of them unfortunately…i can’t figure out a better way
destroy the internet as we know it
I don’t disagree but frankly there’s no way to isolate reactionaries from one another. Re-education camps? The detainees are going to talk and are not isolated from each other and will draw on each others strength to form cliques who resist probably centered around Christian faith and such and trying to lean into the feeling of being persecuted. The only way would be putting them all in isolated holding jail cells and that wouldn’t make productive members of society but broken, angry, and mentally unstable people. You can try to control it somewhat in camps by instituting no talking in certain areas and monitoring others as best you can but it won’t be foolproof.
I think there needs to be a limit on how much time people are subjected to re-education before we decide they’re not taking it seriously and take other steps for such deeply unserious reactionary clowns. Some amount just by being sent to the country-side and deprived of Fox News and internet reactionary brain worms will probably see reason within a year or so. Those who do need to be separated quickly from the others to prevent them from reverting and placed in their own camps to advance along those lines.
Your post revolution society would need more than just internet monitoring or censorship. For one thing 9/10 churches would become and arguably already are reactionary cells, a third place for breeding reaction, stewing in it, etc.
The way to isolate them would be to integrate them into committed groups of socialists. For example, sending them to work in a factory that’s worked solely by registered party members. The isolation wouldn’t be like a jail cell, rather planned activities where they’re not spending all their time doomscrolling social media or what have you.
Of course, they wouldn’t be put in charge of anything where they could implement their reactionary beliefs or sabotage/undermine others. In the factory example, maybe they help on an assembly line or clean up spills on the factory floor. Maybe they just shadow one of the workers. The point is to get them out of their beliefs by showing them socialism works.
This isn’t something that would be feasible for all of them. Incels being a good example where the quickest solution would be to have them work alongside women. But that would risk exposing those women to harm, so the incel can’t be allowed out into the world and may have to stay in the incel camp.
Like I said, this will be the most difficult undertaking ever done by socialists. There’s going to be a lot of problems rehabilitating American reactionaries not seen in China or the Soviet Union. It’s a logistical nightmare. It will be necessary, however, because the alternative is having socialism fail or carrying out mass murder.
but frankly there’s no way to isolate reactionaries from one another.
Give each of em their own isolated segment of Facebook entirely populated by ComradeGPT and ChudButBenignGPT accounts, and let them argue with the former and plan the counterrevolution with the latter.
Ive thought about it too and arrived at similar conclusions.
I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood.
i, james brown, am now quite certain huaaAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!
This doesn’t mean that the case (Ermhold v. Davis) will be heard by the court. All that’s happened is that Libery Counsel, a right wing legal group, submitted a writ of certiorari to the supreme court. The court gets ~8,000 of these per year and only hears around 100. I doubt that anything more comes of this, but stranger things have happened.
writ of certiorari
harry potter ass legal code, fuckin stupid country
Legalese uses a lot of Latin terms specifically because it adds mysticism and gravity
Mysterium and gravitas, you mean?
Also creates jobs for failchildren to interpret legalese
I have to think a small proportion of submissions are for the pet project of multiple justices and their patrons? The only question on gay marriage and the supreme court is if they’ll use a procedure like this or an appealed case from a red state to kill it.
And of course the Dems never codified it
Look, I’m all for giving the Democrats a ton of shit. They absolutely deserve it, but let’s not spread misinformation.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
During the 2022 congressional session, they managed to get a law on the books to codify interracial marriage and gay marriage. Unfortunately, the enforcement mechanism is that people have to sue the state to enforce their rights, or that the DOJ needs to do something about it, but it technically is there.
So, yet another excuse from the glorious separation of powers and checks and balances? What’s the point of getting “a law on the books to codify interracial marriage and gay marriage”? If they need people to sue the state, then fucking organize your Democrat media apparatus into making people do that. Saying this as a non-USian btw
I didn’t say it was good way to legalize it but it’s completely in line with how the rest of us citizens rights are enforced.
This is how it works in the US.
Yes it does mean the burgeoisie can basically ignore the law.
Yes it does fucking suck. This is part of what makes the us an authoritarian hell hole.
My point stands, though? How is it misinformation in the first place if the rights can be taken away at any notice because the democrats didn’t care to make it otherwise?
Well, then that would be true for every right in the United States. The enforcement mechanism for “rights” is to sue the infringing party.
That means if the govt infringes your rights you sue them to be “made whole”.
Thats how it works for every right including the first amendment rights. 🤦
What you’re saying is the law doesn’t matter regardless of what is passed. Which I agree with but it’s different then your initial point
My point isn’t really that the law doesn’t matter (which is also true but that’s beyond the scope of this conversation). My point is “democrats didn’t codify it” seems to me a true statement if the law still can be repealed. If they wanted they could have organized a freaking show trial or something if the mechanism needs to be through a lawsuit, the point is that they didn’t do any of that, they just wrote some stuff in a book that can be repealed at a moment’s notice. Am I wrong here and just being dumb and not understanding something?
