Interesting. Genuinely, thanks for your reply— I’m beginning to think there’s been some sort of misunderstanding (likely on my part). I definitely was not defending Pug’s comment...
CriticalThought
joined 5 months ago
Of course! Increasing genocide is of little consequence compared with suffering people’s judgment. Glad we share priorities
Indeed! The actual consequences of (in)actions are unimportant so long as claimed intentions are pure…
- Claim to be anti-genocide,
- Act in a way that increase genocide,
- Accuse others of being pro-genocide,
- Revel in moral superiority
chef’s kiss
Doesn’t vote, gets a lot of genocide instead
ITT: a bunch of non-native English speakers lecturing native English speakers on the meaning and usage of English words in colloquial English :-/
Ok, not a downvoter, but I’ll bite. A system with more than one party is more democratic than a system with a single party. Are you asking which of the two major parties in the US is the “second” party, making the US more democratic than if there were a single party? If so, I see why no one is answering. If not, perhaps you could clarify your question?
I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx : “Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”
I am curious about this as well. At least in some cases, it seems to be due to “alternate facts”, e.g., https://lemmy.ca/comment/13198294