• MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    Unfortunately, everyone can call anyone a fascist. That’s the entire problem.

    Any system wherein one group can just dismantle another because of their politics will be abused. If whatever magical law/mechanism your nonsense required existed and had been used after the 2020 election, trump’s successor would simply have done the same thing to the Democrats next time but we’d be even worse off as there would be no constraints on their power and no viable opposition, unlike the Dems who now stand a Puncher’s chance in the goddamn Senate.

    Being the good guy is difficult but the road you propose inexorably leads to authoritarianism.

    I get that politics is slow and boring but this isn’t a video game.

    • DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Unfortunately, everyone can call anyone a fascist. That’s the entire problem.

      Its not. There are actual academic definitions for what a fascist is. Calling someone a fascist doesn’t mean they meet any of the criteria.

    • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Pacifism is not a virtue in and of itself. These people are going to murder me and the people who are supposed to prevent that have done nothing of value. I’m sorry your precious liberal values stop you from defending yourself. If liberal democracy can do nothing to prevent fascism then liberal democracy should be replaced.

      my other comment

      My problem is not with the individual my issue is with the deomcratic party. You are correct that there wasn’t anything Biden could actually do on his own. It would take a collective effort and likely military cooperation. It would cause political mayhem and be detrimental to the country as a whole and possibly destroyed the democratic party. It could prevent fascism though. I’m not saying any of this is easy or legal but it could have prevented fascism. Instead they did nothing of consequence.

      I am personally of the opinion that fascism is incapable of being prevented through official means under capitalist liberal democracy so everything I say here is effectively meaningless. I’m sort of arguing that people in a system incapable of stopping fascism should have just done it anyway. Point is, you either have to accept that the democrats did nothing to stop fascism or that capitalist liberal democracy is incapable of stopping it and should be abandoned. Assuming you agree that the Trump administration is fascist.

      You would probably refer to me as an authoritarian yeah but I think the term is meaningless. As far as I’m concerned all states are authoritarian and my endgoal is the dissolution of all states.

      Edit: Roe v Wade should have been codified far before they had the chance to dismantle it but the democrats used it like a carrot on a stick.

      for added detail

      I understand not wanting to do violence, trust me I do. I hope I never have to hurt anyone in my life, so far I haven’t done so physically or on purpose. It does need to be done though. We are having violence done to us and it is okay to respond violently.

      • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        You would probably refer to me as an authoritarian yeah

        You are correct

        And the answer to rising fascism is not trying to replace a popular authoritarian with an unpopular one.

        • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          Then you expose your utter lack of understanding of what the term “authoritarian” means.

          Violence is not inherently authoritarian. Violence is a valid means of self defense against those who are violent.

          Or do you wish to try and say that anarchists are authoritarian?

          • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            You should probably read what OP wrote and what I responded to.

            Military control to prevent an opponent from taking power is almost literally the definition of authoritarian.

            • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              You should probably go re-read what else they wrote and follow past that to their actual beliefs rather than stopping at their explanation of Democrat’s inaction and lack of utilization of their own powers to oppose fascism through the system they are a part of.

                • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Are you so naive to think the US government isn’t already authoritarian in its current structure? They explained how an AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT possessed the means to prevent fascism yet neglected to use those means because they care more about holding power than stopping fascism.

                  You clearly neglected to read their full comment, as they explicitly said it WAS authoritarian methods by which the Democrats could have stopped the rise of fascism.

                  They also explicitly stated that they were against the system entirely and explained their own personal perspective but you clearly have ignored all of that to continue to be a pedantic twat who can’t tell the difference between an explanation and personal support of something