Codify to statesian means to put a law on the books. Abortion was legal because of a court ruling not a law. That’s why the supreme court could do what they did.
As far as this law goes it can’t just be revoked. Either the us supreme court would need to strike it down as unconstitutional (this would likely be a lengthy court battle), or Congress needs a “supermajority” to pass a new law that invalidates the previous gay marriage law. This law can’t just be “revoked” from my understanding.
Now there is a whole lot of bs the govt can pull to still get its way but technically it will still have to follow this law.
You’re right that it’s not impervious, but it’s at least a roadblock versus there being nothing in the way. You know what I mean?
The Respect for Marriage Act kind of codified it. The issue is that court rulings override congressional statutes, executive orders and the constitution itself (although that’s a little more rare).
They want Obergefell v. Hodges to get overturned so they can use it to beg for more money
Forgive my ignorance here but what does “codify” even mean? I’m sure the criticism of democrats here is warranted (I am not defending them at all), but when the fascists are pissing and shitting on every law and social norm we have, all this legal jargon just sounds like nonsense.
There is always a card up a sleeve, some antique law cited. The “No-Takesies-Backsies Clause” was overturned because some dickhead found the “Writ of Nuh-Uh”. It’s was written on piece of parchment and is barely legible. It conveniently fell out of a dusty old tome in the Library of Congress last week and yet somehow it carries more legal weight than any other document on Earth.
Even worse, now the Republicans in a lot of cases are seemingly just skipping all the preamble and just going straight to the “fuck you please die” part.
Liberals constantly mock SovCits but their understanding of how power works is fundamentally identical.
They literally believe they can stop the government from doing what it wants to do by going into a special building and saying the right words in the right order.
The exact opposite judgements can be reached with the exact same level of support from whatever sacred ancient slaver document they want to cite. It’s constitutional if you like it and unconstitutional if you don’t.
Forgive my ignorance here but what does “codify” even mean?
Congress can pass a law (of course, the Senate Parlimentarian can be a convenient obstacle when they don’t want to) explicitly declaring its intent to allow abortions, gay marriage, etc. at the federal level so that the courts can’t simply change their mind and return it back to the states like before the court decisions making them federally legal happened but would have to actually declare a federal law doing that is unconstitutional. This court doesn’t seem like it would have had much issue with doing that anyways though by claiming it’s not what the genociders who founded
would have wanted, but it might have caused someone to hesitate or infight a little more or somethingIt means to enshrine in law a won court victory.
what do you want them to do? Their hands are tied!
isn’t there somebody you forgot to ask? a nazi from kentucky
I think it’s time
files for a marriage license in her countyOh this lady again. Yay.
Who is funding these appeals?
More tangentially, it seems like getting in front of the supreme court is the easiest lever for political change in this country. I really think you could get them to reneg on the “money as a form of speech” thing if you made the case that, say, you were just “talking” to Cubans or sex-workers or one of the other myriad ways your not actually allowed to use money as US citizen. The trouble always comes down to legal fees. It’s expensive to get in front of the 9 un-elected elders who divine and decide the will of the founding fathers.
Who is funding these appeals?
Liberty Counsel (lc.org) of Orlando, Florida is. They receive around 5mil in funding per year from assorted grants and donations. Their donors aren’t disclosed and they don’t have a public 990 on record since 2015 and their last 990-T was from 2018. Here’s the documents, but you might need to FOIA for more current info.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/592986294
EIN-ID: 59-2986294
CW queerphobia in links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Staver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Counsel
The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Liberty Counsel as an anti-LGBT hate group
https://glaad.org/gap/mat-and-anita-staver/
This are the theocraric jackass grifters behind her.
More tangentially, it seems like getting in front of the supreme court is the easiest lever for political change in this country. I really think you could get them to reneg on the “money as a form of speech” thing if you made the case that, say, you were just “talking” to Cubans or sex-workers or one of the other myriad ways your not actually allowed to use money as US citizen.
You’re under the understanding that fascists give a shit about consistency or facts. They don’t.
Yeah you can’t cast spells against the state. That’s not how power works.
The only thing you would accomplish with that argument (assuming the SC even bothered to hear it) is getting an opinion with interpretations they pulled out their ass explaining why it’s not speech when Cubans or sex workers are involved.
I really think you could get them to reneg on the “money as a form of speech” thing if you made the case that, say, you were just “talking” to Cubans or sex-workers or one of the other myriad ways your not actually allowed to use money as US citizen.
Nah, the courts only go more fascist now that the fascists have a majority, never less.
You’re probably right. I still think it would be worth a try. They wouldn’t be judges, wouldn’t have gone into law if they were 100% cynical actors, if they didn’t in their own way believe in the system as it purports to operate.
