this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
1207 points (90.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

5408 readers
3804 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] drekly@lemmy.world 85 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How dare you try and change an amendment

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Up until about a hundred years ago we were doing it all the time.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

More amendments were ratified in the latter half of 20th century than the entire 19th (6 vs. 4).

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 62 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

Because the constitution is the document that lays out the foundation for all of our legal rights and the limitations placed on the government that are intended to keep it accountable to the people. It's not perfect, but it does cover a hell of a lot, even more gets expanded on through legislation and the courts, and when necessary it can be (and has been) amended.

But it's also just ink and parchment. It can't do anything if the government decides to ignore it. It's the people who give power to the constitution. The more it is valued by the people across the country, throughout the political spectrum, both inside and outside the halls of power, the more likely it will be that those protections are respected. And when those protections are violated, people are far more likely to push back. And many within the government are also more likely to push back. That's literally the only reason we didn't have an overturned election, because numerous people at all levels of government said no, many despite being aligned with the assholes that were trying to stay in power.

So yes, I would very much prefer it if everyone would treat the constitution with some reverence if that's what it takes. The alternative is not pretty.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This comment and this title are two separate things in my opinion. I don't give a shit what the founding fathers wanted either. That's why we've amended the Constitution several times. The originalist viewpoint of the Constitution is ridiculous and completely counter even to how the founders wanted the document to act, funny enough.

As for why it's treated like a holy book -- it's basically a set of rules for our government and what laws are okay and which laws aren't okay. Think of it like a social contract that everyone signed. It's how we've agreed to live together and treat each other. Unlike a holy book though it can and has been changed.

It's quite literally the legal foundation of the country.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can we please not turn microblog memes into the new whitepeopletwitter where we just post unnuanced political opinions rather than funny memes? Microblogs are a bad platform for political discourse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago (19 children)

Why? Because a lot of their ideas were good. Creating a system of government that is immune or even resilient to corruption is very difficult, but the US has done pretty good all things considered.

[–] Masimatutu@lemm.ee 41 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (10 children)

I would say the Swedish constitution is substantially better, yet I never see anybody cite it as a supreme authority of morality. We have also changed it regularly since its total revision in 1974. I am not saying that the American one is necessarily bad, but I am saying it is just a law and should not be worshipped.

Edit: if you want to give it a read, the official translation can be accessed here (pdf)

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)

Treating the constitution as if it cant be changed because it is "perfect" is wildly different than not wanting the government to boundary test how it can skirt the constitution to get what it wants. When the US government doesnt follow the rules that it was supposed to be bound to via the constitution, it is almost never a good thing.

The constitution set rules for how to change it legitimately. It was designed to be changed over time not flagrently ignored.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (12 children)

Yeah but a lot were also bad which is why it’s stupid when people act like the opinions of the founding fathers should matter more than the opinions of contemporary Americans when the same founding fathers were smart enough to realize the constitution should be a living document and not a holy totem to use as a club to stifle any progress.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

One of their ideas I personally think would be amazing: allegedly, Thomas Jefferson predicted the Construction would only last less than twenty years before we would completely overhaul our core document of governance. I believe rebuilding the specific details every couple decades would've helped tremendously....

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 18 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Can’t even imagine rebuilding constitution in our current political environment.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

~Every single generation since the founding of this country

I agree though. I can think of many times in history that a rewriting of the bill of rights would have excluded free speech. Imagine if the current supreme court had the authority to revoke the separation of church and state, and mandate that all public schools have a Protestant focus.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

It has done a horrible job of it all things considered. Basically all the fabled checks and balances have turned out to be based on nothing but good faith. The founders refused to consider that partisanship would evolve at all, let alone to the extremes it has turned into today.

Lots of other Western democracies are doing a lot better job at it, not least because they have been allowed to evolve and change with the times, while the core of the US political system has petrified in all its archaism.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] w2tpmf@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Well the very first and most important thing they wanted was to give you the right to say that or whatever you want about them.

Before they enshrined that concept in their document, saying such things about members of your government would get you jailed or executed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Forefathers didn't come close to living up to their own words. We are still striving to meet them hundreds of years later. It's a good goal.

[–] echodot 10 points 11 months ago (14 children)

Equally however a lot of that stipulations make no sense.

For example the gun laws were developed back when firing a shot required about a 45-minute reload session. I somehow doubt that automatic rifles were predicted and considered.

I highly suspect they thought that the American people would be intelligent enough to make their own constitution when the current one became invalid, sadly not.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Just as the founding fathers intended

Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VegaLyrae@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not to say that the 2nd amendment, as written, isn't totally wild.

However I do want to mention that the Continental congress was petitioned by John Belton in 1777 to purchase his 16-shot musket. It also had a not-quite-magazine that could be replaced very quickly. The 16 shots could be fired as quickly as the user could pull the triggers (yes it had multiple).

Given this, it seems likely that the people writing the constitution ten years later had some idea of rapid fire weaponry.

Just 20 years after that, they sent Lewis and Clarke expedition out with a relatively rapid firing airgun.

