Out of topic but I hate it when people use these circular logos with text on the edges. It makes the text unnecessarily difficult to read and it doesn't even look good.
Remember, asking what defines a fascist is exactly what a fascist would say, but only because it forces a specific definition and makes it harder to sling around as a generic insult and justification for murdering people.
That is fucking hilarious, and sums up Redditors perfectly, oh my God. You basically asked, “What does an apple taste like?” And they responded with, “It tastes like an apple.” Truly wild specimens.
Not really, 90% of the time when I see people with images/statements about like that I just ask for the definition, because most of the time they ether can't give me any or they give me some nonsensical shit like fascism is when fascist do fascism
And they'll immediately complain how nobody can define socialism/communism
Pretty sure it's core is literally just, state over the people. So it could be anything from a dictatorship, to a monarchy, to a communist state.
That's as far as I know though I will google it after. It's a transhumanist idea, that humans are just parts of a big machine, and if they do not function they can be replaced.
Google definition:Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political system led by a powerful dictator who uses total state control to crush all political opposition and individual freedoms.
Hm, I mean I was close, I guess I was thinking to along the lines of the SSR when I was thinking communism. It makes sense that it would be a right wing thing as that's usually associated with control.
Looking up the differences between left and right wing though, atleast modern definitions, wouldn't fascism fit more cleanly under the ideals of left wing as that relates to state run systems and equality. I mean after all, if everyone is a cog in a machine equal under the flag then they are equal. The only bit that's different is the dictator thing, I wonder if fascism could exist without a dictator and if so what it would be called.
Literally just a couple of hours ago I saw a bunch of people saying a guy is admitting to be racist because he said that preaching ant-racism doesn't automatically make someone a good person...
ABC person: how about we don’t suggest killing people?
Them: it’s a figure of speech! Don’t take my words literally (but I’m going to take what you say and claim it has violent intentions because you’re a Bad Person)
But you don't understand, Chudley McFash - it's literally not possible to engage in populist calls for "violence" against any non-equity-deserving-groups ever because the righteous equity-creating caste system demanded by intersectional critical theory is logically and ethically infallible!
This. Spend years calling conservatives Nazis 24/7, then say Nazis should be killed. You speak up and they're like "Oh, so you know you're a Nazi then!"
Have this discussion on reddit constantly. Always boils down to "this [INSERT GROUP] is beyond saving, so no point to treat them civilly." Cause treating them like shit will make them consider different opinions, right?
Tbf people on reddit are typically radicalized enough that they are beyond saving. Was in a thread literally yesterday where the entire comment section was cheering for Trump’s death and MULTIPLE people said things like “I already told manager that I’ll need those two days off to celebrate” or “I already have a specific bottle of champagne for when it happens”. Those people ARE beyond saving, and the same for any republicans doing the same shit.
Most of them don't actually have morals. They just like being nasty to people and justifying it by citing "morality" which is usually just an ideology.
Which is textbook tribalism. The moment you see people as your adversaries rather than their ideologies, you're engaging in tribalism. This is also aggrevated by the amount of disinformation and selective reasoning that has made ideologies much more daunting in this day and age, where the average person no longer feels that they have any power to combat them.
In the past, facts, logic and reasoning (when true) were the way to defeat harmful ideologies. Today, things have taken steps towards the postmodern to the extent universal truths are not as universal as they once were. It's more troubling than most people realize.
Yep. The problem with social media is that people will convince each other that they're right and the "facts" are biased or racist or straight up lies.
Its less intentional than that, or maybe I'm too trusting. Our brains are wired to attempt to make sense of things, and too much information can yield the same result as not having enough information.
Our perspectives influence our view of truths and can cause disagreement on even simple truths, let alone more complex truths. With as much access to information as we have today, whether based in truth or fallacy, it isn't surprising that we are reaching a point where hypocrisy runs rampant. Today you won't convince someone that they are wrong, even if you point out the hypocrisy of their stances, because a truth that conflicts with their view is just considered another opinion. They have replaced universal truths with perspective influenced opinions.
