I’m not a both-siders, but I was just arguing with a leftist yesterday that was saying we should jail people for voting for trump.
So I’m hesitant to pretend there are not wack jobs on the left who would happily exterminate people for their political gain.
The left absolutely has nut jobs. That’s why it’s important that us normal, reasonable left people call them out and check their shit.
The right let their right wing nut jobs take over. That’s why we’re in this mess.
The right didn’t “let their nutjobs take over,” as Capitalism has continued to decay Capitalists have consolidated power. There wasn’t a cognizant decision to shift towards fascism, but fascism itself arose as the material conditions of society declined.
Fascism doesn’t spread because “it’s an appealing idea,” fascism specifically is a result of Capitalist decline, and pretending it’s just something that happens randomly makes combatting it difficult.
The second layer to both-sides is false-equivalence fallacy. A majority of Republicans believe in the Big Lie; their literal nominee tried to overthrow a free & fair election.
Let that sink in: A MAJORITY of Republicans believe 2020 was stolen.
Do you see the broader Democratic party or any of their high-level leaders calling for jailing people voting for Trump? No.
Being fooled is not a crime. Trump (along with many accomplices) is a criminal that needs to be prosecuted and thrown in jail, but unfortunately the morons who have fallen for his lies aren’t breaking the law by doing so, so any claim to have them jailed is anti democratic authoritarianism.
Being fooled is not a crime
I take it you defend the same of the percentage of Russian citizens who are brainwashed into voting for Putin? Or the Germans who went to marches and cheered on for Hitler?
Assuming they believe they have not committed a crime, absolutely.
Fair enough, I appreciate your consistency, and actually support your viewpoint
Removed by mod
You can pretend all you like the problem is that there have been leftist wack jobs that very much did exterminate people for political gain.
Things would be so much easier if we could simply argue about ideology without anyone getting the ‘clever’ idea that you can simply exterminate everyone who disagrees and end up with a harmonious society of people all working towards the same ideal.
Some ideals are so dangerous they need to be exterminated. If you can show me a method that does this while leaving the bigot alive, I would happily see it implemented.
Education.
If you place killing an ideal beyond implementing your own you’re making exactly the same mistake.
The best we’ve come up with is to try to ensure people are educated and well informed and only a majority can make certain decisions. Not all countries are doing too well on all 3 (heck the U.S. doesn’t even manage to ensure decisions require a majority) but if an ideal gets accepted under anything resembling those conditions then killing the bigots is no longer an option.
Sorry, no.
WWII was an excellent example of how some ideologies cannot be met with peace. Shame you forgot it.
Absolutely not.
WWII was an excellent example of how some actions cannot be meet with peace.
If you think you can suppress an ideal with violence, you have a poor grasp of the situation.
One can respond to ideals that are bad by having a better, more effective way of life - one that addresses the underlying needs that those with bad ideals are trying to meet, and that has a path for them to join you.
But if you simply suppress it, it will fester and grow.
Education and human relation. Standing your ground in a conversation without getting combative. Being
winningwilling to fight if needed, but actively choosing not to when it’s not truly necessary.No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it. Instead, you let it survive, and teach people, by example, how to deal with it - not through suppression, but through response.
You just admitted my clause:
Being winning to fight of needed
No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it.
Yes, and it stops being relevant. Just like every dictatorial regime that has been put down.
I did not “admit your clause”. Being willing to fight does not necessitate extermination.
Although, perhaps you’re right, and I should adopt your ideology of ideological extermination, starting with your ideology.
No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it.
Yes, and it stops being relevant. Just like every dictatorial regime that has been put down.
Oh, is that what you think happens? Go live it, then, and good luck with that.
I will not abide intellectual dishonestly.
You are hereby cast out from my internet experience for all time.
Whew.
we should jail people for voting for trump
-
Donald Trump is launching a full fascist coup on the American democratic state and if he wins he will kill millions of people, primarily those who are poc, lgbtq, and foreign born. We need to stop him at all costs.
-
Hey, listen, who you vote for is your call and I’m not here to judge. Its just an election, I don’t see why you need to make a federal case out of it.
These two views are in sharp contradiction with one another.
So if Trump is proposing ideas going against the foundation of the State and its constitution we should not let Trump run. How is jailing people for voting Trump a solution?
So if Trump is proposing ideas going against the foundation of the State and its constitution we should not let Trump run.
He was President for four years and he did a lot worse than “propose ideas”. Perhaps we should throw him in jail.
How is jailing people for voting Trump a solution?
It strongly discourages people to support a fascist who threatens my existence.
So we have an undemocratic state if voting one out of two candidates gets you in jail. This is literally the playbook definition of an autocracy. He should be judged by the actions he took and shouldn’t be above the law like the supreme court decided but judging the voters is crazy
So we have an undemocratic state if voting one out of two candidates gets you in jail.
The Tolerance Paradox is only resolved when you refuse to tolerate intolerance.
Then drop the candidate but not the masses voting for change.
Since we’re wishcasting here, I’d say “¿Por Qué No Los Dos?”
But I agree, getting fascists off the ballot would be the highest imperative. I’d also say that we’re not going to do either, so getting angry at someone online for suggesting either one seems silly.
This is literally the playbook definition of an autocracy. He should be judged by the actions he took and shouldn’t be above the law like the supreme court decided but judging the voters is crazy
He’s not above the law. Congress Impeached him for it and 57 Senators (less than the 67 needed) voted to convict (including 7 Republicans). But the Democrats rushed it for political reasons. The Nixon Impeachement process took 9 months and it had several hearings evidentiary and others that gave Republicans who didn’t and couldn’t support impeachment at the start of the process justify impeachment to their constituents. Impeachment is a political process, and Dems politicked like morons.
What if someone told you aid to an enemy of the state is the definition of treason. The man tried to overthrow our government with an insurrection, there is no question he is an enemy of the state. (So all who have donated to his compaign and broadcasted for his rise to power have committed treason)
I don’t think we should jail Trump voters, but they should at least make aware that just because they believed his/medias lies, doesn’t make them immune from all ignorant actions. The first civil war set precedent that you don’t need to punish them, but any members who partook who held office prior to the attempt (currently still ongoing) should not be able to hold office in the future as written in the amendment MADE for insurrectionsts. (Even this seems extreme with current events)
Now as we learned from the last time, we should ignore our previous actions and follow what Robert E Lee suggested, that all statues of Trump & the confederates should be taken down (flags as well) and should not be built nor allowed outside museums/textbooks in the future.
His reason was because history showed countries heal faster that way. Ours hasn’t healed since the conferency, we did it wrong.
Make possession charges harsh, so they hide again, but next time when the NAZI flag and the KKK burning crosses came to light, they would legally shut it down before it gained traction and spread their hate so far and wide.
I said nothing about not judging them. They are, at best, gullible rubes. I judge them very harshly. However, I was very explicit that it was about jailing them.
So, sure, if you just make up my position, I can see how you can make it contradictory. Good for you.
They are, at best, gullible rubes.
They know exactly what they’re asking for. It isn’t as though the homophobia and xenophobia of the American right is some kind of secret. Persecuting minority groups is a signature issue.
However, I was very explicit that it was about jailing them.
And if we were voting on changing the speed limit, I’d agree that taking voting to the level of incarceration would be extreme. But we’re talking about policies of mass incarceration, seizure of property, and execution of dissidents. That’s the threat that a future Trump Presidency is supposed to present.
So either I was lied to and Future President Donald Trump isn’t an existential threat to my existence. Or the reports are sincere and a vote for Donald Trump is the same as a vote for my summary execution.
