But Antifa is the real danger, right?
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3477 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
my most favorite game when i find a conservative is to ask them point blank:
are you a fascist or are you an anti-fascist? you only get to pick one.
and they squiiiiiiirm
I like asking to play a game of who can list more politically-motivated homicides for each ideology and conservatives strangely never want to play.
It's an equivocation trick. Not all anti-fascists are associated with the movement that calls itself antifa.
Are you pro-life or anti-life? You only get to pick one.
Fuck outta here with this nonsense. Stop trying to score points and try to have conversations with people.
All the conversations have already been had, this is just prelude to war
I would answer anti-fascist, but if someone asked me "Are you communist or anti-communist? Pick one" I would answer "neither"
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.
non-partisan participation furthers and advances the fascist state, so one cannot “opt out”
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.
In such a condition, anyone who claims to be neither for fascism or actively anti-fascism is pro-fascism
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.
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.
I saw a post recently - pretty sure it was in nottheonion - of a screencap of a Fox News segment, where they were interviewing someone that the caption described as an “anti-anti-fascist”.
Though to be fair, Fox News viewers aren’t likely to put two and two together. Or, for that matter, realize that an anti-anti-fascist is just a fascist.
Republicans are literally CUTTING OFF PEOPLE'S HEADS because of Ideological Disagreements but they are NOT Terrorists! ISIS are Terrorists because THEY cut off people's heads because of Ideological Disagreements!
Not even just people…his own dad. Who seems to have worked hard to give this douchebag what he has in life. And all it took was the scum fanning the flames of his hatred for ad money and airtime.
"Federal employee"
From the article he singles out the Post Office.
Was his dad a Postal worker?
Huh. Back in the day it was the postal workers who did the decapitating. That's why we call it "going postal."
Not sure if you’re rearranging fact for effect, but it was a workplace shooting at the Edmond, OK post office by another postal worker that coined the phrase “going postal”. Dude brought a few handguns and killed 15 and wounded I don’t know how many more.
Remember when shootings were so rare that a shooting happening one time at one place was enough to spawn a lasting phrase in American English? Simply fascinating how the times have changed.
Yeah what would you call shootings now if you used the same naming logic? Going high-school? Going k-to-12? Going American?
Also, I vote we call falling into an inescapable pattern of producing half-assed work "going Boeing."
going dark knight
Why is it the people with the crazy issues tend to gravitate to right wing conspiaracy?
You know what you get when you have a crazy left-winger? Someone with 50 cats and a lot of save the trees and Co3x1st bumper stickers.
Michael Reinoehl Willem Van Spronsen
Most sane republican
It's not about republicans, it's about mental health.
Also when mental health problems' reception in the society marginalizes you, you tend to seek for cults\sects and other such kinds of feeling of belonging to something without it being personal (because personal contacts are where your trauma is).
I didn't read the article, but suspect he also lived with his father at that age.
Any one left of Reagan in 2024:
OBVIOUSLY a Deep State FBI agent beheaded his father and went on a rant to make REPUBLICANS look bad!
I just want to take this opportunity to remind people how important it is to vote.
And also: Tell your Republican friends and Republican echo-chambers that if the whole thing is rigged as they say, then why should they even bother voting? Tell them to consider protesting! :)
How much would fox news cover this if this was an Antifa / BLM person?
Oops, that doesn't happen because Antifa / BLM aren't remotely a concern to the FBI, unlike right-wing extremists responsible for the vast majority of political violence and murder.