I think this is a very strict small-r republican moral framework for understanding government legitimacy, but I don’t think the consent of the governed has to strictly come from casting ballots in an election.

When a government loses their legitimacy they have to rely on violence against their own people to remain in power, and this is true whether there are elections or not. Zelensky would lose power if he was not kidnapping Ukrainians off the street to fight Russia, therefore, he needs to employ violence to retain power.

Compare that with Hamas, who never lack fighters and don’t bother with conscripts because the masses are willing to fight and die for them.

Hamas is able to operate because of the many people willing to volunteer their help as smugglers/informants or hide them from Israel intelligence or join them directly as fighters. Guerillas live and die by their support from the people, a guerilla movement like Hamas would not be able to exist without the masses. Their continued existence, itself, proves legitimacy imo

Not to say that Zelensky has lost legitimacy, per se, just to say that I don’t think using a moral framework based on elections will tell the whole story. I do question his legitimacy, though, which is why I don’t think he’ll be in power next year. Hamas, on the other hand, isn’t going anywhere.

Would you say Ukraine’s government is also illegitimate because they aren’t having elections?

Okay, so by this logic Israel can revoke the legitimacy of other governments simply by preventing elections.

Hamas aren’t the ones preventing elections. They don’t lose legitimacy just because other parties have illegally halted the electoral process. They’re not the obstacle.

So in your opinion, calling this genocide is biased.

Muslim scholars are calling on fellow Muslims to fight back against genocide.

The problem is that they are scary words like “futwa” and “jihad” and, in the West, this language is seen as uncivilized and barbaric.

Orientalism, in other words.

Fascism is okay when it’s legal.

Go back to Reddit.

You aren’t wrong, but can you really say they wouldn’t do this to socialists if they didn’t do it to Le Pen first? The concept of “precedent” seems very nebulous and liberal to me. In many countries the first targets are socialists.

Seems to me like they can go after anyone they want and they always could. Going after Le Pen doesn’t change this.

Enjoy $10/gal gas

Yeah I’m sure this Oscar winning director who worked with Israelis to film was throwing rocks at people.

Fuck off Israel. No one believes your lies anymore.

He was assaulted by a lynch mob.

The difference is basically just grammar.

Who ordered it and why is the same no matter how many shooters there were. If there were fourty gunmen, who ordered it and why remains the same.

I don’t see how this undermines the “lone shooter” narrative - what it undermines is the “acting alone” narrative. Lee was an asset. Why not just be satisfied with assuming he assassinated the president under orders?

You’re a Nazi if you think communism is worse than the fucking Nazis. Every fucking time, when anti-communists try to push the lie that communism is worse than Nazis you end up with mass killings of suspected communists.

Really? Accidental release implies China is dangerously incompetent, which can be used to further justify more restrictions and constraints on Chinese science because they can’t be trusted.

It’s not hard to see the role played by NATO expansion and aggression.

When NATO deposed Gaddafi it proved it is not a defensive alliance. When it couped Ukraine and installed an ally it became an existential threat. How could Russia look at an aggressive military alliance expanding toward its border and not take precautions?

I wonder if cooperation with the CPC or any other ruling communist party counts as having “links” to communism.

Except for Israel. They’re pretty safe from Trump.

Inshallah

counter disinformation

championing Western values

Pick one.