Maybe read about the French revolutionary National Assembly & where political left came from?

Yes: crack open a history book.

Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.

leftism begins at anti-capitalism

Not the political science definition.

General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.

liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy

• inherent equality of individuals
• universal individual rights & liberties
• consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).

Note how capitalism isn’t mentioned anywhere: it’s nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn’t liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.

The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.

1700s

When the liberals were the leftists?

If we rely on the logic of the German approach, we wouldn’t be able to call the thing a thing until its too late. The point being made is that if you wait long enough to be able to a full historical analysis, you’ve effectively become an apologist for genocide on the basis of a lack of evidence.

Untrue: it’s a matter of accurate wording. “The evidence so far indicates they’re potentially…” or “For all we know, they could be…” gets the same idea across without violating integrity concerning degree of certainty or knowledge.

Providing material support to Israel is no different from providing material support to Nazi Germany

Technically & literally false: they are different. A lawyer can challenge the falsehood.

Providing material support to Israel is bad for the same reasons providing material support to any genocidal state including Nazi Germany is bad

Providing material support to Israel is providing material support to a genocidal state

Providing material support to Israel is as bad as providing material support to a feebler Nazi Germany

All technically correct or opinion.

Claiming shit is true before we have the evidence to justify it is invalid & another way to state you’re claiming shit you don’t actually know: you’re spouting shit. Spouting shit is fine in cool countries that respect liberty. However, Germany is not one of them. Spouting the wrong shit in Germany is legally risky: apparently, the law parses words with autistic literalism.

By punishing verbal laziness, the law doesn’t necessarily “support genocide”. It is coercing you to stop being a slob & express yourself with (annoying?) accuracy.

Cool non-answer. What part of civility rules typical across lemmy such as dbzer0’s own

Don’t be shitty. i.e. telling people to kill themselves, or bad-jacketing is bannable.

allows exceptions for unhinged promotion of violence against commenters whom we unreasonably allege or “bad-jacket” as Zionist? Uncivil denunciations of Zionism are uncivil; therefore, moderators enforcing civility must prosecute. No evidence was given the moderators penalize civil denunciations of Zionism. Enforcing civility doesn’t imply Zionism.

This is basic logic. Denying basic logic implies staggering stupidity or dishonesty.

Putting words into people’s mouths is a weaker argument yet.

he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it

see

Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.

Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they’re a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they’ll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.

Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you’re not a qualified physician. It’s perfectly fair to point out you’re not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.

No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.

This is sensationalist BS and I dearly want this platform to be better than that.

This platform loves sensationalism. Same with other platforms.

Do you have any analysis to substantiate your claims like the articles I linked?

The historical record of congressional party control shows that in the past 4 decades Democrats have rarely had enough control of both chambers to pass legislation without bipartisan support. Democrats (& independents caucusing with them) have had

• no veto-proof supermajority in both chambers since session 94 (1975–7)
• no filibuster-proof supermajority in both chambers since session 111 (2009–11) briefly
• no simple majority in both chambers since session 117 (2021–3).

Even with a majority, Democrats aren’t a monolith: they still have factions. Overcoming Senate filibuster requires 3/5 supermajority. Enacting legislation still requires presidential approval or veto override with 2/3 supermajority from both chambers. Veto overrides are rare & typically bipartisan, especially the last one, which was against Trump. Consequently, deliberation & compromise to broadly appeal to their own party & enough of the opposition is a practical necessity.

Moreover, Trump was impeached twice. They simply lacked the 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to convict due to insufficient bipartisan support.

The 1st impeachment split by party almost exactly:

• impeachment passed with a simple majority without Republicans
• conviction votes for 1st & 2nd charges didn’t even get a simple majority.

The 2nd impeachment on 2021/1/13 was only days after the 2021/1/6 incitement of insurrection. Despite some Republican support, not enough were willing to defy Trump.

• impeachment passed with some Republican support (all 222 Democrats + 10 Republicans)
• conviction failed with a simple majority approving conviction (all 50 Democrats + 7 Republicans).

Failure to convict on 2021/2/13 imperiled chances of a federal criminal case against Trump’s actions during presidency. At that point, congressional Democrats had exhausted the extent of their powers to prosecute or avail Trump to prosecution. The congressional investigation afterward while lengthy posed no real chance of holding Trump legally accountable for inciting insurrection: it could only make findings & refer criminal charges to prosecutors. Any further action would need to be taken by federal prosecutors in the presidential administration.

While the DOJ investigation started late in 2022 November & failed to enter trial hearings (either due to a corrupt judge or appeals over presidential immunity) by the time Trump was reelected, that failure was entirely the Biden administration’s and not of the Democratic party, who had promptly impeached Trump & failed to obtain conviction, because the numbers weren’t in their favor.

Putting “wrenches in the spokes” goes both ways. Do you know how long congressional Republicans had tried to restrict abortion? They simply couldn’t: they had to circumvent US congress through the Supreme Court & state legislatures. Democrats haven’t been “enabling, aiding, or abetting” Republican fascism or authoritarianism: roll calls indicate the contrary. It’s just Congress operating as unsatisfactory & inefficient as should be expected when half represent crazed-out fascists.

Again, any concrete suggestions for how the “damn Democrats” could “stand up to Trump”?

How do you suggest they do that? They’re the minority in both chambers of congress & already overwhelmingly oppose the president’s party on legislation. From roll call analysis

• polarization is at the highest in the last several decades

• Democrats have lately voted with higher party unity than Republicans

  In the House and the Senate, the average party conformity score was higher for Democrats than Republicans over the nearly 18,000 total votes taken. Democrats in the House voted with their party 90.4 percent of the time; Republicans in the House, 89.3 percent of the time. In the Senate, the gulf was wider: Democrats lined up 89.8 percent of the time while Republicans did so only 86.6 percent of the time.

  Over the past 20 years, Democrats have, in fact, been more likely to stick together on votes than have Republicans.

• non-cooperation between parties is the highest it’s been for at least 6 decades & increasing

  • the frequency of pairwise vote agreements cross-party is at a low & clearly declining
  • pairwise vote agreement networks are clearly splitting by party.

They’re supporting protests against the president’s actions.

So, you’re already telling everyone you don’t understand the spoiler effect, basically advocating the opposition to assure their own loss.

Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.

A spoiler campaign in the United States is often one that cannot realistically win but can still determine the outcome by pulling support from a more competitive candidate.

Any other bright ideas?

An admin in their matrix room explains they lack access to revive it. It’d been intermittently going down for a while.