Anonymous #1 4w

Nazis need formal reeducation

24

Anonymous #1 4w

no, forcibly removing Nazis and confederates from society and reeducating them out of those violently prejudiced ideologies is the only way forward. go research the paradox of tolerance, and reflect on your bullshit while doing so; also the “monkey” comment?

34

Anonymous #3 4w

The monkey comment was used to show I’m speaking in general, not to an irrelevant crowd.

-8

Anonymous #1 4w

Are you trying to say Nazis are irrelevant as they’re consolidating power along with their confederate allies? relying solely on the concept of civility, without any advocacy for genuine justice, is sheer complicity at best. At worst it’s malicious sympathizing for the fascist regime.

12

Might as well try 🤷‍♂️

-3

Anonymous #1 4w

There are people who make it their life’s work to de-radicalize white supremacists. And those people are commendable, but their work is entirely too difficult and time intensive to expect EVERYONE to do it. That process takes months if not years. I’m not hanging around a Nazi long enough to do that shit, and neither are most people, and that’s fine.

17

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Exactly. Even when reeducation is a thing it’s less about trying to change their minds as it is getting them to comply. In a just society a fascist has 4 options, 1) abandon their ideology and actually reform (unlikely), 2) publicly disavow their ideology and be so afraid so as to never act on it (more likely), 3) prison, 4) death

9

Anonymous #7 4w

you can’t hide fascism behind this rhetoric, just so you know. there’s a difference between good faith debates, and weaponizing the concept of debates in order to propagate violent ideologies.

32

Anonymous #7 4w

Because there’s a line between debating them, which is a good faith exchange of different ideas, and dunking on them. Dunking is more fun and more productive when the opponent is a dishonest interlocutor lmao

8

Anonymous #3 4w

Dude not everything in politics is white and black. All because people disagree with you doesnt mean they’re maga, fascist, or a Nazi

7

Anonymous #8 4w

the post is literally about not debating a Nazi, you absolute imbecile.

6

Anonymous #3 4w

like you have a brain, you should use it, PLEASE.

6

Anonymous #3 4w

I can see that. But it stems from a different post that started the conversation. Use your brain you imbecile

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Also the comment you replied to did not mention anything about Nazis or fascists

0

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

When a position is reasonable but flawed, you debate it. When a position is unreasonable, you dunk on it. When I went to a TPUSA speaking engagement at my school on “cancel culture” I debated the speaker by asking him reasonable good faith questions like “What’s the difference between ‘cancel culture’ and regular old ‘controversy’ that makes the former so much worse?” If I see someone parroting Nick Fuentes, I’m just calling them a fuckin dork. Because shame works better on them than reason does

12

Anonymous #8 4w

I’m glad you included MAGA in that list of dishonest ideologies alongside fascism and Nazism lmao, good on you. Now, if you still voted for Donald Trump knowing that he’s comparable to fascists in his rhetoric, I still can’t respect you at all unless you’ve disavowed that shit entirely and plan on voting the other way next time in atonement.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

I voted for Kamala. Like I said, politics is not black and white. All because someone disagrees with you does not mean they’re maga, fascist, or a Nazi.

0

Anonymous #8 4w

except when someone consistently support outwardly fascist policies, that does indeed make them a fascist, or a sympathizer at the bare minimum. Don’t think that voting for Harris* absolves you from that, as let’s not forget how the DNC is also vocally pro-genocide. or is that why you dislike these types of conversations?

14

Anonymous #8 4w

Okay, but you see how rendering support to any of those movements, even if you don’t call yourself a part of them, is still reprehensible? Von Hindenburg wasn’t a Nazi, Von Hindenburg also absolutely bears blame for the Nazis.

18

Anonymous ___joker__ 4w

And yet liberals still think they are rational people to debate

18

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Of the many people who bear blame for Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, there are plenty of non-Nazis. Same in Italy with Mussolini, there’s plenty of people who weren’t fascists but enabled fascists. Namely, the “moderate conservative” factions which formed coalitions with the fascists. I.e. “Moderate Republicans” who still vote for people like Donald Trump, Mark Robinson in NC, MTG before she had her come to Jesus moment and quit, etc.

