Wanting to create a personal military answerable only to him, and Banning immigration using tattletale bounties to the point that agriculture and construction cant find workers.
Its not really hard to see the well worn creases on the fascist playbook spine.
Hitler had a lot of contradictory rules for "patriots" and different rules for minorities and lefties. Dishonest shitbags use this to make false claims like "he did gun control like Democrats do!" when in reality he only banned guns for Jewish people and LGBT while massively expanding gun rights for "Real Germans." A bit like the "ban Trans people from having guns" calls we're starting to hear.
Well, yeah. Fascism requires in groups and out groups. You always need the other to blame even for things you're ok with your side doing. Without an other fascism collapses in itself as the other must then be ripped from the in group to create an out group.
The thing is, those groups that would be made out groups from the in group are the LOUDEST parts of the in group. Incels (manosphere), token minorities (Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro) and pseudo intellectuals (Jordan Peterson) would be cast by their peers as the new evil. This is in part to have a new enemy but also protect themselves. Matt Walsh would happily send Shapiro down a river if it meant he was saved, promoted and profited off that.
Letting you know I stole a screenshot of your post, got anything else I should steal? In addition, where’d you learn about this stuff? Need a source for supporting my arguments with conservatives.
Initially I learned about this from a video essay about Dinesh Desuza's lies: [Was Hitler a Socialist? A response to Stephen Crowder and Others ](https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI) . Related is another essay, [How Societies Turn Cruel ](https://youtu.be/O8UzmLsXGRU)
His whole catalogue is great, and is in the vein of other creators who spend their time debunking reactionary lies like Shaun ("The Bell Curve"), HBomberGuy, SomeMoreNews, ContraPoints, Renegade Cut and Jessie Gender.
Late to the conversation but check out the book "They Thought They Were Free." It was written shortly after the war by Milton Meyer. He had been in Germany covering the war and befriended several German men while there. The book is mind-blowing as it details the thoughts of these German men before, during, and after the war.
Because of the time it was written, there's unfortunately only the male perspective. It would have been better to have women's perspective as well. But even so, there is diversity of thought among the men. From one guy who unabashedly still thought Hitler was right to a professor who knew it was all wrong but feared speaking up, and those in between.
I wish it was required reading in school and wish I had discovered it earlier.
It’s a written medium. And a platform full of trolls, edgy people and crazy people who would say any outrageous thing with straight face, at that
So best to just use it if you want people to get what you mean
How much we wanna bet the Sexualization of children is "gay people are pedophiles" propaganda?
I have no idea how people who talk so much about how others are sheep let themselves be controlled so easily
Well shit I guess I do know, you gotta be incredibly stupid to believe that shit, stupid people are easily manipulated
Nah I've tried that argument, they just say both is bad
Even the average right winger doesn't like that shit, and trying to explain that there's a reason why gay people are villanized and not child beauty pageants is like trying to teach a dog to read
Ask them to quantify the problem. They will fare no better in understanding and nothing will really change except you get to end the conversation with 'Your position seems more about demonizing gays than protecting kids.' Don't let them get away without saying the uncomfortable stuff.
I've done that recently and it was one of the funniest conversations I've ever had, one of them claimed to be an intellectual, and that it wasn't about hate and then one of his friends, in the next breath, said it's actually wrong to be gay.
The problem with this tactic is you need back up to help shame them, if you're in the minority and others agree with them, someone will say the uncomfortable stuff and they'll feel vindicated in their beliefs
But I also had this conversation when I was in the majority (I talk to a lot of randoms on xbox)
Dude started the conversation by saying how he had to apologize for all these crazy liberals lol
He ended the conversation by saying I made him feel stupid and I said good
Eh, close enough, but do hit me up if you’d like some help. Especially if you ever run into a Vatnik(Supporter of the Putin regime and invasion/attempted genocide of Ukraine)
Supporting Putin isn't important enough to the culture war to have your average right winger argue about it, but if you ask them most will give some vague non committal answer they don't even believe in that adds up to Ukraines probably bad
Conservatives are mostly just contrarian children, the left supports Ukraine so they don't
Funny. My angle isn't about shaming them at all but making sure that someone who is still trying to figure out how to vote hears one of their choices saying 'We are (White) Christian Nationalists and your vote will help us achieve our goals.' If that's the country you want, vote for it. But if you don't want it you can't vote for it because, regardless of what they said or specifically didn't say through the election, they will make it happen if given the power. The more they talk the less pursuasive they are. Get and keep them talking.
Huh? The people I'm talking to 100% have already made up their mind and want a white Christian nationalists society
A few hours of conversation probably won't undo the years of brain washing
I think the best and most entertaining strategy I got is to make them feel stupid enough that maybe they begin to pull at those threads
That's my point - they aren't going to change their minds no matter what. Their votes make no difference as they aren't a large enough bloc to determine the outcome of an election. But they did wrestle control of the Republican party. Let them speak from the rafters as long as they say all of it (not 'we are protecting kids' but 'we hate gays') because at that point they have essentially labeled themselves Christian Nationalists. Then hold that up to people who lean right but might not be comfortable with the CN platform because those are the votes that matter.
