Ive been called a nazi for liking firearms.
Meanwhile, I openly support antifa.
So im not sure this is completely accurate.
The increased danger of owning a firearm is one of those deliciously ironic things.
I don’t know where this says “No one ever misuses Nazi”
I’m a supporter of firearms ownership myself
People aren’t always rational. I’m anti-gun in general, but I’m also very pro-antifa and am fully aware that means shooting nazis when it comes to it.
I’m not against people owning weapons, I’m against the fetishisation of them and I believe they belong in secure storage or for hunting, not strapped to an idiot in Walmart, in people’s videos, or posed with proudly on Christmas cards like a damned Taliban photoshoot.
There’s a time and a place, and that’s not everywhere all the time, such that minor fistfights become shootouts at the corral.
I’m pretty left, but I’d never call a regular gun owner a nazi. Whoever said that is an idiot.
I think that’s just not the topic of this particular comic though.
The comic is not about someone “calling a person a Nazi for owning firearms”. It is about “calling a Nazi a Nazi”, and someone else ignoring some blatant and obvious facts in response.
Of course there is also the problem of people calling anyone they don’t like a Nazi. It’s a different problem. The comic doesn’t talk about that at all, and has nothing to do with it.
Why do you bring it up? Why do you think that’s related?
It’s not a zero sum equation. You being called a nazi for liking fire arms doesn’t cancel out all the people using this argument to defend actual fascists.
Everyone is a Nazi for tankies.
Who called you a Nazi for liking firearms, and why did they do that?
That’s probably a cultural thing, I would immediately suspect anyone really into guns in the UK as we don’t have a gun culture, and subsequently have far less kids murdered in schools.
Honestly, this site is just either: BE AGGRESSIVELY INCLUSIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING EVER OR YOU’RE A NAZI or DIE COMMI SCUM.
Y’all need some fucking critical thinking in your life. None of you are making the world better on this website.
Self-professed “everything is black or white” fools think they’re always right and the other side is always wrong.
There’s no room for nuance or looking at laws/topics individually in a two party system. Instead two-siders usually think everyone and everything from a side that isn’t their own e.g. Centrists are all wrong.
Self-proclaimed centrists tend to believe that there are two sides and the best place to be is in the middle.
There are not two sides. There are many. There is no middle between them. Centrists are just advocating continuous compromise with one side. And curiously, it always seems to be compromise with the powerful seeking more power.
I’m a centrist who believes there are many sides. Middle is not necessarily the best place to be. Each issues requires careful consideration. I also don’t think compromise is necessary when one side is clearly wrong. For example, we don’t need to hear from climate change deniers or people who think other humans shouldn’t have body autonomy.
I dislike the two-party system in the United States and wish we had more parties. We need things like Ranked Choice and Star voting methods to combat the two-party bullshit that’s forced down our throats. It feels like we’re constantly having to choose the lesser evil with the two party system.
Serious question: how can you call yourself a centrist if the things you say you want are extreme left of the center?
Because I also have beliefs that are to the right of the center.
For example, I think the left takes “reverse racism” way too far and it results in racist policies e.g. Asian kids having a hard time getting into college. Perhaps we should be looking at more intelligent metrics like the wealth of the family rather than solely looking at someone’s skin color.
None of those policies are “left”
Which leftist policies do you align with?
Oh shut up. Fuck. Stop trying to gotcha someone. You sound like a turd that takes online political purity tests.
You just sound like a non-insane leftist. There’s still a few of us.
None of those are “extreme” left of center, at least today.
As a self proclaimed Centrist, no the problem is not being in the middle of things but that each side typically more nuance than most sides are willing to concede.
Promotion of a Nordic Model of Economy is still an embrace of Capitalism, Laissez-faire fundamentalisrs will decry the government oversight & taxation, and Socialists will decry the lack of workers/community owning the means of production. Meanwhile the nuance looks at the efficacy of capitalism while mitigating the worst consequences.
It’s amazing how much emotion can be conveyed with literally an empty black circle
I first noticed how great that was with this, one of my earliest XKCD experiences:
Bonus: Have some Awkward Zombie. I made that third panel my profile pic for a while.
It is truly wild that Katie Tiedrich has been keeping up on Awkward Zombie since her teens. Both of those webcomics are ancient at this point.
How could you not share the original?
I have no idea what this is and I regret seeing it.
Fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu
See also: “wow are you suggesting this person doesn’t have the right to express themselves?? Sounds like you’re the real Nazi!”
Of course they have the right to express themself. That makes it easier to find the Nazis, duh
I want Nazis to be scared to share their ideas. I want Nazis to be so scared they don’t crawl out of the gutters they live in.
Make Nazis Dead Again
Please describe how you imagine a “Nazi” wakes up and gets ready for their day. I’m curious what’s behind the label. Would you also use the words ‘toxic’ and ‘bigot’ to describe these people and if not what does a ‘toxic’ person and a ‘bigot’ do to start their days? (from your perspective, of course)
Please describe how you imagine a “Nazi” wakes up and gets ready for their day. I’m curious what’s behind the label.
What? Obviously a Nazi wakes up at 7:30 sharp, puts on their arm band then combs their dumb little brush mustache. Then they heil and finish getting ready. /s
What kind of question is that? There’s no one way nazis wakes up. That’s not what makes a Nazi a Nazi.
