Trump has attacked Walz as "very liberal" after he was selected as Harris' running mate, but the former president himself once put the Minnesota governor in a
I’ve yet to see a good political discussion in this sub, all i see is news about red and blue and the names of the candidates well visible on the front page
I’ve yet to see a good political discussion in this sub, all i see is news about red and blue and the names of the candidates well visible on the front page
I don’t follow many of these but the ones i came across had more discussions and less electoral campaign news. Even hexbear has better discussion threads than this sub
I think, not to put words in anyone’s mouth, that this person is looking for Greek or Roman Senate-levels of debate on the philosophies of democracy and an “elevated discourse”. I’d imagine they think all this we’re concerned with (you know, the future of democracy in the U. S.) is pedestrian.
You shout like that, you’re a fascist. Right away. No trial, no nothing. Journalists, we have a special fascism for journalists. You are stealing: fascist. You are playing music too loud: fascist, right away.
Driving too fast: fascist. Slow: fascist. You are charging too high prices for sweaters, glasses: you fascist.
You undercook fish? Believe it or not, fascist. You overcook chicken, also fascist. Undercook, overcook.
You make an appointment with the dentist and you don’t show up, believe it or not, fascist, right away.
We have the best posters in the world because of fascist.
Just poking fun at how everything and everyone is fascist now apparently, which dilutes the term. That’s been a typical right-wing discursive maneuver, but apparently the left is doing the work for them now.
Troubling when there is actual fascism on the rise.
Just poking fun at how everything and everyone is fascist now apparently
Ahem.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] 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.[2][3] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism,[4][5] fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Which of these don’t fit the republican party exactly?
I’m talking about the person saying there should be more policy conversation in this sub being called a fascist for expressing that opinion.
My point is there is actual fascism in right-wing politics, which you are echoing, but calling someone a fascist for expressing an opinion about the content of a sub on Lemmy stretches the term beyond meaning.
So the title of the article posted is: Trump appointed Walz to serve on the Council of Governors in 2019
So just so I’m clear; Trump attacks this guys credibility, but also specifically chose him for to serve on a Council. Then this article is posted. Then, someone says it isn’t politics.
What are the chances, do you think, that this person genuinely believes that isn’t a worthwhile story, versus, are they pro (Trump) and trying to downplay the significance?
Dunno. But just because someone posts a relatively harmless opinion in a comment, calling them a fascist seems outsized. To be clear, I think the article is a perfectly appropriate post for this sub, so I don’t agree with the opinion that this isn’t “politics” or that things like this shouldn’t be posted here. Seems pretty much in the main of what the sub is about.
Nevertheless, you needing to make so many deductions, assumptions, and inferences about someone based on their short and relatively minor comment seems to emphasize my point. All I’m saying is, fascism is real, and it’s on the rise. Calling people fascists for minor things like this really muddies the water unnecessarily about a very dangerous phenomenon.
Incidentally, based on their post history, they a) don’t seem to be in the US, b) support Gaza, c) are generally anti-establishment, anti-corporate, and anti-imperialism, d) seem vaguely anarchistic and suggest reading Kroptkin to others, e) seem to be against Trump as well as the executive in general, and f) also label things fascist often (and pejoratively).
Regardless, I don’t care enough about this to continue chatting about it anymore, but thanks for your input and defense of, what seems to me, an overreaction by the person above to the posted opinion. I don’t doubt your intentions; I think we just disagree about about what merits labeling someone a fascist.
This sub would be better with political topics and discussions and not with politicians ads.
How is this conversation not a political discussion? What makes this an ‘ad’? I’m just curious for your point of view.
Edit: (forgot ‘this’)
Curious.
Does a repost from mass media on red and blue electoral campaign sum up “political discussion” to you?
“Why is everyone discussing the biggest political event, in a political community!”
I’ve yet to see a good political discussion in this sub, all i see is news about red and blue and the names of the candidates well visible on the front page
And yet, you stay. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Feel free to submit better content? I’d be interested. I’ll look forward to what you put up.
