Hersh, Eitan; Royden, Laura (25 June 2022). “Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum” Political Research Quarterly.
doi:10.1177/10659129221111081
Memes that come with citations? Now that’s how you shitpost.
Fascist definition: Anyone I disagree with. That’s some solid research conrade.
You should host a course titled:
How to identify yourself as a fascist 101
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Thanks for proving my point.
Yes? Let’s not make this thread too, make your argument and let me reply, this is no irc chat.
No, this is airing dirty Nazi laundry. Say Nazi shit, get called a Nazi.
Are you referring to something specific here or just venting? I certainly don’t call anyone I disagree with a fascist, but there are many people in the present society who advocate for fascist ideas. What else should we call them?
Left and right is just another meaningless tag to attach to people. Its really jerks vs everyone else. You can’t tell a leftist jerk from their right leaning clone. You can take the garbage they spew and substitute a few words depending on the what flavor they call themselves and hear nearly the exact same thing. Then you have the joiners. Who have to belong. Who will pick one side to belong. They by far are the worst of the group since they lack any spine to keep them honest.
How come only white people get to be fascist? That’s not very fair. What about China? Aren’t they fascist AF?
Sorry, it’s not from Italy, it’s just sparkling authoritarianism
🤣
Don’t let them see the other facts… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Africa
You should have seen Japan…
Ahh yes. The other white meat.
Is antifa extreme left?
according to some yes, but according to normal people though, antifa is just people who don’t want nazis around them, which should be everyone?
The fact that there is a “Yes” in the violence box (regardless of target) makes them violent extremists. Besides, from what I’ve seen, plenty of antifa folk will use violence and vandalism against people unrelated to the supposed target group.
Makes them violent extremists
Only if you believe that any violence is extreme. I would disagree, punching fascists is fairly centrist and enjoys broad support.
what I’ve seen, plenty of antifa folk will use violence and vandalism against people unrelated to the supposed target group.
That is besides the point. You can be against facists and also against Nestle at the same time.
I do, and where I live being the first to throw a punch towards anyone for almost any reason is generally frowned upon.
The reason that violence is dangerous in this context is that it can allow a violent minority to oppress and subjugate a majority. By removing it from society in general and de-legitimizing its use the influence of these sorts of people can be effectively minimized.
“Centrist” only if you use the sense of a median popular political position, which isn’t really what it means. Self-described centrists are actually conservative and tend to be weirdly* okay with Nazis.
*weird if you don’t understand the link between capital, the state, conservatism and fascism
Centrists are currently overseeing a genocide right before our eyes and telling us that the fascists would be worse so we just have to suck it up and vote for them.
Centrists are violent extremists
do you think WWII was won without violence mate? If nazis could be reasoned with there wouldn’t be a war in the first place. You can’t turn the other cheek to nazis, it’s just not an option, you either fight back or you die.
That’s a terrible comparison. The same can be applied to any state with an aggressive foreign policy - or violent group intent on assailing a legitimate, elected government.
Political violence instead tends to fuel and enlarge these sorts of radical, violent movements, ultimately worsening the situation even further. The antidote is de-legitimizing their entire strategy by enforcing non-violence on an institutional level, a peaceful transfer of power. This shows the general populace that the most dangerous thing in the room is in fact the violent extremist, who needs to be locked up the moment they break the social contract of non-violence.
“enforcing non-violance” and how do you propose we do that?
Since it is leaderless some factions of Antifa are extreme left, some are what they say on the tin and are are anti fascist, and some are crypto-fascists who have appropriated the language of antifa as a smoke screen , this last group has most of the ones who go on social media and stir up ship , and bait people, and try to turn peaceful protests into riots to discredit the protestors…
Antifa has not been taking much action against the violence directed at Jewish students at colleges around the world , despite the fact that many of these Jewish students are not Zionists, they are just identifiable as Jewish and so are conflated into being Zionists.
I just want to point out that not all fascists are Nazis. Can I point that out without getting crucified?
I will clarify that if you’re any kind of fascist, you’re a trash person, doubly so for Nazis specifically… But not all fascists are Nazis. Which the OP chart seems to imply.
To drive my point home, I’ll quote Wikipedia: fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nowhere in there does it say that fascists are anti-Semites, nor white supremacist. Those ideologies are generally attributed to specific fascist ideologies… Eg. Nazis.
Let’s not sugar coat what people are. If they’re Nazi fucks, let’s call them Nazi fucks.
And if they aren’t, don’t call them Nazis. For example I strongly disagree with the term “grammar nazi” that English speaking people sometimes use for people who point out grammatical flaws in comments or articles - that may sensitise people to view the term lightly, not taking it seriously when someone seriously is a nazi. Apart from that it’s a cruel joke towards the people who suffered under the nazi regime or died fighting it.
I agree with this. We need better terms.
