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.
That mentality is surely broader than fascism itself. You see it in any hypernationalist state. Rome had “the barbarians.” The British Empire had “the savages.” Nazi Germany had “the jews.” There is always an “other” when the state needs it. Unless you’re painting a broader form of fascism, perhaps.
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).
Well... the gruesome thing is: It will exterminate itself in the same way the plague exterminated itself in Europe. Eventually, all the fascism will lead to a myriad of wars and genocides in which fascism will eventually die. Along billions of people.
b) the cure to violent transphobia for sure is violence.
but the cure to transphobia, in general?
idk. i have loved ones who used to be worse and gradually came around just by living and knowing trans people? what if they got shot 25 years ago?
no hate to you as a commenter bc it seems you are just repeating a common phrase, but i don’t like how this comment moves the narrative so far beyond. idk, i don’t really like this comment but i don’t want to invalidate the anger, fear and genuine need for change that is behind it. i’m sorry if my perspective is ignorant.
I don’t wish violence on her either. I was just using that to gauge a reaction. 5 months ago when I made that post, a lot of trans people said outing trans people’s alt accounts is A-okay. But it seems if you divorce the action from people’s heroes, suddenly they have reasonable moral values. I was just having fun with the fact that people react completely differently depending on whether they know who did the act.
?? feel free to dm me about this or direct me to a post that is related to this topic. my original response that started this thread was being uncomfortable with saying the cure for transphobia comes in .50 caliber doses which is a really fucking serious topic. i’d like the current derailment of the conversation to end here, please.
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?
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.
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?
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
Oi, can you perhaps not ask for humility and then condescendingly lecture other people about the history of their Nations? Thanks.
I bet you know about the armed conflicts in the streets of Germany before the Nazis were elected into power and the role of the SA, right? And you know that what's was implied here was that the Weimarer Republik tried to "reign in" the Nazis instead of opposing them openly, especially the catholic Zentrum party. And you know that behind the war-like rhetoric of Hitler there is usually a kernel of political nature, and his warmongering style is identical if he talks about real armed conflict or political stuff, right?
You know all that so you can lecture Germans on German history, right?... Right?
Stepping out of the way is the exact opposite of what should be done. This may never happen ever again.
having interacted with an austrian, whom i refer to as german on the regular (it’s an ongoing joke) It’s almost like that one time that one thing happened is a part of every german/austrias personality now. That explicit kind of speech is so heavily regulated that even merely mentioning it i’ve been yelled at before.
It’s kind of like living somewhere where a mass shooting has happened, that you were tangentially related to. Nobody talks about it. But also everybody knows about it.
it’s a paradox by nature, either you let them take rule, and then you get a german history moment, or you forcibly oust them, which is also kind of tangential to said german history moment.
I suppose it’s a question of which you value more, and how many of your people are ok with it.
in essence, that statement essentially says “you can listen to authority, and have to follow them, however, in exchange for that trade off, you no longer have the personal freedom of not doing that”
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.
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.
Add comment