Yes, obviously. That’s the whole premise of the satire.

Whether math is invented or discovered is actually still a debated question in mathematics.

If you’re alive you’re connected to all things and everything indirectly. Also if you’re dead.

Yes, parents obviously still pay an important role. But we regulate many things for people under the age of 18 to generally good effect.

I agree with you on both counts. There’s a vast gulf between what is theoretically possible and what is actual or probable. The edge cases I’m referencing always emerge after seismic shifts in the social fabric—whether rapidly through unexpected war or more gradually via sustained economic instability and the rise of populism.

Notably, the latter seems to be unfolding in some modern democracies. What’s new in this dynamic is the role of contemporary digital communication technologies, particularly their use in mis- and disinformation. These tools enable profound social disruption—often translating into political upheaval—at a fraction of the cost of war. By aligning economic and social tensions with a precision-targeted disinformation campaign, one can manufacture dramatic effects with startling efficiency.

The bar for things deserving of constitutional change is already low, and history shows it. Plenty of things in the Constitution would be changed in hindsight—that’s why we have the amendment process in the first place. But the major argument about this “loophole” I’ve read is actually precisely that: that Godel felt the process was disturbingly easy to manipulate. Just look at how the Senate rules for confirming SCOTUS nominees and cabinet members dropped to a simple majority. It’s entirely constitutional to take Article V and weaponize it, even to transform the Constitution into a charter for a fascist theocracy, as long as enough people support it.

The real threat isn’t an overnight authoritarian coup; it’s far more subtle—a calculated, step-by-step re-engineering of Article V itself. The first step is an amendment to require simple majorities in state legislatures for adoption and then removing those messy, inhibitory state legislatures entirely, framed as a way to “restore the Constitution to its hallowed status as a living document.” This sets the stage for the next move—an amendment eliminating the supermajority requirement in Congress to pass amendments. Of course, that change comes wrapped in patriotic rhetoric: “returning power to the people through their representatives, so the people’s voice can once again shape the founding document of our democracy!”

Now the game is on. A party in power with a simple majority in congress can rewrite the Constitution at will. A flurry of amendments follows, each more extreme than the last: extending presidential terms indefinitely, consolidating power in the executive branch, and then they close the door by passing a final amendment granting the president sole authority to interpret or invoke the Fifth Amendment.

And that’s it. The Constitution is still “living,” still technically unbroken from its adoption in the 18th century, but now it’s a tool for maintaining authoritarian rule. It has been legally and constitutionally transformed into a framework that makes the government unrecognizable as a democracy.

There is no legal way to undo it. Once the Constitution is amended to entrench authoritarian power, it becomes the ultimate barrier to change. The only way back would require abolishing the Constitution itself.

“Living document,” they’d call it, and it would be true. But this version of the Constitution wouldn’t live for the people. It would endure as a monument to how democracy destroyed itself, legally and constitutionally, from the inside out.

That doesn’t change anything. The idea that certain laws in the German constitution are untouchable doesn’t hold up when we think about the paradox we are discussing. The will of the people can, in theory, change even the most fundamental principles that protect that will. While the Eternity Clause seems to lock certain values, like human dignity and democracy, in place, democracy is about self-determination—the idea that the people can reshape the very rules that govern them. The grundgesetz is subject to constitutional replacement initiated by the people like any other nominal democracy. It’s a foundational idea in modern democracies that the people have the right to scrap a constitution and start again. That can’t really be “outlawed,” because constitutional revolution is by definition beyond constitutional law.

Even within the extant constitutional framework, if enough public support exists, the people could legally change the constitution by modifying the amendment process itself. It could also be changed through judicial reinterpretation of the eternity clause or of the “basic principles.” The invocation of article 48, state of exception, is also an obvious way that these basic principles can be temporarily suspended. While it seems specifically forbidden, the wide latitude 48 gives, especially under conditions where the survival of the state is at stake, does open the door for getting around the eternity clause in multiple ways, some direct and some indirect. The argument that some laws are untouchable overlooks the fact that, ultimately, the will of the people has the power to redefine its own foundational principles. It also overlooks the ways judicial interpretation and states of exception can effectively gut them. So, while the Eternity Clause acts as a safeguard, in the context were discussing it’s just lip service—democracy is about the power to change even the unchangeable, so the idea that “well there’s a rule against changing the rules” is circular and faulty.

