Another good thing to point out. If you have the time to interact with those communities, it’s demonstrably populated primarily by bot-like content. Even more, moderation tends to be more opaque and aggressive against leftist comments or posts.

You sound so desperate for me to not block you dude.

Very important to point out with this that Reddit has gotten markedly more fascist in these past three years – which is saying something – even while there is inexplicably a large number of people who call it “left-leaning” on the platform itself. It is safe to say that a high amount of “user”-content is bots of some kind, and that platforms that have high numbers of bots tend to become more conservative and fascist.

Dude, you can’t be satisfied by bites of moral superiority, it isn’t useful to you. Class solidarity doesn’t mean that they have solidarity with you because they strive for unity or whatever, it means that they have solidarity with people in the same socioeconomic class as themselves. Yes, they are self-interested and they exclude people who are not in their class from positions of power within the state. They correctly identify that most Americans have been neglected functional knowledge on how their system works – both literally as in the state and philosophically/sociologically as in how ideas work and why certain people subscribe to certain values – and make use of a “two-party” system to occlude their common interest in capital and hegemony. Democrats and Republicans do not differ on fundamental principles of how society should work, and they share those principles with anyone alive who hoards wealth because they all are in a class that is constructed through wealth hoarding, that’s the solidarity.

That someone can work for either party without missing a step demonstrates that there is not a fundamental difference between the two in a very funny way.

I mean, that’s a very good demonstration on the common values of these supposedly different groups. Their class solidarity is strong.

“Secret cabal” as in capitalism and its imperatives sure, pretty out in the open though.

Read the comment before you write a response bud.

Except, John’s enlarged Dodge Ram makes him statistically a greater danger to everyone and their kids. In daily life, John is a more relevant danger to me than pretty much anything else. If John is in the USA, the children at this school are most likely to die of a car collision – with increased fatalities correlated with popularity of trucks like John’s – or a firearms incident, funnily enough also subject to a statistical correlation with light truck ownership. Between 19 and 24, vehicle collisions are the number one cause of death regardless of gender; only beat out by poisonings and suicide as you get older. Again, light trucks are correlated with higher rates of fatalies. If you’re in those age groups and don’t have a substance abuse or mental illness disorder, John is the most likely thing to kill you in your life.

People like John are apathetic about the casual brutality of such a vehicle, that is in fact the point of the hypermasculinity molded into it. I don’t want him around me, and I don’t want him around my kids. He chose to be dangerous and individual rights doesn’t mean you can threaten others with impunity. That’s why neglect can land you with murder or manslaughter charges.

Pretty much every proposal here is brutal. That section appears to be less explicitly laid out than others. Its vague and likely with a far less detailed plan than what is visible in the rest of the article.

Everything is anything now.

Look at you working so hard to not care about change.

People like you are what holds back a lot of the real work.

Yeah, turns out people don’t like surveillance against their will…

Pretty sure the fujoshis own Trek actually.

You thought you knew how the world worked without even checking under the rug and I’m excessive for being condescending about it. Check your arrogance and learn something if you want serious people to take you seriously.

Won’t be responding again.

Was gonna ask what you meant but then I realized you didn’t know what instances were.

What a strange reading list, it’s almost like you never took the time to learn about this at all and have only shaped your worldview on the information that’s fed to you. What are the odds that someone who doesn’t think critically about the historical narratives they’re given would develop a worldview that just so happens to benefit the power hierarchy they already exist in? (The UK being neoliberal only while Thatcher was around is hilarious btw)

Everyone knows that liberals will side with fascists, but you don’t know why that happens so you just accept answers that have the right vibes. Your narrative naturalizes human tendencies toward authoritarianism, a liberal and fascist narrative that is contradictory to what we have learned about indigenous peoples all over the world that were subject to European colonialism and its accompanying system of knowledge (Check out Kathleen DuVall’s Native Nations for North American context). Liberals and fascists do not differ on the fundamental principle that society should be stratified along the lines of socially and politically constructed groups imagined to be fundamentally different from privileged groups – such as how racism emerged to facilitate slavery – which they use to justify the violent extraction of wealth from colonized land. Liberals and fascists purport to differ on the basis of individualism, but the fascist claim to exceptional community in the form of national identity is fanciful when positioned in the broader history of colonialism where their concepts of human society and history uncritically drew from.

Liberals respond to challenge through violent oppression first and assimilation second when that inevitably fails. They appropriate concepts like progress and equality to disarm social justice movements and position their efforts securely within the legal frameworks of the state through civil rights assurances. Conversely, fascist rhetoric depends on narratives that construct liberal states as weak for their inability to more effectively carry out the genocide of groups that they commonly understand to be inferior to the privileged groups they’re a part of. Liberalism’s tendency to slowly wear down dissent with marginal concessions frustrates the fascist who is critical of their tactics, not the specific fundamental violence that liberalism depends on.

Now, in the face of neoliberalisms penetration into daily life and the gradual erosion of middle-class material security globally as avenues for growth diminish, why would fascist rhetoric emerge in North America and Europe today? Why are they talking about “population control” as cause of climate change when it is so obviously stratified access to resources? Your explanation would assume that it is just the human tendency to be awful, but the reality is that is what the system you are subject to has taught you specifically to make you less capable of criticizing it. Humans are not naturally awful, it is this system that is violent and that is more than what the government looks like, it is how you imagine the world around you.

You’re lucky I had to wait for a meeting, y’all don’t normally get a free lesson.

Oh, you’re a big history reader are you? Could you provide a reading list for the evidence of this?

Keep licking boots.

What does that do for you?