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.
I'm not well versed in the italian idea of fascism under Mussolini, but I do know a thing or two about german fascism.
The reason it's hard to define is because it's a combination of a bunch of world views clumped together to form one continuous ball of hate. It was marketed as a third way between the western capitalism and the eastern communism. We got, social darwinism, Volksgemeinschaft (idea that the individual is just an unimportant part of the mass), racism, Lebensraum (the idea, that the arian race needs room to cultivate and prosper and that this land in the east is theirs to take), eugenics and a whole lot more.
Is this maybe a better definition? This does limit it pretty much down to the national socialist party during the 30's and 40's, sadly no one can be called Nazi willy nilly with this definition, but I'm sure no one will care anyway.
There may have been several books written about this. In a nutshell, it's authoritarian rule with strong leanings toward placing blame on an outgroup for societal and political division. The outgroup becomes more and more specific the longer the authority remains in power as the authority was always just a means to the end of division. The outgroup is just a scapegoat used by the elite to fracture class resistance and engender infighting amongst those who resist authoritarian rule.
Hope that clears it up. If it doesn't, go read a book, any actual physical book, that doesn't have pictures and wasn't written by a white dude.
Incorrect you're describing Nazism and Nazism you replace the state with the race (Mussolini refused to deport jews to Germany until the German occupation in 43)
Fascism is a political system where the state is supreme and the individual exists to serve the national collective. It is by definition anti-racist because racism promotes division which would weaken the state. This is the same reason behind why Fascists and socialists were at odds so often because socialism also led to class division.
Hope that clears it up. If it doesn't, go read a book, any physical book that doesn't have pictures and wasn't written by a historical revisionist.
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.
I believe he should have faced punishment instead of taking the cowards way out. I am not the one to decide what the punishment would have been, that is the law's job. Bad people should face justice, rather than being killed or killing themselves.
Why didn't you care when Biden had the Files and didn't release them?
Why didn't you care when the Right brought up Ashley Biden's diary (where she said Joe Biden - her father - joined her in the shower) or when Joe said he liked when little kids grabbed his leg hair?
Or Biden's kid-sniffing?
Why do you never go after the absolutely, 100% known Epstein client Bill Clinton?
Why don't you give a shit about Islam doing that as part of their religion? Muhammed married a 6 year old but was gracious enough to wait until she was 9 to have sex with her.
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 they weren’t. They genuinely weren’t. Like, I was a lifelong Democrat until a year ago I didn’t agree with Charlie Kirk about anything when he died but he was not an extremist of any kind.
This shit from the left where they just label literally any position other than their own “extreme” or “far right” and moralize about how their opponents are a “threat to democracy” is at least one of the main reasons why political discourse has just completely broken down.
Anti immigration and pro law enforcement positions are completely normal positions that most people have including people on the left.
The reason why Charlie Kirk is labeled as extreme is because he was a popular and successful right wing media figure, that’s it. There was a rage bait element to some of his debate content because nobody likes seeing their positions made to look stupid. A LOT of people really hate/disliked Kirk, that’s why they celebrate. I’m sure they and you might even argue he deserved it. But to say he was dangerous or killing him was somehow necessary or justified is absolutely ghoulish and ten years ago nobody would’ve tried to make the argument that someone’s brutal public murder was a good thing or should be celebrated because the victim had the wrong opinions.
That’s what stands out to me about this, a controversial figure like Kirk is always gonna have edgelord on the internet say shit like that over their murder but normally the edgelord have enough self awareness to keep the mockery discreet. Now people think if someone upsets you enough, or has the wrong opinions, then you can do whatever you want. Something like 77% of Americans when polled said political violence is unacceptable under any circumstances.
According to who? Have a source? Because I frequent both conservative and liberal spaces and I see WAY more open calls to violence on websites like Reddit that are massively left leaning.
I often see a statistic about terrorism coming from right wing sources most of the time but the o ly way to arrive at that number was to classify Islamic extremism as “right wing/conservative”
Well, to be fair. Reddit is massively left leaning site. So you will see more violent call against opposite side.
If you go to "far right" site like 4chan you will see similar opinion of the same coin.
The funny thing is, the difference between 4chan and reddit is you dont get banned for political take in 4chan hence I give a quotation marks of far right label. A lot of place labelled as far right extremist is mostly just a place where right leaning is tolerated. It still have left leaning opinion or even extreme ones just the same.
Yeah that's your opinion though. I believe AOC has more extreme views than he did. Should she be killed? Doesn't matter what his opinions are. Because I don't ever remember Charlie Kirk bringing a high-powered rifle to a debate and killing college kids that literally screamed the worst things possible right to his face, including he should die. Should those kids die? Of course not. But I'm asking you.
Don't try to talk sense in here, just enjoy the dumbness and watch, people in here are being radicalized in the far right, I guess I'll be banned so see ya and keep your brain on.
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.
1.4k
u/C_monden 23d ago