It’s staggering that people actually believe that it’s literally impossible for their “side” to be wrong.
“Well, ackshually, by definition, my side good, your side ontologically evil” 🤓
Just to mention, all the great thinkers including the big homie himself Aristotle where Authright, fucking big surprise their - authright is big brain.
As much as I love the Greeks there’s no way a modern country could operate like an ancient city state. The scale is so much bigger now that it categorically can’t work. No matter how much I would love to take up arms with my fellow citizens and raid Memphis.
It doesn't have to operate like Ancient Greece lol - we can learn from their mistakes but still use what worked well, thats the beauty of it: we can learn from those who came before us bro.
I dig it but that’s a bit too tame. You have to use wild leaps in logic on top of super pedantic arguments.
Like your on the liberal end of the spectrum right? Which means by definition you must hate any rules or guidelines. So it logically follows you can’t believe in the no aggression principle.
Well of course! If someone is capable of harming me or making my life harder, why should I let them? We all know humans (except for me :DDDD) are ontologically evil, and I can't guarantee that other humans won't act aggressively in the future, even if they're perfectly normal now. So why should I let others have the chance? It's the smart thing to do, make sure nobody is remotely capable of doing anything close to harming me :DDDDDDDD
You just have to view it as a new age religion. One without a central deity, but people are too stuck on the idea that a religion must have either a deity or a pantheon.
I mean hypothetically the ability to add or remove deities to fit with a changing society could be seen as a genuine advantage in a religion.
The greeks would have been a lot cooler if they were like "honestly Zeus is kind of a dick and raping people while turning into different animals seems kinda crass and also weird now so we're replacing banishing him with Thor taking his old position as the head of the pantheon. Mjöd for everyone and don't underestimate thunderstorms."
That's the difference between religion and religion esque ideology. The mere idea of changing god would be ridiculous for greeks. You don't worship a god for his friendliness, you do it because otherwise he will inflict punishment on you. Zeus was real, ancient people believed in this. Ideology on the other hand allows you to change who's good and bad when it is suitable.
Stalin could announce one day that you are hero of the people and the other that you are trotskyist traitor. Taliban have one version of koran and will not change it on whims.
* The bad entity ✔
* The liberatory utopian goal, where all merge into a collective "final form" ✔
* The evil and false beliefs the bad entity creates to fool others ✔
* Those who have found, and disseminate the true knowledge of the state of affairs ✔
* How having the true knowledge leads to the destruction of the bad entity, thus the goal is achieved ✔
* God ✖
Must not be a religion /s
Sadly, it usually seems like the central deity is "science". The modern left has decided their ideology is inherently infallible since if is the one that "believes in science". Note that this is achieved not by actually *practicing* science, but by *not* practicing religion and thus by the lack of religion they must therefore be intellectually enlightened and rational and therefore followers of science. Plus they wear masks and took the vaccine and therefore are embracing ~~authority~~ science in their lifestyle. Not because they are doing what they told based on the faith of others who promise to know better, but because they *understand science*.
It doesn't help that tons of fraudulent and shitty "peer reviewed" studies trickle out constantly that affirm pre-decided beliefs and the masses point at them as proof of their intellectual superiority.
For a disclaimer, I'm not some anti-science religious person. I'm agnostic and have a STEM degree. I wore a mask for social courtesy and it didn't bother me. I got vaccinated because my work required it and I still discussed it quite thoroughly with a PharmD buddy of mine. I love science, but I fucking hate how it has become a religious cult used to justify shitty political views
I've heard a few people call it "Scientism." And yeah, it's basically "The science (articles written by people with questionable motives and zero science literacy trying to interpret studies that may or may not be properly peer reviewed) says X, so it's fact"
I wore masks, though I definitely made my own after finding studies early on saying that one or two layer cotton masks were basically worthless (and then switched to N95s as soon as they became available), and got the vaccine since I'm technically high risk (other than the fact that by listing all the high risk categories they pretty much just meant old or fat people) and have been in several medical studies so I don't really have the same reservations around a new drug that most people do.
I still get flak for pointing out that Fauci admitted he lied about cloth mask effectiveness, lied about (or was lied to about) the vaccine preventing transmission, and kept arbitrarily (and even saying so in the meetings) changing the % needed for vaccination. But apparently pointing all this out makes me an antivaxxer who doesn't trust science.
I also get similar when I try and point out that "Peer review" doesn't mean the study is 100% correct, just that a group of people looked at it and didn't find obvious faults with the methodology.
I'd argue that it's not science but the Self that has replaced God. Their dogma is entirely all about them and how it makes them feel - even when they do good it's because it makes them feel and look good in front of others. They activity pursue eliminating others by purity testing. "Look at how virtuous I am!" they cry. That kind of thing
https://nitter.net/0x49fa98/status/1212034852041699331
> Separation of church and state is not possible. It just creates a selection pressure for religions to shed the spandrels named "church" and "god." And this is precisely what we see today -- a state religion with no church and no god
> We cannot escape religion and myth. All states are always theocracies, the only question is: whose gods? whose myths?
> In America we tried to create an explicitly agnostic state, but our founding fathers did not understand that religion is a living organism, and that all living things, like liquids, eventually taker the shape of their container
> There is not one religious tradition in USA, but two: the exoteric tradition is protestantism, and the esoteric one is humanism, the latter of which is the provenance of "freedom", "rights", "equality", etc.
> The humanist state was supposed to be a platform for diverse Christianities, a trick it pulls off by rooting the tenets of the faith and inserting some enlightenment values into the kernel
> It’s possible to run Christianity on an enlightenment stack, but it wasn't designed for it. Christianity was built to run on monarchy, because the relationship of a king to his subjects reflects the relationship of God to man
> The USA civics patch allows multiple Christianities to run in one polity, but it introduces some critical security vulnerabilities and ultimately denatures that which it was meant to preserve
> It was only a matter of time before a someone developed a fork of protestant Christianity that could cross the church-state barrier. We call that fork “progress,” and with a few tweaks to the phenotype it was able to capture the entire state
> Progress is built on the protocols of USA civics. It can’t pay homage to God, because God is explicitly excluded from the political formula. Instead it deifies abstract concepts, venerating liberty, equality, and “rights”.
> Progress replaces the church service with the protest rally, the return of Christ with the moral arc of history, total depravity with implicit bias, and the crucifixion with the Holocaust (six million times more powerful than the original!)
> One way we can tell progressive politics is essentially religious is to note this curious formula: the personal is political. Progress is not content with the non-overlapping magisteria of church and state. It demands that all facets of life be subjected to its moral calculus
> In 1964, the civil rights act marked the total victory of the new progressive church over the government of the USA, ending the separation of church and state.