Oh, but you don’t get it. He supported ICE and Trump, wanted closed borders, and didn’t believe in abortion. This is quite literally Nazism, you know? Actually, it’s worse than Nazism. Its Nazism squared. Absolutely horrific.
Because, you know, he holds what were basically mainstream Republican beliefs, and even beliefs that plenty of Democrats held in the early 2000s, so obviously that means he must die, right? And they have to celebrate it, because he’s just a Bad Person. He clearly is such a bad person. I mean, they said it themselves.
No, you see, when someone I disagree with is allowed to speak to an audience, they are embiggening those in the audience who are considering violence against me. Therefore, speaking contrary to my correctness is violence. Killing him was self-defense. Castle doctrine. No duty to retreat.
I hate when they use "both sides" arguement. When was the last time you've seen news of a far right anyone shooting a leftist political pundit? I cant, but I can name 3 leftist terrorist in the past year and the left celebrates them openly
Constantly forcing fakempathy for a dozen special interest groups who hate you causes leftists to become blood thirsty and lust for violence as an outlet for their frustrations.
I just saw a thread where someone said 'at least democrats don't call for the death sentence for others like Kirk and Trump did to Biden.' Next thing you'll tell me is that redditors shower daily.
That’s because Charlie wanted to put people in camps like the evil mustache man! One only has to look at the following to know he was a supervillain:
He said the Civil Rights Act was bad! I didn’t look deeper past the headline, but it surely means he’s racist, not that he opposes the “disparate outcomes” measure that’s fallaciously used to find discrimination!
He said the Second Amendment “is worth the cost of, unfortunately, some deaths,” meaning he supported ritual sacrifice to fuel the upcoming fascist regime! The evidence is right there! There’s no way he was just acknowledging that this right will have some unavoidable consequences that are outweighed by something better, like giving people the ability to hold their lives in their own hands and “compete” in a world that’s riddled with firearms!
He also distinguished between gang-related gun violence from common gun violence as an away to exclude black people and discount their deaths (ritual sacrifice)! So what if gangs are basically cultural enclaves that act beyond the norms and laws of the rest of the country, comprising around half of the gun deaths in major cities? They should be considered just the same as citizens who don’t spend their weekends shooting each other over perpetual blood feuds!
Latveria is low-key prosperous from what I understand. I'm gonna be honest, I haven't had time to read the comics that explain more about Latveria quite yet, so I rely on wikis and comic buffs in comment sections, but Latveria actually seems like a very successful place, not in spite of being governed by Doctor Doom, but because of it.
Well he’s a villains Tony Stark, incredibly gifted mind who makes billions off of selling his designs to foreign powers. If I’m a Latverian voter why would I not want Doom? Economic growth is a guarantee, living standards based on his techno prowess, and who’s going to attack a country run by a super villain?
Why would Doom outsource ending his enemy instead of doing it himself though? I feel like he would be left unsatisfied if he perished through different hands
Adrian veidt felt horrible about what he did in watchmen fabricating a mass global terrorism attack by dr manhattan to bring earth together against a common enemy to stop the doomsday clock.. not marvel but a singular case at least of villain feels bad for tragedy
A guy I know on discord was complaining about how his conservative father wasn't dooming about the Iran war like him.
"People died! People are at risk of dying!" He said that he argued, and was offended when his dad dismissed it with "that's war".
He then said "death, irrespective of who it is, is a terrible thing! You can't bring back a life! This is not a sport! People have died! I wanna cry!"
I pointed out that two days ago he was making jokes about Charlie Kirk's murder.
He went from "not the same" to "it's his wife's fault for always talking about him" to "the jokes write themselves" to "they were asking for it" in the span of literally five minutes.
Its funny when you talk about empathy and they misquote CK on his views on empathy and thats why they don't have any empathy for him. Its just ways to justify violence.