If a lynch mob shows up outside your door and starts voting on whether or not to string you up, what would you say the remedy is? Lobby them not to kill you? Politely ask them to leave? Or show up on the porch with a shotgun and tell them all to piss off?
They know exactly what they’re asking for.
For some, sure. For most? It reads more like a justification to act like an authoritarian and jail political opponents. It sounds exactly like when people like trump say the left is coming after Christians.
But we’re talking about policies of mass incarceration, seizure of property, and execution of dissidents.
We’re not tho. You’re just assuming this will happen. I agree with you it’s a distinct risk and we must stop trump because it’s far greater than a zero percent chance. But he’s not outright calling for it. These people believe he is protecting them and their way of life. Dumb? Yes. Criminal? No.
But can we stop and laugh for a second about you pointing to assumption of mass incarceration as a justification for outright calling for mass incarceration? Which does, pretty clearly, demonstrate my point.
For most? It reads more like a justification to act like an authoritarian and jail political opponents.
When the political opponents are, themselves, violent domestic terrorists and anti-democratic authoritarians, you’d be a fool to wait until they’re installed in the highest levels of government before taking action.
You’re just assuming this will happen.
I am being told “Go out and vote against Trump or this will happen”. This was the primary Ridin’ With Biden argument and the reason we were supposed to swallow a little like genocide in Gaza for the greater good. There were a bunch of memes and everything. People insisting that a Trump Presidency would amount to a domestic holocaust. People insisting that failure to vote for the Democrat or even a vote for a third party candidate was a tacit endorsement of this pending holocaust.
But can we stop and laugh for a second about you pointing to assumption of mass incarceration as a justification for outright calling for mass incarceration?
Sure. The joke is funniest right down on the US/Mexico border where we’ve got toddlers behind razor wire, because the governors are all pandering to a political base that wants to end birthright citizenship and deport anyone browner than a cup of milk.
When the political opponents are, themselves, violent domestic terrorists and anti-democratic authoritarians, you’d be a fool to wait until they’re installed in the highest levels of government before taking action.
Except we’re not talking about terrorists and anti democratic authoritarians, we are talking about jailing people for the way they vote. You are, by claiming people should be jailed for the way they vote, being the anti democratic authoritarian.
Again, we both agree that trump is a risk and we need to stop him. But jailing people for falling for his rhetoric and commiting the crime of voting makes you a risk to our democracy as well. The only difference I see between you and trump, on this point at least, is you’re explicitly espousing it. He’s just using a dog whistle.
Except we’re not talking about terrorists and anti democratic authoritarians
We’re talking about their donors, their canvasers, and their supporters.
Again, we both agree that trump is a risk and we need to stop him.
We both agree he should be stopped. I’m not sure we agree on actually stopping him. It seems like we’re just going to roll the dice on the election and hope for the best, because doing anything else would be unfair to the fascists.
-
The whack jobs on the left are a vanishing minority, so if you’re pretending they’re equivalent to the right wing who actually attempted a fucking coup and want to do another one, you’re either disingenuous or an idiot.
I’ve seen far more calls from the left for actual violence since the rise of trump than probably combined the rest of my life. I agree the right wing is currently more violent, but the claim that they are vanishing, rather than rising, doesn’t match up with the reality I’ve experienced. Especially surprising to claim it here on Lemmy where I see it most.
How many right wing people do you hang out with?
Lemmy is not reality.
Voting is a sacred right in our society, even if it’s for a treasonous corrupt felon wannabe fascist. I don’t understand why anyone would give him their vote but that just makes them an idiot
It seems like you’re the one jumping from someone wanting jail time to those voting to overthrow our democracy, all the way to exterminate. Yeah, I suppose those people exist but a huge difference is there is no widespread support for left wing nut jobs
I don’t remember what politician was convicted a few years back where a lot of people kept trying to make the point that a left wing criminal is a criminal that we all want brought to justice, whereas too much right wing criminal behavior is ignored or even lionized. Both sides are very much NOT the same
It seems like you’re the one jumping from someone wanting jail time to those voting to overthrow our democracy, all the way to exterminate.
It’s part of the submission.
But I’m not equating the two sides, but every right winger I know, including Trump supporters who I unfortunately have way too many of in my family, wish no ill will on anyone and don’t believe trump does. So this claim that there is widespread support for exterminating people on the right does not reflect the reality I experience.
No one says that. But Trump has repeatedly said variations of acting as dictator, subverting the constitution and the checks and balances that are fundamental to our government. He is guilty of instigating treason. He repeatedly acts racist and extremely misogynistic. He should be held responsible for the hundreds of thousands of excess Covid deaths during his term when he denied reality and prevented a coordinated response. He has decades of history with contract fraud and likely tax fraud. His speeches are falsehood after falsehood and he contradicts himself depending on what his audience wants to hear. He was a disaster of a president, and certainly this time around no one can claim to not know what to expect.
I don’t know your family, but how can they support the constitution and vote for some who ignores it and has announced fascination as a goal and has already committed election fraud , how can they claim to not be racist and elect a racist, how can they claim to not be sexist and elect someone that disdainful of women’s rights, how can they elect someone noncoherent and expect anything, how can they believe they will get whatever they think he promised when he also promised the opposite and has a history of not following through with either? How can they claim to be nice people and elect someone with a history of spite and who has already professed revenge on people not sufficiently loyal?
I feel they mean well…most of them anyway. They don’t want shit to go further south and feel jailing Trump to be the correct course. Admittedly, I do agree to an extent, though only because he keeps weaseling his way out of taking real responsibility for all of his bullshit. Mostly because we rolled the judicial equivalent of a Nat1 with Cannon.
The comment argued for jailing Trump voters, not Trump himself in this case.
Oop, my mistake. Thank you for pointing that out.
The far left has guillotines for that purpose and they’re not ashamed to say so. Lemmy has been an interesting education on what far left actually means.
On lemmy you see first and foremost the tanky left. Andrewism made a great video against the guillotine and he is very left. You don’t have to agree with him either, just know The Left isn’t a monolith and it’s not that linear actually.
That I think it’s the scariest thing we have right now: a lot of people that forgot we need to live together and trying to shove your ideology down others throats is not the way to go, no matter how right one believes to be.
Yeah that person you talked to is crazy. But let’s also not act like the Republicans haven’t been calling for a civil war if Troomp looses.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/23/republican-calls-for-civil-war-if-trump-loses/
That was a senator who said that
So like, yeah jailing people for thinking diffrent is wrong, but…
Extermination and jailing people aren’t really equivalent.
You have plenty of out and about fascists who would vote for trump, actual groypers and nazis and shit. As a kind of, probe question, right, do you think it would be pertinent to go and actually kill those motherfuckers, given the kind of, borrowed time on which we’re living right now, the lack of resources, right, lack of popular support from a mainstream political system and their ability to so clearly co-opt it in this moment, and impending climate change which means we can’t waste time on them really more than is necessary. Those are some of the justifications that somebody might give for exterminating out and about fascists, right, even if they can’t guarantee that those people are actual fascists, in their heart of hearts, and that it would’ve taken too many resources to convert them, or too much time. That’s all normal shit, right, normal death sentence justification, which I usually don’t agree with, maybe greased up a little bit since you can have the apologia of a kind of wartime or desperation, right. You get what I’m saying?
I agree with you also, that there are plenty (I would even say, a majority) of supporters that legitimately just don’t realize how bad he is, and how bad things are in general, lots of them because they’re coked up on denial and lack of imagination, lots of them because they stand to benefit from these systems as they currently operate. They might not be “racist”, but they might still be perpetuating racism, they might not be fascists, but they might still be perpetuating fascism, through their ignorance and incompetence. Those people, right, sure, doesn’t make much sense to kill them.