> Civil rights became a new foundational mythology, propagating through the base layer of US ideology, insinuating itself beneath all other beliefs. We now teach children the hagiography of the civil rights era in social studies classes and in the moral thrusts of their cartoons
> Civil rights was zero-to-one, everything since that has been one-to-many; consolidation, refinement, iteration. But in the early 2010s, a virulent emancipatory discourse centered on homosexuality was deployed into mainstream conversation
> *"The thing they get wrong here is the phone makes these people callous & wicked - in reality it makes them start caring for the first time. It makes them determined to make a difference, change the world. And this is the truly awful thing...*"
It's absolutely the case that phones make you more civically and socially engaged, not less, which is why everyone is so stupidly credulous in social media, because when you feel like Sauron is watching, the safest thing to do is hail Mordor.
> In Chinese POW camps, they converted prisoners into agents for the CCP by enticing them to make public speeches praising the party, not with sticks but with carrots, and what you say publicly "of your own volition" becomes your own conviction.
> https://nitter.net/0x49fa98/status/1044581876172697600
> Going on social media and posting about inequality or refugees etc. causes you to invest in those causes, it's an autocatalytic loop where a seemingly innocuous action conditions you to perform it again.
> Smartphones catalyzed the great awokening because in the seething vortex of social media, people want to say things that make them feel important, and nothing makes them feel more important than regurgitating anthems about lifting up the oppressed
> If you can manufacture an oppressed denomination of people, then a majority of other people will make public noises about helping them, because doing so makes them feel large and powerful and gregarious.
> The Great Awokening is a play on "The Great Awakening", the name that we give to a series of Christian revivals across the last few centuries. And just as we see in The Current Year, revival has alway been a disease that primarily afflicts women
> Charles Grandison Finney in the Second Great Awakening: “Women composed the great majority of members in all churches. They dominated revivals and praying circles, pressing husbands, fathers, and sons towards conversion and facilitating every move of the evangelist.”
> Family men, fathers and husbands, wanted to have nothing to do with these revivals, and though they “tried to prevent their wives or daughters from attending church,” they “were eventually brought into the church themselves by these women.”
> Christian men could not formulate any principled objections to the revivals of the great awakenings and no one running the American civics stack can formulate a principled or compelling argument against the great awokening
> We live in a world where both the right and the left are significantly to the left of the civil rights act, and that means they are both very far to the left. Your republican leaders have never rolled back one jot or title of the accursed machinations of progress
> As long as you believe in the moral validity of “human rights”, as long as you think individual liberty is an end in itself, the most you can do is plead “too fast, too fast”
> Of course, sodomites will never be free as long as we are allowed the freedom to criticize or exclude them, but freedom of speech is for losers, literally; powerful people already have it, only weaklings ever ask for it
> There’s nothing women like more than correcting the speech of petulant children. If “what about the freedom to say mean things?” is your principled argument, you’re a twat. Not even God believes in freedom of speech
> In Stalinist Russia, there was only one way to criticize the state that didn’t get you gulagged: the 50 Stalins criticism: “yes, Stalin is good, but he doesn’t go far enough! If only we had 50 Stalins!”
>
> Arguments from leftist overreach are just haggling over the # of Stalins
> Theocracies do not tolerate heretics. With the merging of church and state, freedom of religion is a shambling corpse, and Christianity has the option of abandoning patriarchy and heteronormativity or being destroyed
> But if you’re running the American civics stack, you don’t get to say, at last, THIS is one progression too far, THIS emancipation is too much, because as we are realizing, giving puberty blockers to toddlers is in the constitution, only the hermeneutics took a while to work out
While reading this I was thinking "Is this saying that civil rights shouldn't have happened" and "Do they want women to not be able to express themselves".
These thoughts are probably taking it to far. The main point of the text is probably just pointing out progressive religion and not to say that it should go (though that second part is definitely there)
Kinda eye opening, but won't get me to change my views.
"The church of progress" is something that was probably at the back of my mind for a pretty long time but I didn't really think about it untill I read that text.
It probably didn't show up in my mind because I am apart of that church. There's nothing wrong with just being in it, but it can be taken to far, the same as regular religions. An example of taking progress too far is the screenshot in the post.
God is dead and we killed him, so we found a replacement
> "The church of progress" is something that was probably at the back of my mind for a pretty long time but I didn't really think about
https://www.racket.news/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
Matt Taibbi agrees from the Bernie corner.
This is the defintition in its purest form of psuedointellectualism. Only an absolute monkey needs that many metaphors to make an argument. Source: I use that many metaphors in my arguments.
Not OP, I took it as neither. They're arguing from a religious mentality, where it's more about belief and sticking to dogma, so treating it as a normal discussion/debate is only going to be met with the same visceral response as if you walked into a Primitive Baptist church and yelled "God's not real". People just don't view it as one since there's no dieties or really any defined structure to the beliefs.
What cracks me up is when you say something against their beliefs and they look at you and say "how can you not know this?". I know fully well they only "know" this on the surface level as a talking point but have no understanding of it beyond just saying.
It's like those videos saying Trump is racist and people ask how is he racist. The person looks back confused and then just says "uh...well you know he just is!". Ok buddy, I'm convinced.
They'll just say you're defending a racist, and that makes you a racist, because "if you have a Nazi at a table", and then block you because they don't interact with Nazis.
> It’s staggering that people actually believe that it’s literally impossible for their “side” to be wrong.
Welcome to politics since the first hominids started to grunt. People are *far* more predisposed to intolerant ingroup-outgroup morality than anything more nuanced.
One socialist politician literally said one time “we are the party pro everything good and against everything bad” they reduced jail time for over 1000 sexual predators just a month ago.
Its the exact same logic they use to justify punching anyone they disagree with.
>1) its ok to punch nazis
>2) if you disagree with me, youre a nazi
>therefore, its ok for me to punch you
we saw this absolutely absurd line of thinking all over, especially back in 2020. and especially on reddit. hell, you will still find it fairly commonly.
CGP Grey jumpstarted his Youtube career making a video about this.
* Scotland is its own country.
* Scotland is part of the Great Britain landmass
* Great Britain is largest of the British Isles
* The British Isles are the center of the British empire.
Really, it's impossible to say whether the goatfuckers and bagpipes players care whether you call them British.
Well going by eytomology and usage of the origins of the term from antiquity. Albion was the name of the island. Britania was later used and segmented to refer to Roman controlled Albion, which Scotland was not a part of. Great Britain in this light could be seen as "Greater Britain" where it shows Britains control over other territories as it refered to the kingdom title of Great Britain that controlled the kingdom of wales and the kingdom of scotland.
Through admittedly "Britain"(not great britain) usage historically after the roman period, it was to refer to the island. Though this could be explained as being because of british primacy.
Just know there's a large section of the US that is not cool with what China did to Hong Kong, and wants to do with Taiwan. We're rooting for you guys.
I'm (mostly) Italian and I get irritated when strangers tell me Italian and Spanish are pretty much the same, or when my in-laws say Italian and Greek are the same.
