You're viewing a single thread.
Can I not say that there are real fascists on the right, that it's a very serious issue, and that I don't agree with some things the left strongly identifies with?
and that I don't agree with some things the left strongly identifies with?
Why don't you go ahead and name some of those things then?
Off the top of my head we've got progressive taxes, intersectionality (and general racism/sexism, rebranded daily), industrial welfare, the over-criminalization of social and economic conduct, arbitrary nationalization of resources and services, negative ROI public spending, unchecked support for labor unions, the subsidization of academia, and a general willingness to create unconstitutional law from any branch of government according to a broad, irrational, committee morality. Socialists take markets for granted and speak of privacy as though it's part of the commons. In short, the left wing trends towards institutional collectivism at the cost of the individual liberties which are the foundation of collective action.
I am an economically centrist libertarian. I believe taxes should be based on resource use, not productivity, welfare should be unconditional, not coercive (and half liquid, not locked into the discretion of committee thinking), criminal law should be based on justice, not morality, and public spending should be productive, not performative.
For the record I have a separate laundry list of grievances with the right wing. I'll zoom out since I'm facing left right now, but theocracy, monopoly, draconianism, the ignorance of systemic violations of natural rights, and support for the growth of industrial complexes (military, prison, healthcare, etc.) are among the issues. There's a bipartisan willingness to replace justice with morality in the application of force; a viral acceptance of abuse followed by a question of flavor. What symbol would you like to be branded into the boot on your neck?
We are in this sensitive, polarized position because industry overwhelmed our agrarian notions of justice. That does not deprecate those notions. We should focus on the economic limitations that aggravate cultural issues and escalate us towards war.
Lmao imagine opening your fucking list with being against progressive taxation.
Edit: and you write an entire screed in your history about Georgism, and yet don't realize it's inherently progressive. Jesus dude c'mon.
"Progressive tax" refers to a tax rate which increases as taxable revenue increases. It doesn't have anything to do with progressive cultural values. Georgism is based on a flat tax of a special resource, economic rent. Given how prone this forum is to willful misinterpretation, I should specify that I don't support flat income tax, or any income tax for that matter.
If everyone doesn't own land, Georgism is by definition progressive.
How do you not know this?
I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.
──Henry George, Progress and PovertyYou seem to think I am unfamiliar with Henry George and I assure you that is quite untrue. I am all about LVTs, political dead-ends though they may be.
However, I am informed enough to know an LVT is inherently progressive.
I think you're talking about the poltiical philosophy of progressivism as opposed to progressive tax, especially progressive income tax.
No, I am definitely not.
A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.
A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income
Source: literally any discussion about progressive taxation and Georgism
I am not a Progressive arguing in favor of Progressivism. I am loosely a "third way" neoliberal with Georgist tendencies (also in favor of Pigouvian taxation, etc), arguing that words have actual meanings.
I'm confused. By tax rate, you must mean the percentage of the taxable amount.
In that case, land ownership being correlated with wealth and income isn't sufficient to prove that LVT is progressive.
Consumption spending also correlates with wealth and income, but a sales tax is usually considered regressive.
So it's possible that the LVT can be progressive, but only if the percentage of wealth spent on land rises with income. I don't know if that's true or not, but what is your basis for believing it is?
Is this post sincere? This has to be trolling right? Or are you talking about some other country aside from the US?
That's not an argument. I'm American, but none of these issues are exclusively American. There's certainly lots of room for discussion of each of these issues, but the crux of my comment is that public policy is more complicated than @PoopingCough's implication that there are no valid points outside the Everyone Vs. The Nazis false dichotomy.
And you claim this while making...shitty points that are not founded in any study of economics whatsoever.
Dude tees you up perfectly and you swing directly into the woods.
Not an argument.
Yeah that's because here im just laughing at you
It's hard to formulate arguments for childishly naive libertarians who have obviously never lived in the real world.
That's not an argument.
I am an economically centrist libertarian
Lmao
Not an argument.
🤣
I am against abortion. But someone else might be more libertarian (I am not a libertarian) yet view the Republican party as evil. Even if you think that person not a good person, calling them a nazi or a fascist doesn't really make sense.
I am against abortion.
Pretty big yikes to start out with just a blanket statement like that, but you do you.
But someone else might be more libertarian (I am not a libertarian) yet view the Republican party as evil. Even if you think that person not a good person, calling them a nazi or a fascist doesn't really make sense.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this part other than you just think the term fascist is being applied in scenarios where there's just disagreement?