Would you also use the words ‘toxic’ and ‘bigot’ to describe these people and if not what does a ‘toxic’ person and a ‘bigot’ do to start their days? (from your perspective, of course)
Are you trying to imply Nazis aren’t bigots and dangerous/toxic to society, and if not - why did you even ask this? What is the purpose of that question if not to imply that?
I’m talking about Nazis. Nazi Nazis. The Nazis that keep popping up everywhere. This was news, big news at the time. Pretending like you didn’t see it isn’t an excuse now, because you’ve now been shown it.
removed by mod
Good lord. Are you a real human? If so, this is shameful.
Oh so shameful that I’m not brainwashed into removing the humanity from people and using identity politics to manipulate arguments and send the brigaide of idiots after people to pretend like my points are valid.
This is an AI response isn’t it?
I’ve used enough chatGPT to recognize it’s writing patterns. One of the things that stands out the most is saying you want to have a discussion, but not actually saying anything that needs to be commented on. That’s a telltale sign for an AI response.
Edit: Oh, and you’re a mod of an AI community? I’m certain it’s an AI response now.
The sub and the server is getting infiltrated by Nazis and/or bots. 🤔
My bet is either AI or someone sporting a fedora
It’s my response filtered through AI to avoid your manipulations and keep the conversation aimed at what I was asking about to begin with and not what you attempted to change the context to. :) Any other dodges?
Lol, nice “edit” interesting you didn’t put the first part of your edit after what you said was an edit?
And not just to make Nazis lives less pleasant, but so they don’t have such a fucking easy time of finding each other and linking up. If you’re too scared to speak up about how you think the Jews are the problem, you don’t get those views reinforced by other assholes also speaking the same bigotry. The Nazis may have always been there, but it’s a lot worse when they can reinforce each others bigotry and decide that it’s time to actually do something.
That’s basically what the right wants for the left!
Please tell me you aren’t both-sidesing Nazis. That’s gross.
Not really. The right tends to go a little bit harder in that direction:
Are you not white? Be scared. Jew? Be scared. Muslim? Be scared. Gay? Be scared. Socialist? Be scared. Woman? Be scared.
The left is a lot better in that regard, as they tend to limit the “bash their heads in” option toward literal Nazis. It seems to me that the right doesn’t feel a need to limit themselves in any way here.
My guy, that’s because the right are clearly the aggressors. Do you tell domestic abuse victims they’re just as bad as ther abusers when they pick up a knife to defend themselves, or spike the soup?
This comment section is a dumpster fire full of dogshit and dried up cum… nice job op.
Notice the couple idiots below finding sympathy for the QUITE LITERAL nazi in the comic.
You know damn well thats not whats happening.
Oh? Then what’s happening when people respond to this comic with “ToLeRaNt LeFt”?
Because they see the left deciding half the country is a fascist, and rightfully realize that the left has gone insane.
Fuck you’re dumb. Calling someone holding a Nazi flag and shouting a Nazi shout a Nazi isn’t “the left going insane”. I’ve talked to smarter jars of mayonnaise than you.
You must be hallucinating, because half the country isn’t flying a Nazi flag.
edit: forgot the ‘be’ in between must and hallucinating
But the fucking stick figure in the comic that this entire post is about IS you absolute dipshit.
Also, which party is openly endorsed by actual Neo-Nazis, with Nazi flags openly being displayed at some of their rallies without being rightfully kicked out and shunned? I’ll tell you what, it ain’t the left one. How blind can someone be to call the left “insane” when the right makes no attempt to rid themselves of the Neo-Nazis plaguing the right?
Turns out human rights are the real Nazism.
FELLAS!!! Is it Nazi to be a Nazi?!
Can I not say that there are real fascists on the right, that it’s a very serious issue, and that I don’t agree with some things the left strongly identifies with?
I think you can say whatever you want.
As long as you don’t engage in the behavior depicted in that comic, this comic doesn’t seem to be about you.
I’ve been called a fascist for pointing out the reality that the US left’s emphasis on social rather than economic issues is alienating to a lot of blue-collar Americans who should be natural allies. Meanwhile I am an active member of my trade union and work with and talk to blue-collar people every day and know WTF I’m talking about.
I am literally a card-carrying member of organized labor and I get called a fascist for speaking the truth. It’s not good. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in this thread.
This whole thing seems sus.
And while there’s no way to know how true or not your statement it, it seems to me like you’re one of these people that’s economically left, but is either anti-trans, anti-muslim/immigrant or anti-some other minority group or a combination of all of them and at some point your got called out for that.
I’m not anti-anyone, apart from religious extremists.
But go ahead and think what you want, that’s fine, I honestly have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
My life speaks for itself.
Your fan fiction about the internal motivations of those who disagree with you is not rational or empirical. You’re literally making stuff up right now.
If you say so dude. I’m sure you trust everything you read from random posts online and you never infer what the reality may be when someone quite obviously leaves info out or skirts around an issue?
In the US the right has: Banned abortion (SCOTUS) Banned books. Made it okay to discriminate against gay people (303 creative) Banned drag shows. Is thinking about banning contraceptives.
There is no debate here. The right is banning things. The left has no equivalent bans on social issues.
3 of the last 4 GOP presidents proudly cut taxes for rich people. To distract you from that, the right is doing culture wars or wars on woke.
No doubt. I agree entirely. My point isn’t to argue what should be. My point is only that stating what is an objective fact has gotten me called a fascist apologist by idiots who can’t differentiate between between pointing out an aspect of reality vs actively advocating for it.