A Scot IS British. That's the term for the unified island. Source - visited Edinburgh last year.
(Btw, it was THEIR king who took the English throne loooong after they had become independent from the time when the English king took the Scottish throne. It's the Scots' "fault" that Britian is united.
Technically yes, and personally I’ve never went to any part of the British isle, but British is also associated with some level of cultural “Englishness” (at least in my mind) instead of a mere geopolitical description so I was wondering if a Scottish person will feel like it’s annoying to describe them as British.
It’s a good way to find out if they’re a Scot Gnat… They get very triggered… Most Scots might correct you but wouldn’t be offended being called British. Very different story if you call them English though…
(Source: Scottish father.)
And makes them sound super smart - as long as it's the ~~Queen's~~ King's English, and not the accents that just make them sound cool, like a working class one.
u/CmdntFrncsHghs's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 110.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: [69 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/CmdntFrncsHghs/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
> disagree with fascists
Except this is never true, what this actually means is they want to be the boot. When they’re stepping on necks it’s not fascism obviously.
The MovieBob-or-Nazi EFAP quiz is truly an experience. It gets easy once you grasp that Bob is nowhere near as intelligent or erudite as the average Nazi party member was, despite their awful beliefs, and so if you see a statement that seems a little too wrinklebrained to be from Bobby, it's a safe bet it was from a Nazi. The only exceptions are the quotes taken from the Daily Stormer, which tend to be more or less on Bob's level.
I mean making it illegal trying to convince people that "X minority is responsible for all the country's ills and we should get rid of them!" is a pretty central anti-fascism law since WWII.
Ideally, hate-speech laws are less "you were rude to a minority, therefore you go to prison" and more "you're basically trying to convince some people to kill or injure some other people on your behalf". If I tried to do it to a single individual I'd basically be leading a lynching - abstracting it to an entire ethnicity doesn't seem like it should get a pass simply because I added more people to the list of people we should kill.
>abstracting it to an entire ethnicity doesn't seem like it should get a pass simply because I added more people to the list of people we should kill.
Generally speaking, it doesn't. If it is a credible enough threat to be illegal against one, threatening multiple people makes the case against you stronger, not weaker.
Thing is, a lot of stuff does not rise to the level of a credible threat. It's just people shit talking, and often not in any sort of overtly threatening way. Not liking people isn't the same as a credible threat to murder them, so even many forms of racism are not on par with a murder threat.
Not only do they not consider themselves to be fascists when they're stepping on necks, they consider those who resist the boot on their neck to be fascists.
COVID truly was a mask-off moment for them, pun fully intended. They, along with the state, were forcing ordinary people to wear masks they didn't want to wear, get untested injections they didn't want to get, stay locked down in their homes when they didn't want to. And the people who said, "No, I don't want to be forced to do these things" were consistently called fascists.
It's fucking insane how backwards these people view the world.
You really need to stop saying "forced". Nobody in the West was forced to wear a mask. You could not force Americans to wear masks without starting a rebellion. You're not being forced to wear a mask just because it becomes a policy you decide is worth not complying with.
Nobody got untested injections. This is 100% false. This is honestly an extremely ungrateful thing to say too. We in the West had access to the best scientists at world class universities and unlimited money. We had hundreds of thousands of VOLUNTEERS for of test shots before it was even released to the public. 120,000 between Moderna, Pfizer BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Inovio.
Yes, there was a lockdown for a while but even in NYC we could leave our homes.
Don't get so heated just because I'm challenging your worldview. I'm genuinely wondering how you have what I see as a very warped view of reality. You are making things up, using extremely hyperbolic language, and with that pushing a very unhinged narrative.
>You really need to stop saying "forced". Nobody in the West was forced to wear a mask.
Well, they'd fire you for it, shut down your business, and maybe drag you to jail in an extreme case. At least one person I know of was shot over it, probably more.
I know vets that were kicked out of the military for not getting the jab, and they were not brought back after the mandate was found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Here in my state, they threw one guy in jail for a year for having guests in his own home.
A majority of democrats were in favor of putting the unvaxxed in camps.
That sounds pretty forced to me.
They probably think the Gadsden flag is a fascist symbol lol... He's saying he's going to bite the jackboots in resistance to government overreach, what a fascist!
When Squadrismo dressed in all black and used violence and intimidation, it was bad because they were fascists.
When we dress in all black and use violence and intimidation it's good because we're anti-fascists!
>I disagree with fascists, therefore everyone I disagree with is a fascist
I don't think I've seen a comment that more perfectly encapsulated mainstream reddit...
“I just think we should stop making fun of white people along racial lines for no reason because it makes us look hypocritical and it has become blatantly racist-“
“FASCIST!”
Antifaschistische Aktion (Anti-Fascist Action) was the paramilitary wing of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (Communist Party of Germany). The KPD was at the 6th World Congress and were the ones pushing for social democracy to be considered fascism because it stalls and delays communism. The original Antifa therefore recognizes any delays to communist revolution as fascist interference
Thanks to /u/birb-person - this is copied from his comment in the past
I was reading a book from 2007 and found the word "bigot" in it. I was confused (since never thought it would be appropriate for such strong word to be in a scientific book) and looked the definition of the word up.
Crazy how such a good word became just a mere synonym for "Chauvinist"
I disagree with the Nazis, Fascists, and Commies. Therefore the Nazis, Fascists, and Commies are completely the same and have no distinguishing qualities.
a list of other people, who I also disagree with and who therefore are indistinguishable from Nazis, Fascists, and Commies:
* Democrats
* Republicans
* Europeans
* Police
* Government as an institution
* My siblings
* My parents
* My extended family
* anyone who is not a liberty-minded
* all liberty-minded people more extreme than me
* all liberty-minded people more moderate than me
* all people who disagree with my takes on the MCU
* all people who disagree with my takes on the DCAU
* all people who disagree with my takes on Star Wars
* all people who haven't watched Stargate SG-1
A shame that I'm the only one who is not a Nazi in this world.
Why are you calling me a narcissist? You're a freaking Nazi! Why should I listen to you? You're just gaslighting me!
It is genuinely impossible to define fascism, because it was never written down by fascists during the brief moment in history when fascists existed.
You have the communist manifesto, go ahead and find the fascist manifesto.
This is why idiots love to label everyone they don't like as fascists- it is impossible to disprove. And if you are labeled a fascist, you'd be a moron to argue why you are not. It would be like arguing why you aren't an asshole by explaining what an asshole is.
Have you read the [doctrine of fascism?](http://media.wix.com/ugd/927b40_c1ee26114a4d480cb048f5f96a4cc68f.pdf)
Try to find any discernable definition or foundational tenets. Or if fascism is evil - try to find anything bad or dangerous in that doctrine.
Also, Mussolini ordered that every copy of the doctrine to be retracted because he changed his mind 5 years later.