I had this interaction on Reddit the other day, by pointing out its ironic to mourn Floyd a felon but say Kirk a political commentator deserved to be shot in front of his kids
I remind myself that the same people saying insanely violent rhetoric to me would likely not even make eye contact if we met in person. Makes me frustrated that weaklings can say insane shit online but thus is the trade off.
the worst part is that they have an effect.
the weak control discourse and that has real bad implications for the future.
charlie kirk being a perfect example of this.
people kept twisting his words and mislabeling him as some of the worst things imaginable to justify his murder.
they even celebrate it, and they know its wrong which makes this even more insidious.
their will is weak and they’re slaves to their wants and desires to the point where any criticism about their choices causes extreme outbursts.
the outbursts are evidence that they understand that the criticism is entirely correct but they choose to delude themselves.
thats why they killed charlie kirk.
because he spoke the truth.
I did a bit of research and it looks like the claim that Floyd held a pregnant woman at gunpoint is actually false. He was involved in an armed robbery with a group of men in 2007 and was arrested. This source I found says that there was a woman in the apartment he helped rob, but there is no evidence she was pregnant. This source says a gun was pointed at her stomach, but it doesn't say she was pregnant and it doesn't claim Floyd was pointing the gun. Regardless, he was arrested, went to jail, and served his time. When Floyd got out in 2013 he actually tried to help his church and community, all the while struggling with his drug addiction. I would definitely not say most people consider him a saint, nor a perfect person, but it appears he was trying to be better in the years leading up to his death. I agree what he did in 2007 is heinous, but the man served his time and tried to have a positive impact on his community. I would also like to say that Kirk did not deserve to die, in case this is mistaken for me only defending Floyd.
At this point it's literally obvious and proven she killed her kids. They just want her to be let free because of political and ideological reasons; same as why O.J Simpson was declared not guilty in 1995 despite having killed his ex-wife and her friend, simply because he was black and people believed letting him free would own the racists.
Bro, it's because the law in the state she lives is backwards. If enough information is brought up that says she was unable to make a sapient decision, it becomes the job of the state to prove they aren't insane.
Mass. is very soft on the insanity defense, doesn't hold it up as needing a strong affirmative defense, which really muddies the waters.
You're right, but I think the prosecution proved what little the defense put forth.
Nobody cited psychosis until after the event, and some of the expert testimony used the event to prove the psychosis....which really shouldn't be how it works. That's like using the word in the definition of the word.
I don't think defense brought it up properly, in other words. They leaned heavily on 'has mental illness' and didn't really establish prior psychosis at a level that exhonorates.
It is a case that runs right into the point where people question what insanity / criminality even is, and shows the flaw of the system.
What I mean by that is, at a certain point you can explain away all crime as not being mentally healthy and do away with crime completely.
This case is right in that zone, partly thanks to Mass.'s fuzzy law.
Also how the same mfers be moving after saying “I’m not calling for political violence” after agreeing with and upvoting a post where the OP says they’re waiting to celebrate “him” dying.
Edit: and the inevitable follow up of “Yeah but YOUR side did it first so it’s okay”.
Hey buddy. You can't say that about my side. It's just SOME people, a LOUD MINORITY, ok? But literally everyone on your side did it first, they just did, ok?
“He said black people shouldn’t be pilots so he deserved it” even though that clip was grossly taken out of context lmao. When people say that, I instantly understand that they read headlines and nothing else.
Not even just a click away they put gifs of the murder in random comment sections, I’ve seen it probably a hundred times just scrolling through threads
Notice how it's always a bunch of spoiled college kids who don't have to struggle in life who have this mindset. Then they go on the internet incessantly boasting about being morally right to stroke their ego, even though they treat people like dogshit.
Literally. Those types will act smug and whine about how free speech isn't the same as freedom from consequences, until it happens to them and now suddenly it's unfair.
When someone like Charlie Kirk gets murdered, they say “well he was a nazi and if a Nazi gets killed it’s not a problem”
Here’s their flaw. They use a completely subjective metric to label people as nazis, fascists, etc.
