You're viewing a single thread.
and people like OP think everyone fits neatly into either group.
You can't support the right without supporting their fascism, regardless of how you try to qualify it
That's not what he said...
Oh yes you "can!" Just you try voting third party (i.e not actually supporting the republicans) and telling anyone about it, dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither, and somehow simultaneously supported both from the POV of the "you have to do what I want" people.
Edit: See?
dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither
The fundamental core of the GOP strategy is to disenfranchise voters. When you vote for a hopeless third-party candidate you are disenfranchising yourself - i.e. doing the GOP's work for them.
Aren't people tired of voting for a party because they dislike the other one though? You're disenfranchising yourself by doing that. I just want to vote for a party because I actually like them.
It's mathematically impossible for a third party to win because they split the vote with whichever of the major parties they are most like. Since this is so you are in effect voting for whomever they are most unalike. EG greens are voting for Republicans Libertarians might as well be voting for Democrats.
You would do better to stand better folks in the primary of the party that is closest to the third party or move for something like approval voting that would make it possible to vote for them in good conscience instead of pretending like you don't know how our electoral system works.
Voting for a third party is a vote for apathy. No matter which side you lean towards voting for a third party shows that you don't actually care about the outcome. It feels nice, and I'm sure you proudly proclaim that you're the only one trying to do anything, but it's a vote for apathy.
This is the same argument that led to the red scare in the 50s. Want to unionize your workplace? That's not the only union you want! Want to bring an anti consumerism message? Literally communism! It's much easier to group undesirables together so you can marginalize the libertarians, evangelicals and business class in one fell swoop by labeling them Fascist
You're 100% right. You'll still get downvoted and so will I for saying this, because people vote with their emotions here.
I don't think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences discussion.
If a comment is actively hateful and/or breaks rules you'd report it instead, as is the case in alot of Lemmy instances.
right? if you say something the lef... i mean lemmy users don't like, you just get SHOUTED down instead. cause if you screetch loud enough it makes it true.
It’s useful for gauging the general opinion on a subject, or for “exposing” fake affirmations without having to dig comments.
It does bring its issues, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. Plus it’s not like Reddit where you just have the balance, people indeed have the tendency to ignore/comment snarkily on “-5” comments, but if they see a “+10/-15” they often realize it’s a controversial opinion and might weigh in.
How is anyone on Lemmy silenced by downvotes? Just basic feelings of shame because some people on the internet didn't like what they said?
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what's happening just above this comment. Turns the place into an echo chamber.
How does it turn the place into an echo chamber? Why would anyone let that silence them? There are zero repercussions for a downvote on Lemmy.
Is your ego really so fragile that "people don't like my comment" is enough to make you stop talking?
Lmao did you even read my comment? Who said anything about not commenting if you're getting negative votes?
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what's happening just above this comment.
That comment did not justify your original comment, which was:
I don’t think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences discussion.
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion. Neither do downvotes. No one, not even you, is entitled to a response. Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won't? That's ludicrous.
So as far as- "Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?," that would be you, who claimed downvotes silenced discussion.
No one is entitled to a response
Again, did you even read my comment? Pointing out a tendency people have isn't "entitlement". People shy away from small numbers and interact with large numbers more.
Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won't?
We literally see this in threads all the time. Negatively voted comments are responded to with one-liners or nothing at all, as if the negative votes somehow prove them wrong.
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion
Lmao I'll be "discussing" this topic with my wall now
90 million people or whatever they claimed the outrageous number was voted with their emotions in 2020.
I don't think I've ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism. However, I've heard plenty on the left say they support communism. Also, the right has plenty of problems to draw upon without acting like the crazy fringe is the norm. This twitter post is insane and really not a convincing argument.
Go ahead and downvote because you don't like hearing it all you want, but you know it's true.
I don't think I've ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism
I have.
Can you show me?
The people I've met in real life? That would be a little tricky. But I've met actual open fascists.
And there's also people who support fascist policy, but don't say fascism; they are still supporters of fascism.
They don't have to say it.
I don't think I've ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism. However, I've heard plenty on the left say they support communism
Cool whataboutism, but the two aren't remotely comparable. Fascism is an ideology of violence. Communism, as described by Marx, is an ideology of common ownership, lack of social classes, and the obsoletion of currency.
Both sides are not the same.
Nah its patently false. Christian nationalism is business as usual on the right now and thats just American fascism.
America first? Fascism. MAGA is the same, look at Trumps veterans day speech
The tiki torch "Jews will not replace us" crowd was very fine people on both sides according to him.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., declared in an interview that “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”
There’s Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”
They legislate against civil liberties then call anyone who opposes their attacks 'groomers'
Return to tradition. Reject modernism. Elevate irrationalism (denial of science). Disagreement is treason (or 'grooming', the new way of saying indoctrination, but a blanket condemnation of indoctrination is self incriminating for Christian nationalists). Demagougery, exploit fear of difference, tear down diversity. Attacks on immigrants to elevate 'patriots' (read white nationalists). Veneration of authoritarian leaders. Hyperfixation on chauvinism (Proudboys) conquest and war iconography. Selective populism, double speak where moms for liberty means book burning and parental rights means don't challenge my bigotry by teaching acceptance. Goes on and on.
They wont outright say fascism is good right away. It dogwhistles and doublespeak until they hold enough power.
Communism ≠ Fascism. I'm terribly sorry that every single "Communist State" literally couldn't be a communist state any more than The Congo and North Korea are Democratic Republics. Just because someone calls themselves something doesn't make them a member of that ideology.
Communism at it's core requires a dissolution of both The State (The federal government,) and an abolition of currency. The closest you'll find to any society like this would be the aboriginal societies in Siberia, Australia, North and South America, and Africa.
Fun fact: The Native Siberian reigndeer hunting tribes were so communistic that Russia/The USSR under both The Czar, and Lenin and Stalin didn't have any clue how to deal with them, so much like Mao, they disrupted their way of life and caused some pretty massive famines.
No so called "Communist" country has been anything more than a right wing authoritarian dictatorship which is about as far from communism as you could possibly get.
Before you propagandized capitalists come at me,: "Democracy doesn't work because The People's Democratic Republic of The Congo, and The Democratic Republic of North Korea are nothing but authoritarian fascist dictatorships, so all attempts at democracy, much like The US under Wilson, Trump, Harding and Coolidge, will automatically fall into authoritarian fascist regimes."
reigndeer
I mean who doesnt want the country you live in to provide education and healthcare, other than nazis and fascist? Whats the middle ground you refer too?
No, no, you see, the Republicans who worship a cult of action and engage in strident anti-intellectualism and encourage violence against minorities are definitely not fascist, they're just Economically Anxious or whatever the fuck the in-vogue term is.
Pulling up the ladder so nobody else can climb up.
The
new20 year effort of the American conservative.movement.
because there are more than those two issues. but go ahead and feel the moral high ground you're seeking.
But aren’t those two issues true? And aren’t they extremely important?
Thing is, in the current US system you can be either: Republican, Democrat, or letting other people pick your poison for you. So the first one is people who don’t want education and healthcare, the third is people who don’t care, and the second is everyone else.
Obviously people don’t fit neatly into two camps, but the US right camp has trenched itself in so deep that it’s baffling it has more than 10% of voters.
But aren’t those two issues true? And aren’t they extremely important?
I never said they weren't. And you're still wrong. There's a such thing as nuance, but you're missing the point, so I'm just going to leave it here. Have a great black or white life.
In what am I wrong? Aren’t US elections basically asking you to choose between a party that wants to cut healthcare and education and one that doesn’t, with no other options in between?
Nazi say what