But then, how do you propose to change their minds? A staunch communist might propose that we change the system, and then the majority will more naturally come to like, normal conclusions, right, and then you can just round up the rest that are sort of very staunch in their misinformed support, and then you can perhaps “re-educate” those people, right.
This is a process most people have problems with, but I dunno, what’s your take, what’s your alternative? If you’re dealing with those people, and you’re still giving them the freedom to attain power, control the economy and other people’s lives, even as misguided as they are, just sort of, for the sake of not having them in jail, right, then I dunno if that’s really going to work long term. It locks you into an untenable position, especially as many of these people will be actively dedicated to your dissolution, even if they’re just fooled, which dooms your movement from the start. You have to remove them from power, and if you want to remove them from power and ownership, while also not expatriating them from your country, an act which is usually viewed as genocide and for which you will constantly hear removeding from gusanos in the miami herald about, then you need to put them in some sort of reeducation camp, basically, and that camp is going to constitute jail.
So I dunno, hit me with your argument against that kind of jailing.
I don’t really think there’s any level of like, very natural reform that you’re going to engage in, or slow convincing over time to get people to give up their own power, that’s going to improve things, or that’s going to improve things at nearly the rate that we need right now considering what’s on the horizon. I might be wrong on that, but my basis for that belief is that people are in the positions of power that they’re in because they are naturally groomed and ensured to be the ones who have the beliefs and attitudes most suited to retain that power. If you have a business size of like, hundreds, and you’re promoting people in your business to positions of power, promoting people to become CEO by the board of directors, then naturally the system is going to start appointing people which reinforce the system. Asskissers who will do anything to get promoted, are usually the ones to get promoted, we know this. This doesn’t even need to be a universal tendency, this just needs to be a tendency more of the time than not, for it to be really problematic, for the majority of people in power to be assholes. The board of directors doesn’t want to start appointing CEOs that turn their companies into co-ops, that take the power out of their hands, there’s a natural incentive structure there. The same is mostly true of political systems which are mostly autocratic.
So, I dunno if there’s really much of an alternative, if we’re taking a sort of, step back look down at that idea of jailing your opposition. Maybe you have one, I dunno.
As a centrist I can say with certainty that both sides are being misrepresented here.
Wrong!
Source: We’re on Lenny
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Right-wing in-group: “So long as you be just like us in every way and fall in line, you will be accepted. Sort of.”
Left-wing in-group: “So long as you’re not an asshole, we don’t care what you believe or do.”
Right-wing out-group: Anyone not like them.
Left-wing out-group: Anyone who is an asshole.
Left-wing in-group: “So long as you’re not an asshole, we don’t care what you believe or do.”
Since fucking when?? The far left is famous for infighting and purity tests, has been for decades. It might even be the number one thing Leftism is known for.
deleted by creator
Meme says far left, not left-leaning. Left-leaning is cool. Far left are fucking idiots.
I’d love to hear your answer to his question, you forgot to answer it.
It was the wrong question, dumbass. Left-leaning people don’t use purity tests.
Not only are you wrong, you’re a total prick about it lmao
Just matching the energy. But also, no I’m not wrong.
I mean, the only groups using purity tests are shit stains like tankies and terfs, they of course are SOOOOOOOOOoooooo… left they routinely work with literal neo-Nazis (hint they arn’t left wing at all)
Why are you calling me a dumbass? Are you angry? You forgot to answer his question. There are no wrong questions, maybe some you don’t want to answer. Every group uses some form of purity test.
Calling you a dumbass because you’re a fucking dumbass. No other reason. It’s not a difficult concept, but then again you would have trouble with it.
Such as… ?
I mean if you need to narrow your scope to the “fAr LeFt,” in America to make your point then I can narrow my scope to the “fAr RiGht” and the difference is eco terrorism versus lynch mobs, so…
Theres a lot of nuisance in the definitions of left and right that are lost in reductive and polarizing statements like this. For instance a far left idea is an extreme belief in the philosophy of equity. When brought to its pure conclusion you end up in a communist environment where the state ends of being the dictator of exactly how much resources every individual is allowed to have. The conclusion to radical left and radical right policies is actually exactly the same. Authoritarianism.
There are plenty of ideas and philosophies on the right and left that are absolutely reasonable. Universal Healthcare on the left. Some immigration reforms or trade tariffs on the right.
These types of memes are very reductionist an unhelpful in terms of influencing people who are already woefully uneducated in the world of politics, philosophy, or trade and finance and only serves to try and convince stupid people that one very large and diverse group of people are literally evil while another very large group of diverse people are the good and virtuous.
Communism is when the shared public mechanisms under socialism run so well a government is no longer necessary at all. If it has a dictator or a government it is, by definition, not communism.
The key being what constitutes being an asshole, and what you allow yourself to do to someone once the label can be pasted onto someone. It’s really the same thing seen through different gross stereotypes - they could literally say the same thing.
That’s not to say there aren’t very real differences between parties, but they aren’t extreme sides of a one dimensional line (or vague notions in a two dimensional mapping) which is basically a propaganda tool for the ego.
It’s funny. I have a blog post from Ken Arneson who talks about “The Right to be an Asshole” and here’s how he defines an asshole:
An asshole is a selfish person whose selfishness causes foreseeable indirect collateral damage to the people around them.
He goes on:
Assholes take risks that provide upside to themselves, but transfer the downsides of those risks to other people.
But the true test case for the limits of freedom is the asshole. Philosophically speaking, assholes walk the line between intentions and consequences. Assholes form the boundary between freedom and control.
Assholes don’t intend to do direct harm. They just don’t think about, and/or care about, and/or believe, and/or comprehend, that their actions can or will have negative consequences for other people beyond their direct intentions.
He goes on to recount the tale of COVID Patient 31 from Seoul, South Korea. Shortly after receiving her diagnosis, she decided to seek comfort at church. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of infections were traced back to her through contact tracing. So, now we come to intentions vs. consequences. Patient 31 wasn’t intending to make anyone sick or die, she was merely seeking comfort through faith. Any reasonable non-asshole could have told her and probably did tell her, that attending church while infected would cause others to be infected and possibly die. How should this asshole be judged? If we judge her by her intentions, then she’s as much a victim as anyone. But if we judge her by her consequences, then she’s a mass murderer.
So the question we have to ask as a free society is: What the fuck do we do about assholes?
Assholes have a very clever trick that allows them to keep being assholes.
If you try to stop them from being an asshole, they will declare you to be an asshole who, although perhaps intending to prevent some bad thing from happening, causes harm by denying some very fine people, who have no intention of harming anyone, their freedom. So who’s the real asshole here, anyway?
What the fuck do we do about assholes?
Simple. Dicks fuck assholes. Its necessary, but the problem is they get shit all over the place!
Why is he downvoted? One is not an asshole if one is just too dumb to get what they are causing. The problem is that we not educate our children good enough so that they not fail to get what makes sense and what not.
But as long as we have stupid religious fanatics in power, we are doomed. Fuck Religion!
Religion has done something very clever, too. Christianity in particular has, through some means, found a way to divorce actions from character, as opposed to viewing one’s actions as a reflection of their character. They see good and evil as things that someone is instead of what someone does.
You ever notice how suburban white Karens clutch their pearls when called racist? Well, consider what I just said about their view of evil. Now, make “racism” == “evil”. By calling one racist, you have effectively called them evil, and they most certainly do not view themselves as having an evil character.
Or how, when doing evil deeds, they don’t see themselves as being evil despite their actions? Or when someone does a good deed, they accuse that person of being evil?
It’s just intriguing how they’ve pulled off this alchemy.