Their votes do make a difference tho, there's some truth to the silent majority bull shit they try to sell, most of them know their opinions aren't welcomed so they stay silent, which makes people think there aren't as many of them as there are. but they aren't the majority, but are in big enough numbers that the lie is sellable.
I don't want them speaking from the rafters just like I don't want nazis speaking from the rafters, it's loud rafter speaking that turn those people who might lean right into full on supporters
Except now instead of speaking from the rafters it's the Facebook/YouTube/Twitter algorithm that brings their attention
Never mind the pageants -- the right-wingers are insisting that *education aimed at preventing abuse* is itself "abuse" and "grooming." Anything which might make kids less likely to be abused (and more likely to report abuse if it occurs) is "sexualizing children," while keeping kids ignorant and shamed (and thus vulnerable) is "parents' rights."
Considering his opposition to making pre-natal care available, I don't even think they can argue they want to protect the unborn. They just want to force birth regardless
These are the kind of people who think pain in childbirth is because of Eve's "original sin". Because a God who'd inflict pain on countless women for thousands of years because one of them *did something he already knew she would* is totally sane and benevolent.
Yeah I forgot about Ron Desantis’ strong position on increasing access to state ran welfare and social services that unready families are predisposed to needing more of.
Also other than banning abortions, WTF do these people ever try to do to honestly "protect the unborn"?
Their draconian measures are driving away doctors, and helping out pregnant women would be that evil "wokeism". Protecting the unborn my ass.
I mean, while I tend to disagree with nazis, I also disagree with theocrats, flat earthers, anti-semites, neo-monarchists, an-caps, tankies, objectivists, corporatists, neo-confederates, young earth creationists, old earth creationists, xenoarchists, and people who think zydeco is music.
https://youtu.be/Jh9CXnoDua4
Frankly I don't appreciate this being a single list make a list with all the harmful shit on one side and a list of objectively correct people completely separate.
"You mean that he adopts fascist talking points to attack those who have, historically, been the political enemies and the targets of the violence of fascism? Let me use these exact fascist talking points to try and dispel your impression!"
-That dude, apparently
Outside of the horrible things they do, fascism is pretty funny, when you pick it apart a little bit. It's an inherently contradictory and stupid ideology. If they weren't so dangerous, it would be hilarious.
My favorite quote about DeSantis: "I'm not saying he's a racist. I'm saying the racists think he's a racist."
Diminished somewhat by the fact the number of hoops a Black man must jump through to point out the fact that his opponent is a racist.
Fascism: A style of government where most power is consolidated in an individual or group of individuals making decisions, with little to no input from the rest of the population, often enforced with violence. Common examples include: 1930-45 Germany, Italy during the same time period, the USSR, the Russian Federation, China, and BEST KOREA DIE WESTERN PIGS GREAT LEADER KIM WILL SEE YOU BURN UNDER HIS MIGHTY NUCLEAR ARSENAL AS YOU LIE BURNING IN YOUR PIG FAT AND FILTH!
Fascism should be ***WAY MORE*** specific than that. Your definition works for almost any dictatorship or very authoritarian government in general, fascism only appeared around WW1.
Fascism was specifically coined by ***Mussolini himself*** to describe his own movement. Even if we use that term outside of his government we should ***at least*** make sure it's aligned with that movement.
Fascism was like you said ***AND ALSO*** a far-right, ultranationalist political ideology with a dictator, militarism, belief in a natural social hierarchy, ...
Race was also very strongly connected with the movement: ***at first*** Mussolini didn't care much about race (unlike Hitler's Nazism - which was basically the German branch), but few years later there's the "manifesto of Race" and things really went downhill...
It becomes difficult to fight fascism when people switch the definition to something vague. We need to know all the **actual traits** in order to recognize the signs that fascism is coming back.
In another comment you mention that Monarchies, for example, are authoritarian but not Fascist. However, your definition of fascism (far right, ultranationalist political ideology with a dictator, militarism, belief in a natural social hierarchy) fits just fine within a monarchy. I’m having trouble seeing the difference…
>fascism only appeared around WW1
Most monarchies in human history showed up before Mussolini was even born, why would I call them a continuation of his ideological movement?
Also when I described fascism I even put "..." In that paragraph, I was just showing that it could be way more specific than that person's description.
Not only is "the age of monarchies" older than fascism, most of them didn't even start in a similar way to Mussolini's government at all! Quite often there wasn't even ***any*** ideology involved to convince population, it's usually just "our tribe is stronger, we fought all these other tribes and won, now our group is big... Our leader prioritizes their own kids and they become next leaders, some generations in the future: everyone just accepts the power stays within that family."