9

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

You don’t have to render support for any of them. The thing is you guys assume so much about a person over one topic. That’s the problem with so many of yalls conversations. It’s evident in our conversation here. Even if someone’s not supporting Trump or his administration, if they simply agree with a certain move regardless of the rest of their beliefs you guys are quick to assuming the worst. Maybe not you guys individually, but I see it a lot on this app and in politics in general.

-2

Anonymous #8 4w

“If they simply agree with a certain move” I hate mealy-mouthed shit like this SO MUCH, be specific. I hate the whole “I’m being targeted for my conservative beliefs!” with zero explanation of which conservative beliefs are getting you targeted. Nobody’s calling anyone MAGA for supporting some niche policy Trump’s administration does that’s actually reasonable, and Trump himself doesn’t ever talk about his decent ideas. He talks about the stupid shit his little Blackshirts love.

9

Anonymous #8 4w

I mean if they enable fascism that’s a bad look bro

16

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

For instance, I agree with the moves we made on Venezuela. I also agree with deporting violent criminals that are here illegally or legally. I agree with strong border control, we’ve had many cartel drones fly over the border lately. But these statements I’m sure make you automatically think I agree with the illegal and tyrannical actions of ICE, when I don’t. It’s just things like that, you get what I mean?

-4

Anonymous #8 4w

No, I don’t think you support the actions of ICE, but I do think you’re laundering their image by parroting their exact lines of defense, practically verbatim, that they trot out when people talk about their illegal actions. You’re doing “I’m not saying Mussolini is a good leader, or that I support him, but it would be nice if the trains were more punctual and I think these Partisans need to be more nuanced”

18

Anonymous #8 4w

because they’re fucking dogwhistles you sack of shit. they’re not deporting violent criminals, they’re targeting everyone who isn’t white, as well as everyone who vocally opposes the regime. Hence why they’re criminalizing asylum, while expanding immigration pathways for Europeans and white South Africans specifically.

19

Anonymous #8 4w

it’s sheer white supremacy, and only advocating for “part of it” is still advocating for white supremacy…

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

I’m definitely not laundering their image, one message on an app doesn’t properly portray the whole picture of myself for you. For many administration, deportation has been done correctly and with the right people. Not this one. ICE says they go after the worst of the worst but it’s evident they don’t. I’ve even watched an interview with an ICE agent that reported they just grab whoever is convenient. This is the word I spread about their actions. Not what you assumed from my 200 character cmnt

-1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 4w

Policy is worth debating. Can’t convince others they’re wrong if you can’t dictate what their positions are.

-2

Anonymous #3 4w

I think if a white person comes to our country and only contributes evil they should be deported.

0

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

Reverse-fascism to combat fascism? I guess everything is acceptable when you raise the stakes to life or death. I agree that you can’t talk most people out of their beliefs, but it’s wrong to suggest they don’t think deeply. People like Goebbels, Himmler etc. certainly thought deeply. You can go watch some of the Nazis speak at their trials. The issue was that they chose an innocent enemy and made the stakes out to be life or death.

-2

Anonymous #8 4w

It is in fact laundering the image of the fascist to play devil’s advocate with antifascists by pointing out that the false promises of the fascist do in fact sound good. Full stop. Not to mention your full-throated endorsement of imperialist actions on countries we happen to disagree with, which is kinda just Fascism 101 stuff like that’s a CRAZY pick for “but sometimes the fascist does an okay thing”

12

Anonymous #9 4w

“Goebbels, Himmler, etc. thought deeply, go watch the trials” you literally listed two guys who killed themselves specifically because they knew how fucked they were after their extremely poorly thought-out plan for domination of Europe

10

Anonymous #9 4w

Also, fascism isn’t simply being a Nazi. It’s much more about what you’re willing to do to make people conform to your ideology, regardless of how right it is.