It’s basically a “kill the messenger” situation.
I wouldn’t say it’s fascist, but the idea that we have to stop fighting for social issues to address the concerns of blue-collar workers is both insulting to blue-collar workers and deeply dangerous to the people we fight for social issues for.
The reason the American left fights for social issues primarily is because half the American left are neoliberals with no interest in economic reform of any serious kind, not because there is some arbitrary limit of how many votes can go towards socially progressive bills and economically progressive bills.
It’s insulting to blue-collar workers to push for social issues that they either disagree with or don’t care about?
It’s insulting to presume that blue-collar workers are incapable of agreeing with or caring about the position of treating their fellow man with basic human rights. I have no interest in playing the part of the Brothers Strasser, or of Ernst Rohm. If you think that’s the way to victory, you’re no ally of the oppressed. Just seeking different classes for oppressors.
They’re not a monolith but the majority, or at least a substantial portion, of blue-collar workers are proudly socially conservative.
Unfortunately you are right. I am a proud union blue collar worker, and I have seen the same thing. The problem I’ve noticed is that they tend to be socially conservative due to years of fear mongering by assholes who want to exploit us. They use that fear to keep is fighting amongst ourselves instead of recognizing the real problems.
And the answer to that is to work on ways to make them, as a demographic, less socially conservative; or as individuals, to communicate the importance of such issues. Not to abandon those issues for the sake of pandering to their votes.
While I agree with you, your point is kind of ancillary. It’s not now, nor has it ever been, my argument that the left is obliged to abandon social issues in order to court labor.
My point is that I made a simple observation of fact and was then called a fascist apologist for having done so.
I personally don’t know how we reconcile the social conservatism of blue-collar Americans with the labor progressivism that so many of them obviously want.
I just think that it has to be talked about and that ignoring it or calling union activists, like myself, fascists, is not productive in any way shape or form.
There has to be a solution, and pretending like the problem doesn’t exist and that people like myself are fascist-adjacent simply for having pointed it out, is complete bullshit.
I agree with that. There’s no need to create unnecessary hostility between people with compatible goals.
the US left’s emphasis on social rather than economic issues
I don’t think it is the left that is emphasizing social issues. They are defending Americans in response to the right’s villainization of their next boogeymen to scare up more votes. The same right that then blames them for focusing on social issues. I implore those who are falling for this conservative ruse to start paying attention to what is going on rather than being taken by some of the dumbest tricks in the book.
100 percent agree.
That said, I speak only of how these things are perceived, not of how they ought to be perceived.
I am not, in any way, by pointing out this problem, claiming that it has anything like a moral or logical justification. I am simply stating that it’s there, and that we need to figure out how to address it.
I know for a fact that Bernie Sanders has been able to make that leap to appealing to blue-collar Americans, for example.
The rest of the Democratic party, not so much. Rightly or wrongly, blue-collar Americans feel that they are being talked down to by the Democratic party elites.
My point is now and always has been that we need to admit this and start thinking about ways to change the way we are perceived by my fellow blue-collar Americans.
And that change, whatever it may ultimately be, can never arise from blaming people for not somehow “getting” the message.
99% of the time that’s about transphobia or some bizarre religious position, so yeah-- usually that’s gonna make leftists think you’re a bigot or a loon.
and that I don’t agree with some things the left strongly identifies with?
Why don’t you go ahead and name some of those things then?
Off the top of my head we’ve got progressive taxes, intersectionality (and general racism/sexism, rebranded daily), industrial welfare, the over-criminalization of social and economic conduct, arbitrary nationalization of resources and services, negative ROI public spending, unchecked support for labor unions, the subsidization of academia, and a general willingness to create unconstitutional law from any branch of government according to a broad, irrational, committee morality. Socialists take markets for granted and speak of privacy as though it’s part of the commons. In short, the left wing trends towards institutional collectivism at the cost of the individual liberties which are the foundation of collective action.
I am an economically centrist libertarian. I believe taxes should be based on resource use, not productivity, welfare should be unconditional, not coercive (and half liquid, not locked into the discretion of committee thinking), criminal law should be based on justice, not morality, and public spending should be productive, not performative.
For the record I have a separate laundry list of grievances with the right wing. I’ll zoom out since I’m facing left right now, but theocracy, monopoly, draconianism, the ignorance of systemic violations of natural rights, and support for the growth of industrial complexes (military, prison, healthcare, etc.) are among the issues. There’s a bipartisan willingness to replace justice with morality in the application of force; a viral acceptance of abuse followed by a question of flavor. What symbol would you like to be branded into the boot on your neck?
We are in this sensitive, polarized position because industry overwhelmed our agrarian notions of justice. That does not deprecate those notions. We should focus on the economic limitations that aggravate cultural issues and escalate us towards war.
removed by mod
Not an argument.
Is this post sincere? This has to be trolling right? Or are you talking about some other country aside from the US?
That’s not an argument. I’m American, but none of these issues are exclusively American. There’s certainly lots of room for discussion of each of these issues, but the crux of my comment is that public policy is more complicated than @PoopingCough’s implication that there are no valid points outside the Everyone Vs. The Nazis false dichotomy.
And you claim this while making…shitty points that are not founded in any study of economics whatsoever.
Dude tees you up perfectly and you swing directly into the woods.
Not an argument.
Yeah that’s because here im just laughing at you
It’s hard to formulate arguments for childishly naive libertarians who have obviously never lived in the real world.