But it really isn't difficult to see the modern Republican party very much represents the ideals of fascism. It isn't even a stretch. Let's go through the definition of fascism:
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" - from Merriam Webster Online
so in order:
- Exalts nation and often race of above the individual? Check.
- stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader? Seeing as how they tried to install Trump with a coup in 2021 I'd say that's a pretty easy check.
- severe economic and social regimentation? All you have to do is look at republican tax cuts to see that is a big fat CHECK.
- forcible suppression of opposition? Look at who supports the police force and what groups are typically on the receiving end of police brutality. Check.
As you can see it doesn't take waving a nazi flag or sieg heiling all over the place to fit at least some of the requirements to be labeled a fascist, and if we go by these metrics there are a lot of people actively supporting fascism in our country right now. I don't think the term is much overused to be honest.
Umberto Eco gives an excellent 14 points to identify fascism.
- The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
- The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
- The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
- Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
- Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
- Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
- The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
- The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
- Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
- Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
- Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
- Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
- Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
- Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Bro this applies a little too well to the left too
There are self-proclaimed leftist movements which fit ur-fascism as defined here. Which is unsurprising, considering that leftism is generally defined by opposition to capitalism, while fascism can be for or against capitalism.
Let's examine that:
-
The cult of tradition: Apart from Maoists, Stalinists, and Leninists, (all of them very rare breeds nowadays) I see very little "traditionalist thinking" on the left. So, NO.
-
The rejection of modernism: Does the left see the Age of Reason as the beginning of depravity? No. Even the most ardent communists the pre modern times as riddled with the same problems as modernity. They tend to see modernity and the rise of the working class as part of the solution. NO.
-
Thinking is emasculation, and action without thinking is good: If anything, then the left has a tendency to be a bit too over intellectual. NO.
-
Disagreement is treason: I have never seen two people on the left agree with each other. NO.
-
Fear of difference: If there is anything the left embraces, it's plurality. NO.
-
Appeal to social frustration: Lefty ideologies do not speak to a middle class which feels threatened from lower social groups. NO.
-
Obsession with a plot: Lefty ideologies tend to not buy into the whole "Jewish cabal" thinking. Though they tend to put "the billionaires" in their place recently. So this one gets a MAYBE.
-
The enemy is both strong and weak: Does the left see their enemy as scary and weak at the same time? Not really. The threat from the right tends to just be seen as scary and overwhelming. NO.
-
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy: Do lefties in general embrace war, struggle, and fight for survival, because fundamentally life is struggle? NO.
-
Contempt for the weak: NO.
-
Does the left embrace heroism? Quite the opposite. Lefty action is community action, where working together makes you strong. NO.
-
Distain for women, intolerance of non standard sexuality, and a love for weapons: Nope, the left is against all of that. NO.
-
Selective populism: That's the first point where I would agree. The left sometimes does engage in populism. YES.
-
Does the left use elementary langauge in order to limit critical thinking and reasoning? Heck no. If anything, a lot of stuff from the left tends to be too complicated to be broadly accessible. NO.
So, to sum it up: There is one point among 14 which aligns. And one which somewhat aligns. While in 12 points current lefty thinking directly opposes UR fascism, as described here.
That's why I think your opinion is very strange.
-
Pretty big yikes to start out with just a blanket statement like that, but you do you.
I think there are exceptions. I was trying to be brief.
I’m not really sure what you mean by this part other than you just think the term fascist is being applied in scenarios where there’s just disagreement?
Yes, basically. I think that is something that happens. A major issue with american politics at the moment is treating it like there are two camps, the far left and the fasicst far right.
But it really isn’t difficult to see the modern Republican party very much represents the ideals of fascism.
I basically agree. And we have to call that out.
But, there are many others who really aren't liberal, who also aren't republican. Like I said, there are more positions than the two most popularly described.
But, there are many others who really aren't liberal, who also aren't republican. Like I said, there are more positions than the two most popularly described.
Unfortunately, other positions aren't really allowed to participate in our current system. Until there's ranked choice or some other voting system in place that would break the walls down of the two party system, you kinda have to choose one or the other to have any kind of voice whatsoever.
And the reason that people on the left see "centrists" as mostly Republicans wearing masks is because people who identify as centrists tend to vote Republican. Who we already established are fascists. It's like, yes I agree there is nuance in the world that must be addressed that cannot be addressed when you think of only red vs blue, but until we have the tools to actually do anything but that, we can't just say "well I disagree with things on both sides" and leave it at that when one side is actively undermining the very foundations of our democracy.
