This is the same argument that led to the red scare in the 50s. Want to unionize your workplace? That’s not the only union you want! Want to bring an anti consumerism message? Literally communism! It’s much easier to group undesirables together so you can marginalize the libertarians, evangelicals and business class in one fell swoop by labeling them Fascist
oh no no no. don’t you see? they are right, they don’t HAVE to elaborate. But in turn if YOU don’t explain your point of view, you’re a fascist in hiding. IN fact, even if you DO lay out your argument, it’s wrong just because they say so. Is this your first day on the internet? heavy on the /s
If you vote for a Republican, you’re effectively supporting fascism. That’s what American politics has turned into.
That argument holds ground in some European countries where left and right parties are actually left and right. In a country like the US where the left is right and the right is fascism, they did the grouping themselves.
I’d like to point out that the political compass is a really bad construct for understanding politics. Ideology is made from smaller factors such as economics, tradition, religion, intellectualism, and other institutions. Fascism came out of socialist circles, as did Nazism. The modern political compass came out of the cold war and helped both sides justify themselves: the communists who wanted to be as far from the Nazis as possible and the Americans who wanted to be seen as the voice of the moderates. (Don’t look at the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact or Jim Crow)
The Republican party promotes Right wing populism. Elements of that include autarky, isolationism and conservatism.
Fascism is a very specific ideology, and while the leader of the Republican party Trump has some things in common with it, he is not on the war path like a true fascist would be. He is less imperialist than previous presidents. He wants to pull out from NATO and abandon the Kurdish people in Syria. Again, Trump is a populist. He did not come out of socialist circles preaching an anti-elitist message.
Depends on what you mean by “being on a war path”. Imperialism isn’t a strict requirement for fascism, and he’s very much on a national war path. Wikipedia describes it like this:
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 or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
I think the only part he might not fit is “strong regimentation of economy”.
But Trump lacks rebirth rhetoric outside of ‘MAGA’ He isn’t seeking to subjugate the other nations of the world for the spirit of America. He didn’t really support the US military, and doesn’t employ brown shirts to silence opposition. That may be because our institutions are durable enough to resist him now though.
I do see the argument though. I however oppose reductionism. It’s dehumanizing and anti-democratic. Problem comes when one has to fight populism with intellectualism. It doesn’t work because it’s not snappy
Again, going outside your country’s border isn’t really required for fascism.
About silencing opposition… he’s getting real close with stuff like Jan 6 or the doxxing in his trial. He just doesn’t employ people but counts on fanatics to do the job for free.
On reductionism, yeah, it’s usually not the most honest of tactics, but as you said we can’t fight populism with intellectualism. I’m annoyed at people saying Trump is “Literally Hitler”, but calling him Fascist is honestly so close that I don’t really see it as that unfair.
right? if you say something the lef… i mean lemmy users don’t like, you just get SHOUTED down instead. cause if you screetch loud enough it makes it true.
It’s useful for gauging the general opinion on a subject, or for “exposing” fake affirmations without having to dig comments.
It does bring its issues, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. Plus it’s not like Reddit where you just have the balance, people indeed have the tendency to ignore/comment snarkily on “-5” comments, but if they see a “+10/-15” they often realize it’s a controversial opinion and might weigh in.
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what’s happening just above this comment. Turns the place into an echo chamber.
Lmao did you even read my comment? Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what’s happening just above this comment.
That comment did not justify your original comment, which was:
I don’t think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences discussion.
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion. Neither do downvotes. No one, not even you, is entitled to a response. Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won’t? That’s ludicrous.
So as far as- “Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?,” that would be you, who claimed downvotes silenced discussion.
Again, did you even read my comment? Pointing out a tendency people have isn’t “entitlement”. People shy away from small numbers and interact with large numbers more.
Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won’t?
We literally see this in threads all the time. Negatively voted comments are responded to with one-liners or nothing at all, as if the negative votes somehow prove them wrong.
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion
Lmao I’ll be “discussing” this topic with my wall now
This is the same argument that led to the red scare in the 50s. Want to unionize your workplace? That’s not the only union you want! Want to bring an anti consumerism message? Literally communism! It’s much easier to group undesirables together so you can marginalize the libertarians, evangelicals and business class in one fell swoop by labeling them Fascist
It’s not really the same argument at all.