Lmao imagine opening your fucking list with being against progressive taxation.
Edit: and you write an entire screed in your history about Georgism, and yet don’t realize it’s inherently progressive. Jesus dude c’mon.
“Progressive tax” refers to a tax rate which increases as taxable revenue increases. It doesn’t have anything to do with progressive cultural values. Georgism is based on a flat tax of a special resource, economic rent. Given how prone this forum is to willful misinterpretation, I should specify that I don’t support flat income tax, or any income tax for that matter.
If everyone doesn’t own land, Georgism is by definition progressive.
How do you not know this?
I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.
──Henry George, Progress and PovertyYou seem to think I am unfamiliar with Henry George and I assure you that is quite untrue. I am all about LVTs, political dead-ends though they may be.
However, I am informed enough to know an LVT is inherently progressive.
I am an economically centrist libertarian
Lmao
Not an argument.
🤣
I am against abortion. But someone else might be more libertarian (I am not a libertarian) yet view the Republican party as evil. Even if you think that person not a good person, calling them a nazi or a fascist doesn’t really make sense.
I am against abortion.
Pretty big yikes to start out with just a blanket statement like that, but you do you.
But someone else might be more libertarian (I am not a libertarian) yet view the Republican party as evil. Even if you think that person not a good person, calling them a nazi or a fascist doesn’t really make sense.
I’m not really sure what you mean by this part other than you just think the term fascist is being applied in scenarios where there’s just disagreement?
But it really isn’t difficult to see the modern Republican party very much represents the ideals of fascism. It isn’t even a stretch. Let’s go through the definition of fascism:
“a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” - from Merriam Webster Online
so in order:
- Exalts nation and often race of above the individual? Check.
- stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader? Seeing as how they tried to install Trump with a coup in 2021 I’d say that’s a pretty easy check.
- severe economic and social regimentation? All you have to do is look at republican tax cuts to see that is a big fat CHECK.
- forcible suppression of opposition? Look at who supports the police force and what groups are typically on the receiving end of police brutality. Check.
As you can see it doesn’t take waving a nazi flag or sieg heiling all over the place to fit at least some of the requirements to be labeled a fascist, and if we go by these metrics there are a lot of people actively supporting fascism in our country right now. I don’t think the term is much overused to be honest.
Pretty big yikes to start out with just a blanket statement like that, but you do you.
I think there are exceptions. I was trying to be brief.
I’m not really sure what you mean by this part other than you just think the term fascist is being applied in scenarios where there’s just disagreement?
Yes, basically. I think that is something that happens. A major issue with american politics at the moment is treating it like there are two camps, the far left and the fasicst far right.
But it really isn’t difficult to see the modern Republican party very much represents the ideals of fascism.
I basically agree. And we have to call that out.
But, there are many others who really aren’t liberal, who also aren’t republican. Like I said, there are more positions than the two most popularly described.
But, there are many others who really aren’t liberal, who also aren’t republican. Like I said, there are more positions than the two most popularly described.
Unfortunately, other positions aren’t really allowed to participate in our current system. Until there’s ranked choice or some other voting system in place that would break the walls down of the two party system, you kinda have to choose one or the other to have any kind of voice whatsoever.
And the reason that people on the left see “centrists” as mostly Republicans wearing masks is because people who identify as centrists tend to vote Republican. Who we already established are fascists. It’s like, yes I agree there is nuance in the world that must be addressed that cannot be addressed when you think of only red vs blue, but until we have the tools to actually do anything but that, we can’t just say “well I disagree with things on both sides” and leave it at that when one side is actively undermining the very foundations of our democracy.
Unfortunately, other positions aren’t really allowed to participate in our current system. Until there’s ranked choice or some other voting system in place that would break the walls down of the two party system, you kinda have to choose one or the other to have any kind of voice whatsoever.
Absolutely! When it comes to voting, that inevitably happens and it’s horrible. But that doesn’t mean an individual’s position is well characterized that way.
And the reason that people on the left see “centrists” as mostly Republicans wearing masks is because people who identify as centrists tend to vote Republican. Who we already established are fascists. It’s like, yes I agree there is nuance in the world that must be addressed that cannot be addressed when you think of only red vs blue, but until we have the tools to actually do anything but that, we can’t just say “well I disagree with things on both sides” and leave it at that when one side is actively undermining the very foundations of our democracy.
I think that makes sense in some cases. But I would call myself in many ways a centrist, but I voted all democrat for the last few elections. So, such broad strokes are a real problem.
I don’t know of any centrists who vote Republican these days. Back in the 90s, sure. But unless you live in a heavily Democrat state, and are talking about local elections, the centrists I know are currently questioning if they are actually Democrat after all.
This might be the difference between online vs in person. If you had asked me 10 years ago what my political affiliations were I would have tried hard to say I didn’t align with either main party. But fuck if I haven’t voted straight dem in every election.
On the other hand people online often say they are centrists so they can excuse abhorrent Republican behavior with the ol’ “both sides are bad” bullshit. It often isn’t any real policy stance, it just serves to present a facade of non-bias so as to further shift the Overton window even further right.
But yea I totally get what you mean, I never wanted to be a Dem because of all the rampant neoliberal corpo dicksucking that continues to prevent all kinds of good progress, but if the alternative is fascism and those are the only real choices I have I’ll hold my nose and vote D every single damn time.
Umberto Eco gives an excellent 14 points to identify fascism.