Unfortunately, other positions aren’t really allowed to participate in our current system. Until there’s ranked choice or some other voting system in place that would break the walls down of the two party system, you kinda have to choose one or the other to have any kind of voice whatsoever.
Absolutely! When it comes to voting, that inevitably happens and it's horrible. But that doesn't mean an individual's position is well characterized that way.
And the reason that people on the left see “centrists” as mostly Republicans wearing masks is because people who identify as centrists tend to vote Republican. Who we already established are fascists. It’s like, yes I agree there is nuance in the world that must be addressed that cannot be addressed when you think of only red vs blue, but until we have the tools to actually do anything but that, we can’t just say “well I disagree with things on both sides” and leave it at that when one side is actively undermining the very foundations of our democracy.
I think that makes sense in some cases. But I would call myself in many ways a centrist, but I voted all democrat for the last few elections. So, such broad strokes are a real problem.
So the one thing you’re against is abortion? Then don’t get one. If someone is being a fascist they deserve to be called out on it.
If I think abortion should be illegal that makes me a fascist? Or are you saying something else?
I’ll say yes, that you thinking abortion should be illegal is holding a fascist viewpoint. Does that make you a full-blown fascist? No. Is it a stepping stone? Maybe.
Being pro or anti choice does not make someone a fascist.
I think anti-choice people are objectively incorrect but I also understand the meaning of the word fascism.
Not everyone you dislike is a fascist.
You mean like a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition?
So yeah, I fully believe that the belief that abortion should be illegal falls into those categories and is inherently pretty fucking fascist.
Also, I never called them a fascist, but I will call you an idiot.
One can be anti-choice and not stand for a centralized authoritarian government.
A hardcore libertarian that believes protecting human life is the first and only role of a government can be anti-choice. They'd be wrong on a number of levels, but that's still a logical progression that works. Dude you call a fascist is basically that take in human form.
Either you don't know what authoritarian means and think it means "any time a law passes I don't like" or you are deliberately being obtuse.
Any idiot can copy a definition, but you're not supposed to just twist it and make it mean whatever you want. You may as well not even copy the definition at that point.
You can't really do that without being a hypocrite because opposing abortion is inherently authoritarian.
Honestly, if this was 6, maybe 7 years ago, I'd agree with you, but the political lines have been cut so deeply amongst the American people that it really is disingenuous to say that real nuance like that can exist anymore. Even the rare cases where it does -- and people like that are rare, and always oppose abortion for religious reasons -- indicates people who are or will be taken in by that cult.
Most importantly, no one is ever going to change their minds on the issue, rendering debate pointless and impossible. Abortion will probably end up being the key issue that splits the country apart completely.
Banning abortion is not inherently authoritarian. If the argument comes from the idea of it being murder, it is absolutely not authoritarian to prevent murder.
You and I might disagree with that, but "authoritarian" really does mean something. It's not any time someone tries to control you.
As a person with extreme problems with authority and who is extremely pro abortion, it is very draining to keep explaining this.
You mean like favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom?
I can do this all day, my guy. Making abortion illegal is authoritarian and fascist. It’s why Germany finally scrubbed one of the last remaining laws put into place by THE LITERAL NAZI PARTY about abortion access just last year. You’re wrong and your opinions are shit.
I said we should call out nazism and fascism when we see it. I never said you were a fascist.
Okay, and I agree. And I think many are on the right are fascist.
You are for the government threatening women with violence, and forcing women of all ages, including children, into birthing a child that may have been conceived by the result of sexual abuse, or may be cause two deaths in labor, as a result of legislation based on religion.
Ya, you people are unacceptable.
No. I am not for those things. I think those things are despicable.
I think there are exceptions when abortion should be allowed, and I think the recent attempts to outlaw abortion are in bad faith and manipulative. I am not on their side.
And at the same time, I think abortion, should be generally illegal, with exceptions.
- who better aside from a doctor and a patient to decide something so critical? A government council created by religious legislation? Haha. Ok.
And
- if it’s murder to abort an embryo sometimes, how can it not be murder other times? That masked zero sense. The entire argument that it is murder falls apart once you allow exceptions.
I would allow exceptions for when the human would die. It is sad then, but more like taking a person off life support. Not allowing these exceptions would be absolutely horrible.
For exceptions like rape... I am much more conflicted but I am for allowing them. I do not know the right thing here and would be easily swayed. I would allow it not because I think it isn't killing an innocent, but because I do not understand the trauma a person in that position has gone through and it's really f'd up. I don't know ... Fortunately, these are very rare cases.