Nazis were such a heinous and specific evil that we probably shouldn’t do anything that could lighten that term. At all.
The part that makes me sad is that they appropriated the symbol of the swastika, and made it into a visage of hate and oppression. It’s a religious symbol for luck.
I don’t think that reputation is changing anytime soon.
The Nazis destroyed a lot, and corrupted so many things by association.
The main job of fascism is to protect capital when the majority of the working population grows disillusioned with capitalism and might get the wrong ideas about socialist revolution and stuff
Look, can’t we just find some common ground and meet in the middle?
…hmm.
Alternatively
…double hmm.
Don’t forget the speech one. Both said no on that one.
The rest I’m on board with.
Am i that much more extreme for thinking that the best solution for Nazis isn’t discriminating against them but educating people to respect so Fascist ideal can no longer take hold?
I know of intolerance for the intolerant, I’ve spread that message myself i am just no longer convinced that burying the problem into private conversations only (Which should be absolute free speech unless you want some sort of police control inside your home) is tackling the problem at the source.
My wish is to eradicate this ideology once and for all not to hide it like we try to do with homeless in rich neighborhoods.
Education is better and preferred but ocne5 the Nazis are in the street they’ve already taken hold and need to be uprooted before we can go back to educating it away.
Once there in the in the streets and are expressing their hostility toward others it becomes self defense to push back.
Nazis should be either
-
spouting their shit in private so their social circle gets the message that their guy is sick and probably needs therapy.
-
in therapy where no speech is taboo and the goal is to improve themselves.
-
in public, not expressing their shit because there starting to understand that its wrong, therapy is long term ongoing progress.
Where they definitively shouldn’t be and i would regard as a hostile act.
- marching down the streets in group with firearms.
The issue is the overuse of the word Nazi. Like the left is throwing at anything to try to make it stick, and we saw how Europe reacted to that. People have issues that are ignore by the ruling powers and we’re left there to fester for so long. From the grooming of Rotherham, to the sexual assault of Cologne, to the countless other instances that are facing EU resident’s life every day. There are issues that are not addressed. And just throwing “nazi” at anyone that try to bring these issues to life is inconsiderate and just circle jerking: “I think that sounds so cool to say Nazi on any random political post on the internet”.
I am only really talking about individuals with fascist ideologies that refuse to respect and assault the freedoms of others.
You know, “nazis”. The word has evolved a bit since the Wehrmacht i do admit.
People that solely focus on these “issues” are called “Nazis” because by all objective measures these are rare and inconsequential events that got way over-blown in the media and serve no other purpose than to distract from the real issues in Europe. If you can’t or don’t want to understand that you are either extremely stupid or are indeed a Nazi that is pushing an agenda. These “issues” are not being “ignored” and left “festering” because the real and only issue there are the people that think that these are “issues” aka Nazis.
-
Guys, regarding white ethnonationalism: the key word here is egregious.
Sure, you got fascists who are not ethnonationalists. Or who are ethnonationalists towards another “race”, such as the Hindutva ideology. However, white ethnonationalists are an egregious example. They exemplify the issue with fascism amazingly well, because they’re the worst of the worst, and they’re extra common.
It’s so frustrating to see something like this and realize that an increasing number of people align their views with the anti-fascists, thinking they are the “good guys”, without seeing the inherent hypocrisy of the beliefs they hold. On paper the anti-fascists portray themselves as accepting, but the reality is quite the opposite. Generally speaking they are authoritarian pricks who will label anyone who disagrees with them as racist or bigoted simply to undermine their point of view. No idea should be above criticism.
I think privileged white people are the largest problem in society these days. I think violence should only be used as a last resort to self defense. I prefer minorities because I find them to be hard working with strong family values. I think freedom of speech only works if it is universal (especially extending to those I disagree with). I’m not entirely sure what classifies as a “dissenter”. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for Jewish culture and the way in which they build community. And yet I have been called a fascist/racist/bigot many times online because I respectfully find the actions and beliefs of ANTIFA abhorrent.
If you scream down viewpoints you don’t like rather than seek to understand, if you use violence to intimidate, if you seek to wield power to destroy your political enemies, then YOU are the bad guys. ANTIFA does all of these things then hides behind the ruse of being “anti-fascists” because they are cowards and are no better than the fascists they claim to fight against.
I feel like we’re gonna need a lot of citations here.
Hey look it’s a fascist.
What specific thing did I say that makes me a fascist?
While I don’t agree with the op, you’re kind of proving their point…
It’s more like this:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
- MLK
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
I don’t personally like to pretend to be civil with people who do not extend the same courtesy, even if they are ignorant of their own contradictions. Good friends tell people they are wrong when they need to be told.
Ah yes, big Antifa.
Meaning what exactly?
No OP, but you’re saying they’re authoritatian when it’s patently a decentralized, anti-authoritarian and leaderless movement. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what anti-fascists are.