- The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
- The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
- The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
- Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
- Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
- Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
- The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
- The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
- Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
- Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
- Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
- Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
- Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
- Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Bro this applies a little too well to the left too
There are self-proclaimed leftist movements which fit ur-fascism as defined here. Which is unsurprising, considering that leftism is generally defined by opposition to capitalism, while fascism can be for or against capitalism.
Let’s examine that:
-
The cult of tradition: Apart from Maoists, Stalinists, and Leninists, (all of them very rare breeds nowadays) I see very little “traditionalist thinking” on the left. So, NO.
-
The rejection of modernism: Does the left see the Age of Reason as the beginning of depravity? No. Even the most ardent communists the pre modern times as riddled with the same problems as modernity. They tend to see modernity and the rise of the working class as part of the solution. NO.
-
Thinking is emasculation, and action without thinking is good: If anything, then the left has a tendency to be a bit too over intellectual. NO.
-
Disagreement is treason: I have never seen two people on the left agree with each other. NO.
-
Fear of difference: If there is anything the left embraces, it’s plurality. NO.
-
Appeal to social frustration: Lefty ideologies do not speak to a middle class which feels threatened from lower social groups. NO.
-
Obsession with a plot: Lefty ideologies tend to not buy into the whole “Jewish cabal” thinking. Though they tend to put “the billionaires” in their place recently. So this one gets a MAYBE.
-
The enemy is both strong and weak: Does the left see their enemy as scary and weak at the same time? Not really. The threat from the right tends to just be seen as scary and overwhelming. NO.
-
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy: Do lefties in general embrace war, struggle, and fight for survival, because fundamentally life is struggle? NO.
-
Contempt for the weak: NO.
-
Does the left embrace heroism? Quite the opposite. Lefty action is community action, where working together makes you strong. NO.
-
Distain for women, intolerance of non standard sexuality, and a love for weapons: Nope, the left is against all of that. NO.
-
Selective populism: That’s the first point where I would agree. The left sometimes does engage in populism. YES.
-
Does the left use elementary langauge in order to limit critical thinking and reasoning? Heck no. If anything, a lot of stuff from the left tends to be too complicated to be broadly accessible. NO.
So, to sum it up: There is one point among 14 which aligns. And one which somewhat aligns. While in 12 points current lefty thinking directly opposes UR fascism, as described here.
That’s why I think your opinion is very strange.
-
Fascism has been studied and characterised extensively, it’s not about good and bad, it’s about a set of very clear signs the American right is heading towards fascism.
Abortion bans show that a nation is fixated of hierachal oppression, and the class stratification associated with further impoverishing those (minorities and the poor) unable to handle the burden of having a child or travelling to get an abortion.
Abortion bans, in vacuum, do not indicate that.
Imagine a country that is a theocratic communist nation. Private property is outlawed, and all wealth is redistributed so that none are poor. A literal Christian theocracy, founded upon Christ’s teachings about the eye of the needle.
This nation could (and likely would) ban abortion and contraceptives, even as they guarantee that anyone who has a child is well taken care of, whether they ever work or not.
Sure, theoretically. In reality that has never been the case. I doubt there is a single example of abortion bans not doing what I’ve said they do in human history.
If you want to advocate for a system like that your first step is to provide adequate childcare and welfare systems. The very last thing you would do is say you want abortion bans. Anyone advocating for abortion bans right now is at best putting the cart before the horse and at worst an evil person.
Fascism has been studied and characterised extensively, it’s not about good and bad, it’s about a set of very clear signs the American right is heading towards fascism.
I agree.
Abortion bans show that a nation is fixated of hierachal oppression, and the class stratification associated with further impoverishing those (minorities and the poor) unable to handle the burden of having a child or travelling to get an abortion.
It can be used that way. And in fact, I agree that it has been used that way in America. I think those who have done so are fascist. I think many of the ways in which the republican party has recently tried to enact these bans are not done in good faith but backhanded manipulation. I do not agree with them.
And at the same time, I think it is an evil thing akin to murder and thus should be illegal.
Honestly, I believe that is as unacceptable as criminalizing blood transfusions as evil (Jehovah’s Witnesses), or psychiatry as mind control (Scientologists); however, I do agree that your position is not fascist, and I’d like to say I appreciate you in these dark times for still being a believer in democracy.
If we can agree on that point, then I think progress is possible. I wish you well.
Then don’t get an abortion. Why should your opinion apply to anyone else but you?
And let’s be clear about this, it is a wholly subjective opinion. You cannot prove where consciousness begins, your opinion on this matter is a whim.
So the one thing you’re against is abortion? Then don’t get one. If someone is being a fascist they deserve to be called out on it.
If I think abortion should be illegal that makes me a fascist? Or are you saying something else?
I’ll say yes, that you thinking abortion should be illegal is holding a fascist viewpoint. Does that make you a full-blown fascist? No. Is it a stepping stone? Maybe.
Being pro or anti choice does not make someone a fascist.
I think anti-choice people are objectively incorrect but I also understand the meaning of the word fascism.
Not everyone you dislike is a fascist.
You mean like a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition?
So yeah, I fully believe that the belief that abortion should be illegal falls into those categories and is inherently pretty fucking fascist.
Also, I never called them a fascist, but I will call you an idiot.
I said we should call out nazism and fascism when we see it. I never said you were a fascist.
Okay, and I agree. And I think many are on the right are fascist.
