You must log in or register to comment.
I’d pay money to watch people try to defeat fascism with nothing but bats in 2026.
Edit: I lied. I don’t pay to watch anything. But I would watch a couple of ads.
Reality check.
We aren’t voting our way out of this. That shipped sailed in 2024.
When the orange rapist dies, all the fascists still exist. They’ll still need to be dealt with.
Vote our way out of what?
Idk the majority of people who voted DID vote for Trump, and generally people like Bernie just didn’t get votes because Americans are propagandized against “”“socialism”“”. I guess the DNC basically refuses to give us a good candidate though but I’m not sure how to solve that.
And the Cheeto got less votes than he did the first time around. People are fed up with the system on both sides it seems.
That’s totally true… but we currently have masked goons grabbing people off the street and locking them in cages in mystery torture camps; massive technology oligarch empires attempting to subjugate the entire world; and a population letting all of that happen.
Stephen miller occupying the top 3 spots on the list…
Ah yes… being morally correct will stop the fascism! Just like how it stopped fascism in WW2 and so on!
Even if we could “vote out” MAGA, if our response is as passive and non-disruptive as we have been, we’ve effectively legitimized big business’ strategy here. The oligarchs don’t care who is in power. If they can get massive tax cuts from one Nazi term every 16 years, they will back those Nazis once every 16 years – If the people rioted and destroyed their businesses during Nazi/gilded regimes, the big business CEOs would rethink that strategy.
The point of an uprising now isn’t just about stopping the current fascists – it’s about sending a clear message that the USAmerican people will not tolerate fascism. In business terms: Fascism is not profitable, regardless of what financial policy is on the table. This was the unspoken societal assumption throughout our nation’s history, but bit by bit the line has been tested, and the bar has been lowered.
The War on Drugs’ intrusions in our personal lives; The War on Crime’s mass imprisonment of US residents; The economic pressures of Trickle-down policy; The War on Terror’s normalization of mass-surveillance; ICE detentions, assaults, and human trafficking – Each step is built upon the last. Each step begets the next intrusion of our quality of life.
When we go on working and consuming, keeping this system running; we normalize all the injustices that have occurred up to this point. Year by year, we give all politicians, oligarchs, and corporations less of a reason to fear us. Every time we boast about non-violence, we further push the narrative that the people will take whatever you give them.
We deserve the treatment we allow.
I love when people say violence against fascism is fascism… how dumb are you?
They’re the orange cat of people, malicious, disruptive, destructive, and only have a community brain cell to share around them.
Only the intolerant are tolerant of intolerance.
I like that version of the phrase
Serious question though, there are now literal Nazis, dressed up and all, parading the streets of US cities. What would one risk just shooting them?
“Nazis were back your honour, what else could I do?”
I’m not advocating for this, but as a pessimist I think we are never getting these people back to reason, and they grow in numbers, and they are armed. If parading as Nazis is not seen as having crossed the red line, where does this all go? If there is only self-defense if they attack as a legitimate reason to shoot them, are we doomed to see them grow in numbers till self-defense becomes fucking impossible? Hence my question, if the first bunch of neonazis were just shot, there might have been less of them now, but what would have happened to those that shot them? Prison? Hero? Is there a jurisprudence? I haven’t heard the news of a ‘reverse’ Kyle Rittenhouse
A murder is a murder, legally speaking.
Tbh, the big issue with why nazis exist in these large quantities is that the financial situation of people is going down. That’s the one big thing there. And left-wing parties mostly all over the world did nothing against that.
The rich, the billionaires and all that lot are siphoning wealth off the rest of the world and nobody does anything against that. Instead, left-wing parties got entangled in social justice topics (which are important) but completely forgot left economics (which are critical). Left-wing discussion moved from important but rather boring topics (e.g. how to distribute wealth better) to extremely polarizing but not that critical-to-daily-life topics (e.g. “This politician used a word wrong!”).
That was basically the whole 2000s and the first half of the 2010s.
In the 1990s, nazis were hardly a thing because people had jobs, housing and food. That’s changed now. And since the left-wing parties aren’t about to change anything, people are flocking to right-wing parties and -ideologies because they are literally to dumb to understand that the change that right-wing is going to effect is change against the people.