Please elaborate
oh no no no. don’t you see? they are right, they don’t HAVE to elaborate. But in turn if YOU don’t explain your point of view, you’re a fascist in hiding. IN fact, even if you DO lay out your argument, it’s wrong just because they say so. Is this your first day on the internet? heavy on the /s
If you vote for a Republican, you’re effectively supporting fascism. That’s what American politics has turned into.
That argument holds ground in some European countries where left and right parties are actually left and right. In a country like the US where the left is right and the right is fascism, they did the grouping themselves.
I’d like to point out that the political compass is a really bad construct for understanding politics. Ideology is made from smaller factors such as economics, tradition, religion, intellectualism, and other institutions. Fascism came out of socialist circles, as did Nazism. The modern political compass came out of the cold war and helped both sides justify themselves: the communists who wanted to be as far from the Nazis as possible and the Americans who wanted to be seen as the voice of the moderates. (Don’t look at the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact or Jim Crow)
The Republican party promotes Right wing populism. Elements of that include autarky, isolationism and conservatism.
Fascism is a very specific ideology, and while the leader of the Republican party Trump has some things in common with it, he is not on the war path like a true fascist would be. He is less imperialist than previous presidents. He wants to pull out from NATO and abandon the Kurdish people in Syria. Again, Trump is a populist. He did not come out of socialist circles preaching an anti-elitist message.
Depends on what you mean by “being on a war path”. Imperialism isn’t a strict requirement for fascism, and he’s very much on a national war path. Wikipedia describes it like this:
I think the only part he might not fit is “strong regimentation of economy”.
But Trump lacks rebirth rhetoric outside of ‘MAGA’ He isn’t seeking to subjugate the other nations of the world for the spirit of America. He didn’t really support the US military, and doesn’t employ brown shirts to silence opposition. That may be because our institutions are durable enough to resist him now though.
I do see the argument though. I however oppose reductionism. It’s dehumanizing and anti-democratic. Problem comes when one has to fight populism with intellectualism. It doesn’t work because it’s not snappy
Again, going outside your country’s border isn’t really required for fascism.
About silencing opposition… he’s getting real close with stuff like Jan 6 or the doxxing in his trial. He just doesn’t employ people but counts on fanatics to do the job for free.
On reductionism, yeah, it’s usually not the most honest of tactics, but as you said we can’t fight populism with intellectualism. I’m annoyed at people saying Trump is “Literally Hitler”, but calling him Fascist is honestly so close that I don’t really see it as that unfair.
You’re 100% right. You’ll still get downvoted and so will I for saying this, because people vote with their emotions here.
I don’t think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences discussion.
If a comment is actively hateful and/or breaks rules you’d report it instead, as is the case in alot of Lemmy instances.
right? if you say something the lef… i mean lemmy users don’t like, you just get SHOUTED down instead. cause if you screetch loud enough it makes it true.
It’s useful for gauging the general opinion on a subject, or for “exposing” fake affirmations without having to dig comments.
It does bring its issues, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. Plus it’s not like Reddit where you just have the balance, people indeed have the tendency to ignore/comment snarkily on “-5” comments, but if they see a “+10/-15” they often realize it’s a controversial opinion and might weigh in.
How is anyone on Lemmy silenced by downvotes? Just basic feelings of shame because some people on the internet didn’t like what they said?
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what’s happening just above this comment. Turns the place into an echo chamber.
How does it turn the place into an echo chamber? Why would anyone let that silence them? There are zero repercussions for a downvote on Lemmy.
Is your ego really so fragile that “people don’t like my comment” is enough to make you stop talking?
Lmao did you even read my comment? Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?
That comment did not justify your original comment, which was:
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion. Neither do downvotes. No one, not even you, is entitled to a response. Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won’t? That’s ludicrous.
So as far as- “Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?,” that would be you, who claimed downvotes silenced discussion.
Again, did you even read my comment? Pointing out a tendency people have isn’t “entitlement”. People shy away from small numbers and interact with large numbers more.
We literally see this in threads all the time. Negatively voted comments are responded to with one-liners or nothing at all, as if the negative votes somehow prove them wrong.
Lmao I’ll be “discussing” this topic with my wall now
90 million people or whatever they claimed the outrageous number was voted with their emotions in 2020.