You are for the government threatening women with violence, and forcing women of all ages, including children, into birthing a child that may have been conceived by the result of sexual abuse, or may be cause two deaths in labor, as a result of legislation based on religion.
Ya, you people are unacceptable.
No. I am not for those things. I think those things are despicable.
I think there are exceptions when abortion should be allowed, and I think the recent attempts to outlaw abortion are in bad faith and manipulative. I am not on their side.
And at the same time, I think abortion, should be generally illegal, with exceptions.
- who better aside from a doctor and a patient to decide something so critical? A government council created by religious legislation? Haha. Ok.
And
- if it’s murder to abort an embryo sometimes, how can it not be murder other times? That masked zero sense. The entire argument that it is murder falls apart once you allow exceptions.
I would allow exceptions for when the human would die. It is sad then, but more like taking a person off life support. Not allowing these exceptions would be absolutely horrible.
For exceptions like rape… I am much more conflicted but I am for allowing them. I do not know the right thing here and would be easily swayed. I would allow it not because I think it isn’t killing an innocent, but because I do not understand the trauma a person in that position has gone through and it’s really f’d up. I don’t know … Fortunately, these are very rare cases.
For something like the mother has cancer and the treatment would kill the child, that’s a tragedy, but I’m not going to blame someone for valuing their own life over someone they haven’t met.
For other exceptions, I would be half to discuss them.
I admit that I don’t like the idea of politicians parsing out what is and isn’t allowed. But, we do that already for murder and self defense and manslaughter. This is no different than that.
It’s possible to be against abortion for personal beliefs, and understand that your personal beliefs aren’t the arbiter of the personal health decisions of others, and the laws shouldn’t favor one particular religious idea of life beginning at conception. For most people, including in the works of science life doesn’t begin at conception.
I met a guy once who flew Nazi flags on his car. Figured I’d actually talk to him about it reasonably rather than reacting and calling him a Nazi. He basically explained he only did it because he had the right to because of freedom of speech and expression.
It was almost like he was just trying to bait people because he enjoyed the commotion?
Idk it was weird, but makes me wonder if that’s how most of these “nazi” people are
Case in point
If the driver is genuinely black, then I am genuinely confused 😱
It’s the uncle ruckus syndrome lol
Just because you are black doesn’t mean you can’t be a moronic asshole as well.
Is this Chester Stone?
“I’m only being a Nazi ironically” is the attitude of either someone whose opinions should not be taken seriously in any circumstance, or a Nazi.
I once knew a guy who hung one in his bedroom “because I liked the colors.”
If it smells like bullshit…
Shoulda suggested he use the flag of Albania instead
I take everyone’s opinions seriously, or try to. We’re all just meat sacks in a rock hurtling through space. We all were raised in different circumstances. So who am I to say someone is wrong for their beliefs?
… so you wouldn’t say a Nazi is wrong for their beliefs
Being a nazi ironically is still being a nazi
you seem to have as good of a grasp on irony as alanis morissette.
No… they used it correctly. One of the definitions of irony is a clash of expectations. The Nazi flag is a symbol of fascism, and fascism is a form of government that suppresses free speech. So a person embracing Nazi emblems for the sake of free speech would qualify.
removed by mod
You can be a “free speech” advocate without having one iota of Nazi sympathies. I’m all for free speech, particularly people like Nazi sympathizers. It lets us know who they are, where they are, the people they associate with, and if needed, who needs severe ass beating. Having “free speech” doesn’t exclude you from the consequences of using “free speech.”
removed by mod
Who are you talking to?
If he looks like a Nazi and he talks like a Nazi and he acts like a Nazi, then people will reasonably assume that he’s a f*cking Nazi and that’s how he should be treated until he gives us evidence to the contrary.
What difference does it actually make? That person is still performing Nazi-ism, even if they say they don’t believe it. That person is still showing support for Nazi-ism, and making minorities feel unsafe.
To be clear, there is a really good chance that they are full of crap, they do believe it, they’re just “joking” until the final punchline lands.
But one’s internal beliefs don’t actually mean much in comparison to their actions.
Isn’t the illegal part of Nazi-ism the actual fascism, violence, othering, couping, etc parts though and not its symbology?
Does overly assigning evil to a set of symbols give a path for similar evils with different symbols to come about? I’ve wondered about that and modern American Christian Fascism – I think it’s more invisible than it should be because people conflate fascism with the Nazis symbols directly instead of its ideals and methods.
I never know how to feel about the auditors and ‘law tester’ people – they sure seem assholish, but they do always make me think about interesting important questions about the law and society.
Flying a Nazi flag is itself, with no other acts, hurting people. This is like saying “the cross burning didn’t hurt anyone, the lynchings were the real problem”.
Sorry I meant to call that out more explicitly. The symbols do harm people because they’ve done damage, but the symbols themselves didn’t do the damage and I wondered if not being more clear about that is why people don’t see other modern fascist movements with different symbols for what they are.
Virtually nobody in the western, developed world is a Nazi. Not even the people who want to take away trans rights, as horrible as they might otherwise be.
In Ukraine, this seems to be a different story.
In Ukraine, this seems to be a different story.
Wagner left Ukraine so at least it has been slightly reduced, and it’s being further reduced every day. :)
“But are there not many fascists in your country?"
"There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find it out when the times comes.”
I have no time for such cretins.
Most people have the ability to go along with horrible things and to convince themselves that they are right. Look at any authoritarian regime, not just the Nazis. That doesn’t mean 90% or humanity is horrible or people that you don’t have time for.