-2

Anonymous #8 4w

imo you’re avoiding the point. they’re using dogwhistles of “open border”, “violent criminals”, etc, in order to play on people’s emotions, to spread an underlying goal of white supremacy. that’s why I mentioned the expanded immigration for Europeans and white South Africans. fuck there’s even a quota to immigrate a minimum number of white South Africans per month now.

6

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

In my eyes it’s more of economics and the value of the $. The moves we make on the rest of the world are genuinely what made our country so developed. I think it’s coming to bite us in our ass though. Give it a decade or two and our dollars are going to flood back into our country and inflation is going to hit a level we haven’t seen before. It could fit a fascist ideology and I get that but again not everything is black and white. I’m just self interested, just like the rest of the -

1

Anonymous #8 4w

International community

1

Anonymous #9 4w

That’s objectively untrue, you just defined the word authoritarianism. Fascism is a very specific type of authoritarianism that has many more requirements than “gobermint stronk”

6

Anonymous #3 4w

Oh no I completely understand that. Trump and his admin use a lot of bullshit words to cover up their agenda. I don’t think there was an open border during the Biden admin, I think there were just security flaws that happened to exist. Trump claims record breaking lows but I know that’s still not there. All because his admin uses the word doesn’t mean I believe they’re going to do anything about it. They’re just concepts that I can agree with, but it doesn’t make me support them because I know -

1

Anonymous #8 4w

It’s not a real promise. It’s just to get votes

1

Anonymous #8 4w

you realize self-interest is exactly what allows fascism to thrive, right? when people are more self-centered than they are community-centered, they’re less likely to fight back against the rise of fascism in any instance. I’m sorry but imo this just contributes to the sympathizer argument. we don’t dismiss the average German citizen during the rise of the third Reich, we rightfully classify them as either Nazis, sympathizers, or victims.

15

Anonymous #3 4w

additionally, many historians even argued that the third Reich could’ve been prevented if enough German citizens rose up in resistance during the initial years of their consolidation of power. That is an equivalent of what we’re in. This is the power consolidation phase. what do you think comes next, once all power is consolidated to the executive branch?

7

Anonymous #9 4w

Authoritarianism is the degree to which a governing body is willing to use violence and coercion to achieve their goals. Fascism is a system with a high degree of authoritarianism in pursuit of a particular set of goals, primarily related to the idea of a nationalistic rebirth fostered by mass militarization, and a return to a mythic past. Not all authoritarians are fascists, all fascists are authoritarians.

7

Anonymous #3 4w

(For clarity, I do not think this is a continuation of the third Reich, but more accurately a continuation of our confederacy from back in the day. I do think that there are apt comparisons in how authoritarians consolidate power though)

5

Anonymous #3 4w

Every country & player on the international board is self interested. China, Japan, the US, Russia, Mexico, Iran, Israel, Egypt, UAE, all of them are self interested. It doesn’t make those countries fascists. Denmark wants to protect Greenland because they benefit from Greenland and they’re self interested, it doesn’t make them fascists.

-2

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

So when you call people fascist, what are you saying then? Yes they knew how fucked they were because they knew their actions were not generally accepted. What does that have to do with thinking deeply? Not dominating Europe doesn’t mean they didn’t think deeply. They were evil people that likely thought deeply. It’s like saying Wernher von Braun didn’t think deeply because he worked for the Nazis.

1

Anonymous #8 4w

I’m specifically talking about you. I wasn’t talking about nation states. most nations are imperialist, similar to us, but most nations cannot compare to our level of imperialism on the world stage. if our nation specifically is consolidated to a fully authoritarian regime, it will have global consequences. we have military bases in nearly every single country, for instance.

9

Anonymous #8 4w

Abiding by Realpolitik is not fascism, but a desire for expansion even when it’s detrimental to one’s own state interests is a HALLMARK of fascism. Funny you mention Greenland, the subject of an expansionist itch in the President’s brain which was a massive blunder and did nothing but hurt American standing internationally.