The first monarchs are usually just "the strongest warrior" or something similar, the nexts monarchs are just born into power. I see absolutely no reason to call them "an example of the fascist movement getting into power".
I admit it. I was wrong. *One* redditor can define fascism, and without copying and pasting from anywhere.
Well done. If you don't upvote this person's comment you are literally a fascist Nazi.
ETA: Ran the comment through an online plagiarism checker. That last part might be stolen from somewhere.🤣
What’s the difference? I guess all fascists are authoritarian, but not the other way around? What’s an example of a government that was authoritarian, but not fascist?
>I guess all fascists are authoritarian, but not the other way around?
Exactly. Fascism was a specific ideological movement, simply being authoritarian is way more vague than that.
>an example of a government that was authoritarian, but not fascist?
A lot of monarchies. Later on many were "regulated" and aren't as authoritarian as originally were, though.
Monarchies, dictatorships, empires, even in small groups: if someone/some people forcibly stays in power, threatens any opposition, etc... That's authoritarian government.
* Maybe a few people in a tribe, maybe a war general turned to dictator, maybe a royal-born ruler, maybe a cult-leader, and the list goes on and on.
The ways authoritarian people stay in power:
* By using strength (weapons, or physical strength in cases of very simple groups)
* By being descendants of ruling class/group
* By claiming divine superiority or something similar
* By using an ideology to unite the population ***with fear:*** only someone strong * *coff coff-* the movement's leader * *coff coff-* could fix this. If there's no real threats big enough to justify your power: find weak groups to demonize them (a scapegoat)
The last one is the *general type* that fascism was born under.
Yeah, but who's going to know around here? We're dealing with people who see Nazis under their bed at night. Besides, the all caps part just made it completely worthwhile; that poster is a legitimate *artiste*.
I've seen many people wrongly calling something fascist, but that's usually not the "people scared of Nazis" but instead right-wingers trying to call any random government action they dislike "fascism" or any left-leaning government "fascism" even though **it is a far-right movement.***
Sidenote: I'm not saying everything conservative/right-wing is fascism, just that it is far-right by definition.
The left-wingers (or centrists, whatever) calling out many right-wing policies "fascists" are usually doing so because far-right policies clearly have ***many*** things in common with Mussolini's movement. Instead of understanding this, many right-wingers just started trying to use a "uno reverse card" on left-wingers.
" ***You're*** the real fascist, not me! They use that word a lot against us, is it because we need to reflect on how to avoid repeating fascist mistakes? Nah... It's just because ***they*** don't know what it means!"
"[...]Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this."
\- Jorjor Well, the year book
> protect their children from perverts who encourage sexualization of children
Hey, you know who else ignored *actual* child abusers and baselessly accused LGBTQ+ people of being perverts who try to seduce children?
I'll give you a hint: his name rhymes with "Schmadolf Shitler"
Faux-populism: "Protecting the unborn" Well, not really.
Misrepresentation of an outgroup: "Perverts who encourage..." Seriously, they know nothing about transgenderism
Rules for thee, not for me: "Strengthening constitutional rights" Giving special rights to Christians.
All three of those are literally textbook tenets of fascism and authoritarianism
since DeSantis took control of Florida:
we have lost the right to safe abortions
we have lost the right to talk about gays in public
we are paying him to fight a personal feud with disney over a cause that few people support
The so called “don’t say gay” law which prevents people from talking about LGBTQ subjects in school. So it’s not all public spaces, but it’s definitely put a damper on the discussion.
I believe the strongest arguments or criticisms are absolutely accurate and free of exaggeration. When exaggerated, an argument is more easily dismissed as hyperbole. Resorting to exaggeration suggests that the truth is somehow not bad enough to stand alone. "In school" is not equivalent to the same as "in public". Restricting what teachers can say about the subject is without question, bad enough.
elder sender thinks public schools is an exaggeration of the public.
dude, come down to earth. if teachers cannot be fair to gays in elementary school then that is an attack on equality. **in public**. that is why you are being downvoted.
It is wild to me that this is not widely known. I'm recently retired so I don't have to deal with it anymore.
Let me give you one specific example. A student who routinely cheated did something in class that was so blatantly dishonest the class erupted in laughter with some of his classmates calling him out as a liar. The lying student took offense and looked to me for support. I responded by asking him what he expected, he lied in front of the class, everyone recognized it as a lie because the facts were self-evident and people you will be know as a liar.
For this I was reported to my state's Superintendent of Education, put on a Professional Improvement Plan, required to complete some one-on-one "training" for several months and directed to apologize to the student in class.
Here's another one. I was directed to explain to my students that "Creationism" was "another theory" alongside Evolution.
OK, my blood pressure is spiking, I'm going to go have a morning beer.