Or maybe it does. It which case , how sad for you.
Agreed with the centrist. I have been called a Nazi for no particular reason other than not blindly supporting the loony left on a particular issue
And what was the issue?
Gender pseudoscience
deleted by creator
Thanks for sharing, I didn’t know about this.
So “the loony left” and “gender pseudoscience”.
Translation: right-wing transphobe.
Dude you’re such a colossal loser
Ahh you took the bait
Nah man, wanted them to out themselves. Had no intent of engaging
I was mostly kidding. It’s just annoying they pretend they’re “on the fence” on this final solution policy and won’t admit it and be banned already.
🤔 Why aren’t the lemm.ee admins banning them?
Yeah good point. Maybe they’re swamped? You’d know better than me how the mods are over there.
I just messaged one, here’s to hoping they do something positive and meaningful. If not, it’s not like I can’t just make a political memes sub on the server I frequent. Thankfully Lemmy offers that option.
Stop hitting yourself
So much for the tolerant left
deleted by creator
You should never tolerate intolerance. The nazis basic philosophy boils down to intolerance. If you let that shit continue then you end up with genocide. So fuck those nazi shit heels. And if you’re sympathizing with a cartoon nazi maybe you should reevaluate your life choices.
Damn I guess I should be /s my jokes.
I’m well versed in the Paradox of Tolerance.
“So much for the tolerant left” is a meme making fun of those people, I think they’re saying it in jest.
Honestly hard to tell with some of the enlightened centrists in this thread
I was expecting that.
Still, I hate having to /s. We really need a easy to use sarcasm font.
I vote comic sans
It’s true that alternating upper- and lower-case letters aren’t easy to type.
Use emojis dude they add a ton of nuance!
So much for the tolerant left 🥺 😧 😠
So many ways to express yourself! And if you’re ever brought to court for a statement you make, /s lawfully means you meant the opposite, while emojis never snitch 😉
I’m not a lawyer
Yes
But the meme exists (with a Nazi being punched) because that’s exactly what a lot of right-wingers say. No way to tell whether or not it’s sarcasm with just the text.
As a Canadian ACTUAL centrist, fuck Nazis.
I’m for less policing and more serving for Police. One should be happy, not angry to see the police, and right now in most places this cannot be with who the police are and serve.
I’m for less government control over what one can do on their plot of land. Minimum parking needs to go. People should be allowed to build appartment buildings on their properties, not just single family homes. The governments in North America are too involved in people’s lives.
I’m for freedom of choice of vehicle, whether it’s a car, a bicycle or public transit. My love for Public healthcare, mass transit and regulations on companies that destroy their environment and/or abuse their employees is literally the only thing leftist about me.
Those “centrist” are not centrist. They are just not as far far down into the right wing rabbit hole.
In my case, I consider right wing to be “less control from government, let corporations do what they will”, and the left wing to be “we pay taxes and get something out of it. The government has the mandate to assert control over people’s lives to attempt to make the whole better.”. I am somewhere in the middle of that.
Wow, I finally found someone who more or less aligns with my views. Except I allo think workers should own the means of production instead of billionaires.
I don’t know how that would work, my knowledge is just lacking on the subject but I don’t think I’m against the concept, so long as people can decide to go in business without too much oversight.
Your views on zoning, transit development, labour regulation, ad health care all sound leftist. Those zoning laws are right wing, not left wing.
removed by mod
Except leftists want to rezone low density housing into high density housing so we can actually have proper urban development and incentivize smarter infrastructure projects rather than suburban sprawl hell everywhere. In what way does it expand property rights from your perspective?
I have the same question. I’m sure there are ways to reform zoning laws that help fix the housing crisis without benefiting corporations and slum housing.
I wouldn’t be so quick to say leftists support rezoning. I used to be active in moderating r/canadahousing back before I switched almost fully to lemmy, and it was infested with left NIMBYs. The most common talking point I saw was that upzoning was a developer ploy to systematically gentrify all the lower-income folks. In practice, I think YIMBY/NIMBY might as well be its own dimension on the n-dimensional political compass.
In a similar vein, most supposedly small-government + property rights folks I see are also NIMBYs and against upzoning. Despite how obviously hypocritical and inconsistent that is.
At the end of the day, when it comes to changes in your own neighborhood that impact you personally, all ideology goes out the window for many folks, and it becomes purely about knee-jerk reactions disliking change.
Knee jerk reactions against change by definition are anti-progressive and reactionary. People’s views are more right wing when they are negatively affected personally. That doesn’t make it not a right wing view.
That’s exactly my point. The user I was responding to said this:
Except leftists want to rezone
My point was that many people who are ordinarily leftists on other issues do not support upzoning, and they argue against it with left-sounding arguments. I was trying to highlight that people, many leftists included, become hypocritical and inconsistent in their belief system when it comes to things like YIMBY vs NIMBY.
The fact there are so incredibly many leftists who hold NIMBY views suggests to me that it can’t be boiled down as simply as “leftists want to rezone”, at least without playing the “no true leftist” game.
I would however support the argument that leftists want to solve the housing crisis, but I wouldn’t at all say leftists all support the exact same policies to achieve that.
sounds like you’re a social libertarian, which is leftist politics.
You’re not a centrist, you’re a libertarian.
I thought libertarians were all about complete freedom without government intervention.