6

Anonymous #3 4w

I agree with you. In all honesty, I think some of the people behind the Nazi regime are behind the structure we have here in the US. Nazi intelligence officers were hired into the early days of the CIA.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Oh yes 100% agree. This admin is preparing for a huge global conflict.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

this doesn’t even take into account how we already are authoritarian in many aspect on the global stage, but we hide it under a thin veil of “liberal democracy” if we do not prevent this consolidation of power, and try to deconstruct our imperial empire, we will have global consequences for decades to come; at least until there is a material organized resistance to fight it. most people do not recognize the true severity of this situation.

6

Anonymous #8 4w

I’d argue we were partially “behind” the Nazi regime in that we were a primary inspiration for the third Reich, but I do see what you mean. Our decision, like some other nations, to hire Nazi scientists rather than prosecute them, partially contributed to what is happening today imo. Hell, NASA was partially founded by a fucking Nazi.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Yup! We’re doomed for incredible inflation in the coming decades. The rest of the world is tired of the US & how we enforce our wealth. BRICS is building a whole new financial system, the USD dominance on global economics is slipping. World economic forum discussed this & said the world is soon to see more valuable currencies that can combat our money.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

I’m not challenging your definitions, but where did you get them from? I’d like to read more into them

1

Anonymous #8 4w

but this isn’t limited to the US, that’s the thing. The world is seeing a fascist movement internationally, in many countries. Japan and Italy for instance also had major fascist gains in recent years. US imperialism has to go, but we also have to combat the rise of fascism and revitalization of white supremacy; otherwise we end up right back where we are (if not even worse) imo the only way out of this, as far as I can tell, is an international continued worker revolution

4

Anonymous #9 4w

Fascism is a specific set of ideologies that include specific policies, methods, and which support certain worldviews. Literally just regurgitating what I learned in class

12

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

There are also closely related ideologies which have great overlap bc every ideology exists with one another and they share ideas and/or act in similar ways. Many ideologies are connected have histories and you can trace their lineage to where they grew from. Like a big tree

5

Anonymous #9 4w

Ur-Fascism (aka Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt) by Umberto Eco, an Italian political theorist who lived through the rise and fall of Italian fascism, compared it to Nazism and other contemporary fascist states, and derived a set of points that these fascist movements had in common despite their regional and cultural differences due to fascism’s nationalistic nature, which has become the accepted definition of the term.

8

Anonymous #3 4w

Yeah I think it’s becoming clear that the real power lies in the winners of capitalism in the west & not the governments. People like Larry Fink are extremely influential. These guys are going to do anything to safeguard their wealth.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

So fascists use authoritarian means to get back to some ideal past? I don’t exactly see where your correction comes in then. That definition is obviously the premise of MAGA, but your last comment also had all the trimmings of fascism.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

I guess I was describing authoritarianism in my comment, but I was describing individual tendencies. Even if you don’t have some mythic past in mind, would fighting for a mythic future not constitute fascism? The definitions I see online seem to say yes. I see the downvote battalion coming in to correct my views.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Well fascism isn’t stopping white supremacists from being allowed to just do whatever they want. I’ll tell you that much lmao.

7

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

That’s correct But it depends who’s in power, no? I’d like to hear cheese’s thoughts, but I’m so sure that a nation is required for fascist policy. I mean, is the group identity not more important than having to have a specific nation be the object of fascism?

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Huh? I was just saying it doesn’t make someone fascist for stopping white supremacists from doing as they please. That’s what I meant.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

*not sure

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

It depends how they stop the white supremacists though. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but they can certainly be fascist when stopping white supremacists.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Fascism plays on the group identity of the nation, absolutely. All authoritarian tendencies play on some form of group identity, theocracy plays on faith, Marxist-Leninism plays on class, fascism plays on nationality. Nationalism is key to the definition of fascism because if the authoritarian ideology is playing on something other than nationalism, then it is simply a different authoritarian ideology.

6

Anonymous #9 4w

The stuff in your earlier comment was definitely authoritarian, though not strictly fascist.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

I mean anything can be authoritarian. I’m not denying that it flies in the face of freedom of speech, but I don’t think fascists deserve that.