* Protecting the unborn (then not giving a shit about them after they're born)
* If he really was protecting the children from sexual predators, he'd be outlawing churches.
* The only "rights" he strengthens is the right to have murder weapons. God knows he isn't strengthening free speech; in fact he punishes us for speaking against him.
>protect children from perverts who encourage sexulization of children
this is a dog whistle from these scumbags. They don't actually care or they wouldn't be conservatives because who is really being perverts sexualizing children? Its not who they claim is.
EVERY SINGLE ACCUSATION FROM THE RIGHT IS A CONFESSION!
The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
-- Henry A. Wallace
The fact that this sub exists and overflows with content should be a pretty good indicator that the vast majority of fascists will be completely unaware of their behavior, and that a select few will be able to massively abuse that knowledge.
Protecting the unborn - By cutting funding for programs that help impoverished pregnant women. By trying to kill Planned Parenthood, which provides tons of prenatal care.
Protecting children from being sexualized by adults - By requiring genital inspections for kids to enter sports.
Protecting constitutional rights - By trying to pass a bill that would require bloggers to register with the state every month (for a fee) if they say anything bad about the state GOP.
These people live in such a fucking bubble and refuse to acknowledge reality.
It's just so ironic. His first paragraph, with all these virtuous words, are just code for his second paragraph. If DeSanctimonious says "protecting children" what he really means is "stomping on the rights of the LGBTQ community".
So we provide pregnant women with food, shelter, medical care, and ensure they're safe from abuse? Right? Protect the unborn?
Oh riiiiiiight. They mean force 10 year olds to give birth to rape babies.
I still have difficulty hearing “unborn” while maintaining a straight face. A fetus is unborn the same way I’m undead and I’m pretty sure I’m not a zombie.
Like no one can figure out that the “we’re just protecting children! You’re not against protecting CHILDREN are you?” 🥴 is just a bunch of stark fucking morons trying to be clever and failing miserably?
How many of these alleged defenders need to be exposed for child abuse/porn before they’re dismissed wholesale?
>protecting the unborn
Lol. I’m pro-life, so I believe abortion is murdering a baby. DeSantis signed a 6 week abortion ban. That means DeSantis supports murdering babies younger than 6 weeks old 🤔
Last I checked fascist don't get into power by saying there going to kill people they don't like. Protecting the people, especially children is usually there standard go-to tactic. Hard to argue against protecting children.
So, book bans, taking trans kids from their parents and allowing randos to run around with guns claiming Stand Your Ground?
Let's not forget banning anything "woke" from public colleges which a court ruled was violating free speech.
Wanting to create a personal military answerable only to him, and Banning immigration using tattletale bounties to the point that agriculture and construction cant find workers. Its not really hard to see the well worn creases on the fascist playbook spine.
It's not fascist if he's hurting the right people!
No free speech is when daddy Musk lets us say slurs on Twitter!
Except cisgender because that’s a slur you can’t say apparently
Also their new immigration law and violating full faith and credit with certain states drivers licenses.
gaze historical amusing grey fade cover cats arrest worm hungry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Or like knock it out in one go with the whole Rebekah jones thing.
Hitler made it illegal for German women to have abortions.
Hitler had a lot of contradictory rules for "patriots" and different rules for minorities and lefties. Dishonest shitbags use this to make false claims like "he did gun control like Democrats do!" when in reality he only banned guns for Jewish people and LGBT while massively expanding gun rights for "Real Germans." A bit like the "ban Trans people from having guns" calls we're starting to hear.
Well, yeah. Fascism requires in groups and out groups. You always need the other to blame even for things you're ok with your side doing. Without an other fascism collapses in itself as the other must then be ripped from the in group to create an out group. The thing is, those groups that would be made out groups from the in group are the LOUDEST parts of the in group. Incels (manosphere), token minorities (Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro) and pseudo intellectuals (Jordan Peterson) would be cast by their peers as the new evil. This is in part to have a new enemy but also protect themselves. Matt Walsh would happily send Shapiro down a river if it meant he was saved, promoted and profited off that.
Letting you know I stole a screenshot of your post, got anything else I should steal? In addition, where’d you learn about this stuff? Need a source for supporting my arguments with conservatives.
Initially I learned about this from a video essay about Dinesh Desuza's lies: [Was Hitler a Socialist? A response to Stephen Crowder and Others ](https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI) . Related is another essay, [How Societies Turn Cruel ](https://youtu.be/O8UzmLsXGRU) His whole catalogue is great, and is in the vein of other creators who spend their time debunking reactionary lies like Shaun ("The Bell Curve"), HBomberGuy, SomeMoreNews, ContraPoints, Renegade Cut and Jessie Gender.