It’s the paradox of all democracies. The freedom of the people to change any aspect of their society, including the founding documents that create it, mean they have the freedom to give away their freedom. Giving away freedom has always been part of the constitutional contract. The idea is to curtail what freedoms we curtail, but there is no way to mandate it without fundamentally curtailing the fundamental freedom to choose what can or can’t be curtailed.

If it sounds like I’m looping, that’s because that’s what paradoxes do.

I hear you! Still, I do find focusing on a quality meal over a quantity meal is a good thing, which I think in a different way you were also saying. Different qualities, same idea, generally good result. 😊

I live in one of those areas where the 40-60 set seems to be healthier and more focused on health than most people around my age, so I don’t think it needs to be age thing! You’ve got this!

Makes food seem pretty boring. I eat to enjoy. I’m not worried about “fuel,” it seems to work pretty well for that without my having to think about it. I’m pretty active, so it’s not much of a concern. But, I understand I’m fortunate that I don’t struggle with food/weight.

I don’t gain weight, but I just can’t do it. When I was in high school my parents would always order me my own large pizza, and I would eat all of it except one slice, which I would eat cold the following morning.

Now, I’ll still have the appetite sometimes, and I’ll order a large. If I’m lucky and very determined, I’ll eat half, and then I’m so stuffed I feel sick. I suppose that’s a good thing, but there is a certain sense of accomplishment found in dusting a whole pizza yourself.

I mean low-key that’s kind of a brilliant way to make the argument.

Aren’t their like muscles in our neck that we only use to express this feeling? Maybe I’m losing my mind.

Edit: the platysma muscles. Aka the cringe muscles. We typically only make them visible when we’re experiencing second-hand embarrassment.

Conspiracy theories often provide psychological comfort by creating an illusion of being “in the know,” offering a sense of control and superiority through access to supposed hidden truths that “they” don’t want us to uncover. This perceived exclusivity bolsters self-esteem, as it allows individuals to feel intellectually validated for uncovering what others have supposedly missed. At their core, such beliefs often serve as compensation for feelings of powerlessness, lack of control, limited opportunities, and personal insecurity.

By highlighting the widespread recognition of this theory—complete with a Wikipedia page to demystify the “shadowy cabal” narrative—you directly challenged the psychological reassurance and intellectual validation he derives from such theorizing.

For whom?

That’s kind of a “you” problem, no?

Daily. And that’s just the hats, not the signs, bumper stickers, shirts, etc. I live in a swing state. That said, over half the voters in the country voted for him, and as a group, they’re very visible in their support, so I would be surprised if you don’t see Trump paraphernalia in almost every area of the country, if you regularly go outside and are around people in places other than work. Big “if” on that last one given this is Lemmy. 😁

Because the person who said those things and to whom I’m responding is the “Trump voter” I specifically referenced? In case the fact that I’m directly responding to their comment and they’re the OP of this post didn’t make it clear enough for you.

Trump voter believes in small government. Also that the state should be able to legally compel you to electronically track your children and that 11-year-olds shouldn’t be able to walk around outside without constant surveillance and sides with parents being arrested for allowing it. Believes “some” parental freedom should be “allowed.”

I just rolled my eyes so hard I gave myself a headache.

What are you even talking about? They’re curating the communities and instances they engage with. That’s literally one of the core functionalities of the fediverse.

“YOU’RE NOT ENGAGING WITH LITERALLY WHATEVER IS PUT IN FRONT OF YOU. MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP USING THE INTERNET!”

Omg I’m dying lol 🤣

Hey OP, I have a suggestion for someone to block… I’m going to block him as well.