3

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

At least, not for their fascist ideas. If they wanna talk about ice cream flavor preferences, cool

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

That makes sense. The issue with fascism is it’s become a proxy for all those other authoritarian ideologies, and arguments can be shut down with semantics. Nationalism isn’t fascism, and neither is authoritarianism, but they’re all put in the same camp rhetorically.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

The thing is, are you talking about fascists by strict definition here? Or nationalists? Or authoritarians? It’s easy to lump them all since they’re all anti-leftist. I say stopping them is fascism in that the measures you suggested require heavy policing and aspire to an ideal nation where those people are forced to shut up, jailed, or killed.

0

Anonymous #9 4w

Yeah I can actually agree with the fact that people throw around fascism a little more loosely than they should sometimes. Nationalism also isn’t inherently fascistic, I hate when my fellow leftists conflate the two, the nationalism of the colonized, which manifests as desire for independence, is a completely different thing than the nationalism of the empire which manifests as desire for imperial domination, for example.

8

Anonymous #9 4w

is that why most of us advocated for reeducation? sounds like you just want to argue semantics in order to subliminally defend fascists. Gaia didn’t advocate to kill fascists, even though that would inherently be self-defense as the people we’re describing as fascist are advocating for the stripping of the rights of others based off their immutable traits. most of us recognize that one’s affiliations with that type of violent ideology is commonly a result of a lack of education and an

6

Anonymous #3 4w

overwhelming amount of conditioning.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Authoritarianism also isn’t universally wrong, or universally fascistic, when Josip Tito cracked down on the Axis-backed Ustase Regime and their supporters in Yugoslavia after WWII, that was absolutely authoritarian. It was also 100% correct for him to do in that historical moment. Might feel icky to say that, but when the other option is “pro-fascist rebellion against your newly formed government” it’s the only choice.

9

Anonymous #9 4w

Well I mean, reeducation includes more than just fascists. But they are the ones that definitely need to be targeted. They are every bad thing, to me, wrapped in one. If you’re trying to pin me down as some sort of communist though, I’m not one. Different leftist ideology. I think most people that harbor bad beliefs can simply be manipulated by incentives, as people are today with leftist beliefs. Yknow, how voicing certain opinions may not get you jailed but you lose opportunities

3

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

And the rest can be fixed with education policies from childhood. But fully fledged fascists should absolutely be targeted. And people on the pipeline should be guided through reform and incentivization

5

Anonymous #3 4w

Bingo, too

5

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

That’s fair. I just can’t see it as more than a slippery slope. It seems like it’s hate and anger guiding the selection processes, and that usually means there’s no logical end to who’s classified as what. This is especially true when the classifications are based on belief.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Exactly. Protecting the new society is required. There are outside forces that wish to take seeds of capitalism and fascism to weaponize them against the regime. A leftist regime doesn’t exist in a vacuum it is fighting for its life against groups which view its existence as a threat to their order

6

Anonymous #3 4w

Please be serious

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Hate and anger are vague things. Policy targets specific things. If this were a policy it would target specific groups and behaviors not be a simple free for all. Nothing is guaranteed though. When you trim the fat you may nick the meat.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m also not subliminally doing anything. I just don’t like the grouping of “good people” vs “fascists”. You’re justifying killing just like gaia did, because you feel that you’re right beyond any reasonable doubt. That is always how it goes. The justified retaliation is completely contingent on the fact that you’re correct about their intentions, and you’re correct about who has those intentions.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

I don’t care specifically about the killing aspect, I’m saying don’t be shy about feeling like you want the opposition killed. I understand that not everyone can be talked to, but that is the same argument that everyone that wants to kill uses. There are lots of people that want to see everything burn down because it’s fun, and they can be seen as moral just cause they feel the right things.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