That would be minarchist/ancaps
They didn’t say they wanted to fuck children p
Maybe I just don’t like being angry all the time and just vote in elections and forget about politics otherwise? Hate us cause you aint us B)
Ignorance is bliss
… That is, of course, until it isn’t. Blissful ignorance has a tendency to come back to bite you in the ass.
So I’m supposed to be in a perpetual state of political suffering and agony? I read up on news in the month before elections and look at policies based on their party sites and that’s my civic duty. Politics has become such a crabs in a bucket issue and so many people are lacking the creativity to see the world in a non-political way
I think you’re looking at it completely wrong, honestly. If you think showing up last-minute to get a cliff’s notes summary of positions without actually understanding current-events, history, and exploring the comparative science and ethical aspects of each study — you simply won’t have the time and lack for context to be an informed voter. Knowing what I know now, if I did that… I know I’d be jumping to bullshit conclusions based on a puddle’s depth of understanding.
Unfortunately you touch on a valid point, though: People are pressed for time. The less time you have, the less informed you become. Your ignorance is then taken advantage of mostly by Republicans. (And I say that as someone who’s been on both sides of the fence in my life).
“Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.”
There’s nothing wrong with politics. Debate and conflict and discussion are an essential part to any Democracy. The more informed you become, the less muddy everything becomes.
When did I say that I was american? And I go to state broadcasters and look at the policy list and see how parties kept them during their terms. I think that’s enough
Does it matter? We see the same spectrum of truth versus ignorance pretty much in any genuine Democracy.
But to that end:
- Why do you trust the state broadcasters, specifically?
- How are you actually informed on the success or failures of each policy?
- Who is telling you that the promises were kept or not?
Do you understand that the opposite party has a tendency to obstruct the other from action? Here in the US we have one party that wants to make genuine progress while the other blocks them at every turn. This leads to general stagnation where the apathetic centrist just throws their hands up in confusion. But anyone who’s even remotely paying attention throughout the years understands what game is being played.
To be truly informed, you’ll never be able to grasp the nuance and depth of policy and cut through the bs unless you dedicate more time than you already are. If we actually began to delve into the nuance of policy, that would likely be revealed.
deleted by creator
Didn’t realize I worshipped Biden. Here I thought I only voted for him because he was better than the death of the American Republic.
deleted by creator
“I voted for a literal fascist to save the Republic” sounds a lot more like you’re scared that taxes will go up by 2%. Whether you worship him like the drooling knuckledraggers with Trump flags is immaterial. It doesn’t make you any less of a fucking fascist.
deleted by creator
Palingenetic ultranationalism with a disdain for democracy and rule of law, a fetish for violence, and tribal bigotry?
So, you know, everything we’ve seen ‘MAGA’ to stand for?
deleted by creator
It makes no sense that you’re trying to mix things that have nothing to do with my comment. What you’re doing just affirms my statement that: you are willing to label anyone who disagrees as fascist and you are scared to participate in a productive conversation because you do not know how to make logical points which relate to what I have just said.
“I don’t think you know the actual meaning of fascism.”
“This is what fascism is. [definition]”
“That makes no sense!”
You have fun with that, buddy.
This “you don’t know what fascism is” thing is getting so old. It’s ultra-patriotism. Nation before self. USA has had a fascist streak forever. Even pre-WW2 and even post-WW2 we had fascist sympathizers.
None of this is new. MAGA is not new. Fascism is not complicated.
What did Mussolini want? Italy first. What did Hitler want? Germany first. What did the Japanese junta want? Japan first. What did the British, French, US etc want? Preservation of the balance of power. No one country first. NOBODY first. Trade and negotiation and treaties between equals instead.
What is so hard to understand about any of this? It’s really not hard. What does Putin want? Russia first. What does Xi Jinping want? China first. What do the US, UK, France etc want? The balance of power, no one country first. Instead trade and negotiation and treaties between equals.
deleted by creator
Tell me, who is “worshiping” Biden? I don’t see people superimposing Biden onto Rambo or Jesus Christ as they do at literally every MAGA rally…
deleted by creator
No, that’s almost exclusively a Republican trait.
deleted by creator
That simply speaks to the echo-chamber you’re in; I see criticism of Biden all the time. But remember, your words were, “worship.” The sheer cultism level of MAGA, and his likely nomination as GOPs pick again is leaps-and-bounds above anything Biden has. Biden wasn’t my first pick and I have my grievances of him as well.
deleted by creator
Several problems with this:
-
How is this Lemmy instance representative of all leftists and not a very select subset? Hell there are subs and communities within the leftist spectrum that completely differ.
-
You said people worship both sides, but where is the worship comparable to superimposing Trump onto Rambo and Jesus Christ routinely?
-
You said, “Biden receives no criticism from his own side” yet here I am within this Lemmy instance as a progressive-leftist saying that he’s too old and not progressive enough, and wasn’t even my 3rd pick in the Democratic primaries. This sentiment is wide.
-
In February, 58% of Democrats supported the nomination of someone other than Biden; this is less than Republicans for Trump…
-
deleted by creator
define “Free Speech”, oh moderator or “MakeLemmyGreatAgain”
deleted by creator
And again you are wrong. This time on the concept of free speech.
Free speech just means government can’t pass laws restricting speech. Does not mean you do not suffer consequences from a private party. To the effect a corporation banning you for your speech. Being removed from a social media site due to your comments. None of that is infringing on your free speech since there are no governmental restrictions on most things said/done. Just a private party wanting no part of the content the other party is providing.
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
