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
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.
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.