They wouldn’t be judges, wouldn’t have gone into law if they were 100% cynical actors, if they didn’t in their own way believe in the system as it purports to operate
even the libs are vain powermongers
doesn’t even make sense for supreme court rulings to be overturned imo. the meaning of the law changed? because you just changed your mind?
thinking on a purely procedural basis within this system, a change in law should be required for something like this to be considered.
all laws are fake
Laws are threats of violence by the state: “Do this and we will lock you in a cage”
Look at when international law is applied or who gets human rights. The idea that laws are this magic scroll which somehow tie the hands of politicians and not instruments of class dictat needs to die.
Their argument will be – and has been ever since the original ruling – that the Majority Opinion misinterpreted the existing law, so it was never the meaning of the law, it just got treated that way by people abusing judicial power to accomplish their goals.
On a literal level, I think there’s merit to the idea that the Constitution “as-intended” doesn’t protect gay marriage, but that’s just more evidence that the Constitution fucking sucks and should be thrown out, along with the Supreme Court that plays ping pong with human rights.
the meaning of the law changed? because you just changed your mind?
:: astronaut in space meme :: always has been
chemerinsky (radlib, but whatever) has a phenomenal book on how much of a joke and un-Democratical SCOTUS opinions regularly are: The Case Against the Supreme Court.
it’s all political. you don’t get to elect them. they will literally just make shit up to get the political opinion they want. legal basis, prior law, even facts of the case.
podcast 5-4 goes over every decision. you can just listen to 2-3 episodes to begin to understand how stupid it all is
It’s amazing the degree to which law has been sanctified as some mystical framework that exists outside of politics and exercises power against the state
RvW would still be illegal.
In the sense that they were making up so much law on the spot regarding trimesters to overturn state laws? I’m just curious what you mean here
really wish she had been murdered the first time around, but it’s not too late for someone to do god’s work here.
I doubt they’ll hear it, if they do it’s a clear signal that they’re going to overturn it. And I guarantee you that their next step is to outlaw queerness and try to make it legally defined as mental illness.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.
More fundamentally, she claims the high court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges – extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment’s due process protections – was “egregiously wrong.”
“The mistake must be corrected,” wrote Davis’ attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell “legal fiction.”
While acknowledging that this court has made a mockery of the law when it suits its needs, there’s still a practical motivation to not open up the Pandora’s box that would be dismissing the requisite of standing. If people could bring up cases without having to establish standing, the courts would become entirely gummed up with frivolous lawsuits. So I think, at worst, the courts would rule that public employees aren’t obligated to carry out most public duties that clash with their personal beliefs. But Davis wouldn’t have standing to get Obergefell overturned as she hasn’t demonstrated harm being done by that law, just the ones that require public employees to carry out public duties they might disagree with.
I emphasize most, as I’m sure an exception would be made for duties found to have “overriding state interest.” That way the laws will still be in place for those “interests” that serve those in power, while allowing for a semi-back door ban where functionally gay marriage will be barred in jurisdictions where the local government refuses to employ someone to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQ couples.
You want to see “tyranny of the majority”? Because this is tyranny of the majority.
Do scientific institutions confirm that so-called “undesirables” are actually ok? They do? Then they should be given equal rights no matter how unpopular it is.
Wouldn’t this be the tyranny of the minority? Since these positions are minority positions?
Sadly I believe a majority of Americans are fascist as fuck. Without places like this I would feel very lonely living here.
They are, but most still support gay marriage. Trans people are the queer issue the majority are against
I think I need to take some time away. The news is putting me in a depressive spiral again. I’m so tired of all this 💔
It’s good for you once in a while. I’ve recently started making it a habit when I start to feel the dread climbing up inside me
This is pretty clearly tyranny of the minority, isn’t it? This isn’t what most people support.
The way no one gives a fuck about science or objective facts drives me out of my mind
deleted by creator
Popularity is created by vanguard action. BLM caused caucasian heartlands to be pro-abolish the police, before AOC and other libs defanged the movement.
An american communist vanguard party could direct the masses to make being “pro not kill minorities” very popular. But the american left is allergic to actual use socialist political tactics, while the far right isn’t - even worse they somehow take polls conducted by bourgeoisie institutions as iron-clad and unchangeable metrics of the working class, and so moderate and bend their own politics accordingly (Mamdani needs to say “Israel has a right to exist” because NYC the working population are that much of a zionistic class). They confuse the improbable with the impossible and the unknown with the unknowable.
so then do all married gays just become instantly unmarried if that happens?!
From the article
It seems to me it would clear the way for congress to overturn gay marriage but I kinda doubt that will happen at least in the immediate future bc right now only something like 59 percent of republican voters oppose gay marriage (it used to be below 50 percent a few years ago as there’s been a huge reactionary tide) I’m not sure if they could come up with the votes to do that with the house majority being so thin
thank you :)
deleted by creator
