politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I would answer anti-fascist, but if someone asked me "Are you communist or anti-communist? Pick one" I would answer "neither"
You could pick either. There's no problem with having communist ideologies or being for capitalism.
There is a problem with fascism, it's not comparable to communism. A closer example would be asking someone if they are a racist or not.
We should be taking a hard line at certain ideologies and anyone that hesitate is suspect imo.
The point is that "neither" indicates someone who does not agree with an ideology but also does not see it as a threat.
You are of course free to treat that person accordingly.
Compulsory alliance is sort of a core feature of fascism so you really must be either fascist or anti-fascist.
If fascist government is in power, it will creat a system in which non-partisan participation furthers and advances the fascist state, so one cannot “opt out”. Since a fascist system won’t entertain neutral, the question “Are you fascist or anti-fascist? You can only pick one.” Is not inherently disingenuous.
Communism does not force people into supporting it, there “neither” is an acceptable answer to “Are you communist or anti-communist” in a way that cannot be applied to fascism.
Well, Communism doesn’t force participation as long as you don’t ask the tankiis, but fuck the tankies.
A great point well made.
The same is true of the UK monarchy, yet plenty of Brits are neither for nor against it.
I’m not familiar with the British Monarchy so I can’t really comment on how appropriate your framing is.
What I can point out is that your statement is logically inconsistent on its face.
One can’t be neutral towards a fascist state because the fascist state won’t allow one neutral. In such a condition, anyone who claims to be neither for fascism or actively anti-fascism is pro-fascism because the condition of fascist power will direct all the labour and efforts of participants to the support of the fascist state. In such a condition, pro-fascist is the default condition, and anti-fascism can only be achieved through conscious effort and educated and effective praxis. There is no neutrality. One is not neutral in the face of fascism simply because one declares to be so.
So, if the same conditions essential to fascism are true of the British Monarchy, then the nature of the political situation is stopping Brits from being neither for or against Monarchy. If your assumption that fascism is like the British Monarchy is true, then one could only be pro-monarchy, or achieve anti-monarchy through conscious and intentional effort.
You are not making any distinction between those who would want a fascist state to endure and those who would be indifferent to replacing it with something else. But I think that distinction gets to the heart of the question.
You are also assuming that fascists and anti-fascists are only concerned about their own condition. Suppose you asked an American their opinion of Mussolini and they responded "He was terrible". That's clearly anti-fascist. But what if they responded "Never heard of him"? That's neither pro or anti fascist, yet the neutral response won't advance a fascist regime.