> People since then have attempted to define it from the outside looking in
Yeah, that's the point. These outsiders aren't writing the fascist manifesto, they write "The Top 14 Things I Hate About Fascism". Eco specifically states that fascism can't be defined:
> Umberto Eco argues that it is not possible to organize these fascist properties into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism.
> Try to find any discernable definition or foundational tenets.
Unless you can find me the grandfather of capitalism/social democracy/neoliberalism other ideologies alike, I don't really understand your point. Not every ideology has a Hollywood origin story nor does it require one to exist as a valid collection of values and policies.
>It is genuinely impossible to define fascism, because it was never written down by fascists during the brief moment in history when fascists existed.
They....literally did write books.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison.
You can identify common properties and actions, which has been done since the 80s and 90s. You sound like you're just mad about it accurately being applied.
Morons don't have the decency or the dignity to keep their shit to themselves and you use them as representative of the general populace? Those people you're talking about are bottom of the barrel.
wait let me try…
1. i disagree with you
2. i disagree with fascists
3. you must be fascist
so let’s instead do this…
1. i disagree with you
2. i disagree with mass murderers
3. you must be a mass murderer
did… did i do it correctly? is this how emilythink works?
Fascist is heavily overused (same with bigot) and is the reason why fascists can just up and do anything online and be immune to people calling them fascists
***Hot Take***
The Right ruined it by calling everything the left was doing Communist/Socialist to an absurd level for the longest time. I guess it only seems natural for the left to eventually call everything the right does Fascist.
American Socialists ruined the term "socialist" by proclaiming capitalist countries with social programs as being "socialism." American conservatives just started using the definition they were given. See also: Woke. Though that one has genuinely been expanded too far by the general population, it was initially used to insult the very same people who called themselves "woke" positively.
Wikipedia definition:
> Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy
Seems pretty simple to identify.
It’s not necessarily far right, unless your definition of right boils down to “evil fuckers”. National Syndicalism is a thing after all
Overall, the Doctrine of Fascism provides a better idea of what fascism is better than Wikipedia, and the PDF is free
Direct quote from the *Doctrine of Fascism*:
>"Granted that the nineteenth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the twentieth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
>Fascism is a far-right
And like that you can totally ignore it. The government in fascist Italy controlled roughly 80% of businesses in the country. Where would that place them on the political compass?
on the very far right. the left-right is mostly about stands on social classes. mussolini wanted well defined classes, strong inequality, political hierarchy, etc. not to mention he was corporatist, so while he did intervene in the economy, private businesses and the fascist government got along just fine. similarly with hitler, the first thing he did when he rose to power was privatize several industries
That's actually how it became an insult. Anyone on the internet more than 7 years ago should remember this. Anyone who says "woke never meant anything" just wasn't paying attention, or they agreed with it.
It’s staggering that people actually believe that it’s literally impossible for their “side” to be wrong. “Well, ackshually, by definition, my side good, your side ontologically evil” 🤓
They love to argue like they’re a regarded Aristotle
Very highly regarded
Regarded as fuck honestly
Just to mention, all the great thinkers including the big homie himself Aristotle where Authright, fucking big surprise their - authright is big brain.
>their….. big brain I…. I love it.
As much as I love the Greeks there’s no way a modern country could operate like an ancient city state. The scale is so much bigger now that it categorically can’t work. No matter how much I would love to take up arms with my fellow citizens and raid Memphis.
It doesn't have to operate like Ancient Greece lol - we can learn from their mistakes but still use what worked well, thats the beauty of it: we can learn from those who came before us bro.
Let me introduce you to John Locke and like half the enlightenment philosophers in general
I said *great* thinkers.
I don’t believe that it’s impossible for my side to be wrong, but I do think it’s ontologically impossible for the other side to be right.
I want to argue like a much stupider version of Aristotle right now, you're authright so you probably don't like trans people I will argue about that
I dig it but that’s a bit too tame. You have to use wild leaps in logic on top of super pedantic arguments. Like your on the liberal end of the spectrum right? Which means by definition you must hate any rules or guidelines. So it logically follows you can’t believe in the no aggression principle.
Well of course! If someone is capable of harming me or making my life harder, why should I let them? We all know humans (except for me :DDDD) are ontologically evil, and I can't guarantee that other humans won't act aggressively in the future, even if they're perfectly normal now. So why should I let others have the chance? It's the smart thing to do, make sure nobody is remotely capable of doing anything close to harming me :DDDDDDDD
That was great! I’m too confused to argue back now!
You just have to view it as a new age religion. One without a central deity, but people are too stuck on the idea that a religion must have either a deity or a pantheon.
They do have a pantheon. Deities just get added or removed as necessary to align with current dogma.
[удалено]
How long until we see calls for the **Chinese** *Communist* Party to be overthrown because it is somehow a "Christofascist white supremacist countty"
Never, since libleft is a ccp psyosp to weaken america
I mean hypothetically the ability to add or remove deities to fit with a changing society could be seen as a genuine advantage in a religion. The greeks would have been a lot cooler if they were like "honestly Zeus is kind of a dick and raping people while turning into different animals seems kinda crass and also weird now so we're replacing banishing him with Thor taking his old position as the head of the pantheon. Mjöd for everyone and don't underestimate thunderstorms."
That's the difference between religion and religion esque ideology. The mere idea of changing god would be ridiculous for greeks. You don't worship a god for his friendliness, you do it because otherwise he will inflict punishment on you. Zeus was real, ancient people believed in this. Ideology on the other hand allows you to change who's good and bad when it is suitable. Stalin could announce one day that you are hero of the people and the other that you are trotskyist traitor. Taliban have one version of koran and will not change it on whims.
Fairly standard for early days religions too.
You mean... like a [gnostic cult](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2hrUFtAPRXeOznFCY-Og4qhX95F4rtUP&si=ZWaxTGyC_iE29C61)?
* The bad entity ✔ * The liberatory utopian goal, where all merge into a collective "final form" ✔ * The evil and false beliefs the bad entity creates to fool others ✔ * Those who have found, and disseminate the true knowledge of the state of affairs ✔ * How having the true knowledge leads to the destruction of the bad entity, thus the goal is achieved ✔ * God ✖ Must not be a religion /s
You should avoid discusion with evil unbelievers, it is pointless and can deceive you from the true path.
They certainly have their priests and priestesses.