But if we actually wanted to stop nazis, we would have to abolish billionaires (and pretty much anyone who has more than >50 million) and redistribute wealth. We need a new new deal. Because what killed the nazis wasn’t WW2, but new deal economics.
That’s also where my reflection typically leads, I’m just worried about the timescales of fascism well on its way vs anticapitalism/social policies that are nowhere to be found it seems (even if I believe the majority of people are on the right side of this schism, they are so unproperly represented by governments and leaders in general)
It’s the golden rule again: The one who has the gold, makes the rules.
The ultra-rich (and even the regular rich) usually aren’t that big on anticapitalism/social policies.
“Left-wing” parties intentionally started focusing on ultimately meaningless topics so they didn’t have to admit that they were in the same pockets as the other side.
And right-wing parties did the same to distract idiot voters from what they are actually doing.
Yeah, remember how we defeated fascism in WW2 through polite conversation
Remember how Germans tried to defeat fascism before WW2!
There were a million people in a paramilitarized group, of which many were trained soldiers from WW1.
That simple club is not the scientific answer.
Since there doesn’t seem to be a plan I would even guess that science isn’t even funded to cure fascism. Of course, cause who should have provided the funding?
The cure for fascism is… politically-motivated threats of brutal physical violence? That’s literally fascism.
Hate this. This is not fascism. It’s arguably not even one of the tenets of fascism. That user has no clue what they’re talking about.
The reply under it was pretty good though.
Appeal to force is fascist. Necessary force to prevent abuse of force isn’t.
In a free society, we argue with words, not violence. We resort to force only when necessary to prevent imminent violence.
Okay well, the violence is happening now so I guess you guys can all stfu and get to the force portion of dealing with it.
This is the same principle as behind the social contract of tolerance - intolerance is permitted, but only as a response to intolerance which isn’t being used to defend the tolerant.
Would you agree that Nazis utilized ultraviolence frequently, from day one in 1925 or so to their defeat 20 years later, and that they made use of truncheons and fought against the same from start to finish? To stop a bad guy with a bat you need a good guy with a bat.
I can see how someone might make that assumption.
Also, please recall that Baron Blood was a vampire bat, and he was defeated by Man Bat. Full stop, I win.
It’s always morally correct to beat the shit out of Nazis. And if they don’t like that, they can always stop being Nazis.
“they can always stop being Nazis.”
Assholes:
“Well you can also stop being the thing that you’re being oppressed for!”
Me:
“Stop being disabled? Yeah, no, I wish I could, but the only way I could stop being disabled is by not being alive”
Assholes:
“…”
Me:
“Oh, that’s what you meant, isn’t it? Cool, so you’re not just a Nazi apologist, you’re literally a Nazi. Good to know”
So you’re saying a racist bigot is disabled? That hatred and violent behavior is inherent and unchangeable? I’m missing the point I think here.
Nah, what he’s saying is that assholes would try to turn the argument around by saying that the oppressed could also stop being the thing
they can always stop being Nazis
I think that’s something a lot of right wing people struggle to comprehend.
Left wing violence is targeted toward those who would do us harm, i.e. Nazis. It’s self defence.
Right wing violence is targeted toward those who they believe is causing harm. In their minds it’s the same justification, self defence.
The difference is you can choose to be intolerant or not, you can choose to treat others with kindness or not, you can choose to be a Nazi or not. You can’t choose whether you’re gay, black, trans, disabled, Jewish, whatever form of “other” they have chosen.
Obviously there’s also the fact that being “other” isn’t harmful in any way. But that’s a separate rabbithole of delusion that needs tackled.
they think we are driven by the same fears as them and that these fears are universal to the human experience rather than them not confronting and processing their traumas
I don’t even believe it’s traumas. Most hatred is born from lack of experience and therefore empathy. The trauma they claim is usually fantasy, to feed into the mentality that they are right to be afraid. Like the whole oppressed Christian rhetoric I was fed at an early age, it doesn’t exist in the US. Pray to the guy on the cross, I won’t stop you. Just don’t him as an excuse for causing harm to others. You can practice your religion, but it shouldn’t stop others from living their lives without fear or harm.
But Christians have been using him as an excuse for violence since they were Jews, probably because he was said to be so violent (per his own words and Revelation, in which he is downright murderous)
I so want to go back to a wave of media about brutal violence towards Nazis.