No offence, but it sounds like your views are largely shaped by more right-leaning media’s depictions of antifa.
You get me.
I think privileged white people are the largest problem in society these days. I think violence should only be used as a last resort to self defense. I prefer minorities because I find them to be hard working with strong family values. I think freedom of speech only works if it is universal (especially extending to those I disagree with). I’m not entirely sure what classifies as a “dissenter”. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for Jewish culture and the way in which they build community. And yet I have been called a fascist/racist/bigot many times online because I respectfully find the actions and beliefs of ANTIFA abhorrent.
While I would never put words in Angela Davis’ mouth, I think this more or less covers it. Please avoid the temptation to skip forward or you won’t appreciate what she is bringing together to make her final point. It’s not a very long video, only about 3 minutes.
Assuming the most benign interpretation: sorry but you are confusing justified self-defense with what actual fascist do. I guess you are familiar with the paradox of tolerance, but I recommend you thinking about that one again in the context of Antifa.
Horseshoe theory is dumb, but it’s really just an observation of the loudest ideologies on the far left and far right, which both happen to be authoritarian. Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system. And it’s true that real-world instances of both Fascism and Communism have been authoritarian, and so they share some things in common. It isn’t a particularly nuanced or deep understanding, but it is true that authoritarian forms of gov’t are authoritarian. The difference lies in the details. Communists used authoritarianism against capitalists and the nobility, and fascists used it against minorities. Horseshoe theory conflates “authoritarianism” with extreme Left and Right-wing ideologies.
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Do you consider anarchists and anarchocommunists to be extremists? Or authoritarian?
Extremists? Sure - they are, by definition, as they are outside of normal, status quo political ideologies. Authoritarian? No of course not. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian. I’m only saying that past communist states (namely PRC and USSR) have been authoritarian and fascist states have also been authoritarian.
Obviously modern neoliberal states are also authoritarian, but the classic horseshoe is almost exclusively applied to fascism and communism. Since it is incoherent as a political theory, I’m sure you could apply it similarly to any polar opposite ideologies and come up with something they share in common.
You might want to consider that those who call themselves leftist may not actually be leftist.
For instance, “Nazi” is short for “national socialist”. They are clearly right wing, however, if you pay attention to their actions.
So-called socialist states are generally deeply repressive and that is not left wing. They were better at branding than the Nazis, but for instance the USSR neutered the soviets - the workers’ councils after which the state was named - very soon after taking power. The state owned rhe means of production, not the workers. It was state capitalist. After that workers had to strike just like under any other capitalist regime, and they were brutally repressed by the state.
Under no honest description of socialist does that qualify. So they failed on both the “Soviet” and “Socialist” parts of their name.
Horseshoe theory is just capitalists happily buying into the USSR and other state capitalists’ self mythology about being socialist because it’s good propaganda to scare the workers they rule over into believing that there is no alternative to neoliberalism’s stochastic brutality.
If we understand “Leftism” to be about a relationship to the means of production - namely one in which the workers/plroletarian class owns the means of production - then the USSR certainly was socialist/leftist to a significant degree.
Since leftism is about that relationship to the means of production, that also means that a government can be both Leftist and Authoritarian. We can discuss to what degree an ideal leftist government should be “authoritarian”, but that is less a conversation about the economic aspects of leftist political ideology and more about the political philosophy around personal freedoms, freedom of speech, etc. - none of which are completely cut & dry.
One could easily argue that some degree of “authoritarianism” is necessary to protect greater freedoms at the expense of lesser ones - that could be a coherent pro personal freedom and pro authoritarian argument. One could also argue that the anarchist conception of personal freedom is doomed to fail without an “authoritarian” power hierarchy to protect those freedoms. All I’m saying is the question of to what degree the power of the state should be limited is by no means answered.
Ownership means having power, having control, over the thing you own.
An authoritarian government that maintains control over the means of production, no matter how much they nominally “belong” to the workers, inherently alienates the workers from having power and therefore from ownership. In that sense it is state capitalist.
You cannot have it both ways unless you change the meaning of words like “own”, or “authority”. Your own description of leftism precludes authoritarian methods.
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Why is this only necessary at the extremes? I don’t want to accept the current system I live under, but I’m coerced into complying with it through force (police).
I’d argue that: 1) what is extreme changes over time, 2) a system of government being extreme de facto means it will have less support, if it had more support it would cease to be extreme, 3) the less support a system of government hass, the more force will be required to maintain it.
I am also under a system of government that is oppressive and monopolizes violence, but if the government had less popular support, I fully believe it would proportionally ramp up the oppression and violence. In fact, I’d argue that it’s currently happening in the US.