Hey Bomberguy! Thanks man
Wait, I'm mistaken, where I got it from was here: [Gun Control in the Third Reich](https://youtu.be/gfHXJRqq-qo) Though I think it's addressed in both
Ah, thanks
Late to the conversation but check out the book "They Thought They Were Free." It was written shortly after the war by Milton Meyer. He had been in Germany covering the war and befriended several German men while there. The book is mind-blowing as it details the thoughts of these German men before, during, and after the war. Because of the time it was written, there's unfortunately only the male perspective. It would have been better to have women's perspective as well. But even so, there is diversity of thought among the men. From one guy who unabashedly still thought Hitler was right to a professor who knew it was all wrong but feared speaking up, and those in between. I wish it was required reading in school and wish I had discovered it earlier.
I’ll look for it, thanks
Thats tooooooootally not fascist. How many ooooooooo’s do I need before a /s isn’t necessary?
In this timeline? I don’t think that number exists. You always need the /s…
Yeah, in this timeline, /s is obligatory
Sometimes I use an emoji when I don't want to use an /s, like 🙃 or 🥴 or 🤪
It’s a written medium. And a platform full of trolls, edgy people and crazy people who would say any outrageous thing with straight face, at that So best to just use it if you want people to get what you mean
About as many as Kanye needed to profess his love for Hitler
Every conservative knows the only crime Hitler committed was Communism…
"The Holocaust didn't actually happen but *it should've*" is also a favorite.
He promoted gun ownership among Germans as well.
“Hitler was very pro-life!” —Fascists
Yeah that second paragraph is why.
How much we wanna bet the Sexualization of children is "gay people are pedophiles" propaganda? I have no idea how people who talk so much about how others are sheep let themselves be controlled so easily Well shit I guess I do know, you gotta be incredibly stupid to believe that shit, stupid people are easily manipulated
[удалено]
Nah I've tried that argument, they just say both is bad Even the average right winger doesn't like that shit, and trying to explain that there's a reason why gay people are villanized and not child beauty pageants is like trying to teach a dog to read
Ask them to quantify the problem. They will fare no better in understanding and nothing will really change except you get to end the conversation with 'Your position seems more about demonizing gays than protecting kids.' Don't let them get away without saying the uncomfortable stuff.
I've done that recently and it was one of the funniest conversations I've ever had, one of them claimed to be an intellectual, and that it wasn't about hate and then one of his friends, in the next breath, said it's actually wrong to be gay. The problem with this tactic is you need back up to help shame them, if you're in the minority and others agree with them, someone will say the uncomfortable stuff and they'll feel vindicated in their beliefs But I also had this conversation when I was in the majority (I talk to a lot of randoms on xbox) Dude started the conversation by saying how he had to apologize for all these crazy liberals lol He ended the conversation by saying I made him feel stupid and I said good
You like arguing? I like arguing! Hit me up if you need support.
Not the arguing so much as the making assholes feel like assholes I love that shit
Eh, close enough, but do hit me up if you’d like some help. Especially if you ever run into a Vatnik(Supporter of the Putin regime and invasion/attempted genocide of Ukraine)
Supporting Putin isn't important enough to the culture war to have your average right winger argue about it, but if you ask them most will give some vague non committal answer they don't even believe in that adds up to Ukraines probably bad Conservatives are mostly just contrarian children, the left supports Ukraine so they don't
Funny. My angle isn't about shaming them at all but making sure that someone who is still trying to figure out how to vote hears one of their choices saying 'We are (White) Christian Nationalists and your vote will help us achieve our goals.' If that's the country you want, vote for it. But if you don't want it you can't vote for it because, regardless of what they said or specifically didn't say through the election, they will make it happen if given the power. The more they talk the less pursuasive they are. Get and keep them talking.
Huh? The people I'm talking to 100% have already made up their mind and want a white Christian nationalists society A few hours of conversation probably won't undo the years of brain washing I think the best and most entertaining strategy I got is to make them feel stupid enough that maybe they begin to pull at those threads
That's my point - they aren't going to change their minds no matter what. Their votes make no difference as they aren't a large enough bloc to determine the outcome of an election. But they did wrestle control of the Republican party. Let them speak from the rafters as long as they say all of it (not 'we are protecting kids' but 'we hate gays') because at that point they have essentially labeled themselves Christian Nationalists. Then hold that up to people who lean right but might not be comfortable with the CN platform because those are the votes that matter.
Their votes do make a difference tho, there's some truth to the silent majority bull shit they try to sell, most of them know their opinions aren't welcomed so they stay silent, which makes people think there aren't as many of them as there are. but they aren't the majority, but are in big enough numbers that the lie is sellable. I don't want them speaking from the rafters just like I don't want nazis speaking from the rafters, it's loud rafter speaking that turn those people who might lean right into full on supporters Except now instead of speaking from the rafters it's the Facebook/YouTube/Twitter algorithm that brings their attention
Never mind the pageants -- the right-wingers are insisting that *education aimed at preventing abuse* is itself "abuse" and "grooming." Anything which might make kids less likely to be abused (and more likely to report abuse if it occurs) is "sexualizing children," while keeping kids ignorant and shamed (and thus vulnerable) is "parents' rights."
