eugenevdebs

joined 4 months ago
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 16 hours ago

A group of mask-on Trumps if you would.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 16 hours ago

Try not being a moron with idiotic takes, that works for me and millions of others.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Education and if they refuse to learn, anything else to ensure the safety of the others. Needs of the many outweigh the feelings of the few.

I wouldn't mind being under Mexican rule, if they're cool with a white nerd to eat more good food and give the middle finger to Trump.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sounds more like progressive Dem on corporate Dem action to me.

Happens every day on .world honestly

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

This paradox raises complex issues about the limits of freedom, especially concerning free speech and the protection of liberal democratic values. It has implications for contemporary debates on managing hate speech, political extremism, and social policies aimed at fostering inclusivity without compromising the integrity of democratic tolerance.

Above room temperature IQ shit, please use the brain I assume you're equipped with, but my faith in that is dwindling.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago (10 children)

A wholesome community until you have a different opinion.

"Please tolerate my intolerance! You have to support me wanting people removed from the public! I'm normal!! You need to treat me equal while I don't treat people equal, or you're being hypocritical!!!"

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"People are being hurt and we need to do something."

"I don't wanna, inconveniences me."

"Then you're not helpful, you're at best not helping victims, at worst aiding in prolonging their pain."

"Now you've lost me as an ally!"

Go bother someone else you can grift into thinking "the left got too crazy for me, so i left the left" as you claim you got cancelled and blacklisted as you make hundreds of thousands on right wing media.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is what drives people further to the right. We’re not allowed to disagree with the trans agenda or have our own views on the matter.

"Ya know I stood for things like labor rights, marriage equality, women's rights, and then I was told to respect people and stand up for their civil liberties and then I became more and more right wing, and abandoned all previous morals and ethics because someone said something mean to me online a few too many times."

If I changed my mind on shit because someone was rude I'd never have a firm opinion on anything.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Correct, you help people who are being attacked, or you do nothing when they are being attacked.

They wanna be the bar set in hell let's ensure they go there faster than usual. My grandfather helped them, I'd be happy to continue the family linage of "making them find out after fucking around."

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is so fucking awesome honestly.

"Hey we had someone try this before, if they try again, you are to stop them by any means necessary."

Turns out learning from mistakes and history works.

 

Former Presidents Clinton, Obama, Biden and George W. Bush have barely uttered a word about President Trump’s actions a month into his second term, to the dismay of Democratic critics who say their voices are badly needed.

Those calling out for the ex-presidents to speak say Trump’s actions and the potential for him to bypass court orders should be red flags to the former occupants of the Oval Office.

“No one knows more about the importance of our presidents respecting separation of powers and showing restraint than former presidents,” Democratic strategist Joel Payne said. “Given Trump’s ongoing power grab, those voices and perspectives of our ex-presidents would be critical to the public discourse at this moment.”

“I don’t know what they’re waiting for,” one former senior aide to Obama said. “The time isn’t when Trump ignores court rulings. The time is now.”

Trump’s first month in office has been a whirlwind of activity in which he has sought to dramatically reduce the federal workforce while giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, access to sensitive government payment systems. He has also sought to change birthright citizenship and dramatically curb federal spending.

Clinton, Biden and Obama repeatedly warned of the risks to the nation if Trump was reelected.

Biden — who said he decided to run for office in 2020 because democracy was on the line — warned days before he left office about the threat a second Trump administration posed.

In Biden’s farewell address, just days before Trump entered office again, Biden warned of an oligarchy “taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.” He vowed to stay ‘engaged.’

Since leaving office in 2017 and passing the baton to Trump, Obama has also frequently spoken up about democracy.

In December, a month after the 2024 election, Obama renewed a call for pluralism — finding a way to live alongside individuals and groups who are different — and spoke about what’s at stake without invoking Trump’s name.

“Because the alternative is what we’ve seen here in the United States and in many democracies around the globe,” Obama said at his annual forum on the topic. “Not just more gridlock and just public cynicism, but an increasing willingness on the part of politicians and their followers to violate democratic norms, to do anything they can to get their way, to use the power of the state to target critics and journalists and political rivals, and to even resort to violence in order to gain and hold onto power.

“We’ve seen that movie a lot,” he said, adding that he wasn’t “going to pretend that there are easy answers.”

Since Jan. 20, however, the former presidents have mostly been quiet.

When Trump announced earlier this month that he was shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Obama did take to the social platform X to make his voice heard, linking to an opinion piece in The New York Times.

“USAID has been fighting disease, feeding children, and promoting goodwill around the world for six decades,” Obama wrote in the post. “As this article makes clear, dismantling this agency would be a profound foreign policy mistake.”

“Congress should resist,” Obama added.

Still, the other former presidents have refrained from weighing in on any of Trump’s actions.

Some say Bush would have the most powerful voice as a Republican, but he has made it a point over the years never to “step on” the current president, as one former Bush aide put it.

“It’s out of respect to the office,” the former Bush aide said. “It’s just not his style.”

Generally speaking, ex-presidents are loathe to publicly criticize the actions of their successors, at least outside election season. Trump, in his four years out of office, was a notable exception.

In that vein, Democratic strategist Lynda Tran said “in the age of Trump, it’s more important than ever that we respect and adhere to long-standing traditions” to not debate with the current leader of the country.

“We should have faith in the other branches of government — and the advocacy and justice movements — to take action to push back where appropriate.”

Susan Del Percio, a veteran Republican strategist who does not support Trump, said it’s a fruitless effort for the former presidents to speak out against him.

“They can’t, and they know it,” Del Percio said. “If they lend their voices to the conversation, they’ll just be taken down by Trump. If they speak out, it’ll be for the history books, not to affect the Trump presidency now.”

“No one can influence Trump right now, because he doesn’t care what anyone thinks,” Del Percio continued. “It seems to me, given his actions, he acts as if he knows best.”

“There’s no influencing,” she added. “These presidents know that; if anything, they understand better than anybody the power of the presidency.”

 

Alt text for screen readers: A fake headline that looks like a news network covering a story reading:

"TALAXIAN PEDO ARRESTED - ACCUSED OF HAVING RELATIONSHIP WITH 2 YEAR OLD"

The image features Neelix's photoshopped onto the following:

A mugshot in an prisoner's orange jumpsuit, frowning.

Being escorted by a police officer.

A photo of Kes and Neelix, with Kes' eyes being censored by a black bar for concealing her identity.

 
view more: next ›