I don’t know that I agree with your definition of extreme. On the one hand, there’s popularity of various ideas, and on the other, there’s how much the idea differs from the way things are currently done. It’s possible for an idea drastically different from the status quo to be popular, but it would still be considered extreme because of how big of a change it would be.
This very special take on Fascism brought to you by Zionists-R-Us.
Colour scheme: blue on white
Im just a tad disappointed that according to this graphic fascism (which isnt exactly the same as nazism but whatever) is strictly a white issue.
Which, if you look at the world, clearly isn’t the case. Fascism is everywhere.
Nobody is ever considering how the whites feel 😤
Sigh.
Nazism isn’t the same as fascism. Nazism does care about your ethnicity. Fascism does not.
But whatever.
You’re not the smartest guy in the room, I think most people understand that.
I don’t think you understand that you’re white knighting (haha) for white people like they need protecting or something, like that’s the concern here.
It sounds like you don’t give a shit about countering fascism, you give a shit about defending white people.
Just be mindful that you’re in an echo chamber environment here.
Or don’t, keep fighting the fight for the whites 💪
Yeah, you seem a lot smarter. Good for you.
No need to sigh, your points are salient and valid
Have you ever heard of Japanese fascists? Or Jewish fascists? Any race can be fascist.
Oh wow, that’s crazy. White people too though right?
Yes, that’s what “any race” means.
So you’re saying White Fascists Matter?
Black isn’t a colour.
Yes it is. It’s one of the 4 colors that can make all other colors! Blue, Magenta, Steve, and Black.
Steve is a secondary color!
A good troll should require barely any intervention from the person trolling. This chain has 20 comments; nine are yours. 9/20 = you suck at trolling. Sauce.
I’m just having a friendly discussion.
You’re supposed to start with “Pardon me, I couldn’t help but overh…” no no no wait nevermind that’s a different type of troll, my bad.
I like these trolls.
I don’t, their faces are creepy looking
A master troll can survive for a year on a few grains of MDMA and the dew on his bag of grass.
Remember not to feed the trolls, people.
Never bought paint before, eh?
Black is the absence of light and therefore not a colour.
But it is a shade.
Pigments dude…
Black is every single color at once in pigment.
White is every single color at once in light.
That’s not black, that’s a mix of every colour.
MIT engineers made a ‘black’ using vertically aligned carbon nanotubes but it’s only 99.995% of the way to being a true black.
A mix of every color in pigment is black because it absorbs every color wavelength of light so no color is reflected back to your eyes. All the things like vantablack are doing is trying to get the amount of light reflected back off the object to your eyes to be completely 0. Visible, or otherwise.
You’re focusing entirely on the light aspect, forgetting that pigments and light work together to create what we understand as color.
Any pigment can be black depending on the lighting, but only black can be black in full light.
They are only 99.995% of the way to that using the carbon fibre pigment I described.
Not a mixture of every colour.
Any pigment can be black depending on the lighting
No… Just because there isn’t enough light to illuminate the object doesn’t mean its pigmentation is black. Would you say that an object that is red becomes black if you close your eyes or turn off the lights?
The reason an object is black in full lighting is because it’s absorbing all the wavelengths of colored light you can see due to its pigment containing all of those colors. That’s why we have black objects that we can see and call “black.” Because they’re black.
Are you 12? This is the kind of context-less pedantry that could only come from someone with no real-world experience.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and can belong in different categories depending.
Damn you got baited hard. Look at the username. Have you never seen a troll?
Anyone internet user can choose to troll if they like. Maybe some people have troll alter ego but for most username is unrelated.
Satansmaggotycumfart has been a Lemmy regular for many months. What’s your problem with funny usernames? Do you find laughter offensive?
Not all colours are made of light.
Color is a far broader word than that, even if in some niche uses it’s specific.
Next you’re going to tell me zero is a number and not just a placeholder.
You’re not good at this.
Apparently not.
Light isn’t color. Color is exclusively in your head. It’s a mental construct.
Is purple a colour?
Yes but it is one of the lesser colours like orange.
Well you contradict yourself, since there’s no such thing as purple light, it must be as much a colour as black is. Have you considered your third-grade gotcha might not be quite nuanced enough for the real world? Or that the science of colours might be a little more complex than you first thought?
Lol I guess we have a hierarchy of colors now
Yesterday we were discussing capitalism and today it’s colours.
Uh, yes? ‘Blue and green reign supreme’ as the saying that I just made up goes
Next thing you know it’s going to be a book about the superiority of some colours and how inferior colours should no longer exist… wait a minute 🤔
I was gonna say something about scientific definitions not being too useful and that you would need to deny that orange and purple are colors, while claiming that WIFI is, but then I actually looked it up and I can’t find a definition that doesn’t include “lightness” in the equation, aka, black and white (and orange too). Literally can only find an Adobe article claiming this and then countless online discussions.
It’s pretty easy, black isn’t a colour.