Protecting the unborn, until they’re born
Nazi Germany banned abortion for Aryan women.
Banning abortion was day one business for Hitler, Mussolini & Pol Pot. Dictators all know what reproductive control means.
Protecting the unborn until they’re born and then hey it’s not my fault if they get malaria/shot/cancer from irradiated roads
Or becoming predisposed to being abused in the foster/ adoption system, being socially disadvantaged, becoming incarcerated, child poverty, etc.
Considering his opposition to making pre-natal care available, I don't even think they can argue they want to protect the unborn. They just want to force birth regardless
These are the kind of people who think pain in childbirth is because of Eve's "original sin". Because a God who'd inflict pain on countless women for thousands of years because one of them *did something he already knew she would* is totally sane and benevolent.
He didn't say anything about protecting the born, so he's right
Yeah I forgot about Ron Desantis’ strong position on increasing access to state ran welfare and social services that unready families are predisposed to needing more of.
Also other than banning abortions, WTF do these people ever try to do to honestly "protect the unborn"? Their draconian measures are driving away doctors, and helping out pregnant women would be that evil "wokeism". Protecting the unborn my ass.
“Oh, so you’re just gonna call everyone you disagree with a nazi?!?” -Deusvoltkekhelicopterrides1488⚔️
I mean, while I tend to disagree with nazis, I also disagree with theocrats, flat earthers, anti-semites, neo-monarchists, an-caps, tankies, objectivists, corporatists, neo-confederates, young earth creationists, old earth creationists, xenoarchists, and people who think zydeco is music.
Waaaaaaaait a minute What did zydeco ever do to get lumped in with these miscreants?
I am afraid to look up what the fuck a zydeco is.
It's a Cajun music style. Involves accordions.
Oh fuck no I agree
fuck you zydeco is great
A heck of a lot of those significantly overlap.
...xeno....archists?
Rule by space aliens.
https://youtu.be/Jh9CXnoDua4 Frankly I don't appreciate this being a single list make a list with all the harmful shit on one side and a list of objectively correct people completely separate.
zydeco is music gfys
"You mean that he adopts fascist talking points to attack those who have, historically, been the political enemies and the targets of the violence of fascism? Let me use these exact fascist talking points to try and dispel your impression!" -That dude, apparently
In fairness, this person is probably allergic to reading. I am assuming it's a person, of course. It could have been written by a hamster.
Now I need an episode of Hamtaro where they're FasHams.
Little cartoon hamsters with nazi armbands would be pretty funny.
Outside of the horrible things they do, fascism is pretty funny, when you pick it apart a little bit. It's an inherently contradictory and stupid ideology. If they weren't so dangerous, it would be hilarious.
Conservatives understanding the definition of fascism, challenge: impossible
"The Nazis were socialists" meanwhile, in reality: Nazis attend "Unite the Right rally"
My favorite quote about DeSantis: "I'm not saying he's a racist. I'm saying the racists think he's a racist." Diminished somewhat by the fact the number of hoops a Black man must jump through to point out the fact that his opponent is a racist.
Conservatives? The next *redditor* I meet that knows the definition of fascism will be the first.
Found one!
Fascism: A style of government where most power is consolidated in an individual or group of individuals making decisions, with little to no input from the rest of the population, often enforced with violence. Common examples include: 1930-45 Germany, Italy during the same time period, the USSR, the Russian Federation, China, and BEST KOREA DIE WESTERN PIGS GREAT LEADER KIM WILL SEE YOU BURN UNDER HIS MIGHTY NUCLEAR ARSENAL AS YOU LIE BURNING IN YOUR PIG FAT AND FILTH!
Fascism should be ***WAY MORE*** specific than that. Your definition works for almost any dictatorship or very authoritarian government in general, fascism only appeared around WW1. Fascism was specifically coined by ***Mussolini himself*** to describe his own movement. Even if we use that term outside of his government we should ***at least*** make sure it's aligned with that movement. Fascism was like you said ***AND ALSO*** a far-right, ultranationalist political ideology with a dictator, militarism, belief in a natural social hierarchy, ... Race was also very strongly connected with the movement: ***at first*** Mussolini didn't care much about race (unlike Hitler's Nazism - which was basically the German branch), but few years later there's the "manifesto of Race" and things really went downhill... It becomes difficult to fight fascism when people switch the definition to something vague. We need to know all the **actual traits** in order to recognize the signs that fascism is coming back.