You confused me a little with that text 😅
Socialism is literally transferring all risk to other people. Nice try though.
no, socialism is transferring everything to the people, the current not-socialist capitalist model already transfers all the risk to the people, but keeps the gains to the few
Removed by mod
Left-wing out-group: Everyone, especially other leftists
I mean, it doesn’t have anything to do with the ideology, but the far left is famously like that.
I don’t usually use this expression, but you might need to touch grass. I pretty regularly hang out with far left people and other than debates over personal philosophy we’re all pretty chill. The internet is not an accurate representation of any actual social dynamics.
Yup. That’s some truth.
All my liberal homies smoke weed and shoot the shit and try to vote for people who don’t want to kill outgroups. So agreed, he needs to touch grass.
The ones I’m thinking of would not appreciate being called “liberal”.
Well, I meant my lefty friends. If you look at my comment history, I’m not much a liberal myself, but I don’t consider tankies on the left. I consider them authoritarian fuckbags that will say anything to get power. Just like authoritarian fuckbags on the right.
I consider them flat Earth theorists that weren’t right-wing enough for the normal conspiracy pipeline. The Stalin stuff is pretty much just decoration.
I’ve seen plenty of anarchist gatekeeping, too, although when you haven’t organised in the first place there’s less to split.
TBH there’s barely a center-left where I live, even, so you’re right that I wouldn’t know. However, the history of real-world Western socialist organisations doesn’t inspire confidence that it’s any different.
to be fair, tankies arn’t left wing, they fully support the most Draconian right wing solutions to everything, but pretend that their führer isn’t evil or something.
Anarchists are in this picture too. Gatekeeping about who’s anti-authoritarian enough is one example.
I mean, they have a point, you literally can’t go “but Lenin created vanguardism” as a reason why the all powerful single party state supposedly controlled by the “will of the people” and get upset when people call you out for being an authoritarian.
Anarchists gate keeping tankies isn’t some moral wrong, it’s just learning from history, because they would rather work with literal Nazis/ ethno-fascists than with an anarchist, the anarchists were the first to be shot by all the fascists, German, Romanian, Italian, or Soviet.
Yeah, but even if you allow that, they’ll gatekeep each other over dietary systems, for voting or not voting, over which economic systems are too market, over who was on the right side of a personal falling out, for believing in rules of any kind and on and on. There never is an end to it.
I don’t know who you’ve been hanging out with, but anarchists don’t care if you’re vegan or not, and generally their issue isn’t with markets, it’s with the system giving all the power to a small group of feudal lords, but I think the issue is that you only know anarchists by shitty online memes, maybe you should go get in contact with your local lawn dealer
Sure. All the anarchists fucking up for the last 150 years don’t count. You folks in this thread swear there’s different, cool ones; they’re just conveniently invisible.
and generally their issue isn’t with markets, it’s with the system giving all the power to a small group of feudal lords
And yet, pretty much none of them like ancaps. Mutualists or whatever other in-between are prime targets for purging from your not-a-political-party.
💎exacta-mundo friendileeno
Hope the left sees that there are assholes turning to nice people if you take away the fear right-wing media puts on them.
Bolsheviks literally exterminated entire social groups because they believed they were impure. Calling people “kulaks” and such.
They also deported (as in half dying in the way) to Siberia whole peoples, like Chechens and Ingushs.
Also some peoples by ethnicity alone were deemed suspicious in certain parts of USSR and forcefully moved from there. That’s how there are very few Greeks in Crimea.
And you have those hammer and sickle on the “far left” pic.
Its almost as if the USSR was just fascism with red trim.
I agree, but the author used hammer&sickle as the illustration of “far left”.
Its the symbol of communism, as opposed to the USSR alone.
Well, others have answered you that it’s the symbol of “worker and peasant Red Army”, as hammer and sickle symbolize. And a five ended star was, I think, a military symbol of limited popularity in Russia before Communism, while Red Army simply made the color constant. The star was also initially upside down, as a way to defy Christianity, this is not a joke. But later they, apparently, decided that it being upside down is juvenile.
It originated in the Soviet Union, it’s associated with Communism because of the Soviet Union. It’s only a symbol of Communism within the context of the USSR, if you believe the model of the USSR to be fascist then you believe the Hammer and Sickle to be symbolic of fascism.
Alternatively, you can dissapprove of the model of the USSR while recognizing it as Socialist and not fascist.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
“Surfism?” Sounds rad 🏄
In all seriousness, the Tsarist Regime was overthrown in 1917, while the Hammer and Sickle was first proposed in 1918, and adopted officially by the Bolsheviks and the USSR as it formed out of the Russian Civil War. It has since become a symbol of Marxism through association with the USSR, not despite it. The H&S was symbiolized for the USSR, not necessarily Marxism itself.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of Democracy, nor have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
If you can find a significant number of groups brandishing the Hammer and Sickle but denouncing the USSR in totality, then please, be my guest.
*Serfism
Cool story, still a poor argument.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of >Democracy,
Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.
or have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.
Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.
Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?
Almost like Fascism was a branch of Italian Socialism.
Only fascists pretend that fascists were socialists.
Its almost as if mussolini got kicked out of the Italian socliast league specifically for not remotely socialist.
Movements don’t rise from nothing. His first supporters were card carrying members of the Italian Socialist Party. “Kicked out” of a party you replace is a weird way to say it.
His first supporters were nothing of the sort and the fascists fought the socialists.
If fighting socialists disqualifies you as a socialist, then there would be no socialists.
I agree. However, fascsists aren’t socialists. If it isn’t socialism for everyone it isn’t socialism at all.
The national socialists had to change their name from what it was previously. Hitler wanted to use “socialist” as a buzzword to trick idiots.
because ironically the author of the meme made the best of fucks up made an unironic meme, Tankies are just Nazis wearing red.
Yes, and they destroyed most of the Baltic intelligentsia via exile to Siberia.
Forcefully relocated Ukrainians, Germans and Poles to purify post war borders which helped to turn Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine into nation states.
Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
No need to single out Baltics really. The same happened everywhere.
Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
Let’s please remember that inside USSR the first such movement to gain traction was the one of NK’s unification with Armenian SSR. And also the first one to be met with force. Independent Azerbaijan basically took the matter where USSR’s central government left it.
Dunno why I’m trying to make a case of NK’s independence being as solid as that of Baltic countries or something. It’s not about laws, but about strength anyway. All the “international institutions” have made it clear that any principle is sold cheap.
the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
Actually since middle 30-s Soviet ideology started turning in that direction. During WWII this, of course, accelerated with war propaganda.
Yes, they certainly made sure everybody’s needs were met during the Holodomor.
That was under Stalin’s rule which was a fascist regime like any other ‘communist’ regime that gained power in the last century.
Yes, but far left can go that far. Note there are no far left politicians in serious play in American politics. Radical far left means you are ready to go all in on on bad stuff because you think it’s the only means to the correct end.
The far right is currently more dangerous in American politics because they are actually in serious play, but let’s not assume tossing in some far left would make things better.
Far-left would be something like anarcho-communism. Fascism is, in fact, far-right.
I suppose this is a way the ‘left<->right’ spectrum to align everything breaks down.
Some would graph ‘authoritarianism’ on the right and more liberty on the ‘left’.
Except some ‘leftists’ would love to use authoritarian strategies against malicious capitalism and people responsible for environmental misbehavior, which are also seen as “leftist” ideals.
As evidenced in the scenario today, where the far right is in rabid support of a convicted felon and the left is rallying behind someone seen as a pretty aggressive prosecutor. Generally opposite of the traditional view of what ‘right’ and ‘left’ would tend to favor.
