this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025

2 points (54.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3415 readers

734 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes.

Post news related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

simsymbiote@midwest.social

Type1@midwest.social

exposingfash@midwest.social

Even the polls now say that people on one side of the political spectrum endorse political violence to make sure their goals are met (www.msn.com)

submitted 3 days ago by Voidist@midwest.social to c/usa@midwest.social

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This may be true, in the same way that most Americans agreed to get involved in WW2 after Pearl Harbour... Because they finally accepted that fascists could not be stopped from committing violence, promoting terrorism, continuing the propaganda to vilify and dehumanize their opponents, or implementing their dictatorship peacefully.

This is also propaganda, because conservatives answer is entirely dependent on whether or not conservatives are in control.

I hope it is true tbh, because it couldn't be more clear that the fascist party will continue escalating their own authoritarianism, terrorism, and violence, until they get it in response, so they can finally justify their goal of mass murder and military dictatorship.

[+] Voidist@midwest.social -9 points 3 days ago (5 children)

I hope this doesn't come across as undermining, but considering how often I see the term "fascist" used to describe the people who are giving society a hard time, if I may ask, how does one actually define a fascist? What are the criteria (according to those who use the term today) where, if you fit the criteria, you're a fascist, and if you're not a fascist, it's because you don't fit the criteria?

As for violence, there are a lot of people who have been killed this year whose death everyone has been cheering but who doesn't have a history of violence (or even direct control over human life). I mean, when Kirk was assassinated, one of the people who got death threats in the aftermath was Joe Rogan. In terms of individuals on that side of the political spectrum, he's as mid as you can get.

[–] marcela@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is apologist rhetoric, and since you are the OP, it is telling that you found this crap worth posting to start with.

You are not persuaded yet huh? And think Rogan is middle of the tent? He might be an idiot but he is squarely right wing you know, unless you know utter shit about politics. And you are watering down who is a fascist and who is not? You know Kirk had lists with targeted academics whom his fan-base harassed? Threatening academics for being woke is an anti-intellectual fascist tactic.

It really doesn't matter how you dress your world and gloss over reality, but there is a huge overlap between MAGA and authoritarian regimes worldwide, especially the Nazi party. People who don't see that it is mainly because they have zero idea about what the Nazi party was, except for "the absolute evil", and then pearl-clutch and say "they call me a nazi for being a militarist racist transphobe and because I believe in nationalism and traditional family values". Well, yeah? That was what a fucking nazi was, you pitiful ignoramus. What you nowadays call a "centrist".

Questioning whether "it is formally fascist" regarding the christian nationalist and organized racist forces behind this systematic attack on check and balances of the executive branch is simply SEALIONING.

It is a historical fact that America has not only undergone an autocratic power grap, that was deliberately engineered and outlined in Project 2025, but that it is already half-way implemented.
It is also a fact that rounding up undesirables to prison camps as well as the persecution and scapegoating of trans people closely parallel the early stages of the Jewish Holocaust and the enslavement of a large part of the European population in different types of camps.
It is a fact that Trump wants to destroy the separation of government functions, and uses the military against his own population to drown dissidence.

Your own fucking intelligence service says so. What you are doing is really actionable, because if you are not simply a useful idiot, you are an active operative. As an added bonus, he poses with established nazi apologists among young Republicans. And you are STILL MOVING THE GOALPOSTS ABOUT WHAT A FASCIST IS THEORETICALLY?

If you don't see that already, there really isn't reason to waste time on you personally or any other regime apologist. You are the type of person who will tell us we are overreacting until there are actual gas chambers, and then claim it never happened. The more your side pushes in the direction of barbarism and inhumanity, the sooner this will be solved by the fourth box. Humanity has rejected your ideas with deadly force, and it will again. Case is closed.

[–] Voidist@midwest.social 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is apologist rhetoric, and since you are the OP, it is telling that you found this crap worth posting to start with.

No, it's just me asking where the boundaries are. As someone trying to understand the issue, is this not a good thing to ask?

You are not persuaded yet huh?

Of what? Most people who put me on the spectrum would say I'm left-winged.

And think Rogan is middle of the tent? He might be an idiot but he is squarely right wing you know

By "mid", I was using the slang term that means someone who is nowhere near as severe as the people on the same boat. I wasn't saying he wasn't "right winged".

You know Kirk had lists with targeted academics whom his fan-base harassed?

No, I didn't know that. Would like to read more. That's immediately alarming.

People who don’t see that it is mainly because they have zero idea about what the Nazi party was, except for “the absolute evil”, and then pearl-clutch and say “they call me a nazi for being a militarist racist transphobe and because I believe in nationalism and traditional family values”. Well, yeah? That was what a fucking nazi was, you pitiful ignoramus. What you nowadays call a “centrist”.

I'm not sure why you think I'm denying this. I just prefer to address things deconstructively. It doesn't mean they're not what they are. It's not a matter of someone being a "pitiful ignoramus".

Questioning whether “it is formally fascist” regarding the christian nationalist and organized racist forces behind this systematic attack on check and balances of the executive branch is simply SEALIONING.

As I said, I don't take away from what I know they are. They are still what they are. It's not me asking for proof of anything they've done, if you think it's sealioning. Have you ever thought of how cultural it is to use the more indirect means of addressing someone?

Your own fucking intelligence service says so. What you are doing is really actionable, because if you are not simply a useful idiot, you are an active operative. As an added bonus, he poses with established nazi apologists among young Republicans. And you are STILL MOVING THE GOALPOSTS ABOUT WHAT A FASCIST IS THEORETICALLY?

I condemn him on those points. Out of habit, I just simply don't use the same words you use. I don't know why that's such a big deal. Also, it's bold of you to assume this relates to my intelligence service (or even country).

there really isn’t reason to waste time on you personally or any other regime apologist.

