• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Fascism will exterminate itself. It’s an auto-cannibalistic ideology.

    To the Nazi mind, society is like the rings on a tree with the “pure” and “deserving” being at the core. The outer most layer will always be the “other” and the “enemy”. So as each enemy is defeated, the field narrows until the end where they’d be two Nazis left trying to kill each other.

    Viewed in this light, anti-Fascist skull crushing is benevolent.

    • puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t disagree with you, but I think what you wrote only applies to fascism in a vacuum or a very late stage of fascism where all the outsiders were eliminated. Basicaly, if we’re at the point where fascists started devouring themself it’s already game over, because everything else is destroyed. And I don’t like the sentence “Fascism will exterminate itself” because it implies all we need to do is wait (even though I don’t think you mean that). Fascism needs a helping hand to achieve it’s end goal (exterminating itself; please, don’t ban me mods lol).

    • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

      The only thing I can come up with is you’re defending people’s personal freedom to be fascists?

        • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          If your opposed to calls to violence against those that are trying to take away trans rights that’s fine. I’m just curious about calling authoritarianism.

          In calling for violence against fascists…who’s authority are we upholding?

          • rhabarba@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Enforcing your preferred kind of politics with guns sounds like a bad idea. I’m German, we did that a few times in our history.

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I wouldn’t be so proudly proclaiming “I’m German” as if that gives you automatic and universal knowledge, or authority, if you’d like, on, well, anything, if I were you, instead I’d get out of the way, humble myself, and go study some history.

              “Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.” -Adolf Hitler

            • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Wait… I’m sorry I have to respond again because this really just hit me. Did you really use GERMANY as an example of why you SHOULD NOT stand up to facisim with violence? GERMANY???

              How did letting the facisim play out for ya there champ?

            • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sure. That’s fine. I’m questioning how you call that authoritism. Would you call the black panthers this? After all they certainly did some violent things during the civil rights movements.

              What about the IRA?

    • Norgur@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Have tolerant people to be tolerant towards the intolerant? This question has claimed the coherence of so many philosopher’s brains. Poor souls.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        this is my favorite philosophical fact. You can only have a defined definition if that definition excludes things, otherwise it is not appropriately defined. And therefore broad.

      • thepaperpilot@incremental.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The “paradox of tolerance” has never legitimately stumped anyone. The initial act of intolerance broke the social contract, thus removing their right to tolerance themselves.

      • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        If only someone had taught them about social contracts, which only conditionally requires us to tolerate people so long as they tolerate us.