For something like the mother has cancer and the treatment would kill the child, that's a tragedy, but I'm not going to blame someone for valuing their own life over someone they haven't met.
For other exceptions, I would be half to discuss them.
I admit that I don't like the idea of politicians parsing out what is and isn't allowed. But, we do that already for murder and self defense and manslaughter. This is no different than that.
It’s possible to be against abortion for personal beliefs, and understand that your personal beliefs aren’t the arbiter of the personal health decisions of others, and the laws shouldn’t favor one particular religious idea of life beginning at conception. For most people, including in the works of science life doesn’t begin at conception.
It’s possible to be against abortion for personal beliefs, and understand that your personal beliefs aren’t the arbiter of the personal health decisions of others
Very true, and on other points my political beliefs reflect that. But if I view abortion as killing an innocent person, then it makes sense to seek to outlaw that as it obliterates the safety and rights of another human. For other views, like say that of drugs, the situation is different. I am personally against most drugs. But, that doesn't mean I support criminalizing the use of all of them.
For most people, including in the works of science life doesn’t begin at conception.
But, the beginning of life in this sense isn't a scientific question. Science can tell be when an embryo could live separately from it's mother, or when it's heart starts beating. But, when does it become a living thing? That question isn't a scientific question at all.
I agree that there isn't a consensus on the answer to that question though. But, how do we deal with that? How do we decide what to do when we disagree? Well, that's what our voting system is for, and I would push for stopping abortion within that framework. When the majority vote against it, it won't happen, because that's how the system works. That's how we decide when we don't agree. I don't want to circumvent the system to get what I want (and this is a point on which I think republicans have f'd up. They make laws in bad faith and try to take power in illegitimate ways). I don't want my opinion to obliterate the opinions of others. But I will vote according to my opinion. This framework is true of every issue.
Sadly, the choices are so limited, I can not vote for a party that isn't horrible and wants to stop abortion. The system is very bad. And for the record, I have voted completely for Democrats the last few elections. I would rather vote for third party candidates, but there's basically no choice there.
Fascism has been studied and characterised extensively, it's not about good and bad, it's about a set of very clear signs the American right is heading towards fascism.
Abortion bans show that a nation is fixated of hierachal oppression, and the class stratification associated with further impoverishing those (minorities and the poor) unable to handle the burden of having a child or travelling to get an abortion.
Abortion bans, in vacuum, do not indicate that.
Imagine a country that is a theocratic communist nation. Private property is outlawed, and all wealth is redistributed so that none are poor. A literal Christian theocracy, founded upon Christ's teachings about the eye of the needle.
This nation could (and likely would) ban abortion and contraceptives, even as they guarantee that anyone who has a child is well taken care of, whether they ever work or not.
Sure, theoretically. In reality that has never been the case. I doubt there is a single example of abortion bans not doing what I've said they do in human history.
If you want to advocate for a system like that your first step is to provide adequate childcare and welfare systems. The very last thing you would do is say you want abortion bans. Anyone advocating for abortion bans right now is at best putting the cart before the horse and at worst an evil person.
Fascism has been studied and characterised extensively, it’s not about good and bad, it’s about a set of very clear signs the American right is heading towards fascism.
I agree.
Abortion bans show that a nation is fixated of hierachal oppression, and the class stratification associated with further impoverishing those (minorities and the poor) unable to handle the burden of having a child or travelling to get an abortion.
It can be used that way. And in fact, I agree that it has been used that way in America. I think those who have done so are fascist. I think many of the ways in which the republican party has recently tried to enact these bans are not done in good faith but backhanded manipulation. I do not agree with them.
And at the same time, I think it is an evil thing akin to murder and thus should be illegal.
Honestly, I believe that is as unacceptable as criminalizing blood transfusions as evil (Jehovah's Witnesses), or psychiatry as mind control (Scientologists); however, I do agree that your position is not fascist, and I'd like to say I appreciate you in these dark times for still being a believer in democracy.
If we can agree on that point, then I think progress is possible. I wish you well.
Then don't get an abortion. Why should your opinion apply to anyone else but you?
And let's be clear about this, it is a wholly subjective opinion. You cannot prove where consciousness begins, your opinion on this matter is a whim.
I've been called a fascist for pointing out the reality that the US left's emphasis on social rather than economic issues is alienating to a lot of blue-collar Americans who should be natural allies. Meanwhile I am an active member of my trade union and work with and talk to blue-collar people every day and know WTF I'm talking about.
