666
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
666 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18904 readers
3563 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
my most favorite game when i find a conservative is to ask them point blank:
and they squiiiiiiirm
I like asking to play a game of who can list more politically-motivated homicides for each ideology and conservatives strangely never want to play.
Let's be real. No one wants to play that game.
I would answer anti-fascist, but if someone asked me "Are you communist or anti-communist? Pick one" I would answer "neither"
You could pick either. There's no problem with having communist ideologies or being for capitalism.
There is a problem with fascism, it's not comparable to communism. A closer example would be asking someone if they are a racist or not.
We should be taking a hard line at certain ideologies and anyone that hesitate is suspect imo.
Racist or anti-racist, really. Many people can answer "I'm not racist, but...(insert racist statement)"
I'm not racist, but sourdough is the best bread for a grilled cheese.
Ah, so you just have ill will toward the French!
I'm not racist, but have you tried substituting mayonnaise instead of butter on your grilled cheese sandwiches? It levels then up nicely.
I'm not racist, but I prefer Formula1 over NASCAR.
The point is that "neither" indicates someone who does not agree with an ideology but also does not see it as a threat.
You are of course free to treat that person accordingly.
Compulsory alliance is sort of a core feature of fascism so you really must be either fascist or anti-fascist.
If fascist government is in power, it will creat a system in which non-partisan participation furthers and advances the fascist state, so one cannot “opt out”. Since a fascist system won’t entertain neutral, the question “Are you fascist or anti-fascist? You can only pick one.” Is not inherently disingenuous.
Communism does not force people into supporting it, there “neither” is an acceptable answer to “Are you communist or anti-communist” in a way that cannot be applied to fascism.
Well, Communism doesn’t force participation as long as you don’t ask the tankiis, but fuck the tankies.
I saw a post recently - pretty sure it was in nottheonion - of a screencap of a Fox News segment, where they were interviewing someone that the caption described as an “anti-anti-fascist”.
Though to be fair, Fox News viewers aren’t likely to put two and two together. Or, for that matter, realize that an anti-anti-fascist is just a fascist.
I got it right here, old bean.
Eh that's like asking "Are you Pro Israel or Pro Hamas, you only get to pick one"
It's really not, though. I am anti-Hamas and anti-Israeli government. I am pro-civilian - a group comprised mostly of Palestinians and Israelis in your thought experiment.
You see, neither Hamas nor the Israeli government have their people's interest in mind. However, you can't really cherry pick aspects of Fascism and anti-Fascism and say, "sEe? BoTh SiDeS!"
Nope. Israeli citizens are not all bombing Palestinians, and Palestinians are not all Hamas.
If the question is whether you're pro/neutral/anti fascism, I think being anti-fascist is the only reasonable answer personally.
While I've seen many binary choice questions that are loaded questions, I think the above is a good example. A follow up (or two) if the person balks at the question itself is the following:
Do you know what fascism is and how to spot it?
Do you think antifa is a single entity and not a general ideology?
If it's an entity, can you name or even lookup it's leadership?
Do you believe everyone who espouses an anti fascist value system is a member of that org?
Good binary questions can help guide a discussion and expose biases and misunderstandings held by each side in the discussion. Seemingly paradoxically, nailing down specific stances using those types of questions, you can explore the nuance of certain positions.
Ex: on abortion
Question 1 may just be a way to reframe the stances from "pro-life" / "anti-life"
Q2 helps bring the reality of what enforcement of that person's stance may entail.
Q3 shows that big companies go unpunished for the same (or worse) violations of restrictive abortion laws and other laws that are used to punish women who miscarry.
Q4 helps bring focus on the fact that anti-abortion laws that are currently being passed and enforced are written so poorly that they are forcing doctors (through threat of imprisonment) to deny what would be routine procedures which would otherwise prevent suffering and permanent injury to women.
Just an anecdote about this: I once asked a pro-lifer question 4a and their response was that there's no such thing as an ectopic pregnancy (said it was made up nonsense/propaganda) 🤷
At that point I stopped viewing them as a rational being... Forever (I still know them). Now when I think about them... "were they like this from birth or did some combination of events lead to this insanity?" And sometimes even, "should they be committed? There is definitely something wrong with this person."
Then I remember that a great many humans have been like this for thousands of years. Rational thought and critical thinking are probably the outliers in our evolution and maybe rather than trying to somehow teach everyone how to research things and examine evidence properly we should instead focus on taking away sources of misinformation (by force, if necessary).
I'm in favor of the corporate death penalty for any media company that is caught intentionally lying or misleading their audience. For example, the day Fox News admitted under oath that they intentionally lied to and misled their audience should have resulted in that entire organization being shuttered forever.
"But that would eventually take down many news organizations!" To that I say, "yep." Let new ones into the market that can keep their shit together and tell the truth.
These are all excellent questions to lead into a good discussion. Assuming you have someone who is open to approaching in good faith and who trusts you to do the same. I have a friend who I try to have similar dialogs with.
I don't suppose you have looked at street epistemology. Sort of the same vibe of exploring beliefs in a less/not confrontational way.
yeah if i was sitting in gaza. which were not.
i dont think its crazy to expect the electorate to know the definition of fascism. its also a bit hyperbolic to compare full on genocide with electing a fascist.
Did you fall asleep in history class or something? How do you think genocides happen?
No it's not the same. A better equivalent would be are you racist or anti-racist. Are you pro or anti rape. Are you pro or anti slavery.
Facism is defined as a violently oppressive form of government. It shouldn't be a hard question if you're not a piece of shit
They were always racists. They just decided it was okay to admit it.
“Whoopsie I got caught guess I’ll quit hiding it.”
BLM is a specific organization. Fascism is an ideology. It's more like saying if you're not for civil rights you're a racist.
But really, you're spending a lot of time and energy trying to explain why you're, at best, neutral on fascism.
If they pick fascist 'to spite' me they're very clearly in that camp. Not because the question was asked but because of their intent in answering.
"they were forced" lmao what a gaggle of shit
Tbf, particular nations elect fascists, said nations commit genocide.
the two are not logically exclusive. a correct comparison is
"are you Pro-Isreal, or Anti-Israel" and "are you Pro-Hamas or Anti-Hamas".
Worst made up genocidal criminal thieving country