Trump, let's make a deal: you'll stop providing aid to Israel, and instead forward it to California fires. K?

@lukaseder I don't remember it just didn't work

I should make a collection of buzzword 'ideologies'.

• Liberalism (neoliberal = republicans? what? I never understood this)
• Zionism
• Socialism
• Capitalism, partially (this is more, for a lack of a better term, bad education than buzzwordiness).
• and some more

I'm trying to understand far-left-ness here.

Communists want the state to own everything. Socialism is a myth (as Americans think it is the same thing as communism, Israelis think it is the same thing as social democracy, Europeans, I don't even know - it's a buzzword, basically). (Apparently, all, need to wait for the poll to end to know for sure that) Anarchists believe democracy always means rule of majority over minority, and that this is bad (the badness here being irrelevant, I'm not talking about my own beliefs).

Anarchy being a lot of left-winged populism-s bundled under one label makes more and more sense to me.

Of course, some/most/a few (I can't really know, tbh) anarchists aren't populists. But all anarchists I've talked with deeply to date had a wrong base assumption ("psychologists can replace cops", "democracy always means majority rule over the minority"), and were joked upon by other anarchists I've talked to. Calling this a single ideology makes no sense whatsoever.

I could not, to date, find two anarchists of different 'streams' agree on the definition of anarchism. Some believe anarchism is the lack of a state. Some believe anarchism is an accountable state. A lot of anarchists I've met are reworded social democrats.

I can't really go against anarchism, because it is not one ideology. But let's see what my poll comes up with. I could be completely wrong.

The person I talked with just didn't respond whenever I told them that, factually, an assumption of theirs is wrong.

They (not a representative of all anarchists, of course) just told me that Israel is currently executing a genocide so it doesn't count as a disproval of their assumption. So I gave them another example. Spain. It fit the same criteria. And it's not pro-Israel. And then they went "tell me what logical fallacy you stumbled or this conversation is over". The moment I found proper reasoning against what they said, they just disappeared. This feels weirdly similar to rightists.

So, today I was reminded why I don't ask anarchists questions.

What makes democracy not anarchy? It is the power of the majority over the minority via the vote.

Flat out false. Israel is being held hostage by a minority for around two years now. This is an extremely americentric statement, that implies that coalition-based governments aren't democracies.

If you want to see why an ideology fails, make a Minecraft server with that same ideology.

I'm not kidding in the slightest, Minecraft servers are a microcosmos of politics.

@hrefna agreed, so much.

I just noticed something.

Israel has criminally abandoned its 'minorities' the previous century and provided them terrible, most importantly, education. Those minorities - Haredim, religious Jews, Palestinians - have became (each to a different length) breeding grounds of extremism. Since the ~90s, non-religious public schools have worsened significantly as well. And now that this worsely-educated generation can vote, we're getting full-scale fascism.

America, on the other hand, abandoned middle-class education. Minorities have remained with less-worse schools - as the government didn't care about them in the first place due to racism, plus migrants - leaving them (culturally) better-educated, and relatively less vulnerable to fascism (fascism being mostly racist certainly helped as well).

What I'm trying to say - America ruined its own ruling population's schools, then its minorities'. Israel ruined its minorities', then its ruling population's.

Which is worse, I know not.

@burnoutqueen "America is uneducated" is the most important one. Education is key to avoid extremism.

@ericleamen I'm still gonna analyse.

Because Trump getting a 50% is still up to more than "she's a woman". The 2020 elections still had Trump at 50%. Harris lost, say, 10% because she's a woman, then got only 9% for being the only viable candidate.

There's still place to analyse why, tf, did the democrats not achieve 50% although Harris is a woman; that is, why did she not get at least, say, 65% not considering mysogyny? Again, as the only widely-known viable candidate?

Democrats losing is because she's a woman, yes, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. But what about everything else?

Like, I'd completely agree with you, if it wasn't Trump that she was against.

note: please vote even if you're not an anarchist! that's why there are four options. really, vote! there's no reason in the world not to. the more people vote, the better.

I have a question.

Do you believe rights can be lost if 'misused'?

(also, are you an anarchist? I think I found the difference in axioms between social democracy and anarchism here)

Note: I'm meaning this ethically (not de facto), assuming the state in these examples is a flawless democracy.

Example 1: a murderer's right of free movement is lost (they can be ethically imprisoned), as they misused it to murder.

Example 2: an abusive parent's right to educate their children is lost, as they misused it to abuse.

#ethics

@mima calling them 'mindbroken' is ableismy, yes, but their sentiment is correct.

The thing is, it's clear as day:

1. The President can abuse their power to sway the population in their own and in their ideology's favour. There's no system to regulate this.
2. First past the post encourages two extremes and nothing else.

@zzypt war heroes. Modern democracy forgot people 'need' their war heroes, and that the person people adore and believe in isn't necessarily the one they agree with politically.

In 86 (iirc, don't remember the exact year), Israel performed an experiment; allowing to vote for parties and for a prime minister separately. It was a massive success. The range of the political compass included in the government was unprecedented. It was abolished the next election.

When the legalizing body - Israel's Knesset, America's congress/senate - is so diverse, leaders cannot afford to be populist, as their attempts of swaying the population will be seen as abuse of government power, and they'll motion of no confidence'd out of office.

And when the leader - President or Prime Minister - cannot sway the population in favour of their own ideology, the population'll stay diverse, and no ideology will have a base large enough for its extremists to not be shunned.

I'm sorry I forgot Kan 11 is still center-left-ish somehow

What this means is, that both executive arms (the police and the IDF) are now controlled by the extreme right. The judiciary is still mostly center-leftist, but the judiciary cannot judge if the police does not arrest, and without an opposition in the Knesset, it cannot regulate the rest of the government. All that's left is the regulative "arm" of government; the Attorney General. But she's not meant to function as an arm of government; she's meant to merely slow down major reforms, to allow elections to happen before democracy falls.

He is one of the good(-er) guys. He was trying to bring about his goals peacefully, and he has ideology in mind, not himself.

In other words: he is a center-rightist, but not an extremist.

That is: he was Netanjahu's last opposer in the political branch of government.