Well, the policy would be at least partly guided by the hate and anger right? Talk about “nicking the meat” is pragmatic, but a very cold thing to say. Who is the “meat” that is worth sacrificing to the altar of correctness? I think that if you can’t understand why someone believes what they do, you aren’t trying hard enough

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Josip Tito is also just cool as fuck. Like man, what a guy. Dude governed like 6 ethnic groups who all fucking hate each other, leveraging the fact that he was born a poor bastard child and nobody even knew which ethnicity he was, to appeal to all of them. Took on his WWII nom de guerre as his legal name, “Tito” comes from the Serbian pronunciation of “You, there.” because he’d say that shit while pointing his fingers to give orders so his men nicknamed him that, etc.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Josip Tito feels more like a fictional character the more you know about his life, which just makes him such an interesting historical figure.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

The reasons are easy. It’s usually due to a lack of education or their upbringing. And we can try our best to remedy that, but if we cannot, I redirect you to the first 4 points a laid out. I am not shy about them. And policies are never air tight, there are cracks. If a policy wants to target specific fascist it will have to define what that is, and there will be people who never claimed to be such that may fall under that. If you make it broader, then a broader swath of people are implicated

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

Would you ever be implicated?

1

Anonymous #9 4w

I’m not sure where you are getting “hate and anger” from though. It is just wanting to protect society from those who wish to harm it. And when you extend the potential for reintegration into society that is the best olive branch you can offer. If they do not accept then they can make peace with that decision. The betterment of society takes priority over ideas that seek to harm it. That’s why you set up new structures of incentives, as well as shape opinion, just as our state does,in childhood

1

Anonymous #9 4w

I’m not sure. I don’t assume so. But if people decide to target something that I espouse, then maybe.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

I don’t know that it could just be education or upbringing. Where did the stimulus come from in the first place? How could so many people still believe it still?

1

Anonymous #9 4w

I’m not sure where else it would come from. I think it is just education and upbringing. If you change structures and remove or add influences you change outcomes

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

What harms society is not set in stone. The various empires of the past lasted thousands of years, we’ve only lasted a few hundred. I say hate and anger, because it’s directed towards people who are said to directly hate you. If you based a society on kindness and acceptance, it could make everyone happier, but it’s not guaranteed that it lasts for very long. Sharks thrive in schools of docile fish. I don’t know how it’s become a forgone conclusion that one way of organizing society is correct.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

I don’t think any of the points you just made are mutually exclusive to the ones I made.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

It isn’t empirically true that changing structures and influences changes outcomes; it may work for some outcomes, but other things are baked in. Lots of people have thought this, and here have been experiments to check the hypothesis. The belief that societal level changes are necessary looks like a power grab i.e. “give me all the power and I’ll make everything the way I want it”

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Well nothing will change if we don’t try new things, eh

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Also, it’s always about power and structures. A society is defined by those two things. Change them and change society. Not everything is predictable but some things are. Nobody said one policy will fix everything.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

This shit still going on? All I just said was I’m not going to humor Nazis :(

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

I think they differ, though they may not be mutually exclusive. I’m saying, these things aren’t new. People have thought them and tried versions of them for millennia. You dont always have to try “new” things in real life, it’s why we think them through.

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 4w

Girl idk where I am

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Well I mean, they have been thought through. This method has seemed to work especially well in some countries, but yknow, other issues arise.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

On one end you have denazification in Germany, on the other you have China’s reeducation regime. I think we could try somewhere between the two. Germany wasn’t very effective long term, China is effective but there have been undesirable consequences too.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

I guess it depends what you intend to change by the power and structures. You believe movements like MAGA are caused by poor education and conditioning, but I believe it’s more innate, which is partly why the split is mostly down the middle. I don’t agree that innate tendencies are fully changeable by power and structures, so we can leave it here

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

I don’t believe either of those places was really changed by reeducation, they just behaved differently. I also think some changes are easier to abide by than others. For an example, reeducating people to enjoy their the taste of asparagus over the taste of chocolate cake likely wouldn’t work. But reeducating them to eat healthier could work. I think that what makes half of the country the way they are is more like the former than the latter.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Well that’s where point 2 of my 4 points for fascists comes in.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

