Why can’t dictators have the criticism without the jew and gay bashing? Is the message not enough to motivate people unless they also include anti semitism?
“Sure sure, capitalism and investment wars are bad we all know, but what really got me excited was the gay bashing!”
Um… how about we have no dictators… a dictator that embraces Jewish people and the LGBQT+ is still a dictator…
that…is a very odd statement; whats your point again?
Osama bin Laden wasn’t a dictator, he was a billionaire terrorist who got his money from his father’s construction company. Or are you referring to His Majesty King Charles III?
The oppression of some people isn’t worth talking about.
Let’s just discuss the people worthy of feeling compassion for.
Well we shouldn’t be too woke… /s
Do you mean the US is a dictator (big reach, try empire) and Bin Liner was criticizing that, and could have maybe avoided the antisemitic and homophobic elements?
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.
Meh. Almost all dictators have been bad, but it’s not inherent to the concept. It’s because the vast majority of them have been manipulative, homicidal, cult-of-personality nutbags. There is such a thing as a benevolent autocrat, they’re just rare.
The whole concept of “dictator” was invented by the Roman Republic, to give one leader complete decision-making for a limited time in emergencies. “Good” or “bad” depends on whether you agree or disagree with the decisions made. I, for one, would certainly welcome giving someone like Senator (Roman, see?) Sanders dictatorial powers for a year, but many other people would, sadly, consider that bad.
Nazis are inherently always bad, though, yes.
We don’t live in the Roman republic or the Roman empire… Even when it was a republic, it was still shot through with deep inequality, as it was a slave society…
There is a reason why we don’t live like they did in the Roman Republic, because we’ve spent centuries trying out new and better ideas of governing a society.
Your chosen moniker often seems quite the misnomer; thanks for mansplaining why “dictators aren’t all that bad, actually.”
It goes like this…
“The US government is corrupt!”
“Corporate owned media is the enemy!”
Ok, sure, I get that.
“For profit wars must end!”
“The Jews, Gays, Mexicans, and black lives are the problem!”
Wtf?? What does that have to do with it? ( I know I’m ignoring Israel Palestine conflict influence but corruption is universal, non affiliated)
So what’s up with the punching down? To me it’s an indication the speaker is full of shit so why do they do it? Do people resonate more with hating other people rather than battling a faceless corrupt system?
I think I’m also annoyed because I would love a leader that really does want to drain the swamp but isn’t an asshole.
Israel and the PLO had a peace deal. The Oslo Accords. The US was instrumental in helping get it approved by both sides.
It was hardliners on both sides that sabotaged it after it was signed and slowly being implemented.
Where do you think bin Laden stands on that. For all his talk about “the Jews” you can bet bin Laden tacitly approved of the Jewish ultra-Zionist who killed Yitzhak Rabin.
So while I think there are valid critiques of US policy in the middle east, what’s happening now in Gaza is about religious intolerance, not US policy.
That seems to be the case for far too many people right now.
Since it’s laced with the vile anti-Semitism that’s a sine qua non for right-wing authoritarians of all stripes, I’m sure the letter will be given a prominent place on Xitter.
Anti-Semitism isn’t called “the socialism of fools” for no reason. It’s at the bottom of every loony conspiracy theory and every fascist and authoritarian movement. It goes hand-in-hand with every one of your earlier points being easily transformed from common-sense populism to fodder for Putin-supporting Useful Idiocy.
So you’re fine with a friendly dictator? Why? Why not focus on a more democratic response to the world that gets at our shared, collective problems in a way that isn’t oppressive to others, even if they’re the “wrong” people?
FYI, almost all dictatorships start with complaints about “corruption” and “draining the swamp” bullshit. It’s always about eliminating the “wrong” people, first from power, and then from public life. It’s ALWAYS about oppression. ALWAYS.
To be fair, it wasn’t a peace deal, it was a promise to work towards a peace deal in the future.
Indeed, and then we failed to move it forward at all and instead leaned into unquestioning support for one side.
It’s not. That whole framing of the conflict is specifically designed to make it seem like an intractable conflict so that the combatants can continue to slaughter each other and those who are just trying to live their lives in peace. But if you know anything about the history of the region, it was not always awash in religious intolerance that marks the current conflict - it comes out of a very modern context and events of the past century and half or so, both there and in Europe/US. As long as we let that narrative dominate, the problem will not be solved.
short answer; yes. long answer;
that depends (economics anyone?) yes!
meeeep! wrong answer; “leader”
I look at Bernie and Trump and believe that at the end of the day their anti corruption rhetoric was similar and is what a lot of the trump voters were wanting to hear, but they voted for the lying corrupted loud mouth and hated the guy that had an entire career fighting for the rights of The People.
and why is that? whats your guess? or did they actually “hated” him? as far as I remember bernie wasnt voted by anyone of the “common” people, because he wasnt nominated as runner by his party.