It is reasonable to say that rapid fire weaponry was contemporaneous to the constitution writing era.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] yemmly@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago (5 children)

In any governing system, something has to be supreme. Something has to be the final word in settling disputes. There are basically three options: Fiat, convention, or consensus. Consensus is really only practical in small groups, so we can put that option to the side. What remains is the choice between rule by the whims of a person or group, and the rule of law.

Despite their many flaws, the founders of the American republic were at least smart enough to realize that there would be a constant temptation to set aside the rule of law and let a person dictate things. So the foundational law (the constitution) was made sacrosanct in the way that the king had been. To lose the rule of law is to lose the republic, and return to tyranny.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Otakat@reddthat.com 27 points 11 months ago

I like the constitution because I don't want Matt Gaetz to be able to propose whatever nonsense he wants. It's not a perfect document, but it enshrines certain fundamental protections that really shouldn't be fucked with.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Because according to our education system, we're the only country that has a constitution, and we used it to beat the greatest evil: taxing rich people.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 20 points 11 months ago (10 children)

Because many of those men were flat-out geniuses. They penned a fine constitution and outlined ideals we should strive to achieve. That doesn't mean they knew the best way to legislate modern issues though , like the internet. That brings us back to their genius. They outlined a process to revise, or amend if you will, the laws of the land. The biggest problem that they didn't foresee is that America would regress into fervent tribalism, completely unwilling to amend anything that might benefit another tribe. So we're stuck, locked in the year 1992 when the last amendment was written. Actually that's not completely true. Many of them did foresee the dangers of a bicameral partisan system, and issued abundant warnings about it. Unfortunately they really didn't anticipate just how insulated and shameless many of our politicians would become, probably because tar and feathers in the public square was still a possibility back then.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] bemenaker@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

Only narrow minded people do. The rest of us understand as our forefathers did, that the constitution is a framework, that is malleable. It is meant to be updated over time and fine tuned. That is why they left the ability to add amendments.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

The forefathers had some of the most sensible ideology in the history of humankind. What other country established limits on the power of their government as a foundational document?

They're still very sound principles to this day.

Unfortunately our current government doesn't concern themselves with those principles.

But I will agree with what was likely the point of this post, which is that the Constitution is not and was never supposed to be timeless, and the founders would agree with that too.

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Every country with a constitution?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago (12 children)

established limits on the power of their government as a foundational document

I'd argue that's a blessing and a curse.

The framers were coming off a monarchy. They saw government power as dangerous and thought that it had to be limited. But they didn't really consider that other groups might gain greater power than governments.

Unfortunately, we have exactly that problem. Organizations with sufficient money often rival governments for power.

The checks and balances that were designed to protect ordinary citizens from government also protect large multinational corporations and ultra rich families and individuals. The result is often that those powerful non-government actors can often subvert government and ultimately cause the same, or even worse, problems.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 17 points 11 months ago (6 children)

The constitution is the foundation of the entire US legal system. Without it the whole thing collapses.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There is so much nuance to it, and it outlines a good system. However it is based on assumptions about the integrity, awareness, and independence of thought each citizen would have that have been systematically undermined.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MellowSnow@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is infallible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Books and documents (any media, really) should be read, analyzed, and critiqued, not put into a shrine and worshipped, because texts written on paper aren't supposed to be immutable or even always right, or they could be appropriate for the time they are written in, but no longer meets the changing social environment of the current age, which is why it is best for these important documents to always be updated to reflect the practical needs of the time.

So, yes, I think the "do everything as the Founders wanted" attitude in the States is quite silly.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)

So, yes, I think the “do everything as the Founders wanted” attitude in the States is quite silly.

Well the founders wanted us to adjust the Constitution over time to meet the needs of the current generation.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 14 points 11 months ago (10 children)

This is a pretty ignorant take. We can change the rules whenever we want. This is the whole process of amendments.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I would be mildly surprised if there's every another amendment again, very surprised if there's one in our lifetime.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A lot of money is spent in order to propagandize Americans into thinking they're living in the greatest country in the world (tm), and the weird veneration of the founding document, and the people who wrote it is a big part of it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Either the constitution has the ultimate authority in government, or our presidents do. And have you see the kind of people we elect president?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago

because it's a manufactured reverence for their idea of the country by our education system. Our history classes are laden with U.S. propaganda that makes a lot of Americans think a lot of incorrect things about our history. The infallibility of our founding fathers is one of those things.

[–] BromSwolligans@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Because we're taught to in school and everything we're meant to learn about enlightenment ideals and free, critical thinking is contradicted by our nonstop exposure to 'patriotic identity as a brand'. Our football games, our truck commercials, our news stations, everything is stamped with an American flag in the way a church might use iconography of crosses and saints. And since our education system is actually pretty bad at teaching nuance and critical thought, we latch onto it like "yeah, I like America, and I will glorify it because I'm being told to." And then you get into this really lazy binary of ideology as a commodity where people crave the dopamine hit of feeling like they're associated with a 'side', and a side which has all the most DeVaStAtInG hot takes to pwn the other side's strawmen. And then you're in "my country, do or die" territory because some wealthy person in the media is able to "rah rah" you into being a class traitor because of the trivial fandom associations they've taught you to make about culture war issues that actually have nothing to do with you or your day to day life.

load more comments
view more: next ›