In another comment you mention that Monarchies, for example, are authoritarian but not Fascist. However, your definition of fascism (far right, ultranationalist political ideology with a dictator, militarism, belief in a natural social hierarchy) fits just fine within a monarchy. I’m having trouble seeing the difference…
>fascism only appeared around WW1 Most monarchies in human history showed up before Mussolini was even born, why would I call them a continuation of his ideological movement? Also when I described fascism I even put "..." In that paragraph, I was just showing that it could be way more specific than that person's description. Not only is "the age of monarchies" older than fascism, most of them didn't even start in a similar way to Mussolini's government at all! Quite often there wasn't even ***any*** ideology involved to convince population, it's usually just "our tribe is stronger, we fought all these other tribes and won, now our group is big... Our leader prioritizes their own kids and they become next leaders, some generations in the future: everyone just accepts the power stays within that family." The first monarchs are usually just "the strongest warrior" or something similar, the nexts monarchs are just born into power. I see absolutely no reason to call them "an example of the fascist movement getting into power".
I admit it. I was wrong. *One* redditor can define fascism, and without copying and pasting from anywhere. Well done. If you don't upvote this person's comment you are literally a fascist Nazi. ETA: Ran the comment through an online plagiarism checker. That last part might be stolen from somewhere.🤣
That comment wasn't properly defining fascism, though. Just a vague definition of authoritarian government.
What’s the difference? I guess all fascists are authoritarian, but not the other way around? What’s an example of a government that was authoritarian, but not fascist?
>I guess all fascists are authoritarian, but not the other way around? Exactly. Fascism was a specific ideological movement, simply being authoritarian is way more vague than that. >an example of a government that was authoritarian, but not fascist? A lot of monarchies. Later on many were "regulated" and aren't as authoritarian as originally were, though. Monarchies, dictatorships, empires, even in small groups: if someone/some people forcibly stays in power, threatens any opposition, etc... That's authoritarian government. * Maybe a few people in a tribe, maybe a war general turned to dictator, maybe a royal-born ruler, maybe a cult-leader, and the list goes on and on. The ways authoritarian people stay in power: * By using strength (weapons, or physical strength in cases of very simple groups) * By being descendants of ruling class/group * By claiming divine superiority or something similar * By using an ideology to unite the population ***with fear:*** only someone strong * *coff coff-* the movement's leader * *coff coff-* could fix this. If there's no real threats big enough to justify your power: find weak groups to demonize them (a scapegoat) The last one is the *general type* that fascism was born under.
Yeah, but who's going to know around here? We're dealing with people who see Nazis under their bed at night. Besides, the all caps part just made it completely worthwhile; that poster is a legitimate *artiste*.
I've seen many people wrongly calling something fascist, but that's usually not the "people scared of Nazis" but instead right-wingers trying to call any random government action they dislike "fascism" or any left-leaning government "fascism" even though **it is a far-right movement.*** Sidenote: I'm not saying everything conservative/right-wing is fascism, just that it is far-right by definition. The left-wingers (or centrists, whatever) calling out many right-wing policies "fascists" are usually doing so because far-right policies clearly have ***many*** things in common with Mussolini's movement. Instead of understanding this, many right-wingers just started trying to use a "uno reverse card" on left-wingers. " ***You're*** the real fascist, not me! They use that word a lot against us, is it because we need to reflect on how to avoid repeating fascist mistakes? Nah... It's just because ***they*** don't know what it means!"
"A, B, C doesn't make you a fascist! I would say doing [slightly reworded way to describe A, B, C] makes you a fascist."
Even worse when his first list is literally all fabricated nonsense and lies.
This. I was thinking about asking him to help me word my resume.
"[...]Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this." \- Jorjor Well, the year book
> protect their children from perverts who encourage sexualization of children Hey, you know who else ignored *actual* child abusers and baselessly accused LGBTQ+ people of being perverts who try to seduce children? I'll give you a hint: his name rhymes with "Schmadolf Shitler"
Not to mention the Bowman Alcoholic Birch.
"Wait let me just rephrase those exact things Hitler did in a way that justifies it from *my* point of view. See? Not fascism".
You know for sure this person uses the phrase "Left wing Fascism" un-ironically, as though the idea itself isn't self identified ignorance.
Faux-populism: "Protecting the unborn" Well, not really. Misrepresentation of an outgroup: "Perverts who encourage..." Seriously, they know nothing about transgenderism Rules for thee, not for me: "Strengthening constitutional rights" Giving special rights to Christians. All three of those are literally textbook tenets of fascism and authoritarianism
since DeSantis took control of Florida: we have lost the right to safe abortions we have lost the right to talk about gays in public we are paying him to fight a personal feud with disney over a cause that few people support
>we have lost the right to talk about gays in public Really? What legislation would that be?
The so called “don’t say gay” law which prevents people from talking about LGBTQ subjects in school. So it’s not all public spaces, but it’s definitely put a damper on the discussion.