Authoritarianism tends to assert itself when people feel like they can use it to advance their own stance and minimize opposition, regardless of side. We just don’t have people that far left in US politics currently.
fascism is right wing
I get what you are saying, but wasn’t Stalin “just” a dictator (with an iron fist, killing millions) but not faschist?
If one applies a strict definition of fascism, probably yes as stalinism is a kind of it’s own.
“policy failure in one occasion creating a famine in a preindustrial country which used to have 10 famines a century proves that communists want to murder people!”
I think people who’ve enjoyed years under communist governments might disagree a little about the comparison here.
Communism isn’t the goal. That’s what far right thinks the far left wants. The far left wants more Universal Basic Income where everyone’s needs are met. People are still allowed to go make money. Just there no homeless, which in turn should mean there’s no ultra ultra wealthy.
But communism where absolutely everybody gets the same thing hasn’t been argued for in a while (at least I haven’t seen it past arguing with Republicans it’s a bad idea).
Depends on who you ask, but I think most far left would say they are going for communism of some stripe.
I want heavy taxes on the wealthy, UBI, universal housing and healthcare, and much more regulation. I want higher union membership and more co-op business of all stripes. I don’t want a central, planned economy. (I have many other not directly economic concerns.)
I’m not often accused of being far left, these days, but I have been called a communist in the past. I consider myself a democratic socialist.
I 100% agree with what you’ve said.
The problem with other people ideologies of communism us as soon as you bring up one of those points it immediately makes you a communist and communism bad.
But yeah, allow capitalism and people to strive for a better life, just have the safety net in place for those that fall/can’t climb.
“Communist governments” have never been truly communist. Well the big ones that we know at least, I guess smaller folks like indigenous people or other ancient form of living were why more communist.
All the “communist governments” that one thinks about under that term were/are just non fair dictatorships that claim to be fair
The point I’m making, which I think is obvious and demonstrable, is extreme left aren’t just do-gooders while the extreme right are evil. It’s hard to think of any communist / marxist-leninist / whatever revolutions that weren’t followed by purges, gulags, education camps, progroms or what have you. In some cases, the body count was in the millions, e.g. Pol Pot.
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
Thinking in terms of right and left as string with two poles is what causing all this mess Like if there would only be two views about any topic and if you are thinking “left” at one topic you have to think “left” on very different topics as well. Kinda strange in my opinion.
About this followup of revelations: you can not simply suddenly force your opinion on how humans have to live on a crowd, well, without violence, fear monger or blackmailing.
I like the way nordic european countries handle politics. They have some of the greatest democracies and many very social laws that help the poor to live normal lives. You should visit those once.
AES countries never reached Communism, yes, but they were very much real attempts at building Socialism. A lot of bad came from them, yes, but so did a lot of good. It’s important to critically analyze them as such.
Well, of course! We have to learn from every failure any human has done in the past, else we don’t get smarter.
Yes, which is why I take issue with the idea that these were not “true Communists.” Some may have taken advantage of their positions, yes, and none of these attempts were or are perfect, but by and large these have been countries made up of the masses attempting to build Communism. The idea that all attempts were merely hijacked by opportunists is an easy way to avoid actually having to analyze them critically. It’s a sort of analytical non-starter.
That is only your view, I can easily say that they were not true communists and still analyse why they were not a true communist systems. If I would say they where truly Communist systems, I would just lie and there would not be failures to analyse since it should have worked since they were truly communist systems.
That’s a lot of nonsense if you aren’t going to actually analyze anything.
What is “true” Communism?
😂how to get to that I don’t analyse?
For me true communism would be living in a group in consensus that nobody owns but the whole group together
Read. Page 116, par. 3, “We Didn’t Realize What We Had.”
Both sides have fine people, except for those God damn commies who want to open the border and give all of the people houses, food, education, and healthcare.
Just stopping by to say I admire your commitment to the bit.
Downvotes be damned
And also send to the gulag all those who oppose their inept program. You can make anything look nice if you omit all the negative stuff.
Centrists: My 3-year old child can tell that both of these characterizations are bullshit. Why cannot you?
because we tend to be smarter than a 3-year old, i mean, the republicans have openly said that they will abolish democracy in America, but “centrists” seem to think it’s a joke
This is just an anecdote of course, but I figure myself a centrist and don’t think it was a joke.
Weird, republicans say the same about democrats
ya, but the difference is that democrats aren’t unveiling “the roadmap to abolish democracy” as a policy guide, and well, actions speak louder than words (unless you are a republican, then you will gladly side with Epstine-McHittler)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Anyone still claiming to be an undecided voter in 2024 is quite frankly full of shit
Anyone claiming that the Democrats goals are to ensure everyone’s needs are met is full of shit.
The meme says “leftists” not democrats. Democrats are rarely leftists, and usually centrists/right wing.
I was not responding to the meme.
ok, so you’re undecided between trump/republicans and harris/democrats?
why?
Are Democrats committed to ensuring everyone’s needs are met?
If not, discussion here is irrelevant.
If you’re not responding to the meme, then why is your discussion on whether “everyone’s needs are met”? OP you responded to was only talking about undecided voters.
How are undecided voters going to make a decision to support the party where “everyone’s needs are met” if there is no option to do so.
Because he’s a fucking Russian plant and the only memes he’s paid to talk about are “Democrats bad”.
the discussion has moved on to see if you’re actually on the left, or are trying to discourage people on the left from voting, or are just a straight up accelerationist/fascist/glowie
The discussion seems to be based on the false assumption that Democrats are left wing and they want to ensure that everyone’s needs are met.
At this point Dems are moderate right wings and the Republicans are far right. We don’t really have a “far left” party.
So why does the above post refer to undecided voters?
Because majority of left people vote dem and right vote for rep and centrist are undecided. This doesn’t mean left = dem, it just means dems are the best option right now for the left.
OK, so the dems are committed to ensuring everyone’s needs are met. Yes?
No one in this comment chain said that, they said they were the best option.
No one in this comment chain said that.
It’s in the picture right at the start.
Why mention the Democrats if they aren’t relevant to the meme being discussed?
I wish
It has always been a myth. Humans are inherently political.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/
Exterminate social groups!?!?!? The far left would never do that to the kulaks, ukrainians, perceived ideological opponents, jews, political opponents, poles, and a quarter of Cambodia, ever.
deleted by creator
Very cool, justifying the extermination of a social group as “deserved”. Any more who “deserved it”?
deleted by creator
Oh, that clears it up, I see now liquidating the right sort of people “who deserve it” is a far-left thing that is righteous, and liquidating the wrong people who, as the right say “”“”“deserve it”“”" is a far-right thing that is evil.
Before I read this, I was a stupid centrist who thought you shouldn’t liquidate groups of people at all, thank you for showing me the right way
Man that guy really went all out to assist you in making your point didn’t he?
deleted by creator
Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn’t involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?
Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn’t make us much better than what the far-right does.
So you believe that there’s something like a group of people that will always be striving to be these capitalist overlords and that there’s no one in the rest of the population that would display that corrupt desire for power? Either this stinks of eugenics or you’re simply naive. Firstly what does it help us killing that group, when the system doesn’t change? Secondly if both change, the system needs to be so that people striving to corrupt power will not be able to achieve that power. I’ve yet to see a system that managed that. The soviet union for one certainly didn’t. In fact that is a playbook example of how not to do it, right besides the first french revolution. If you believe that by killing the “corrupt overlords” you won’t be getting any more corrupt people striving for power, we’re once again at the point is this eugenics or are you naive.
deleted by creator
The good ol whataboutism here again I see…
deleted by creator
Just to be clear, “extermination of a social group” wasn’t ever the extermination of the individuals. Dekulakization was mostly carried out by poor farmers, not by a central authority, and the harshest penalty was normally forced relocation, not murder. The masses were so hungry against the kulaks that the soviet government literally had to introduce maximum quotas of who was designated a kulak because poor farmers were rabid against them.