Sure, put in a moral dilemma. A little “Is it really okay for us to be doing this?” Just certify that the answer is YES.
Why did this get downvotes
The nazis don’t realize they aren’t anonymous on Lemmy
That second sentence is why I’m against just killing them. Beat them until they grow but you don’t need to just kill people
Sure they can stop being nazis but their victims can’t stop being dead. Stop the threat first and foremost.
You can give them the opportunity but the moment they refuse to take it then you do what needs doin to protect those around you from them.
Yeah you don’t need to kill them. Just mark them for life like the one guy at the end of Inglorious Bastards.
Also, that’s not literally fascism.
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi
Oh, I don’t know, I think the ones that have been lit on fire are alright.
deleted by creator
Narrator Voice: This kills the Nazi.
Remember, if you sit at the table with Nazis, you’re a Nazi!
So yeah, BoTh PaRtIeS strikes again, sorry
What if I’m sitting with them in order to better slip some poison in their drink when not looking?
I think that’s fine, because if you do it right, you will be sitting at a table with corpses instead of Nazis. You might run into trouble with unrelated aspects of the social contract (re: dining with corpses), but at the least the Nazi problem would be solved
This meme accidentally proves the point: you don’t beat authoritarianism by copying its methods.
The whole Tolerance Paradox thing, yk
I refer to it as the tolerance pact. I’ll tolerate the weird things you do, so long as they don’t significantly affect the unwilling. In return, I expect you to tolerate the same from my weird stuff.
There’s also a slightly weaker addition where I will help stand up for those that are both under the pact and under attack. (“They came for…”)
Nazis and an alarming section of the political right are breaking that pact. They are void of protection by it.
This solution always made sense to me:
Another solution is to place tolerance in the context of social contract theory: to wit, tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another’s differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance?wprov=sfla1
Spot on.
I said this before and a bunch of Nazis down voted it because they didn’t like me opening them up to getting thier shit kicked in
“a bunch of Nazis” on Lemmy?
They exist here. Not to be confused with the Tankies, who hold almost identical views but with a coat of red paint.
So Tankies, Republicans, Russians, Independents and Greens (which are secret Rs), and Nazis are all Nazis, as is everyone who sits at the table with any of these Nazi flavors, exceptions to this rule including but not limited to Ukrainians, Chinese, Indians, North Koreans, Iran, and Democrats.
Nazis are nazis. None of the other things you listed are nazis. Even the comment you are replying to did not say they are nazis, they said they hold similar views to nazis. There are people in the US right now who say “I am a nazi.” Those people are nazis. This is probably the worst comment to reply to for that gotcha.
So you CAN sit at a table with Nazis and not be a Nazi!? This is really going to shake things up!
Your comment is not the worst, hold your chin up
No, all authoritarians are basically the same kind of asshole, and Tankies are pure authoritarians.
And since the very first use of the terms left vs right, was a question of Authoritarianism vs Democracy, a question of unelected monarchy vs the power of the people.
Only later were economic terms added, because Marx envisioned a truly democratic economy.
And then Lenin betrayed the revolution, and then wrote about how betrayal of the revolution and establishment of a dictatorship was what Marx wanted.
Lenin had the actual communists who won the November 1917 election arrested as traitors.
If you are authoritarian, you are not of the left. Full stop.
I’ve been here a couple years and haven’t seen any notable indication that Nazis are on this platform
There was a whole instance, explodingheads, check your instance blocklist to make sure
Maybe the nazi instances are defederated
There used to be an entire instance of them called Exploding Heads. Pretty much every instance has defederated on them, so I don’t know if that server is still alive. There’s always more nazi servers being made to get around defederation, but they usually end up re-quarantined eventually
Exactly. Don’t tolerate the intolerant.
I thought that was the only solution. Tolerance ends with the intolerant.
up votes X 1bil
The whole tolerance false dichotomy thing lacking nuance.
Intolerance is not the same thing as not tolerating something.
Not really. It’s the same principle as being able and willing to defend yourself, or being antifascist. Those who bring violence and cause harm can no longer be tolerated, given concessions, or be treated amicably in any way.
I understand the whole Ghandi approach and “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, I understand that Daryl Davis’ approach is effective to convert racists, but that only applies in the assumption that we all have protected human rights. We can’t afford to be converting racists 1 at a time when millions of victims are being sent off to labour camps for profit.