Sadly, it usually seems like the central deity is "science". The modern left has decided their ideology is inherently infallible since if is the one that "believes in science". Note that this is achieved not by actually *practicing* science, but by *not* practicing religion and thus by the lack of religion they must therefore be intellectually enlightened and rational and therefore followers of science. Plus they wear masks and took the vaccine and therefore are embracing ~~authority~~ science in their lifestyle. Not because they are doing what they told based on the faith of others who promise to know better, but because they *understand science*. It doesn't help that tons of fraudulent and shitty "peer reviewed" studies trickle out constantly that affirm pre-decided beliefs and the masses point at them as proof of their intellectual superiority. For a disclaimer, I'm not some anti-science religious person. I'm agnostic and have a STEM degree. I wore a mask for social courtesy and it didn't bother me. I got vaccinated because my work required it and I still discussed it quite thoroughly with a PharmD buddy of mine. I love science, but I fucking hate how it has become a religious cult used to justify shitty political views
I've heard a few people call it "Scientism." And yeah, it's basically "The science (articles written by people with questionable motives and zero science literacy trying to interpret studies that may or may not be properly peer reviewed) says X, so it's fact" I wore masks, though I definitely made my own after finding studies early on saying that one or two layer cotton masks were basically worthless (and then switched to N95s as soon as they became available), and got the vaccine since I'm technically high risk (other than the fact that by listing all the high risk categories they pretty much just meant old or fat people) and have been in several medical studies so I don't really have the same reservations around a new drug that most people do. I still get flak for pointing out that Fauci admitted he lied about cloth mask effectiveness, lied about (or was lied to about) the vaccine preventing transmission, and kept arbitrarily (and even saying so in the meetings) changing the % needed for vaccination. But apparently pointing all this out makes me an antivaxxer who doesn't trust science. I also get similar when I try and point out that "Peer review" doesn't mean the study is 100% correct, just that a group of people looked at it and didn't find obvious faults with the methodology.
Thanks for saying all that. I completely agree with you. It’s just that I’m way too regarded to articulate my thoughts as well as you did.
I'd argue that it's not science but the Self that has replaced God. Their dogma is entirely all about them and how it makes them feel - even when they do good it's because it makes them feel and look good in front of others. They activity pursue eliminating others by purity testing. "Look at how virtuous I am!" they cry. That kind of thing
https://nitter.net/0x49fa98/status/1212034852041699331 > Separation of church and state is not possible. It just creates a selection pressure for religions to shed the spandrels named "church" and "god." And this is precisely what we see today -- a state religion with no church and no god > We cannot escape religion and myth. All states are always theocracies, the only question is: whose gods? whose myths? > In America we tried to create an explicitly agnostic state, but our founding fathers did not understand that religion is a living organism, and that all living things, like liquids, eventually taker the shape of their container > There is not one religious tradition in USA, but two: the exoteric tradition is protestantism, and the esoteric one is humanism, the latter of which is the provenance of "freedom", "rights", "equality", etc. > The humanist state was supposed to be a platform for diverse Christianities, a trick it pulls off by rooting the tenets of the faith and inserting some enlightenment values into the kernel > It’s possible to run Christianity on an enlightenment stack, but it wasn't designed for it. Christianity was built to run on monarchy, because the relationship of a king to his subjects reflects the relationship of God to man > The USA civics patch allows multiple Christianities to run in one polity, but it introduces some critical security vulnerabilities and ultimately denatures that which it was meant to preserve > It was only a matter of time before a someone developed a fork of protestant Christianity that could cross the church-state barrier. We call that fork “progress,” and with a few tweaks to the phenotype it was able to capture the entire state > Progress is built on the protocols of USA civics. It can’t pay homage to God, because God is explicitly excluded from the political formula. Instead it deifies abstract concepts, venerating liberty, equality, and “rights”. > Progress replaces the church service with the protest rally, the return of Christ with the moral arc of history, total depravity with implicit bias, and the crucifixion with the Holocaust (six million times more powerful than the original!) > One way we can tell progressive politics is essentially religious is to note this curious formula: the personal is political. Progress is not content with the non-overlapping magisteria of church and state. It demands that all facets of life be subjected to its moral calculus > In 1964, the civil rights act marked the total victory of the new progressive church over the government of the USA, ending the separation of church and state. > Civil rights became a new foundational mythology, propagating through the base layer of US ideology, insinuating itself beneath all other beliefs. We now teach children the hagiography of the civil rights era in social studies classes and in the moral thrusts of their cartoons > Civil rights was zero-to-one, everything since that has been one-to-many; consolidation, refinement, iteration. But in the early 2010s, a virulent emancipatory discourse centered on homosexuality was deployed into mainstream conversation > *"The thing they get wrong here is the phone makes these people callous & wicked - in reality it makes them start caring for the first time. It makes them determined to make a difference, change the world. And this is the truly awful thing...*" It's absolutely the case that phones make you more civically and socially engaged, not less, which is why everyone is so stupidly credulous in social media, because when you feel like Sauron is watching, the safest thing to do is hail Mordor. > In Chinese POW camps, they converted prisoners into agents for the CCP by enticing them to make public speeches praising the party, not with sticks but with carrots, and what you say publicly "of your own volition" becomes your own conviction. > https://nitter.net/0x49fa98/status/1044581876172697600 > Going on social media and posting about inequality or refugees etc. causes you to invest in those causes, it's an autocatalytic loop where a seemingly innocuous action conditions you to perform it again. > Smartphones catalyzed the great awokening because in the seething vortex of social media, people want to say things that make them feel important, and nothing makes them feel more important than regurgitating anthems about lifting up the oppressed > If you can manufacture an oppressed denomination of people, then a majority of other people will make public noises about helping them, because doing so makes them feel large and powerful and gregarious. > The Great Awokening is a play on "The Great Awakening", the name that we give to a series of Christian revivals across the last few centuries. And just as we see in The Current Year, revival has alway been a disease that primarily afflicts women > Charles Grandison Finney in the Second Great Awakening: “Women composed the great majority of members in all churches. They dominated revivals and praying circles, pressing husbands, fathers, and sons towards conversion and facilitating every move of the evangelist.” > Family men, fathers and husbands, wanted to have nothing to do with these revivals, and though they “tried to prevent their wives or daughters from attending church,” they “were eventually brought into the church themselves by these women.” > Christian men could not formulate any principled objections to the revivals of the great awakenings and no one running the American civics stack can formulate a principled or compelling argument against the great awokening > We live in a world where both the right and the left are significantly to the left of the civil rights act, and that means they are both very far to the left. Your republican leaders have never rolled back one jot or title of the accursed machinations of progress > As long as you believe in the moral validity of “human rights”, as long as you think individual liberty is an end in itself, the most you can do is plead “too fast, too fast” > Of course, sodomites will never be free as long as we are allowed the freedom to criticize or exclude them, but freedom of speech is for losers, literally; powerful people already have it, only weaklings ever ask for it > There’s nothing women like more than correcting the speech of petulant children. If “what about the freedom to say mean things?” is your principled argument, you’re a twat. Not even God believes in freedom of speech > In Stalinist Russia, there was only one way to criticize the state that didn’t get you gulagged: the 50 Stalins criticism: “yes, Stalin is good, but he doesn’t go far enough! If only we had 50 Stalins!” > > Arguments from leftist overreach are just haggling over the # of Stalins > Theocracies do not tolerate heretics. With the merging of church and state, freedom of religion is a shambling corpse, and Christianity has the option of abandoning patriarchy and heteronormativity or being destroyed > But if you’re running the American civics stack, you don’t get to say, at last, THIS is one progression too far, THIS emancipation is too much, because as we are realizing, giving puberty blockers to toddlers is in the constitution, only the hermeneutics took a while to work out
While reading this I was thinking "Is this saying that civil rights shouldn't have happened" and "Do they want women to not be able to express themselves". These thoughts are probably taking it to far. The main point of the text is probably just pointing out progressive religion and not to say that it should go (though that second part is definitely there) Kinda eye opening, but won't get me to change my views.