Dekulakization was a fucking mess, but it wasn’t an extermination in the genocidal sense of the word.
The far left never eliminated Ukrainians, it’s the literal protofascist Putin that’s invading Ukraine.
If you’re referring to Holodomor, there’s no evidence that there was an attempt to particularly affect Ukrainians, and hunger took place in other parts of the USSR. There are no other similar events leading up to it, or afterwards, to make me believe that the USSR wanted to exterminate Ukrainians, and as a matter of fact the second president of the USSR was Ukrainian. There was no war in Ukraine since WW2 during the USSR, until the dismantling of the USSR and the establishing of capitalist regimes in the region.
Saying that the USSR eliminated Jews is purely conspiracy and outright false, there’s no historical example of that, and Jewish people were overrepresented compared to other ethnicities over the whole history of the USSR in government and high-education positions.
Similarly, poles were never eliminated. There was oppression in Poland during the Stalinist oppression as much as there was in the rest of the USSR, but there was no extermination of Polish people for being Polish.
Funny that being so concerned with Poles and Ukrainians, you don’t mention the USSR ending the occupation of Ukraine by Polish nationalists in 1917-1918 during the Polish-Ukrainian war.
Lol. Had to depict the left with hammer and sickle-- a communist symbol. And it isn’t like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights?wprov=sfla1
It’s pretty much the default Chad Leftist Wojak drawing. It’s been around for years.
Careful! last time I mentioned that I got called Sinophobic! =P
And it isn’t like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights.
It is in the west for the past 40+ years.
Centrists are the real communists. They just want everyone to come together and hug it out.
Don’t you ever fucking joke around in my meme community, you monster
No, wait, he’s got a point…
Yeah, that’s really what the far left does. OP must be delusional. Far right is pretty accurate tho.
I am far left
Yes, clearly
Because communism worked out so well every other time.
there is a cure for political illiteracy
You haven’t found it yet.
Neither have you it seems
there is a cure for political illiteracy
They’d have to cure their normal illiteracy first, and that’s kind of a tall ask I think
I can’t think of any successful communist countries. They’ve all quickly devolved into totalitarian regimes, or else they’ve had to adopt a capitalist economy because a communist economy just didn’t work.
This why the right conflates socialism with communism, because they don’t want to acknowledge that northern Europe is absolutely crushing it in both wealth and services.
No country in Europe is even close to the original definition of socialism. Having public health care is not socialism.
I wish we made decisions based on happiness levels rather than GDP.
These countries are obviously doing something right and the rest of the world should take notes from them: https://worldhappiness.report/news/happiest-countries-prove-resilient-despite-overlapping-crises/
These countries are obviously doing something right and the rest of the world should take notes from them
What they’re doing right is a mixture of rather progressive social policy (in the process of being abandoned in favour of the extreme right), and exploitation of poorer countries through unequal exchange. It’s high-school level knowledge of colonialism: import raw materials and agricultural produce from poor countries at low prices, export high-added-value goods and services at a high cost. If every country were to adopt that model, it wouldn’t work because there’d be nobody to exploit. I suggest you read into the concept of unequal exchange
I cannot believe this report, because Bhutan isn’t on top.
there is no such thing as a communist country: communism is stateless
They’ve all quickly devolved into totalitarian regimes
Tell me you haven’t studied the political structures of Cuba and the USSR since the 60s without telling me you haven’t.
While both countries have a high level of concentration of power on bureaucratic elites when it comes to big policy, there were/are a ton of democratic mechanisms that simply don’t exist in the west. Extremely high rates of unionization with unions having big decision-making power in the workplaces and outside them, party-membership being encouraged with extremely high rates of it compared to western democracies, neighborhood councils having actual decision-making power both through legal mechanisms and through funding to enact desired local policy… If you want to learn of a particularly interesting instance, you can read the book “how the worker’s parliaments saved the Cuban revolution” by Pedro Ross, in which it’s detailed how massive democratic participation in the early 90s after the dismantling of the USSR ensured the survival of the country in an astronomical economic crisis.
You also say this as if western countries were democratic at all, as if putting a ballot once every 4-5 years ensured popular decision-making. Study after study show that public support for policy in the west is a terrible predictor of whether that policy is adopted or not, and vice-versa, i.e., public opinion and policy are uncorrelated. The fact that you can’t easily point to a particular authority responsible for this, doesn’t make the system any more democratic, it just makes it look less authoritarian. Who in France supported the rise of the retirement age? Who in Europe supported austerity policy after the 2008 crisis? What percentage of US citizens don’t support socialized healthcare?
Orrr the US overthrows their government and replaces them with a fascist regime or monarchy whenever there’s even a hint of socialism. Latin America, Asia, post-ww2 Europe… they have a tendency to do that a lot.
The only ones we know of are all authoritarian regimes because they’re the only ones which actually have enough resistanace from outside interference to not fall victim to the USA’s shenanigans. Democracies are extremely vulnerable to outside influence / bad actors, and when you have the most powerful country in the world working to destroy your democratic government, without the centralization to resist that it’s no use fighting back. We created this problem.
I can’t tell if you are talking about the right or the left.
Neither can the communists.
I am an actual centrist and not a caricature. These memes constantly portray us as morons who think “both sides are equal” which is honestly just more inflammatory tribalism which makes it easier to villainize everyone who isn’t in your in group. Its the ultimate strawman, and its somehow super effect, since any time I try to make this point I’m downvoted into the floor. I can recognize the flaws in both sides and make informed decisions. Just because I don’t wave your fucking banner doesn’t mean I’m on the other side it means I vote with my brain instead of blind allegiance.
The problem is that stupid hard left - hard right tribalism is destroying the country. We will NEVER see the changes we want in this country if we are too busy villainizing each other, all that does is push us farther left/right.
If you want real change you should be pushing not for your fairy tale extreme right or extreme left America, push for the first step towards cohesion, we need to overhaul our voting system to ranked choice, this would allow us to have more than 2 parties. So we can get actual hard left, left, center, right, hard right candidates. This will allow us to have parties that truly help our country, and actually represent the people in us. It will curtail extreme political ideologies by allowing, what is a significantly small but loud portion of our population to flounder and die on the ends of the spectrum, and get more common sense political parties into power. Sadly this will never happen, because we have become too good at forcing significant portions of the country into fighting each other versus changing the system.
All of this being said its super clear in this specific election there is only 1 side not trying to steer us off of a cliff. But that isn’t the point, the point is we need to come together somehow to fix this broken 2 party system before it destroys the country. I don’t feel properly represented, do you?
One problem with this analysis is that while the far left is an issue on lemmy, when it comes to the broader electorate they’re a vanishing minority. So they’re just safely ignored by all parties.
The far right is in control of one of the two major parties.
They’re not equivalent. Trying to be a “Centrist” between them is putting yourself on the right wing.
I think your missing the point of my post. This tribalism is destroying us.
Right wing extremism is destroying us. Left wing extremism could, hypothetically, destroy us, if it existed in any real form. But it doesn’t.
Fascists should not be negotiated with or tolerated. They should be excluded from decision making processes. It is perfectly fine (maybe even a moral necessity) to be tribal if your tribe is “no fascism”.
There’s no need to use weasel words like “tribalism” as if it’s this broad, over arching societal issue spanning multiple viewpoints. One group is the problem. Only one. Attacking that group is not tribalism. It’s self-defense.
