Oh yes you “can!” Just you try voting third party (i.e not actually supporting the republicans) and telling anyone about it, dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither, and somehow simultaneously supported both from the POV of the “you have to do what I want” people.
dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither
The fundamental core of the GOP strategy is to disenfranchise voters. When you vote for a hopeless third-party candidate you are disenfranchising yourself - i.e. doing the GOP’s work for them.
Aren’t people tired of voting for a party because they dislike the other one though? You’re disenfranchising yourself by doing that. I just want to vote for a party because I actually like them.
Voting 3rd party is only a worthwhile attempt if you were planning on voting Republican. If you are even slightly leaning towards voting Democrat, then removing that possible vote for Democrats would only empower the Republicans.
It’s mathematically impossible for a third party to win because they split the vote with whichever of the major parties they are most like. Since this is so you are in effect voting for whomever they are most unalike. EG greens are voting for Republicans Libertarians might as well be voting for Democrats.
You would do better to stand better folks in the primary of the party that is closest to the third party or move for something like approval voting that would make it possible to vote for them in good conscience instead of pretending like you don’t know how our electoral system works.
Voting for a third party is a vote for apathy. No matter which side you lean towards voting for a third party shows that you don’t actually care about the outcome. It feels nice, and I’m sure you proudly proclaim that you’re the only one trying to do anything, but it’s a vote for apathy.
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.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism. However, I’ve heard plenty on the left say they support communism. Also, the right has plenty of problems to draw upon without acting like the crazy fringe is the norm. This twitter post is insane and really not a convincing argument.
Go ahead and downvote because you don’t like hearing it all you want, but you know it’s true.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism. However, I’ve heard plenty on the left say they support communism
Cool whataboutism, but the two aren’t remotely comparable. Fascism is an ideology of violence. Communism, as described by Marx, is an ideology of common ownership, lack of social classes, and the obsoletion of currency.
The tiki torch “Jews will not replace us” crowd was very fine people on both sides according to him.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., declared in an interview that “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”
There’s Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”
Return to tradition. Reject modernism. Elevate irrationalism (denial of science). Disagreement is treason (or ‘grooming’, the new way of saying indoctrination, but a blanket condemnation of indoctrination is self incriminating for Christian nationalists). Demagougery, exploit fear of difference, tear down diversity. Attacks on immigrants to elevate ‘patriots’ (read white nationalists). Veneration of authoritarian leaders. Hyperfixation on chauvinism (Proudboys) conquest and war iconography. Selective populism, double speak where moms for liberty means book burning and parental rights means don’t challenge my bigotry by teaching acceptance. Goes on and on.
They wont outright say fascism is good right away. It dogwhistles and doublespeak until they hold enough power.
Communism ≠ Fascism. I’m terribly sorry that every single “Communist State” literally couldn’t be a communist state any more than The Congo and North Korea are Democratic Republics. Just because someone calls themselves something doesn’t make them a member of that ideology.
Communism at it’s core requires a dissolution of both The State (The federal government,) and an abolition of currency. The closest you’ll find to any society like this would be the aboriginal societies in Siberia, Australia, North and South America, and Africa.
Fun fact: The Native Siberian reigndeer hunting tribes were so communistic that Russia/The USSR under both The Czar, and Lenin and Stalin didn’t have any clue how to deal with them, so much like Mao, they disrupted their way of life and caused some pretty massive famines.
No so called “Communist” country has been anything more than a right wing authoritarian dictatorship which is about as far from communism as you could possibly get.
Before you propagandized capitalists come at me,: “Democracy doesn’t work because The People’s Democratic Republic of The Congo, and The Democratic Republic of North Korea are nothing but authoritarian fascist dictatorships, so all attempts at democracy, much like The US under Wilson, Trump, Harding and Coolidge, will automatically fall into authoritarian fascist regimes.”
You can’t support the right without supporting their fascism, regardless of how you try to qualify it
That’s not what he said…
Oh yes you “can!” Just you try voting third party (i.e not actually supporting the republicans) and telling anyone about it, dems will say you supported the right, reps will say you supported the left, all the while you supported neither, and somehow simultaneously supported both from the POV of the “you have to do what I want” people.
Edit: See?