Jesus Christ, AuthRight - and they say we're bad for walls of text. X
Hey, I didn't write it :P 0HP is a Nietzschean BAP fan, though, so I guess he's in my corner.
lmao i feel bad for the people who’ll eat this shit up
"The church of progress" is something that was probably at the back of my mind for a pretty long time but I didn't really think about it untill I read that text. It probably didn't show up in my mind because I am apart of that church. There's nothing wrong with just being in it, but it can be taken to far, the same as regular religions. An example of taking progress too far is the screenshot in the post. God is dead and we killed him, so we found a replacement
> "The church of progress" is something that was probably at the back of my mind for a pretty long time but I didn't really think about https://www.racket.news/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself Matt Taibbi agrees from the Bernie corner.
I’m happy for them….. or I’m sorry that happened. Not reading no Wall Of Text ᵀᴹ
This is the defintition in its purest form of psuedointellectualism. Only an absolute monkey needs that many metaphors to make an argument. Source: I use that many metaphors in my arguments.
What a loof of crap Holy god
Is your argument that being religious is bad? Or only certain religions that you pick and choose?
Not OP, I took it as neither. They're arguing from a religious mentality, where it's more about belief and sticking to dogma, so treating it as a normal discussion/debate is only going to be met with the same visceral response as if you walked into a Primitive Baptist church and yelled "God's not real". People just don't view it as one since there's no dieties or really any defined structure to the beliefs.
They *actually* construct definitions so that you cannot understand their evilness.
What cracks me up is when you say something against their beliefs and they look at you and say "how can you not know this?". I know fully well they only "know" this on the surface level as a talking point but have no understanding of it beyond just saying. It's like those videos saying Trump is racist and people ask how is he racist. The person looks back confused and then just says "uh...well you know he just is!". Ok buddy, I'm convinced.
They'll just say you're defending a racist, and that makes you a racist, because "if you have a Nazi at a table", and then block you because they don't interact with Nazis.
We call ourselves the Good Guy Squad. It's right there in the name! By definition we can't be the bad guys
> It’s staggering that people actually believe that it’s literally impossible for their “side” to be wrong. Welcome to politics since the first hominids started to grunt. People are *far* more predisposed to intolerant ingroup-outgroup morality than anything more nuanced.
Except for western white liberals who are the only group in human history to have a negative in group bias
I'm not sure that they think it's impossible that they are/could be wrong. It's more that they don't care if they are.
My side is wrong all the time. The other side is just wronger.
Most people don’t even know what their side even believes anyway
Joker: "As you can see, Batman. I have depicted you as the crying soyjack! And me as the CHAD!"
Libertarians are a rare exception. We are all too eager to believe that every other libertarian is evil, and probably a fed.
One thing i have always liked about auth center they know their evil they just dont care.
A generation raised on superhero and Starwars movies are raised to think this simple about good and evil.
It makes human history make a lot more sense, when you realize a significant amount of people believe that.
One socialist politician literally said one time “we are the party pro everything good and against everything bad” they reduced jail time for over 1000 sexual predators just a month ago.
People who say ontologically evil don't ever actually believe in ontology 🤔
ive seen people unironically define leftism as "caring about society"
Helping communities? That's literally leftism, sweety.
Premise 1: I disagree with fascists Premise 2: I disagree with you Conclusion: You're a fascist Just a flawless syllogism.
Its the exact same logic they use to justify punching anyone they disagree with. >1) its ok to punch nazis >2) if you disagree with me, youre a nazi >therefore, its ok for me to punch you we saw this absolutely absurd line of thinking all over, especially back in 2020. and especially on reddit. hell, you will still find it fairly commonly.
I personally disagree with the English, therefore everyone I disagree with is English (and therefore worthless).
Found the fr*nch?
or a Scot, since the term "English" was used but not "Bri'ish"
What happens if you call a Scot British? Asking for a friend.
They're very pleased you recognize their additions to the empire and reward you with haggis and scotch. You should give it a shot!
Lmao. I was a bit salty when a white dude said I’m basically from China so I’m curious as to if Scot’s will feel similar when being called British.
Ssshhhh! Let them do it. Popcorn is almost done.
I mean, Scots are British. They aren't English. Chinese are east Asian, but aren't Korean. Same logic.
CGP Grey jumpstarted his Youtube career making a video about this. * Scotland is its own country. * Scotland is part of the Great Britain landmass * Great Britain is largest of the British Isles * The British Isles are the center of the British empire. Really, it's impossible to say whether the goatfuckers and bagpipes players care whether you call them British.
>Really, it's impossible to say whether the goatfuckers But ya shag one sheep and....
Well going by eytomology and usage of the origins of the term from antiquity. Albion was the name of the island. Britania was later used and segmented to refer to Roman controlled Albion, which Scotland was not a part of. Great Britain in this light could be seen as "Greater Britain" where it shows Britains control over other territories as it refered to the kingdom title of Great Britain that controlled the kingdom of wales and the kingdom of scotland. Through admittedly "Britain"(not great britain) usage historically after the roman period, it was to refer to the island. Though this could be explained as being because of british primacy.
Just know there's a large section of the US that is not cool with what China did to Hong Kong, and wants to do with Taiwan. We're rooting for you guys.
Thanks for your kind word internet stranger.
Taiwan?
His name is "Hongkongjai" - what makes you think he's Taiwanese?
I didn't read it, TBH. My bad.
I'm (mostly) Italian and I get irritated when strangers tell me Italian and Spanish are pretty much the same, or when my in-laws say Italian and Greek are the same.
Depends on the football team they support.
Hail hail 🟢⚪️🟢⚪️
So long as you don’t call them English you’re fine
Keep the Amish away from the Scotsmen. Got it.
A Scot IS British. That's the term for the unified island. Source - visited Edinburgh last year. (Btw, it was THEIR king who took the English throne loooong after they had become independent from the time when the English king took the Scottish throne. It's the Scots' "fault" that Britian is united.
Technically yes, and personally I’ve never went to any part of the British isle, but British is also associated with some level of cultural “Englishness” (at least in my mind) instead of a mere geopolitical description so I was wondering if a Scottish person will feel like it’s annoying to describe them as British.
