• IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
    62·
    2 months ago

    calls for a “benevolent dictator” to run the US

    These chucklefucks keep getting this part so wrong. No dictator stays benevolent for long. We’ve got something like 60 centuries of history to back that up. Eventually they demand unwavering fealty to their, and only theirs alone, lineage.

    I feel like sometimes dressing up as Gandalf and smacking these idiots over their head and reminding them “only one who can bend them to his will. And he does not share power!”

    Like for fucks sake this is such an ingrained human trait we’re making fucking fictional stories based off it and needing zero additional information on why anyone would desire such a monopoly on power.

    I swear the lot of these people have their heads firmly planted deep into their lower digestive tract.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      34·
      2 months ago

      These degenerates are also completely incapable of choosing someone who would be benevolent even for a moment. They just want someone who hates the same people they hate to be able to bypass checks and balances to hurt the people they want to hurt. There’s no deeper political philosophy here.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      2 months ago

      These chucklefucks keep getting this part so wrong. No dictator stays benevolent for long.

      Not just that, the implication here is that “benevolence” is objective, which is a fundamentally religious point of view. But in the real world, one man’s benevolent dictator would be another man’s tyrant.

      • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
        4·
        2 months ago

        But even in the liturgical sense of benevolence, schism is a thing, and often enough that we literally made the word schism for that and everyone else just adopted it to means a break of different ideas that used to be one.

        So even those of the same religion have over time turned on each other. There’s just been no successful consolidation of organized power under a single person or dictum that stayed free of eventually violence to it’s own members. Power always thirsts more power. That’s been all of history.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      4·
      2 months ago

      Eventually they demand unwavering fealty to their, and only theirs alone, lineage.

      We don’t even have to wait for this eventuality. Trump is the embodiment of this process pressed into an ultrapure essence already. He demands fealty to one person, himself.

  • kat_angstrom@lemmy.world
    45·
    2 months ago

    The Verge basically just copied the notes from the Behind the Bastards episodes about Curtis Yarvin. A frustrating experience to listen to, and read about as well considering how Yarvin is so very full of bad ideas

      • Lianodel@ttrpg.networkEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        I really liked that Ed Helms asked a lot of very straightforward questions about Yarvin’s ideology, which just went to show that it completely falls apart if you think about it critically for even a moment. It’s not something you come to believe after listening to the best arguments from a bunch of different positions. It’s something you come to believe because it justifies your own elitism.

    • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      It’s because they assume some absolute power holder already exists and it’s not their one, but black, jewish, deep state etc, so they want their own. The actual weakness of Democrats not holding 100% of all offices is probably the go-to talking point when trying to deprogram vulnerable believers of said conspiracies.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        I keep saying I think no cons should be allowed to hold any office, and this is pretty much why. Despite all their rhetoric about “patriotism”, and “freedom” and “but mah Constitution”, they don’t really care about any of that. They don’t want freedom and they don’t respect rule of law - except to have freedom only for themselves and those they deem worthy.

        They are elitist to the core, but then declare ideas related to doing anything about climate change (and thus disrupt assumptions about fossil fuel usage and the Standard American Diet) as “elitist”. They twist meanings of words to mean entirely different things from what normal Americans understand those terms to mean.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      129·
      2 months ago

      I mean, you’d be surprised.

      For one, without reading the full thing I may agree with the headline. If you’re a Constitutional Monarchist who thinks having the head of state be a symbolic figurehead with no real power or capacity to intervene in politics I may not disagree with you.

      The US could elect Trump as king and let him spend his days waving at crowds and attending weddings, maybe doing the jerk-dance in receptions with other monarchs. A remarkable number of democracies operate this way and do alright. Certainly better than letting him run any country for real.

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          24·
          2 months ago

          You’re taking the joke a bit too seriously. But hey, in any case it doesn’t seem like he’s struggling on that department. I haven’t seen so much media attention devoted to unbearably annoying ramblings applied to a monarch. They mostly just sit in the corner and try to avoid reminding people that ceremonial dynastic positions are an anachronism.

  • acosmichippo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    2 months ago

    weird that the article doesn’t clearly link monarchism in general and RAGE specifically to Project 2025.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    4·
    2 months ago

    Couch fuckin’, boot lickin’, normal human man.

    Ha ha, good. So how long have you been reading this thread?