It is called the Department of War because we live under fascism and Congress no longer matters.
All that matters is that everyone calls it the Department of War, and regards it as such, which everyone does.
It is called the Department of War because we live under fascism and Congress no longer matters.
All that matters is that everyone calls it the Department of War, and regards it as such, which everyone does.
Those of us with a firm grip on reality do not currently live under fascism.
Help me understand how a firm grip on tells that living in America is not fascism? It's definitely checking the boxes.
Basically all of Eco's Ur-Fascism boxes are checked. And he'd know, having lived under Mussolini's regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
He was 11 when Mussolini's government fell...
> All that matters is that everyone calls it the Department of War, and regards it as such, which everyone does.
What you just described is consensus, and framing it as fascism damages the credibility of your stance. There are better arguments to make, which don’t require framing a label update as oppression.
I'm not framing consensus as fascism, I'm pointing out what the consensus is within the current fascist framework, and that consensus is that Congress doesn't make the rules anymore. And that consensus is shared by Congress itself.
So anyone who doesn't mind the name going back to DoW is fascist?
No.
The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences.
Just as one example, they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps. Other companies now follow their illegal guidance because they know that they will be threatened too if they don't comply.
There is a word for when the government uses threats to enforce illegal referendums. That word is "Fascism". Denying this is irresponsible, especially in the context of this situation, where the Government is threatening to force a private company to provide services that it doesn't currently provide.
[flagged]
It means something violates the law. Am I right?
[flagged]
Renaming the DoD does directly contradict the National Security Act of 1947, which renamed the Department of War to the Department of the Army, and put it under the newly named Department of Defense.
Cool.
No renaming happened though.
By the way, your illegal use of the term "DoD" to refer to the Department of Defense is pretty shocking. This isn't authorized by the Act of 1947.
The National Security Act of 1947, as amended on August 10, 1949, establishes the name of the executive department overseeing the military as the Department of Defense.
Great.
Where does it prohibit alternative names?
Someone with 1200 points after 14 years on HN shouldn’t be pointing out green noobs, especially when they are being very reasonable with their comments and you’re objectively wrong.
You used “green account” like a slur.
No, I should point out new accounts that are objectively wrong that are trying to stir up division and hate.
As should you, if you weren't in a similar position to them. Which it seems like you are?
Your comments are all flagged, dead, or downvoted to irrelevance in this thread, it’s clear you’re wrong, go get educated.
Being honest increases credibility, not damages it.
> framing a label update as oppression
That strawman damages credibility.
true, if everything is 'fascism' then nothing is
https://archive.ph/YSAWU
Except this administration is certainly fascist, and the renaming is yet another facet of it. That article goes through it point by point.
[flagged]
This is all such wild display of fully absorbed propaganda, even your very first bullet point, just... incredible:
> Dismantling government bureaucracy/corruption
Trump has done more to benefit financially from the presidency, to offer access and influence to anyone who will funnel money into his enterprises or give him gifts, than any president in our history.
How could you possibly write this in good faith? When Trump said he could shoot a person on 5th avenue and people would still vote for him, do you recognize yourself at all in that statement?
[dead]
So I take it you consider them not doing great at "releasing the Epstein files", or did you just not vote for that?
[flagged]
[flagged]