326
Clearly a mistake
(lemmy.nz)
More Blind Lunacy.
This place has got some serious right wing nut job vibes.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2026
326 points (96.8% liked)
LinkedinLunatics
7186 readers
197 users here now
A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com
(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This reads more like satire, but I don't know the author.
It reads like satire, but there is a real faction that are trying to repeal the 19th amendment.
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.
And no fault divorce, don't forget that one, they want to re-enslave women.
wonder how the Venn diagram looks with incels
It's a circle.
It's definitely satire. Wanting to take away single men's right to vote and ending with Trump's sign off are obvious giveaways.
Unfortunately, it's rarely obvious anymore if you don't know the person posting it.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
A parliament is still an additional layer. What I'm describing is a Jury system for passing laws.
How fascist do motherfuckers have to get before you stop going 'I bet they're joking?'
Being in the platform it’s not.
It’s a shame this cesspool is the only place to get tech industry tea.
LinkedIn should be destroyed for the blight that it is on working people, but strawmanning the obvious, self-conflicting satire is not the move
Is it a strawman when this is being treated as a legitimate position these days?
"Taking away single men's right to vote" is not treated as a legitimate position by anyone
Taking away women’s right to vote is.