Drop. The. Fuck. Out. You are going to fucking lose you geriatric fuck and SCOTUS just ensured that Trump will use his power to be a dictator when he’s elected.
I believe people are going to do the right thing this November. We need to be vocal and vote. But no matter what happens, no one deserves fascism. We’re all still people.
At the core of self-destructive ideologies like fascism is the idea that we are all better off dead. By asserting that anyone can deserve fascism we are agreeing with that idea and we are conceding the idea that life is worth living.
We should defend ourselves from fascists who break the social contract of tolerance. However, if we preemptively target individuals based on ideology we end up with the same problem as the fascists.
Organizing people into a hierarchy based on political ideology has the same issues as a hierarchy based on any other metric. Each time the least desirable group is removed from the population the next group in the hierarchy is at the bottom. By the logic that the most far-right group deserves extermination, we eventually remove every group of people. Even the furthest-left group eventually becomes the furthest-right group by process of elimination.
Hard disagree. You’re making an invalid slippery slope argument. Eliminating fascists is self-defense. Eliminating other groups is not and therefore not comparable. The problem with fascists isn’t that they kill people; it’s that they systematically target out groups for elimination without regard to whether they are dangerous—and in fact they tend to target the least dangerous people first.
Also now that I think about it, eliminating fascists was your idea. I think that if they were to be eliminated, they would deserve it, but I wasn’t actually advocating it. What they need is to be kept far away from any kind of power or influence.
It’s not self-defense if the fascists haven’t done anything violent or destructive. Unfortunately the fascists in the US have been doing violent and destructive things and are close to completing their takeover of our democracy. As an exmaple, there were January 6th rioters and organizers who were arrested and imprisoned. However, there are plenty of people who would meet criteria that would make them varying degrees of fascists, but haven’t done anything yet.
There are overt fascists who espouse fascist ideology and talking points, but haven’t performed acts of domestic terrorism like January 6th. There are people who want their prejudices validated and want to return to an imaged past. There are people who have bought into the lie that minorities are the cause of their problems instead of systemic issues. There are people in the Republican Party who are neo-cons who want to work with the fascists. There are people who shout both sides further to the left of the neo-cons. There are neo-liberals who want to keep things the same despite our downward spiral into fascism.
A christo-fascist regime is being built primarily thanks to the actions and inactions of people using our system without directly hurting anyone or destroying any infrastructure. The fascist movement is spreading ideas, violating democratic norms, upending the guard rails in our democracy, filling the government with like minded individuals, and in the case of Trump, violating the law and stalling out the court system. The Supreme Court ended the rule of law on July 1st, 2024, not by shooting people, but with the stoke of a pen.
The fascists build the system to target groups for elimination in a way that doesn’t directly harm anyone until the system is in place. Your argument calls for the elimination of people based on political ideology.
they tend to target the least dangerous people first.
The enemies of fascists are at the same time both too strong and too weak. They claim the out-groups they target are both inferior to and a threat to the in-group. According to the fascists the out-groups must be eliminated to preserve the in-group. And the in-group is justified in eliminating the out-groups because of the in-group’s superiority. This is a contradiction, because a superior group should have nothing to fear from an inferior group.
The fascists divide the population into in-groups and out-groups as a mechanism of control, usually based on physical characteristics. As part of their crusade against out-groups they actually have to destroy the out-groups. But the fascists need an out-group to exist in order to stay in power. If there is no threat to the in-group, then there is no use in having a fascist strongman.
To solve this problem, fascists have to repeat the process of dividing the population into in-groups and out-groups. The Nazis divided people into a extensive racial hierarchy from the get-go. This process repeats itself until no one is left. It is not a slippery slope, but rather the nature of fascism as a self-destructive ideology. Inevitably the fascists are defeated military or destroy the entire population. In the end, no one meets the ideal qualifications of a superior human that the fascists imagine.
Your argument does the same thing with ideology. It calls for the preservation of an in-group by the extermination of an out-group. The out-group is both a threat to the in-group and yet inferior. Rather than striving for purity of the body your argument seeks purity of thought. It is the same outcome sold with a different scam. Once everyone considered to be too fascist to be allowed to live has been killed the next out-group will be on the chopping block.
There’s a popular adage that says, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. The neo-liberals will be deemed to dangerous to keep alive because they obstruct systemic change and their ideology leads to fascism. The progressives will be deemed well meaning, but under closer examination they aren’t left enough. Their policies don’t allow workers to seize the means of production.
The social democrats, while socialists, believe in democracy. And what is democracy to the far left but an incubation chamber for fascism. The democratic socialists are also open to a political socialist revolution, ie democracy, and cannot be trusted by the far left. What are socialists but people who believe in an ideology that is only a stepping stone to communism. Communists who want a stateless society are simply deluding themselves according to the authoritarian communists. The authoritarian communists believe only an authoritarian dictatorship can preserve the worker’s revolution.