Reeducation rarely succeeds in changing someone core beliefs. The broader point is to show them how to integrate and what is tolerated and what is unacceptable. The goal is to change behavior and reduce likelihood of spread. Almost like how disease spread mitigation works

1

Anonymous #9 4w

It’s a subtle difference but I mean that if another Jew-hater were to run in Germany, they likely wouldn’t win because of reeducation (not meaning the proportion of Jew haters changed). But if someone ran on a campaign of blaming a group that isn’t Jews for the fall of the country, they could become Nazi Germany again.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

That’s fair. Carry on.

1

Anonymous #9 4w

Even in China, people express dissent. My dad works there and he talks about how some people say a lot in private. But it’s just not public. I think China’s regime is a bit much in many respects, but it is effective. So I think points can be taken from it to combat fascism here. Combine that with an education system and culture which de-incentivizes fascist ideas while propping up other ones, and it could be very effective. And there would be backlash but it would have to weather it

1

Anonymous #9 4w

It’s kinda like the energy that corporations use to approach unionization in modern America. You hear people talking about unionizing and you take them into your office to talk about it or schedule a seminar or module for your team or company and express what is tolerable. If they keep pushing for unions you take further action. Apply that to the spread of fascist ideas now and see

1

Anonymous .gaia. 4w

Combine that with new structures in a justice system to reform and punish people and that would compliment the previously mentioned incentive structure

1

Anonymous #14 4w

Illegal immigrants are literally less violent statistically compared to native residents, dumbfuck.

1

Anonymous ___joker__ 4w

Statistically deceptive, the sample sizes are nowhere near equivalent. I’m not saying illegals are violent, I’m saying the violent criminals can sneak in alongside the kind mother of 4 trying to provide for her family. Thanks for your ad hominem fallacy too. Whatever happened to empathy?

0

Anonymous #14 4w

That’s not empathy, dipshit 🤣 Empathy is putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, not accepting a fundamentally flawed argument

4

Anonymous #14 4w

No, on a per capita basis, judging by the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants divided by the total number of illegal immigrants vs. the number of crimes by citizens divided by the entire population of citizens, citizens are twice as likely to commit a crime.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

And that kinda just makes sense, if you’re an undocumented immigrant, the last thing you want is the attention of authorities. How do you evade the attention of authorities the easiest? You don’t give them a reason to look at you twice. ICE’s policy used to basically be “we’ll take them from state custody once they’re convicted of something” and now it’s more like “we’ll hassle literally anyone who is brown because idk they MIGHT be an illegal” which is where the Nazi comparisons come in

1

Anonymous #14 4w

Not every insult thrown in a debate is an ad hominem, btw. Going “[logically valid counterargument], dumbass” is maybe a little dickish, but not an ad-hominem. An ad hominem would be “you’re a dumbass, therefore, you must be wrong” without really addressing the claim.

1

Anonymous ___joker__ 4w

“Fundamentally flawed” and it’s just protecting your people

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

It’s not even remotely significant statistic because there are SO many factors affecting violence between the groups they’re not even comparable, so your whole argument on that basis is gone and I’m not going to address it. Also if you insult someone in an argument, that’s as hominem. And, if it wasn’t, it’s still incredibly disrespectful and says a LOT about your character.

1

I will bet my life savings you have literally never interacted with a nazi in your entire life

-1

Anonymous #14 4w

Every police officer is an enemy of the people, and every ice agent is a Nazi. We will keep track of their names and once they are out of power we will through. The legitimate means. Permanently prevent them from doing harm based on their ideology in the future.

8

Anonymous #13 4w

What in the dicto simpliciter fallacy is the opening of this comment??? What in fascism is the rest of it??

1

Anonymous #14 4w

I have been pioneering a new term recently, “plausibly-liberal fascism“

0

Anonymous #13 4w

Like, to be clear, I am a communist. I think the state should exist only to oppress rich people and it should exist only so long as it does that.

0