Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
@ChrisMayLA6 It’s the same as Russia/Ukraine & Israel/Palestine: ”How dare they defend themselves?!”
Authoritarian conservatism has become the dominant narrative of our time.
@ChrisMayLA6 @ohir @gimulnautti
As the old saying goes, conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: that there should be an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect. I suggest fascism is what happens when conservatives become confident enough to proceed without bothering to pretend there's still a meaningful rule of law.
@only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
> old saying goes [...]
How old this saying is?
I specifically used "for me" qualifier, aware of the different meanings of the "conservative", especially considering how perverted this meaning became for the self-identified or purpoting to be conservatives' deeds of the past decades.
For me, the conservative thought is rooted in the Polish Constitution of year 1505:
"Whereas general laws and public acts pertain not to an individual but to the Nation at large, wherefore at this General Sejm held at Radom we have, together with all our kingdom's prelates, councils and land deputies, determined it to be fitting and just, and have so resolved, that henceforth for all time to come nothing new shall be resolved by us or our successors, without the common consent of the Senators and the Land Deputies, that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone, or that would tend to alter the general law and public liberty."...
The key phrases "without the common consent", "that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone".
Evolution, not revolution. Consensus, not Dictat. As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most.
@ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6
"As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most."
That's a pretty emotional and value-laden statement, bypassing any burdens of proof. Wouldn't hold up in any court I would attend or support.
@gimulnautti @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6
> That's a pretty emotional and value-laden statement
May I ask for an example of a revolution that didn’t awaken reactionary demons?
And yes, Constitutions usually are value-laden.
@Pyrogenesis @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
> with what words are commonly understood to mean
I pointed out in my first reply, that the very "common understanding" has had been perverted, by __fascists__.
And now I am being "corrected" by some of my dear interlocutors, implying the very perversion I spot.
There is nothing "conservative" in mafia grab of states, nor in __sudden__ trampling on laws and freedoms, nor in anything fascist do. The only valid point is, that self-identified conservatives really are and were enablers for populists.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conservative
@ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti Do you understand the difference between a colloquial use as given by a dictionary, and the actual and historical reality of conservatism as an ideology? It is the latter that is the issue here: that in practice, conservatives have always been, at best, fascist enablers.
And thanks for the dictionary link, real Reddit-level argumentation there. I can do you one better though. What you are engaging in here is called "special pleading".
Emeritus Prof Christopher May
Toni Aittoniemi
ohir
Dan Hatton
warning low flying owls