- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.
But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.
Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.
“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.
Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.
Right on.
If I refuse to represent my own interests, why should I expect that a government or a society somewhere will represent my interests for me?
But we are routinely asked to prioritize the interests of a party, a country, a religion, or some other entity/system above our personal interests. We get groupthink that way. And then we wonder why our Dems just throw us an occasional crumb, and nothing more. And the dirty truth is that most of us will ourselves only throw ourselves crumbs or even nothing at all. Selfishness is routinely derided and mocked.
A healthy democracy absolutely requires unapologetically self-centered citizens going through a balancing process. A person that refuses to unapologetically rep their own interests has voluntarily surrendered their personal seat at the table, and then can’t rightly complain the party/government/boss is overlooking their interests.
We each need to vigorously and unapologetically rep our personal interests first to have a shot at a real democracy.
Selfless folks belong under a dictator.
You taught me something. Thanks for sharing the wisdom stranger. 👈😎
You should get some more diverse opinions then. Read it again through the lens of a confederate trying to preserve slavery. Or a straight person that doesn’t understand LGBT issues. Or someone that’s fortunate enough to not need healthcare (right now). Or someone that doesn’t see the effects of climate change on their doorstep. Or someone that hasn’t lost a family member to gun or vehicle violence. This isn’t wisdom, it’s sociopathy.
It seems you don’t understand 🤷
I understand sociapathy. What I don’t understand is why you or anyone else sympathizes with it. Your own handle has “socialist” in it yet you’re swooning over some libertarian drivel from a person that doesn’t think laziness even exists. Spoiler - it does.
All right for starters, lazyness doesn’t exist he was exactly right there. I mostly here this idea from other leftists. If you were a farmer and planted a bunch of seeds and some of those seeds never grew you wouldn’t say they’re lazy seeds You’d Stay their environment sucked and work on changing the soil or plant different seeds suited to that environment.
People are the same way as seeds. Our behavior changes based on environment. we are constantly ashamed for being lazy for not wanting to work that’s not true, the environment just sucks ie the soil should be worked on, we should blame the farmers(ie the wealthy and powerful, those with real agency) not the seeds (working class people with less agency like you and me).
The only way these people whether it be the wealthy or politicians maintain power over so many of us is by somehow tricking us into prioritizing their wants and needs over our own. No evil empire exists in a star of wide spread selfish anarchy. For something like that to exist you need tons of people in that Empire who will prioritize it over themselves. The over whelmingly vast majority of not all people who are under the boot of capitalism and imperialism would be better off without it and it is in their own self-interest to pursue getting it the fuck off of them. That’s a selfishness I can get behind.
The best motivated to get people active politically is to promote their own selfish interest. Shaming people into voting for someone they don’t want to doesn’t work. For example Hillary Clinton in 2016. You have to get your base excited for things that are in their own selfish interest.
I think there might also be a point of miscommunication. I’m not saying caring about the interests of others is bad in fact I think we are our best when we look after others but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue our own selfish interest as well. For example I’m not affected directly by the genocide and cause of but I yell people about it almost every day not sure if I’m helping but I’m trying. At the same time it is very much in my personal self-interest to change how housing is done in the US. I will pursue that very selfishly.
Does that help?
No, not really. People aren’t seeds, we have agency. A seed does not. You can believe that laziness doesn’t exist but that doesn’t make you correct. You’re just playing semantics with language. Laziness exists just as much as sadness or aggression or rage or fulfillment, these are all valid abstract nouns and concepts that we’ve ascribed meaning as part of language.
I don’t understand how you can compare people to something as simple as a seed yet still have a whole conversation about interests. Do you not see how these aren’t compatible ideas? Do we have free will or not?
Stranger, I don’t care what you think. If you disagree, my life goes on. Just trying to share a useful way of thinking with you 🤷 I don’t have an objective to care to play a semantic game with you. As the kids say “it’s not that deep”.
What sort of Gordon Gecko / Kissinger, sociopathic nonsense is this? The problem is not enough empathy, not too much. People should prioritize what’s good for society because what’s good for society is also good for the individual. Things like universal healthcare, environmental protections, collective bargaining. I’m a straight white healthy dude, I guess I should just ignore LGBT, women, minorities, sick people, disabled people, education (I already am learned so fuck them kids) maybe a little genocide as long as it’s not against me personally. Might as well pull the ladder up because I don’t need it anymore, it’s in me personal interest!
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
It’s not bullshit. When I rep my interests, those include democracy, a dignified minimum standard of living for all as a human right, etc. Because that is what I want in MY world, and I own that.
Being self-centered doesn’t mean being a dick in all circumstances. It does mean embracing all the human qualities instead of just some. There are no bad qualities, only bad users of those qualities. Impatience, aggressiveness, and so on are not inherently bad. Some circumstances call for a fighter. Some for a lover. Some circumstances require immediate action. Some require patience. All the qualities have their rightful use.
You kept using the words “personal interests” though. When you extend those interests to broader society, that’s no longer personal by definition. You’re just describing voting for what you believe will create the society you want to live in, but you framed it in a misleading way as if personal greed will get us there.
On a philosophical level, you’ve separated these qualities from their application. Can we agree that when a situation calls for empathy but someone employs violence, that this is bad?
No, when I want democracy, that’s what I want. That is my personal interest even if it involves you. You could hate democracy, then you’d be my foe. I would not talk it over with you, I would just steamroll you.
I would only negotiate if what you want is really close to what I want, and I made a calculation that an additional ally is worth more to me than the exactitude of my aim/interest. But again, I, and I alone, make that calculation for my benefit alone.
I am at peace with the notion that some people are better off dead.
I make all the major life changing strategic decisions in solitude.