Not really “powertripping”. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.
We can’t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!
Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930’s “tolerating” fascism, and the Nazi’s killed over 100 million people. Don’t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.
that’s not even remotely close to their level.
deleted by creator
It isn’t a race to the bottom.
You’re not going to win moderate people to your side by labeling them Nazis.
It’s a mistake to find the most extreme opinions in a group and use them to label the entire group. Just because outrage and self-righteousness feels good, doesn’t mean it’s actually accomplishing anything.
The kinds of statements, like in the OP, are just a form of public masturbation. You’re just yelling into the void for the pleasure and mental rush.
If your goal is to defeat right-wing nationalists, you need to convince the undecided people and that isn’t happening if you’re just ranting like a crazy person because your brain is addicted to upvotes and outrage.
the fuck are you talking about, labeling groups? the op is talking about one person.
Hello, welcome to Lemmy.
In Lemmy, posts can contain comments which are organized into hierarchical threads.
If you are ever confused and need to understand the context of a conversation you can scroll up and read the thread from the top.
yeah which is why you should do that
You’re just confused and don’t understand the terminology of the software that you’re using…
The Original Poster made a post about a specific person. In the Comment Section there are many people responding to the OP. Each of these comments form a thread. The thread consists of people replying to the person above them.
The thread is the context of conversation, as all replies in the thread are a reply to a reply, etc to the person making the first comment in the thread.
The first comment, in this thread in which we’re conversing, is:
Notice how it is talking about a group of people and not a single person.
I’m talking about a group of people and not a single person.
In this thread, which followed the comment that I just quoted, we’re talking about a group of people and not a single person.
You seem to be confused and think we’re having a conversation with the OP, who has not commented in this thread.
god, this is embarrassing for you.
op also means original post. and the original post is clearly about a specific person. also the top level comment again talks about a group of people only in the context that it applies to that specific person.
“fuck hannibal lecter, he’s a cannibal and he should get the death penalty, he doesn’t deserve rights”
“yes cannibals are horrible but that doesn’t mean we should support the state murdering citizens”
“no, cannibals should get special treatment”
the second comment is about a group, but as it applies to the person. none of that exchange, including the third, is about labeling a big group of people by the worst among them. it doesn’t call all murderers or criminals cannibals. it doesn’t even call the GOP cannibals because cannibals aren’t that vile.
so you’re the one confused. a little too eager to cover for cannibals I would say.
I guess you know what I said better than I know what I said. 👍
since you clearly don’t know what anyone’s talking about including yourself I would say yes I do
Can you point to a historical time when large fascist movements were defeated with a means other than violence? We know what happened in Europe, in america they had to counter them by literally beating them up as they popped up, most developing countries had to have violent uprisings.
I am just confused at when talking has ever actually worked and not just delayed their influence (they have always and currently do spend like 100x the money of their opposition, which is has been shown time and time again, money buying propaganda shoved into peoples faces day after day wins hearts and minds almost every time)
I suspect you’re setting up a motte-and-bailey and you’ll equivocate over your use of “large” (which you didn’t define) when offered examples but I’ll try anyway.
Finland (1930s): The Lapua Movement was a fascist organization that attempted a coup in 1932. The Finnish government resisted through legal and political means rather than outright violence.
United States (1960s-1980s): George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party and later neo-fascist groups never gained electoral traction.
Greece (1974): The military junta (1967–1974) was overthrown, and the neo-fascist Golden Dawn party (2010s) was later defeated electorally and legally.
Italy (Post-WWII): The neo-fascist MSI (Italian Social Movement) failed to gain mass support and was absorbed into mainstream conservative politics.
The fact of the matter is that democracy staves off authoritarians on an ongoing basis. It is a pressure release valve for unheard citizens to express their dissatisfaction with the government in a healthy way. Fascism arises when the government suppresses the voices of the people, and drives them into despair and material hardship. You don’t win hearts and minds with suppression and violence. In a democracy, you do that by convincing others that your way is the better way. The reason we don’t use violence to settle our political disagreements is because that immediately devolves into might is right, and we have a near unlimited number of examples throughout history of why that’s terrible.
You’re ‘just talking’ right now.
If you didn’t believe that talking worked and violence is the only answer, then why are you here talking?
Are you a hypocrite, or just a coward?
You’re only wasting time and talking reckless so that you feel better about being helpless. You have no idea how to navigate the situation and, like everyone since the beginning of time, you resort to thinking that someone should do violence instead of talking.
But not you, no, you’re just going to hide behind a keyboard and anonymity and talk about violence.
The people encouraging violence are often the first target of the secret police in fascist takeovers and I highly doubt that you have more than a flimsy door between you and the goon squad that’ll be kicking it in at 3am.
At the end of the day by openly and wrecklessly talking about violence, you’ve alienated allies and made yourself a target.
This isn’t a game.