I almost agree with you, but it lacks the view of how all of this became out of left side virtue signaling. Cancel culture (thought very much overblown in reality) truly created the far right of today. Obviously the far right is a real threat, ignoring how the far right of today came out of pointing the finger at people of the right and calling them racist homophobic incels for making a joke, all that did was force people, who maybe made a joke in bad taste, forced to be on the side of actual zenophobes. Now they truley are everything we claimed they were now, because that is the only side left that will have them.
Im not saying any of it wasnt warrented, its about understanding how we got here, and knowing that we cant keep doing it. You cant call half of the entire country racist gay bashers and find any solution outside of civil war. I dont want that do you? Because thats where its going, many people want to move towards the middle but a middle doesnt exist to move towards.
Cancel culture created the far right of today
No. That’s quite identical to saying “black rights movements created the KKK”. Fascists will fash no matter what the progressive people do. The way to stop fascism from rising isn’t concessions in policy, it’s a total cancel of their presence in media and public spaces, by whatever means necessary.
You cant call half of the entire country racist gay bashers
I can damn right do it if they are. You can’t tolerate racism and homophobia just because you don’t wanna annoy the intolerants.
I dont want that do you? Because thats where its going
Maybe, hear me out, maybe, if we didn’t want fascists to start a civil war, we shouldn’t have allowed them on TV from the start, radicalising people against queer and women’s rights, we shouldn’t have allowed them to take control of social media, and we shouldn’t have allowed them to take control of institutions like the supreme court. That’s how you avoid fascism.
No. That’s quite identical to saying “black rights movements created the KKK”. Fascists will fash no matter what the progressive people do. The way to stop fascism from rising isn’t concessions in policy, it’s a total cancel of their presence in media and public spaces, by whatever means necessary.
I never said concessions in policy, I said that when you demonize people, you create an other side, people naturally form groups, now the other side is larger. Its like how anti vaxxers became a thing because we all joked about how they were dumb animals instead of ignoring them back in the early 2000’s. Back then anti vaxxing was truly just a meme that only a few people did, but we pointed and laughed, which created a platform for stupid people, and they used it to recruit more.
I can damn right do it if they are. You can’t tolerate racism and homophobia just because you don’t wanna annoy the intolerants.
You’re ignoring the entire rest of my argument so I cant really respond.
Maybe, hear me out, maybe, if we didn’t want fascists to start a civil war, we shouldn’t have allowed them on TV from the start, radicalizing people against queer and women’s rights, we shouldn’t have allowed them to take control of social media, and we shouldn’t have allowed them to take control of institutions like the supreme court. That’s how you avoid fascism.
100% agree, we shouldn’t have given hatred a platform, but how did they get it that platform? Was it maybe early 2010s cancel culture? Again id advise you to look into trevors axiom, humans are simple and easily manipulated, attacking a thing creates a platform for people to recruit from.
when you demonize people, you create an other side, people naturally form groups
The fucking media did that, not a tiny group of mentally ill chronically online tumblr teenagers.
Your argument boils down to “look, if we just give the Nazis the sudetenland, they’ll stop”.
That’s a lot of words for saying you haven’t ever read a book
You can tell someone has read a lot based on a 14 word insult, you got me.
Sure, I’ll answer your comment in more detail.
First of all, you saw a post about the left and the right, and you automatically went to talk about the USA as if it was a USA specific meme.
Secondly, there’s no problem with “the far left and the far right” in the USA. There’s a problem of a far right party called republican, and a milquetoast party called democrat. There’s no far left with representation in the USA since McCarthyism. There’s no “polarisation between far left and far right”, there’s nobody in the US advocating expropriation of the means of production, there’s a party with a milquetoast rightist genocide supporter, and another party with a literal pedophile maniac who’d bomb Palestine even harder. There’s no leftist calling for relax of tensions with China and Russia, no leftist for the decolonization of Puerto Rico, no leftist for the establishing of a quality public retirement pension.
You’re a centrist complaining about “polarization” and about “both sides” when there’s a far right party and leftist progressive people have no representation. There’s a problem with the right wing polarization of the USA, not the left wing polarization.
There’s a problem with the right wing polarization of the USA, not the left wing polarization. there’s a far right party and leftist progressive people have no representation.
True but left rhetoric was rampant throughout the 2010s and it polarized the right into the facist removed it is today. Look into trevors axiom, attacking a thing publicaly creates a platform for a thing. Its what happened to anti vax, used to be a meme, now its a significant portion of the population.
True but left rhetoric was rampant throughout the 2010s and it polarized the right into the facist removed it is today
Again, no. The funding that pro-fascist media like Fox or Ben Shapiro or the Daily Wire get is what polarised the right, not a few SJWs on the internet and the #MeToo movement.
True. Fox, Shapiro, and how do you miss the original right wing shithead Rush Limbaugh. Have you ever listened to what they say? I wouldn’t blame you for not, but all it is is putting a lens on shit like cancel culture, tricking them into believing that’s the way the world is ,well maybe 20% that and 80% fabricating their own new lies, but its almost entirely built off of stuff that was all originally made throughout regular news which anyone could see, which allowed people who didn’t like louis c.k. being canceled because they liked his comedy and now they’re mad, but look fox news agrees with me, ill start watching their news instead. People as a whole are extremely simple.
Its also ignoring how a lot of people on the right were raised that way, so these thoughts aren’t even their own, they’re victims in all of this too. Useful idiots yes, but also victims. I knew many people who voted for trump only because Bernie wasn’t allowed to run. Many trump voters just want to burn down the system that has robbed them of the life the country used to promise us, they see trump as that cure. they’re wrong, but the intention is important in finding common ground. In fact when I meet them, unless they’re the super unhinged maga hat wearing dipshits, which has definitely become more common. I mean meeting the “anything but dems” voters, I have real talks with them, when u get past the rhetoric the majority of them want the same stuff as anyone else, they want a home, they want a life, they want to be paid well, they dont want a billionaire class ruling us instead of ourselves. They’ve just been manipulated into thinking the republican party is the only way they’ll get it. This is why i preach cohesion. So many of us want the same thing but were too busy fighting this culture war, which the majority of Americans wouldn’t care about if the entirety of news media wasn’t shoving it down our throats, all paid for by billionaires that want us to keep fighting a culture war, so we forget they’re the true enemy.
If you want real change you should be pushing not for your fairy tale extreme right or extreme left America, push for the first step towards cohesion,
I’m bisexual and an atheist. Do you honestly expect me to have cohesion with the alt right, who would like to see me assaulted/deported/dead? This is a ridiculous suggestion.
The alt right has made themselves very clear, they want to end democracy, and install a theocracy. At best they simply want to destroy all progress and protections that the queer community has had, and at worst they straight up want the death penalty.
You can’t make friends with somebody trying to kill you (directly or indirectly).
our voting system to ranked choice,
Ranked choice would certainly be better (approval and star would be best), but there is no way that a change like that fixes the problem on its own. This is a cultural problem, a problem with election financial regulations, it’s a problem with the media, etc.
You don’t cure fascism with ranked choice voting.
I’m bisexual and an atheist. Do you honestly expect me to have cohesion with the alt right, who would like to see me assaulted/deported/dead? This is a ridiculous suggestion.
I’m not saying be friends of the right, I’m saying that both sides demonizing each other only pushes the left farther left and right farther right. Until it becomes untenable and the country unravels, which is where it is going. See trevors axiom.
Ranked choice would certainly be better (approval and star would be best), but there is no way that a change like that fixes the problem on its own. This is a cultural problem, a problem with election financial regulations, it’s a problem with the media, etc. You don’t cure fascism with ranked choice voting.