I am literally a card-carrying member of organized labor and I get called a fascist for speaking the truth. It's not good. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in this thread.
the US left’s emphasis on social rather than economic issues
I don't think it is the left that is emphasizing social issues. They are defending Americans in response to the right's villainization of their next boogeymen to scare up more votes. The same right that then blames them for focusing on social issues. I implore those who are falling for this conservative ruse to start paying attention to what is going on rather than being taken by some of the dumbest tricks in the book.
100 percent agree.
That said, I speak only of how these things are perceived, not of how they ought to be perceived.
I am not, in any way, by pointing out this problem, claiming that it has anything like a moral or logical justification. I am simply stating that it's there, and that we need to figure out how to address it.
I know for a fact that Bernie Sanders has been able to make that leap to appealing to blue-collar Americans, for example.
The rest of the Democratic party, not so much. Rightly or wrongly, blue-collar Americans feel that they are being talked down to by the Democratic party elites.
My point is now and always has been that we need to admit this and start thinking about ways to change the way we are perceived by my fellow blue-collar Americans.
And that change, whatever it may ultimately be, can never arise from blaming people for not somehow "getting" the message.
I wouldn't say it's fascist, but the idea that we have to stop fighting for social issues to address the concerns of blue-collar workers is both insulting to blue-collar workers and deeply dangerous to the people we fight for social issues for.
The reason the American left fights for social issues primarily is because half the American left are neoliberals with no interest in economic reform of any serious kind, not because there is some arbitrary limit of how many votes can go towards socially progressive bills and economically progressive bills.
While I agree with you, your point is kind of ancillary. It's not now, nor has it ever been, my argument that the left is obliged to abandon social issues in order to court labor.
My point is that I made a simple observation of fact and was then called a fascist apologist for having done so.
I personally don't know how we reconcile the social conservatism of blue-collar Americans with the labor progressivism that so many of them obviously want.
I just think that it has to be talked about and that ignoring it or calling union activists, like myself, fascists, is not productive in any way shape or form.
There has to be a solution, and pretending like the problem doesn't exist and that people like myself are fascist-adjacent simply for having pointed it out, is complete bullshit.
I agree with that. There's no need to create unnecessary hostility between people with compatible goals.
It's insulting to blue-collar workers to push for social issues that they either disagree with or don't care about?
It's insulting to presume that blue-collar workers are incapable of agreeing with or caring about the position of treating their fellow man with basic human rights. I have no interest in playing the part of the Brothers Strasser, or of Ernst Rohm. If you think that's the way to victory, you're no ally of the oppressed. Just seeking different classes for oppressors.
They're not a monolith but the majority, or at least a substantial portion, of blue-collar workers are proudly socially conservative.
And the answer to that is to work on ways to make them, as a demographic, less socially conservative; or as individuals, to communicate the importance of such issues. Not to abandon those issues for the sake of pandering to their votes.
Unfortunately you are right. I am a proud union blue collar worker, and I have seen the same thing. The problem I've noticed is that they tend to be socially conservative due to years of fear mongering by assholes who want to exploit us. They use that fear to keep is fighting amongst ourselves instead of recognizing the real problems.
In the US the right has: Banned abortion (SCOTUS) Banned books. Made it okay to discriminate against gay people (303 creative) Banned drag shows. Is thinking about banning contraceptives.
There is no debate here. The right is banning things. The left has no equivalent bans on social issues.
3 of the last 4 GOP presidents proudly cut taxes for rich people. To distract you from that, the right is doing culture wars or wars on woke.
No doubt. I agree entirely. My point isn't to argue what should be. My point is only that stating what is an objective fact has gotten me called a fascist apologist by idiots who can't differentiate between between pointing out an aspect of reality vs actively advocating for it.
It's basically a "kill the messenger" situation.
This whole thing seems sus.
And while there's no way to know how true or not your statement it, it seems to me like you're one of these people that's economically left, but is either anti-trans, anti-muslim/immigrant or anti-some other minority group or a combination of all of them and at some point your got called out for that.
I'm not anti-anyone, apart from religious extremists.
But go ahead and think what you want, that's fine, I honestly have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
My life speaks for itself.
Your fan fiction about the internal motivations of those who disagree with you is not rational or empirical. You're literally making stuff up right now.
If you say so dude. I'm sure you trust everything you read from random posts online and you never infer what the reality may be when someone quite obviously leaves info out or skirts around an issue?
99% of the time that's about transphobia or some bizarre religious position, so yeah-- usually that's gonna make leftists think you're a bigot or a loon.
I think you can say whatever you want.
As long as you don't engage in the behavior depicted in that comic, this comic doesn't seem to be about you.