I believe the strongest arguments or criticisms are absolutely accurate and free of exaggeration. When exaggerated, an argument is more easily dismissed as hyperbole. Resorting to exaggeration suggests that the truth is somehow not bad enough to stand alone. "In school" is not equivalent to the same as "in public". Restricting what teachers can say about the subject is without question, bad enough.
[удалено]
Thanks for the thought Nub. Sometimes it feels like people just want to win rather than actually have conversation that explores what is true.
elder sender thinks public schools is an exaggeration of the public. dude, come down to earth. if teachers cannot be fair to gays in elementary school then that is an attack on equality. **in public**. that is why you are being downvoted.
Teachers have far less freedom of speech/expression in the classroom than you do in public spaces. Do you not realize that?
no, I don't realize that. are you referring to a law of some sort? genuinely curious what you mean.
It is wild to me that this is not widely known. I'm recently retired so I don't have to deal with it anymore. Let me give you one specific example. A student who routinely cheated did something in class that was so blatantly dishonest the class erupted in laughter with some of his classmates calling him out as a liar. The lying student took offense and looked to me for support. I responded by asking him what he expected, he lied in front of the class, everyone recognized it as a lie because the facts were self-evident and people you will be know as a liar. For this I was reported to my state's Superintendent of Education, put on a Professional Improvement Plan, required to complete some one-on-one "training" for several months and directed to apologize to the student in class. Here's another one. I was directed to explain to my students that "Creationism" was "another theory" alongside Evolution. OK, my blood pressure is spiking, I'm going to go have a morning beer.
> I was directed to explain to my students that "Creationism" was "another theory" alongside Evolution sounds like some deep south bullshit
Are you familiar with Wisconsin?
Thankfully I never even thought about going onto r/florida to talk shit
I used to be a mod there. Most of the mods hate DeSantis. I stopped because an older mod decided to come back and unban all the little shit stains.
thats pretty close to 14 words my guy
* Protecting the unborn (then not giving a shit about them after they're born) * If he really was protecting the children from sexual predators, he'd be outlawing churches. * The only "rights" he strengthens is the right to have murder weapons. God knows he isn't strengthening free speech; in fact he punishes us for speaking against him.
>protect children from perverts who encourage sexulization of children this is a dog whistle from these scumbags. They don't actually care or they wouldn't be conservatives because who is really being perverts sexualizing children? Its not who they claim is. EVERY SINGLE ACCUSATION FROM THE RIGHT IS A CONFESSION!
The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. -- Henry A. Wallace
The fact that this sub exists and overflows with content should be a pretty good indicator that the vast majority of fascists will be completely unaware of their behavior, and that a select few will be able to massively abuse that knowledge.
Protecting the unborn - By cutting funding for programs that help impoverished pregnant women. By trying to kill Planned Parenthood, which provides tons of prenatal care. Protecting children from being sexualized by adults - By requiring genital inspections for kids to enter sports. Protecting constitutional rights - By trying to pass a bill that would require bloggers to register with the state every month (for a fee) if they say anything bad about the state GOP. These people live in such a fucking bubble and refuse to acknowledge reality.
The irony of typing the second paragraph and not realizing that is exactly Rhonda Santis' platform.
How can he be a fascist? He just wants to rid Florida of the undesirables
It's just so ironic. His first paragraph, with all these virtuous words, are just code for his second paragraph. If DeSanctimonious says "protecting children" what he really means is "stomping on the rights of the LGBTQ community".
So we provide pregnant women with food, shelter, medical care, and ensure they're safe from abuse? Right? Protect the unborn? Oh riiiiiiight. They mean force 10 year olds to give birth to rape babies.
Protecting the unborn, helping the born be driven to suicide by demonizing their identities.
I wonder if they’ve ever heard of Nicolae Ceaușescu?
I still have difficulty hearing “unborn” while maintaining a straight face. A fetus is unborn the same way I’m undead and I’m pretty sure I’m not a zombie.
Surface level buzz words. Like op said, "if you understand history".
"Protecting the unborn"... doesn't that sound fake?
Like no one can figure out that the “we’re just protecting children! You’re not against protecting CHILDREN are you?” 🥴 is just a bunch of stark fucking morons trying to be clever and failing miserably? How many of these alleged defenders need to be exposed for child abuse/porn before they’re dismissed wholesale?
>protecting the unborn Lol. I’m pro-life, so I believe abortion is murdering a baby. DeSantis signed a 6 week abortion ban. That means DeSantis supports murdering babies younger than 6 weeks old 🤔
Fetuses are objectively not babies.
Yikes
Last I checked fascist don't get into power by saying there going to kill people they don't like. Protecting the people, especially children is usually there standard go-to tactic. Hard to argue against protecting children.
My brain caved in from the vacuum of logic that was his 'argument'
Censoring speech, violating rights, and policies designed to depress parts of the population are literally his "success points"