Really? I believe you do fix facism with ranked choice. Allowing us actual representation with multiple parties would allow for things like trump to be forced to make their own party, which would have zero real power, because the majority of people wouldnt have rallied behind him, the only reason he has as much sway as he does now is because moderate republicans felt forced to vote for him purely through 2 party tribelism.
I’m saying that both sides demonizing each other only pushes the left farther left and right farther right. Until it becomes untenable and the country unravels, which is where it is going. See trevors axiom.
So are you saying we should just not point out that they are fascists? Because calling them (rightfully) fascist is demonizing.
Allowing us actual representation with multiple parties would allow for things like trump to be forced to make their own party
And that would be great, but ranked choice alone doesn’t get us to actual representation. As long as lobbying is still legal, the problem will persist. As long as SCOTUS remains an unelected political position, the problem will persist. And so on.
There are a million reasons why our elections and political system is fucked. Disproportional voting systems is only one of them.
So are you saying we should just not point out that they are fascists? Because calling them (rightfully) fascist is demonizing.
Great question, Lets try not calling every single person who votes republican a facist (even though we know thats were its going, a majority of the voters are truly victims of rhetoric), because then you force them to only be allowed to associate with facists. Make sure to keep it clear that trump and his chronies are the facists, and remember that the republican voters are victims (of their own ignorance? yes, but also from the hands of the biollionaire media moguls, and a country that has been cutting back education for this exact reason).
And that would be great, but ranked choice alone doesn’t get us to actual representation. As long as lobbying is still legal, the problem will persist. As long as SCOTUS remains an unelected political position, the problem will persist. And so on.
So in my first post i mentioned that ranked choice voting is only the first step, i believe abolishing the two party system is the only way we can ever achieve the next goals youve mentioned. ESPECIALLY when its clear if u read every post here that both sides of the aisles refuse to work together, so we cant affect any of those changes. A two party system will naturally bring both extremes of the aisle back in and then we can actually fix the other problems plaguing us.
Lets try not calling every single person who votes republican a facist
I don’t. But I will still call republicans/GOP voters fascist sympathizers, because at a bare minimum if you’re still voting red, you’re sympathetic to Trump and therefore sympathetic to fascism. That’s still demonizing language, and it is deserved.
And for those of his supporters who are fervent, and genuinely believe in his messaging, they’re clearly fascists. Nazis didn’t get a pass for falling victim to rhetoric, neither do fervent Trump supporters.
i believe abolishing the two party system is the only way we can ever achieve the next goals youve mentioned.
And better voting systems will never be achievable until the two party system is abolished. The DNC and GOP establishment are both married to the two party system. We either take over the DNC with reformists, or things will continue to degrade until the point where people have nothing left to lose and take to the streets violently.
So in my first post i mentioned that ranked choice voting is only the first step, i
I’d recommend you look into approval and star voting, as RCV has a number of critical weaknesses.
I don’t. But I will still call republicans/GOP voters fascist sympathizers, because at a bare minimum if you’re still voting red, you’re sympathetic to Trump and therefore sympathetic to fascism. That’s still demonizing language, and it is deserved.
Yes keep pushing people closer to the middle farther to the right, dont try to meet them in middle in ideology, tell them theyre facists sympathizers so they go farther right.
And for those of his supporters who are fervent, and genuinely believe in his messaging, they’re clearly fascists. Nazis didn’t get a pass for falling victim to rhetoric, neither do fervent Trump supporters.
Yeah i agree with the fervant supporters, theyre fully in a cult now, nothing will bring them out of it.
And better voting systems will never be achievable until the two party system is abolished. The DNC and GOP establishment are both married to the two party system. We either take over the DNC with reformists, or things will continue to degrade until the point where people have nothing left to lose and take to the streets violently.
Yeah ive said about the same thing in other comments on this thread, its a pipe dream, but i can see no other way the country doesnt slip into destruction, so ill keep advocating for it.
I’d recommend you look into approval and star voting, as RCV has a number of critical weaknesses.
I will take anything that removes our 2 party system, i dont care what it is. But RCV has name recognition at this point.
Yes keep pushing people closer to the middle farther to the right, dont try to meet them in middle in ideology, tell them theyre facists sympathizers so they go farther right.
I never said anything about the middle. I was specific to the GOP/Trump supporters.
If you vote for a fascist, or support a fascist, you are a fascist sympathizers at a bare minimum. We’re not getting out of this situation by shielding fascist sympathizers from criticism. We didn’t stop racists from being racist by shielding them from criticism.
Dealing with this requires criticism, and forcing them to see the error of their ways whether they like it or not.
The germans didn’t change their minds until they were forcibly marched to the camps to see the death and destruction they wrought upon the jews and other prisoners.
Yeah i agree with the fervant supporters, theyre fully in a cult now, nothing will bring them out of it.
I’m glad we can agree on this.
I will take anything that removes our 2 party system, i dont care what it is
If we are going to put effort into fixing this problem we should fix it right, we shouldn’t take half measures.
But RCV has name recognition at this point.
So does McDonald’s but that doesn’t mean it is a good choice.
This.
So I think people like me are one of the groups you need to convince. I used to be more of a Centrist and used to make sure I at least understoid where both sides are coming from, to try to establish common ground and a way forward.
But we’re so divided now and the “sides” are completely alien, binary, with nothing in common. I can no longer see wtf “the other side” is thinking, how that makes any sense, or what sane person could support it. Maybe a big part of it is pundits and politicians “saying the quiet part out loud”, admitting to denying reality, admitting to offensive stereotypes and goals, being an proud of actions that in previous years would lose their entire audience, admitting to playing political games, corruption , or obstruction as the only goal. Even if you claim those are extremists, those are the voices of the Right and to all appearances people are voting for them against their own best interests, their humanity, and toward fascism, corruption, hatred. Most no longer seem to bother expressing any constructive goal. Meanwhile an entire generation of Republicans is retiring out of the mainstream to be replaced with that extremism. I may not agree with Mitt Romney but he recognized realities, had constructive goals that I could understand, he was willing to put in effort to achieve them and he was generally honest. I can work with that. Where are those Republicans?
Maybe it’s the media degenerating but I make more effort than ever to look for balanced views, avoid outrage clickbait, step outside my echo chamber but it no longer works
Maybe it’s my environment. I’ve spent decades in a state that consistently votes for one party and no one campaigns in a non-swing state anymore, so maybe there’s just no one with a sane version of what the heck they’re thinking. But Mitt Romney was one of the very few Republicans from my state and he came together with Democrats to agree on universal healthcare that later came to the national level as ACA. They made something happen with something for everyone. But then again I’m proud of my state. I’m a proud of compassion toward others, leadership in healthcare and education, quality of life. We vote for things that make this one of the best states to live in. I understand others may think that as well, but how can you keep voting for people who lose jobs, reject healthcare, deny reality, dilute your children’s education, keep your state poor and downtrodden. How can you vote for someone with pride in their ignorance, their maliciousness? How can you vote in the face of fact checking, self contradictions, and some of the offensive attitudes some politicians have? Stand up for yourself and vote for someone who wants to build your future.
It’s really difficult to understand the other side of the political spectrum. I don’t know how to reconcile the destructive, fascist, racist views so many politicians keep espousing with their constituents or what could possess people to vote for some of it
I don’t know how to reconcile the destructive, fascist, racist views so many politicians keep espousing with their constituents or what could possess people to vote for some of it
Yeah me neither. When the sides get too far out it breeds vocal minorities swaying people who used to be center out to their corners. I fucking hate it.
Too many people misattribute center to mean center of existing parties, that isnt what it means
we need to overhaul our voting system to ranked choice.
In the US you may as well be a communist.
It will never happen, dems and gop would have to work together to dilute their own power? Its a pipe dream to be sure, but the only way i think the country can fix itself.