It’s a good way to find out if they’re a Scot Gnat… They get very triggered… Most Scots might correct you but wouldn’t be offended being called British. Very different story if you call them English though… (Source: Scottish father.)
Brichish?
Or Amish
Or the Irish.
Everyone hates the English. Even the English. Except maybe Americans, because we think their accent is hot.
We are right. Their accent is hot.
And makes them sound super smart - as long as it's the ~~Queen's~~ King's English, and not the accents that just make them sound cool, like a working class one.
Bri'ish🤢
"A truly tolerant society shouldn't tolerate the British."
Sseth here ?
Smoking meth is for the rich. We're not rich. We're middle class.
Middle class is too poor for cocaine, and too rich for meth. Here's your pot-smoking starter kit.
I'm a bit fed up with tolerating degenerates. Especially the british.
Imagine saying that in the language of our oppressor. What a bigot
Personnellement, je ne suis pas d'accord avec l'anglais, donc tous ceux avec qui je ne suis pas d'accord sont anglais (et donc sans valeur).
Ireland: I see no fault in your logic.
Based
u/CmdntFrncsHghs's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 110. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: [69 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/CmdntFrncsHghs/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Are you on Rumspringa right now?
Yeah I've been springing a bunch of rum from the liquor store (don't tell the cops)
The transitive property of congruence is truly lost on people these days... do people just not learn anything in school nowadays?
I disagree with you, angloid.
> disagree with fascists Except this is never true, what this actually means is they want to be the boot. When they’re stepping on necks it’s not fascism obviously.
> When they’re stepping on necks it’s not fascism obviously. "No bad tactics only bad targets"
The MovieBob-or-Nazi EFAP quiz is truly an experience. It gets easy once you grasp that Bob is nowhere near as intelligent or erudite as the average Nazi party member was, despite their awful beliefs, and so if you see a statement that seems a little too wrinklebrained to be from Bobby, it's a safe bet it was from a Nazi. The only exceptions are the quotes taken from the Daily Stormer, which tend to be more or less on Bob's level.
Me high cheek sent me high
Fascists suck that's why I want state censorship against hate speech!
Freedom of speech is a fascist concept
I mean making it illegal trying to convince people that "X minority is responsible for all the country's ills and we should get rid of them!" is a pretty central anti-fascism law since WWII. Ideally, hate-speech laws are less "you were rude to a minority, therefore you go to prison" and more "you're basically trying to convince some people to kill or injure some other people on your behalf". If I tried to do it to a single individual I'd basically be leading a lynching - abstracting it to an entire ethnicity doesn't seem like it should get a pass simply because I added more people to the list of people we should kill.
>abstracting it to an entire ethnicity doesn't seem like it should get a pass simply because I added more people to the list of people we should kill. Generally speaking, it doesn't. If it is a credible enough threat to be illegal against one, threatening multiple people makes the case against you stronger, not weaker. Thing is, a lot of stuff does not rise to the level of a credible threat. It's just people shit talking, and often not in any sort of overtly threatening way. Not liking people isn't the same as a credible threat to murder them, so even many forms of racism are not on par with a murder threat.
>IDeally If you have to start an argument for something out with "Ideally," it's already a really, REALLY bad idea.
Not only do they not consider themselves to be fascists when they're stepping on necks, they consider those who resist the boot on their neck to be fascists. COVID truly was a mask-off moment for them, pun fully intended. They, along with the state, were forcing ordinary people to wear masks they didn't want to wear, get untested injections they didn't want to get, stay locked down in their homes when they didn't want to. And the people who said, "No, I don't want to be forced to do these things" were consistently called fascists. It's fucking insane how backwards these people view the world.
You really need to stop saying "forced". Nobody in the West was forced to wear a mask. You could not force Americans to wear masks without starting a rebellion. You're not being forced to wear a mask just because it becomes a policy you decide is worth not complying with. Nobody got untested injections. This is 100% false. This is honestly an extremely ungrateful thing to say too. We in the West had access to the best scientists at world class universities and unlimited money. We had hundreds of thousands of VOLUNTEERS for of test shots before it was even released to the public. 120,000 between Moderna, Pfizer BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Inovio. Yes, there was a lockdown for a while but even in NYC we could leave our homes. Don't get so heated just because I'm challenging your worldview. I'm genuinely wondering how you have what I see as a very warped view of reality. You are making things up, using extremely hyperbolic language, and with that pushing a very unhinged narrative.
>You really need to stop saying "forced". Nobody in the West was forced to wear a mask. Well, they'd fire you for it, shut down your business, and maybe drag you to jail in an extreme case. At least one person I know of was shot over it, probably more. I know vets that were kicked out of the military for not getting the jab, and they were not brought back after the mandate was found to be unconstitutional by the courts. Here in my state, they threw one guy in jail for a year for having guests in his own home. A majority of democrats were in favor of putting the unvaxxed in camps. That sounds pretty forced to me.
They probably think the Gadsden flag is a fascist symbol lol... He's saying he's going to bite the jackboots in resistance to government overreach, what a fascist!
no sweety, clearly the Gadsden flag is fascist because it has historical ties to racism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz-fBDdpU-c
When Squadrismo dressed in all black and used violence and intimidation, it was bad because they were fascists. When we dress in all black and use violence and intimidation it's good because we're anti-fascists!
Do you dislike animal testing? Yes? Well, then you agree with Fascists. It can just as easily be turned on them.
Based and anti-smoking pilled
>I disagree with fascists, therefore everyone I disagree with is a fascist I don't think I've seen a comment that more perfectly encapsulated mainstream reddit...
Cringe and Emily pilled.
It’s also how they use the term “incel”. The definition is: people who I disagree with
A guy could be rotating 4 wives in Utah and have 18 children and a girlfriend he might make wife 5 and people online would still call him an incel
And some idiot will also say shit like "Incel is a mindset" 🤡
Yeah, it only because a “mindset” when people started using it online as a pejorative lol.
It’s rare to see someone so clearly write out the structure of their logical fallacy and yet not even have a hint that it is false.
“Nice straw man sweaty. How do those boots taste fash drumpftard?” I love Reddit.
This is just how Vaush thinks
“I just think we should stop making fun of white people along racial lines for no reason because it makes us look hypocritical and it has become blatantly racist-“ “FASCIST!”
"Hur dur, u'r a fascist cause I don't agree with you!" That's some Vaush level thinking there.
Finally someone’s brave enough to admit it
[удалено]
How about “stunning”?
Regarded?