The fundamental core of the GOP strategy is to disenfranchise voters. When you vote for a hopeless third-party candidate you are disenfranchising yourself - i.e. doing the GOP’s work for them.
deleted by creator
Aren’t people tired of voting for a party because they dislike the other one though? You’re disenfranchising yourself by doing that. I just want to vote for a party because I actually like them.
Voting 3rd party is only a worthwhile attempt if you were planning on voting Republican. If you are even slightly leaning towards voting Democrat, then removing that possible vote for Democrats would only empower the Republicans.
So only vote third party if it helps the Democrats? That’s what you’re saying?
I’m not the other guy but that does seem like the optimal strategy
Haha, okay.
It’s mathematically impossible for a third party to win because they split the vote with whichever of the major parties they are most like. Since this is so you are in effect voting for whomever they are most unalike. EG greens are voting for Republicans Libertarians might as well be voting for Democrats.
You would do better to stand better folks in the primary of the party that is closest to the third party or move for something like approval voting that would make it possible to vote for them in good conscience instead of pretending like you don’t know how our electoral system works.
Voting for a third party is a vote for apathy. No matter which side you lean towards voting for a third party shows that you don’t actually care about the outcome. It feels nice, and I’m sure you proudly proclaim that you’re the only one trying to do anything, but it’s a vote for apathy.
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.
90 million people or whatever they claimed the outrageous number was voted with their emotions in 2020.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone from the right say they support fascism. However, I’ve heard plenty on the left say they support communism. Also, the right has plenty of problems to draw upon without acting like the crazy fringe is the norm. This twitter post is insane and really not a convincing argument.
Go ahead and downvote because you don’t like hearing it all you want, but you know it’s true.
I have.
Can you show me?
The people I’ve met in real life? That would be a little tricky. But I’ve met actual open fascists.
And there’s also people who support fascist policy, but don’t say fascism; they are still supporters of fascism.
Cool whataboutism, but the two aren’t remotely comparable. Fascism is an ideology of violence. Communism, as described by Marx, is an ideology of common ownership, lack of social classes, and the obsoletion of currency.
Both sides are not the same.
They don’t have to say it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Nah its patently false. Christian nationalism is business as usual on the right now and thats just American fascism.
America first? Fascism. MAGA is the same, look at Trumps veterans day speech
The tiki torch “Jews will not replace us” crowd was very fine people on both sides according to him.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., declared in an interview that “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”
There’s Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”
They legislate against civil liberties then call anyone who opposes their attacks ‘groomers’
Return to tradition. Reject modernism. Elevate irrationalism (denial of science). Disagreement is treason (or ‘grooming’, the new way of saying indoctrination, but a blanket condemnation of indoctrination is self incriminating for Christian nationalists). Demagougery, exploit fear of difference, tear down diversity. Attacks on immigrants to elevate ‘patriots’ (read white nationalists). Veneration of authoritarian leaders. Hyperfixation on chauvinism (Proudboys) conquest and war iconography. Selective populism, double speak where moms for liberty means book burning and parental rights means don’t challenge my bigotry by teaching acceptance. Goes on and on.
They wont outright say fascism is good right away. It dogwhistles and doublespeak until they hold enough power.
Communism ≠ Fascism. I’m terribly sorry that every single “Communist State” literally couldn’t be a communist state any more than The Congo and North Korea are Democratic Republics. Just because someone calls themselves something doesn’t make them a member of that ideology.
Communism at it’s core requires a dissolution of both The State (The federal government,) and an abolition of currency. The closest you’ll find to any society like this would be the aboriginal societies in Siberia, Australia, North and South America, and Africa.
Fun fact: The Native Siberian reigndeer hunting tribes were so communistic that Russia/The USSR under both The Czar, and Lenin and Stalin didn’t have any clue how to deal with them, so much like Mao, they disrupted their way of life and caused some pretty massive famines.
No so called “Communist” country has been anything more than a right wing authoritarian dictatorship which is about as far from communism as you could possibly get.
Before you propagandized capitalists come at me,: “Democracy doesn’t work because The People’s Democratic Republic of The Congo, and The Democratic Republic of North Korea are nothing but authoritarian fascist dictatorships, so all attempts at democracy, much like The US under Wilson, Trump, Harding and Coolidge, will automatically fall into authoritarian fascist regimes.”