What else did you expect from politics, during election season?
Is this the first time you’ve ever been in a political forum?
I don’t follow many of these but the ones i came across had more discussions and less electoral campaign news. Even hexbear has better discussion threads than this sub
That’s cool. Thanks for telling me to block ya
Thank you for admitting you’re a fascist so I know to block you.
Excuse me but how is suggesting that this sub would be better with political discussions instead of ads a fascist admission?
We’re here discussing a recent political development in real time as the media is covering it. I don’t know what else to tell you. 🤷
All i see is news about trump and harris or someone from their party, no real political discussion.
How is hearing news about politicians and discussing it not political discussion?
I think, not to put words in anyone’s mouth, that this person is looking for Greek or Roman Senate-levels of debate on the philosophies of democracy and an “elevated discourse”. I’d imagine they think all this we’re concerned with (you know, the future of democracy in the U. S.) is pedestrian.
Kind of: “iam14andverysmart” material.
I think you’re confusing “politics” and “policy”
Maybe your definition of real political discussion isn’t relevant beyond your own mind ?
You shout like that, you’re a fascist. Right away. No trial, no nothing. Journalists, we have a special fascism for journalists. You are stealing: fascist. You are playing music too loud: fascist, right away.
Driving too fast: fascist. Slow: fascist. You are charging too high prices for sweaters, glasses: you fascist.
You undercook fish? Believe it or not, fascist. You overcook chicken, also fascist. Undercook, overcook.
You make an appointment with the dentist and you don’t show up, believe it or not, fascist, right away.
We have the best posters in the world because of fascist.
Nuh-uh, you are!
NO U! 😊
You okay, son?
It’s from parks and rec (sorta):
https://youtu.be/eiyfwZVAzGw?si=Zlrej1VXYf-7xhp_
Just poking fun at how everything and everyone is fascist now apparently, which dilutes the term. That’s been a typical right-wing discursive maneuver, but apparently the left is doing the work for them now.
Troubling when there is actual fascism on the rise.
Ahem.
Which of these don’t fit the republican party exactly?
I’m talking about the person saying there should be more policy conversation in this sub being called a fascist for expressing that opinion.
My point is there is actual fascism in right-wing politics, which you are echoing, but calling someone a fascist for expressing an opinion about the content of a sub on Lemmy stretches the term beyond meaning.
So the title of the article posted is: Trump appointed Walz to serve on the Council of Governors in 2019
So just so I’m clear; Trump attacks this guys credibility, but also specifically chose him for to serve on a Council. Then this article is posted. Then, someone says it isn’t politics.
What are the chances, do you think, that this person genuinely believes that isn’t a worthwhile story, versus, are they pro (Trump) and trying to downplay the significance?
You can’t be pro Trump and anti-fascist, so…
Dunno. But just because someone posts a relatively harmless opinion in a comment, calling them a fascist seems outsized. To be clear, I think the article is a perfectly appropriate post for this sub, so I don’t agree with the opinion that this isn’t “politics” or that things like this shouldn’t be posted here. Seems pretty much in the main of what the sub is about.
Nevertheless, you needing to make so many deductions, assumptions, and inferences about someone based on their short and relatively minor comment seems to emphasize my point. All I’m saying is, fascism is real, and it’s on the rise. Calling people fascists for minor things like this really muddies the water unnecessarily about a very dangerous phenomenon.
Incidentally, based on their post history, they a) don’t seem to be in the US, b) support Gaza, c) are generally anti-establishment, anti-corporate, and anti-imperialism, d) seem vaguely anarchistic and suggest reading Kroptkin to others, e) seem to be against Trump as well as the executive in general, and f) also label things fascist often (and pejoratively).
Regardless, I don’t care enough about this to continue chatting about it anymore, but thanks for your input and defense of, what seems to me, an overreaction by the person above to the posted opinion. I don’t doubt your intentions; I think we just disagree about about what merits labeling someone a fascist.