It’s the horseshoe theory of politics. Both far ends of the spectrum have more in common with each other (being basically fascists) than they really have differences (different core issues they rally their fascism around).
Both only really look at the other’s extreme, and see fascism, but aren’t self aware enough to see their own. Or they dismiss their own as only the extremists, not realizing how this may apply to the other side.
I was really just doing a horseshoe theory bit. I’m willing to accept the downvotes since I didn’t feel like stating my personal thoughts on the current political situation added to the intent of that comment.
Edit: thanks for editing your comment after I replied. Though maybe it was just a delay in federating the edit. The only bit of “both sides” that I’ll say is that some people on both sides have attempted to silence nonviolent opinions. This really isn’t saying much, considering that in any large discourse some idiots will always do this on every side. One side is actually banning books and trying to rewrite history in blatantly false ways.
Well, thanks for owning up, but you know there are ppl who’ll read that and go “yeah those goddamn fascist lefties” without a second thought. Please don’t reinforce that.
As for violence… I think it’s worth considering when it would be justified, or even necessary as self-defense. As you say, one side is clearly the aggressor here.
I understand where you’re coming from on the first part, but I’m not sure how I feel about silencing anything that’s true as a strategy in… Anything. I get how it helps, and I’m not saying I don’t keep quiet on little things throughout life, but ideally I’d like to live in a world where wrongs are always acknowledged. The problem is getting people to understand the relative prevalence and weights of those wrongs in reality.
I struggle with my opinion on violent action all the time. A lot of the time I see nonviolent protest as increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. But I also worry about what society will be if we accept various levels of violence. I know it’s a slippery slope argument, but justifying anything can honestly be really easy, and any line we draw can be argued to be arbitrary. Currently I think rhetoric that’s inciting violence is something I’ll generally frown upon, and I lean towards accepting that that’s outside of a societally good right to free speech.
It’s the horseshoe theory of politics. Both far ends of the spectrum have more in common with each other (being basically fascists) than they really have differences (different core issues they rally their fascism around).
Both only really look at the other’s extreme, and see fascism, but aren’t self aware enough to see their own. Or they dismiss their own as only the extremists, not realizing how this may apply to the other side.
Being fascist on the right is not extreme. Look at the laws they’re passing. That is absolutely not the case for the left.
Far from not knowing what fascism means, I suspect you don’t even know what left/right means. Unless you’re just doing a horseshoe theory bit.
This could be fun though.
Please compare and contrast the distinguishing features of “left fascism” vs “right fascism.”
I was really just doing a horseshoe theory bit. I’m willing to accept the downvotes since I didn’t feel like stating my personal thoughts on the current political situation added to the intent of that comment.
Edit: thanks for editing your comment after I replied. Though maybe it was just a delay in federating the edit. The only bit of “both sides” that I’ll say is that some people on both sides have attempted to silence nonviolent opinions. This really isn’t saying much, considering that in any large discourse some idiots will always do this on every side. One side is actually banning books and trying to rewrite history in blatantly false ways.
Well, thanks for owning up, but you know there are ppl who’ll read that and go “yeah those goddamn fascist lefties” without a second thought. Please don’t reinforce that.
As for violence… I think it’s worth considering when it would be justified, or even necessary as self-defense. As you say, one side is clearly the aggressor here.
I understand where you’re coming from on the first part, but I’m not sure how I feel about silencing anything that’s true as a strategy in… Anything. I get how it helps, and I’m not saying I don’t keep quiet on little things throughout life, but ideally I’d like to live in a world where wrongs are always acknowledged. The problem is getting people to understand the relative prevalence and weights of those wrongs in reality.
I struggle with my opinion on violent action all the time. A lot of the time I see nonviolent protest as increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. But I also worry about what society will be if we accept various levels of violence. I know it’s a slippery slope argument, but justifying anything can honestly be really easy, and any line we draw can be argued to be arbitrary. Currently I think rhetoric that’s inciting violence is something I’ll generally frown upon, and I lean towards accepting that that’s outside of a societally good right to free speech.