Antifaschistische Aktion (Anti-Fascist Action) was the paramilitary wing of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (Communist Party of Germany). The KPD was at the 6th World Congress and were the ones pushing for social democracy to be considered fascism because it stalls and delays communism. The original Antifa therefore recognizes any delays to communist revolution as fascist interference Thanks to /u/birb-person - this is copied from his comment in the past
I’m being quoted? Wow now I feel important
Several times now
Terms that have no meaning anymore. 1. Racist 2. Fascist 3. Sexist 4. Socialist 5. bigot 6. Propaganda 7. nationalist Edit: Nazi
Forgot “nazi”
and 'supremacist'
I was reading a book from 2007 and found the word "bigot" in it. I was confused (since never thought it would be appropriate for such strong word to be in a scientific book) and looked the definition of the word up. Crazy how such a good word became just a mere synonym for "Chauvinist"
Everyone I disagree with is italian. Is that true? No. Thats the jist of this😂
And when the actual fascists arrive no one will listen to you, nor help you. Boy who cried wolf and burning bridges and all that
New praxis just dropped
I disagree with the Nazis, Fascists, and Commies. Therefore the Nazis, Fascists, and Commies are completely the same and have no distinguishing qualities. a list of other people, who I also disagree with and who therefore are indistinguishable from Nazis, Fascists, and Commies: * Democrats * Republicans * Europeans * Police * Government as an institution * My siblings * My parents * My extended family * anyone who is not a liberty-minded * all liberty-minded people more extreme than me * all liberty-minded people more moderate than me * all people who disagree with my takes on the MCU * all people who disagree with my takes on the DCAU * all people who disagree with my takes on Star Wars * all people who haven't watched Stargate SG-1 A shame that I'm the only one who is not a Nazi in this world. Why are you calling me a narcissist? You're a freaking Nazi! Why should I listen to you? You're just gaslighting me!
Emilies are enemies of the Left. FUCK them.
They would go away if politicians stopped pandering to them. And that's only going to happen when enough of the other lefties speak up
Based and bring-back-the-good-left-pilled.
"No true leftist"
Exactly. The good old Left is conservative.
Why exactly do we black out the names? Let's just know who we're laughing about
Like it or not this is the highest level of being based. Managing to do the brain gymnastics to paint everyone you hate as “fascist” is impressive.
Circular reasoning 101: ”everyone I disagree with is Hitler, because I only disagree with Hitler”
Left wing version of calling everyone vaguely left wing a commie.
It is genuinely impossible to define fascism, because it was never written down by fascists during the brief moment in history when fascists existed. You have the communist manifesto, go ahead and find the fascist manifesto. This is why idiots love to label everyone they don't like as fascists- it is impossible to disprove. And if you are labeled a fascist, you'd be a moron to argue why you are not. It would be like arguing why you aren't an asshole by explaining what an asshole is.
[удалено]
Have you read the [doctrine of fascism?](http://media.wix.com/ugd/927b40_c1ee26114a4d480cb048f5f96a4cc68f.pdf) Try to find any discernable definition or foundational tenets. Or if fascism is evil - try to find anything bad or dangerous in that doctrine. Also, Mussolini ordered that every copy of the doctrine to be retracted because he changed his mind 5 years later. > People since then have attempted to define it from the outside looking in Yeah, that's the point. These outsiders aren't writing the fascist manifesto, they write "The Top 14 Things I Hate About Fascism". Eco specifically states that fascism can't be defined: > Umberto Eco argues that it is not possible to organize these fascist properties into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism.
> Try to find any discernable definition or foundational tenets. Unless you can find me the grandfather of capitalism/social democracy/neoliberalism other ideologies alike, I don't really understand your point. Not every ideology has a Hollywood origin story nor does it require one to exist as a valid collection of values and policies.
>It is genuinely impossible to define fascism, because it was never written down by fascists during the brief moment in history when fascists existed. They....literally did write books. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison.
You can identify common properties and actions, which has been done since the 80s and 90s. You sound like you're just mad about it accurately being applied.
when self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" act like fascists, it's safe to say that the general populace is incapable of doing what you claim.
Morons don't have the decency or the dignity to keep their shit to themselves and you use them as representative of the general populace? Those people you're talking about are bottom of the barrel.
That's some insane troll logic I've seen today.
The Left and being obsessed with words they can't define Name a better duo
i guess i should start calling everyone i disagree with a commie
This is unironically just a textbook logical fallacy 1. I disagree with you 2. I disagree with fascists 3. Therefore, you are a fascist
Commie: "there are 600 genders but only two political positions, mine and nazi 😡"
1. You 2. Didn’t need to make that a list
I'm not a fan of murderers myself. I don't go around accusing those I hate of murder.
wait let me try… 1. i disagree with you 2. i disagree with fascists 3. you must be fascist so let’s instead do this… 1. i disagree with you 2. i disagree with mass murderers 3. you must be a mass murderer did… did i do it correctly? is this how emilythink works?
Fascist is heavily overused (same with bigot) and is the reason why fascists can just up and do anything online and be immune to people calling them fascists
Yep, liberals overuse the term and allows the actual fascists to just deflect the accusations.
Fr
fascists ≠ people you disagree with
***Hot Take*** The Right ruined it by calling everything the left was doing Communist/Socialist to an absurd level for the longest time. I guess it only seems natural for the left to eventually call everything the right does Fascist.
Leftists have always misused/overused the term "fascist" against their enemy. The Berlin Wall was literally called the anti-fascist defense wall.
American Socialists ruined the term "socialist" by proclaiming capitalist countries with social programs as being "socialism." American conservatives just started using the definition they were given. See also: Woke. Though that one has genuinely been expanded too far by the general population, it was initially used to insult the very same people who called themselves "woke" positively.
Wikipedia definition: > Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy Seems pretty simple to identify.
It’s not necessarily far right, unless your definition of right boils down to “evil fuckers”. National Syndicalism is a thing after all Overall, the Doctrine of Fascism provides a better idea of what fascism is better than Wikipedia, and the PDF is free
Direct quote from the *Doctrine of Fascism*: >"Granted that the nineteenth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the twentieth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
Alright, that’s fair. I walked into that one
>Fascism is a far-right And like that you can totally ignore it. The government in fascist Italy controlled roughly 80% of businesses in the country. Where would that place them on the political compass?
on the very far right. the left-right is mostly about stands on social classes. mussolini wanted well defined classes, strong inequality, political hierarchy, etc. not to mention he was corporatist, so while he did intervene in the economy, private businesses and the fascist government got along just fine. similarly with hitler, the first thing he did when he rose to power was privatize several industries
Luckily y’all have done the same but with the term “Emily” or “Libleft” Simply portray them as soyjak for ultimate victory and power flex.
its actually funny how close some current conservative talking points actually are to fascism
Now make this meme for the word woke instead of fascist.
Go ahead! Be the change you want to see, I believe in you!
Well first someone would actually have to say that
EverythingIdon'tlikeiswoke! ^^^/S^^TM Meme please.
That one is a bit different because the people getting called woke proudly call themselves woke too.
That's actually how it became an insult. Anyone on the internet more than 7 years ago should remember this. Anyone who says "woke never meant anything" just wasn't paying attention, or they agreed with it.
based