▲ 317 ▼ Clearly a mistake (lemmy.world) submitted 2 weeks ago by criss_cross@lemmy.world to c/linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works 78 comments fedilink hide all child comments More Blind Lunacy. This place has got some serious right wing nut job vibes.
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 92 points 2 weeks ago (19 children) This reads more like satire, but I don't know the author. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) It reads like satire, but there is a real faction that are trying to repeal the 19th amendment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) Oh absolutely, but I haven't seen people sincerely saying the way to remedy it is by removing single men's suffrage. The vibe I got was that this was using the real opinions and arguments of the people who oppose women's suffrage then humorously turning it on its head by arguing against men's suffrage, which is an equally reasonable (completely unreasonable to be exact) remedy to the arguments as what those people will claim. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Malica@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago And no fault divorce, don't forget that one, they want to re-enslave women. permalink fedilink source parent [–] expatriado@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) wonder how the Venn diagram looks with incels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] techwithjake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago It's a circle. permalink fedilink source parent [–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) It's definitely satire. Wanting to take away single men's right to vote and ending with Trump's sign off are obvious giveaways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago Unfortunately, it's rarely obvious anymore if you don't know the person posting it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] criss_cross@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) Being in the platform it’s not. It’s a shame this cesspool is the only place to get tech industry tea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) LinkedIn should be destroyed for the blight that it is on working people, but strawmanning the obvious, self-conflicting satire is not the move permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children) Is it a strawman when this is being treated as a legitimate position these days? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) "Taking away single men's right to vote" is not treated as a legitimate position by anyone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago Taking away women’s right to vote is. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago How fascist do motherfuckers have to get before you stop going 'I bet they're joking?' permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (5 children) It is. A few far right morons are starting to tout the whole, "Women dont vote right we should repeal the 19th" out loud instead of just thinking it privately. This is pretty clearly mocking that. That being said, fuck it, no one gets to vote. Were going ancient athens and just doing it by lotto. You can do your year and go home and face the repercussions without security and pension for a life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children) Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig proposed a Jury-like system for passing legislation. The idea is that regardless of someone's stated political party, people will vote for individual laws that benefit them on a case by case basis before following hard party lines and it would be too costly and complicated for malicious groups to bribe individual citizens the same way they give "campaign contributions." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law? Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago I don't think this system was meant to be perfect. It's just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you're values twisted by establishment political relationships. Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Supercrunchy@programming.dev 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago A parliament is still an additional layer. What I'm describing is a Jury system for passing laws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) It reads like satire, but there is a real faction that are trying to repeal the 19th amendment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) Oh absolutely, but I haven't seen people sincerely saying the way to remedy it is by removing single men's suffrage. The vibe I got was that this was using the real opinions and arguments of the people who oppose women's suffrage then humorously turning it on its head by arguing against men's suffrage, which is an equally reasonable (completely unreasonable to be exact) remedy to the arguments as what those people will claim. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Malica@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago And no fault divorce, don't forget that one, they want to re-enslave women. permalink fedilink source parent [–] expatriado@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) wonder how the Venn diagram looks with incels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] techwithjake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago It's a circle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) Oh absolutely, but I haven't seen people sincerely saying the way to remedy it is by removing single men's suffrage. The vibe I got was that this was using the real opinions and arguments of the people who oppose women's suffrage then humorously turning it on its head by arguing against men's suffrage, which is an equally reasonable (completely unreasonable to be exact) remedy to the arguments as what those people will claim. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago And no fault divorce, don't forget that one, they want to re-enslave women. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) wonder how the Venn diagram looks with incels permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] techwithjake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago It's a circle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] techwithjake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago It's a circle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) It's definitely satire. Wanting to take away single men's right to vote and ending with Trump's sign off are obvious giveaways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago Unfortunately, it's rarely obvious anymore if you don't know the person posting it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago Unfortunately, it's rarely obvious anymore if you don't know the person posting it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) Being in the platform it’s not. It’s a shame this cesspool is the only place to get tech industry tea. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) LinkedIn should be destroyed for the blight that it is on working people, but strawmanning the obvious, self-conflicting satire is not the move permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children) Is it a strawman when this is being treated as a legitimate position these days? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) "Taking away single men's right to vote" is not treated as a legitimate position by anyone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago Taking away women’s right to vote is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] degen@midwest.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children) LinkedIn should be destroyed for the blight that it is on working people, but strawmanning the obvious, self-conflicting satire is not the move permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children) Is it a strawman when this is being treated as a legitimate position these days? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) "Taking away single men's right to vote" is not treated as a legitimate position by anyone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago Taking away women’s right to vote is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children) Is it a strawman when this is being treated as a legitimate position these days? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) "Taking away single men's right to vote" is not treated as a legitimate position by anyone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago Taking away women’s right to vote is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] degen@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) "Taking away single men's right to vote" is not treated as a legitimate position by anyone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago Taking away women’s right to vote is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago Taking away women’s right to vote is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago How fascist do motherfuckers have to get before you stop going 'I bet they're joking?' permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (5 children) It is. A few far right morons are starting to tout the whole, "Women dont vote right we should repeal the 19th" out loud instead of just thinking it privately. This is pretty clearly mocking that. That being said, fuck it, no one gets to vote. Were going ancient athens and just doing it by lotto. You can do your year and go home and face the repercussions without security and pension for a life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children) Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig proposed a Jury-like system for passing legislation. The idea is that regardless of someone's stated political party, people will vote for individual laws that benefit them on a case by case basis before following hard party lines and it would be too costly and complicated for malicious groups to bribe individual citizens the same way they give "campaign contributions." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law? Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago I don't think this system was meant to be perfect. It's just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you're values twisted by establishment political relationships. Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Supercrunchy@programming.dev 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago A parliament is still an additional layer. What I'm describing is a Jury system for passing laws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children) Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig proposed a Jury-like system for passing legislation. The idea is that regardless of someone's stated political party, people will vote for individual laws that benefit them on a case by case basis before following hard party lines and it would be too costly and complicated for malicious groups to bribe individual citizens the same way they give "campaign contributions." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law? Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago I don't think this system was meant to be perfect. It's just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you're values twisted by establishment political relationships. Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Supercrunchy@programming.dev 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago A parliament is still an additional layer. What I'm describing is a Jury system for passing laws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law? Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago I don't think this system was meant to be perfect. It's just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you're values twisted by establishment political relationships. Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago I don't think this system was meant to be perfect. It's just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you're values twisted by establishment political relationships. Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Supercrunchy@programming.dev 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago A parliament is still an additional layer. What I'm describing is a Jury system for passing laws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago A parliament is still an additional layer. What I'm describing is a Jury system for passing laws. permalink fedilink source parent