We move so far left we end up wrapping around back to the far-right in the form of authoritarian communism. The most substantial difference between the red fascism your argument is proposing and the fascism we are seeing in the US today is that they divide people on different metrics. These ideologies are all self-destructive because there is no stopping point. No one is good enough by any metric, and so what these ideologies are really saying is that we are all better off dead. No one deserves fascism because life is worth living no matter our flaws.
Your argument is a 1:1 match to arguments made by red fascists, ie tankies, ie authoritarian communists. It was easy for me to spot because I have seen it before. Hopefully it will now be easy for you to spot as well.
It calls for the preservation of an in-group by the extermination of an out-group.
=
Fascists deserve fascism, but they deserve to be the victims of it.
Biden has the power to do something now, but instead he’s using it to campaign. What good will voting him in do if he’s just gunna sit on his hands and do nothing? That has little to do with him being old. Not saying that I won’t vote for him, but it’s understandable to be frustrated, and people definitely don’t deserve fascism for that.
On the one hand LA county has a massive crime issue and the masks aren’t helping. On the other hand, even without masks they still had a crime problem anyway because LASD (almost $4bn budget) sucks at their jobs and there isn’t a lot of support of the current Sherrif from deputies that has been trying to fix them. LAPD ($2bn budget) basically only takes care of the main part of LA city proper itself.
Where I live break-in response times are around 4 hours and anything under that is measured in days, if they show up at all.
I agree, but the intended chilling effect has been more successful than not, in my opinion. That and the recent “coincidental” deaths of certain whistleblowers.
This speech was a capitulation by Biden. He basically said 'no, executive isn't going to check the judiciary.' His response is 'people need to vote's? What? Where's the vision or game plan to overturning this?
It's so fucking simple to grasp the shortfalls here.
I’m hoping he’s just giving us a chance to correct this. That will do good in the long run if we manage it. Should we fail it is also my hope that he uses his remaining time in the chair to abuse those executive powers to all hell.
This type of lawsuit is questionably in the interest of justice when directed at Hamas/it’s benefactors, but you want to know when it’s directed at the US and Israel? I don’t understand what “type” of lawsuit this is where justice is questioned if directed at them. Sounds more like whataboutism and double standards…
Yes the problem with “whataboutism” is that it can be used to dismiss any claims of double standards without further examination.
For example, here in the US we punish black murderers more harshly and more often than we do white murderers. If a black murderer tries to point out this double standard, their claims would accurately be dismissed as “whataboutism”. But when you view the system as a whole, then you can see that systemic racism is undeniable.
The only thing dismissed by your comment was the posted article, such that you could distract from the article’s premise and substitute a different subject for discussion. This is a bad faith attempt to turn users away from what is posted, and deflect to a different issue.
Goodbye.
And I reject the facile equation of this to systemic racism against the black population. That is an obtuse comparison completely outside of the scope of the justice outlined in the article.
Regardless of justice, this type of lawsuit isn’t in the interest of any reasonable world order.
They are suing sovereign countries for assisting in an attack on Israel. In a US federal court. With no treaties backing the suit; just a law passed unilaterally by the US.
That is not the way international law works at all. By the logic, Peru could pass a law allowing it’s citizens to sue the US because they have family that took a vacation in mexico where they were shot by a US gun.
This should be viewed in context of the US’s refusal to join the ICC, and the “Hague Invasion Act” (American Service-Members’ Protection Act) that authotizes unbounded military force against the ICC if it acts against anyone working for the US or a US ally. As well as a bill passed in the house attempting to sanction the ICC for its move against Israeli leadership.
The entire theory behind being able to have such a lawsuit in a US federal court is US imperialism.
That was an excellent article, I can’t believe there are enough customers for all this trafficking. It’s just insane to me that there are hundreds of thousands of men willing to rape these girls under the guise of being “paying for a service.”
I think this is a strong argument to legalize prostitution to provide legal recourse and protection for anyone in the profession who’s getting forced into the work.
I think this is a strong argument to legalize prostitution to provide legal recourse and protection for anyone in the profession who’s getting forced into the work.
I agree with this statement. Sex work should be legalized, not least of which for protecting everyone involved. However… something to keep in mind is that… hundreds of thousands… is not that large a percentage of men. Even if you assume it’s 900,000 men, the total number of people in the US is 350 million- meaning that 900k is 0.25%. granted, I’m blending men and women- there’s plenty of women who also buy trafficked slaves as well. but if you figure half the people in the use are men, and it’s only men doing it… that’ still…half a percent.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.