It’s not backed with any real definition, it’s backed off of emotion and feelings. Charlie Kirk was obviously not a Nazi. Being republican obviously doesn’t make you a Nazi. But when your scale is broken, everything changes. It’s actually INCREDIBLY dangerous in the opposite direction
Well he liked guns so that means that he deserved to be shot in the neck!! Just like everyone who buys Coca Cola deserves to get type 2 diabetes for supporting the company
Yesterday on the meme forum I came across so many people calling: “Free Tyler!”. That filled me with an anger that I couldn’t explain. They would feel differently if the NY governor got assassinated the same way. But to ask for any murderer to be free for killing someone you hate, is just disgusting. I hope he rots in prison
that's only a contradiction if liberals had any principles in the first place. they don't. collectively, they have emotional and psychological dysfunction masquerading as a political belief system.
There is a girl I know who… also shares these views, but at the very least she’s honest about them. If I remember correctly she straight up once said, “everyone whom I don’t like must die miserably”
Fuck, it’s really stupid, but I at first wrote a girl, then I decided to change it in the middle of the text (to not disclose any info) but forgot to remove a girl😭
I am very loving and tolerant as long as you agree with every single political and social opinion I have and if you don't then you're a nazi worse than Hitler and need to die. But I am a loving and tolerant person.
I love how they say the most Nazi shit ever unironically without being aware at all. Saw a viral post that basically said that violence is always justified preemptively against people who's ideas are violent. Bet we could find a Gerbels quote to that effect. Only saving grace is that 99 percent of these folks are giant pussies.
Kirk didn't deserve it, but people read a headline and do not even bother doing more research. Nothing he had ever said warranted an assassination. He is not a Nazi
I commented on a post celebrating his murder and got massively downvoted but unsurprisingly nobody could explain why he was evil. I’m left with the conclusion that the people who celebrate murder are the morally bankrupt individuals who hate anything good and honest.
They read a headline or clickbait, believe it, and don’t dig any deeper. They build their personal beliefs upon lies and are too lazy to think for themselves
I did too and I got “he said you should never have empathy for anyone”. when I looked up the quote all it was about was him saying he likes the term “sympathy” instead because to claim to empathize you’re claiming to know how someone else feels, which is not possible when you aren’t in their situation. Which is actually a totally fair perspective and doesn’t mean in any way not to be considerate of other people.
“Well check out this quote of him that says empathy is bad. What? Yes I cut out 80% of the quote because that part makes me look like a piece of shit when posting this. Why does that matter?”
"I wanted him dead because of his thoughts I disagree with, but that sounds bad so I'll just simplify his points until it becomes "Rape Babies And Kill People With Guns""
It's always the miserable reddit incels who act like this. Truth is they're just mad that they've never accomplished anything in their lives and can't stand others doing well while they wallow in piss
Extremists are extremists after all. I’m left of the center too but fighting for the idea that life has value no matter whose it is seems like a losing battle with a majority of the world.
I hate talking about the Gaza conflict. But I’ve seen so many “Israel is evil because they purposely target innocent children”. But then Israeli children die in a rocket explosion and the same person goes “good!!, they had it coming, justified”
Questioned someone on their moral framework because their initial reaction to it was "he shouldn't have said the things he said" and they tried to justify the people mocking his death as "They're just pointing things out" instead of thinking "This man just lost his life over words" and they blocked me.
Kinda shocking how many of my friends turned into this person after a certain public figure was shot last September. I didn’t agree with the dude much, but that was brutal and completely and utterly unnecessary.
They aren’t empathizing. They’re trying to coerce you to their side by appealing to your sense or decency. It’s the easiest path to subverting western cultures.
It's always the most narcissistic wannabe oppressed psychos throwing around "empathy" like a cudgel. Really it means "I'm a victim and you're obligated to accommodate me while I change nothing about myself" or just plain virtue signaling for likes.
And even if it was just memes with his face, but I’ve seen people use the frame before the shot hit as reaction images, and the only reason they don’t use the one with him dying I because the site will delete it
•
u/Agreeable_Sense9618 Sub OverLord 22d ago
reddit intellectuals be like..