I’m just saying that the “fascist” parties in Europe are no more “fascist” than American right wing parties. People support right-wing parties for different reasons. Calling it dumbassery is weird.
Stopping immigrants at the border would actually be a horrendous policy and have devastating economic effects. Literally advocating for a terrible US policy that could be seen as inhumane and unethical.
Giorgia Meloni is Italy’s current prime minister and also happens to be a proud founding member of the Neo-Facist party, and is the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini.
Pretty bold for a region that can’t last more than a generation or two before devolving into a police state so severe that it plunges the entire globe into armed conflict.
ACAB means the police is upholding unjust systems and laws, isn't that cops as individuals are bad. Of course a large percent of them are domestic abusers and racist, but that's an entirely different issue.
If your slogan is inaccurate you will face resistance at every turn. Not to mention that some people using ACAB actually do think that all cops are personally bad.
Words have social meaning but that meaning is easy to twist and corrupt if the words are new and if the meaning is unclear, both of which are true for most liberal slogans tbh, especially ACAB. You can’t rely on conservative goodwill to interpret your slogan favorably when 1. you don’t agree among yourselves what “favorably” is and 2. conservatives don’t have goodwill.
Last, some does not mean the majority.
It doesn’t have to be a majority, just a significant enough portion that people hearing the phrase will have heard multiple people using it in two different and semi-opposite ways.
Interesting that you’d be using this sort of logic, kinda tipping your hand…
Fuck off, and don’t put me in a box. If you want to know my opinions you can ask me and I will answer truthfully. If I wanted to troll people and hide my real opinions I’d do something more interesting than arguing normally.
You can’t rely on conservative goodwill to interpret your slogan favorably when… conservatives don’t have goodwill
Right. But that just means you shouldn’t give a shit about making the name look nice for conservatives. They’re going to oppose it anyway, so might as well be inflammatory and get the most attention.
It also helps liberals (or moderates, however few remain) who haven’t encountered the phrase before get on board more easily so that you don’t spend time fighting your own allies.
Maybe, but being inflammatory gets you in the news so that moderates hear about it in the first place, which is where you get the chance to explain the true meaning.
Right, so conservatives don’t have goodwill which means they’ll twist anything regardless, self defeating argument
See point 1.
Wasn’t putting you in any box, just pointing out that generalization is bad, and that you were participating in that behavior. People will think what they want and not being informed enough of what the social implications of words mean is exactly why both sides are at odds. Get it or don’t get it.
Well I appreciate the reasonable response. I do think it’s important to reduce the ability of conservatives to twist liberal actions but you are right that a good portion will find a way to do it anyways :/
If you’re interested, and I think you may be, look into the solution to tolerance of the intolerant, cleared a lot of misgivings I had about the concept
Man, I actually agree with this… Most cops are bad, let’s start there. This said, there’s a lot of truth in the comment above the one I’m replying to. The system is absolutely corrupt. Civil asset forfeiture alone is a clear, objective example of it.
Define country, because the American government is actually one of the oldest continuous governmental systems in the world. Certainly the oldest republic that isn’t a micro-state.
Now if you want argue that France, for example, is an older country than America because there’s been a fairly stable region largely called France for several centuries you can, you’d just be wrong.
Now if you want to start talking about nations that’s different, but also a much, much blurrier subject in general.
I’m using the term to mean more or less the collectively agreed upon “identity” of a state. Not merely a single contiguous government (for the same reason you just bring up, people still consider France to be France even though the government has changed fundamentally many times over the years), but I’m not using it to just mean “nation” either, since were France to be completely conquered and annexed by a foreign power, the French nation, as in the group of people, would still exist, but the country would not, at least until such time as it could be recreated, or for a different reason, that one can have a national identity split between different states, or a state involving different such groups.
lemmy.today
Oldest