I don't support the regime. Never did I say Trump wasn't a fascist.

You are the type of person who will tell us we are overreacting until there are actual gas chambers, and then claim it never happened.

Or... maybe I just use different words. That's a huge jump to conclusions.

[–] marcela@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I won't respond to any of your shit. I don't block you just to keep tabs on you. kbye

[–] Voidist@midwest.social -1 points 3 days ago

Was anyone saying you had to?

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

how does one actually define a fascist?

Ever heard of a dictionary? Wikipedia? This "Just asking questions bro" shit went out of style like 10 years ago. It doesn't make you broad minded, it flags you as empty minded. Youtube exists, go educate yourself. Don't put it on everybody else.

[+] Voidist@midwest.social -6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I know how they'd define one, but the question in my mind when it comes up is specifically how the accusers would define one. Because along with there being a difference between going by a conventional definition and going by a modified one, there is also a difference between having your own modified definition and it just being vague.

It's why, when I criticize many of these people, I don't use the word "fascist". I just use the words that come to mind when I first think of what kind of individual they are. I don't even use the word "terrorist" half the time for the same reason, I just describe them based on direct adjectives for the act itself. "Mass murderer" seems completely fine.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The word terrorist is pretty functionally useless. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, but a fascist is a fascist. The word might be badly misused from time to time, but the but the whole MAGA enterprise is without question a fascist movement.

You mentioned Joe Rogan elsewhere. If Rogan is interviewing a fascist, then Rogan is a fascist. If Rogan is interviewing a socialist, then he is a socialist. He's just a mid-wit echo chamber who got captured by a right wing audience. I think he finally figured out that he fucked up, but can't figure out how to escape without losing his whole audience.

[–] Voidist@midwest.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It might help if he had a co-host.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 3 days ago

It's not like he couldn't afford one. He was just chasing the money. His listeners didn't want accurate facts, and neither did his sponsors.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

As for violence, there are a lot of people who have been killed this year whose death everyone has been cheering but who doesn’t have a history of violence (or even direct control over human life).

There's a semi-famous (and oft-misquoted) quote:

"All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction." - Clarence Darrow

The point is, it's possible to take great satisfaction in the fact that someone died (or was killed) while not condoning the act itself, or supporting carrying it out. You can like the outcome even if you don't support the method.

I don't condone killing these people, but I do think the world is better off without some of them.

[–] Voidist@midwest.social -1 points 3 days ago

That much is true. I remember back when the wars George W. Bush started were still going on, anytime someone on "that side" died, it was a weird tradition in my old hometown to wake up the school kids at like five in the morning (because time zones) and say "hey, that one guy died".

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

1000002099

[–] Voidist@midwest.social -5 points 3 days ago

I've seen a lot of people called fascists who don't fall under those criteria, which is the issue. An obvious example now might be Donald Trump (arguably, due to immigration crackdowns, power assertions, espionage, and marginalization of people with autism), but people such as Joe Rogan or Vladimir Zelensky? And you have people nobody is calling a fascist who nevertheless fit in that criteria, like Kim Jong-un and Emmanual Macron.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not gonna spoon feed you one of the most well documented ideologies in human history. At this point the Trump admin and entire GOP are mirroring the nazi's in dozens of ways, so if you actually do want to know what a fascist is, and aren't asking in bad faith, read any of the hundreds of reputable history books, or watch any of the multi-part documentaries created over the last 80 years.

[–] Voidist@midwest.social 0 points 2 days ago

I never said Trump wasn't one. I was wondering more about some of the other people who get accused on the side. But I will take your advice.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This is not just a response to your post but also your comments. You don't seem interested in answers but I will respond seriously regardless

Fascism is a really interesting phenomena that struggles to be pinned down into neat little boxes. It is often very difficult to define through non-materialist analysis because it can take so many different forms. This is why short definitions and wikipedia won't be able to do it justice. They examine fascism as an ideology rather than by its roots in political economy. There is no definition of facism I can give you in such a short comment that will explain what facism is, who is a fascist, and how to combat them. There is however, plenty of literature on the topic.

If you are genuinely interested give Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It a read. It's worth it I promise.

Fascism can be characterized by many things but it is not its characteristics. Fascism is what happens when imperialism is not enough to sustain the infinite growth of monopoly capital or when imperialism is not available to monopoly capital. Fascism is what happens when the petit bourgeois fear their deteriorating position within political-economic hierarchy and are willing to hold on to that position even if it means annihilating a portion of the working class.

[–] Voidist@midwest.social 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thanks.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

You are very welcome pookie 😘

[–] marcela@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Clickbait + crap methodology + biased framing = This is complete rubbish. Right-wingers are historically the biggest perpetrators of intolerant, hate, and overall political violence. No clickbait slop is gonna change that. People have a right to self-defend and defend democracy against occupation, fascist power grabs, and unlawful state violence.

[–] Voidist@midwest.social -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The issue when it comes to the self-defense part stems from when the operations cease to go by set criteria.

None of the arguments that defend the killing of Brian Thompson are going to, for example, help any of the people who passed around the idea of Joe Rogan dying, unless the motivation in question is to just eliminate people on the right.

Also, how is it clickbait?

[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

There was almost no article at all beyond the sensational headline.

Where are they getting their information?

60 percent of … younger… liberals?

So how many on the left identify as liberals? How many are classified as “younger”

Once you remove all the extra qualifiers its number drops far far below 60 percent. So less democrats believe violence is okay than republicans.

Edit: Looked it up. I’m right.

28 percent for the dems, 31 percent for the republicans. Surprise surprise republicans remain the more violent party.