Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

60 comments

  • This sounds more like someone with a grudge against America than a fascist. "Eat shit, Americans" isn't exactly a controversial position in most of the world, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

    • "I'm glad the fascists won so minorities in America can suffer" is a pretty fascist statement to make. Imagine saying "I'm glad Putin won the election, I hope liberasts and Russians suffer"

      • Which I could easily see coming from a Chechen so you're kinda proving my point. Also while minorities are going to suffer more, everyone suffers under fascism except subservient rich males of the right ethnicity, so there's plenty of suffering to go around for, say, Zionists and imperialists. They're misguided, but this comment alone doesn't make them a fascist.

        • I took it more as "these people who benefitted by all the destruction and war the US committed in their names are finally feeling the sting and might actually be driven to do something about it".

        • Which I could easily see coming from a Chechen so you’re kinda proving my point.

          ... is your point that supporting fascism is okay if you really hate a country?

          Also while minorities are going to suffer more, everyone suffers under fascism except subservient rich males of the right ethnicity, so there’s plenty of suffering to go around for, say, Zionists and imperialists.

          That's fucking insane reasoning.

          They’re misguided, but this comment alone doesn’t make them a fascist.

          So if, say, an American liberal said, "I'm glad Egypt is under a strongman regime so Egyptians can suffer", you would regard that as a... non fascist statement??

          • ... is your point that supporting fascism is okay if you really hate a country?

            Supporting fascism is one thing, thinking one group of people deserves it for something they did is another. It's a misguided version of thinking Nazis did a good job with rocket technology.

            you would regard that as a... non fascist statement??

            I mean, yes? I'd also hate their guts, but no there's nothing inherently fascist about that statement. And while it'd be really weird coming from an American, I wouldn't be able to object too hard to it coming from a Palestinian, because we do bear responsibility for not standing up to our Zionist stooges.

            • Supporting fascism is one thing, thinking one group of people deserves it for something they did is another.

              How many steps removed is that from "Jews deserve the Holocaust because what they did" or "Palestinians deserve the Nakba and the ongoing genocide because of what they did"?

              It’s a misguided version of thinking Nazis did a good job with rocket technology.

              Okay, but that entire line of thinking, while ridiculous, is still predicated on the idea of a positive contribution by fascists, whereas this is explicitly negative. "I'm glad fascists won because they will hurt innocent people" is not a net gain to anyone - or at least not anyone who isn't a fascist.

              I mean, yes? I’d also hate their guts, but no there’s nothing inherently fascist about that statement.

              I disagree strongly. Supporting fascist regimes for the sole purpose that it hurts innocent folk is not much more than fascism itself.

              • How many steps removed is that from "Jews deserve the Holocaust because what they did" or "Palestinians deserve the Nakba and the ongoing genocide because of what they did"?

                The real sticking point in that line of logic is that it's impossible for an ethnic group as a whole to have done something, and that the charges tend to be made up. Nothing is inherently fascist about the prospect of seeking justice against a large group of people.

                "I'm glad fascists won because they will hurt innocent people" is not a net gain to anyone - or at least not anyone who isn't a fascist.

                I'll be frank, you have to stretch the meaning of the word quite a bit before your average American is considered innocent. If your labor is directly or indirectly support evil that you're supporting or not opposing, well congrats you're an accomplice. Whether it's productive to seek punishment and what would constitute a just punishment aside, the majority of Americans bear some amount of guilt for their government's current and historical crimes. I mean I certainly wouldn't think "oh it was only the government that was guilty!" when talking about Nazi Germany.

                • The real sticking point in that line of logic is that it’s impossible for an ethnic group as a whole to have done something, and that the charges tend to be made up. Nothing is inherently fascist about the prospect of seeking justice against a large group of people.

                  Against a 'large group', no; against a group for the purpose of group identity instead of crimes committed by the individuals therein? Uh, yes, very much so. This is not very far removed from current Israeli policy which is willing to parade around "good Arabs" while condemning the vast majority of Palestinians as implicitly guilty of attacking civilians.

                  I’ll be frank, you have to stretch the meaning of the word quite a bit before your average American is considered innocent. If your labor is directly or indirectly support evil that you’re supporting or not opposing, well congrats you’re an accomplice. Whether it’s productive to seek punishment and what would constitute a just punishment aside, the majority of Americans bear some amount of guilt for their government’s current and historical crimes.

                  Yikes. And would you say the same about Egyptians?

                  I mean I certainly wouldn’t think “oh it was only the government that was guilty!” when talking about Nazi Germany.

                  ... and would that warrant, do you think, the entire German nation being punished - not simply in the abstract sense of the nation, or in the punishment of the government, but in actively inflicting suffering and punishment upon individuals for the crime of doing what most people, historically, do under horrific governments - keep their heads down and try to survive?

                  For that matter, would you regard that inaction as similarly damning in other cases - for example, a failure to prevent fascism? And, again, relevant to the core of this issue - would that failure then morally justify inflicting very real and serious punishment on them?

                  For that matter, would you say, like the OP, "I'm so glad Hitler was elected, I hope the social fascists and Germans suffer?"

                  • And would you say the same about Egyptians?

                    Yes. A good chunk, if not most, of Egypt is guilty for allowing the military back into power. I mean heck, Sadat was assassinated and we're letting Sisi roam free?

                    ... and would that warrant, do you think, the entire German nation being punished

                    Not quite, but it would warrant those who didn't actively resist (especially when they could) being punished. There is, however, a proportion of accomplice to resister that makes society-wide consequences start making sense.

                    keep their heads down and try to survive?

                    The majority of Germans in 1945 were also there for the Nazi takeover. Why didn't they do something about it? Things get more nuanced when you consider people who were children at that time, but they still had a duty to do what they could to avoid contributing to the Wehrmacht. Simply put, the life of the aggressor isn't worth any more than the life of the victim, so why should the aggressor get to prioritize one over the other?

                    would that failure then morally justify inflicting very real and serious punishment on them?

                    If they knew (or were willfully ignorant of) the consequences of their inaction, yes. Someone eho was legitimately uninformed due to no fault of their own can't be reasonably subjected to the same standard.

                    For that matter, would you say, like the OP, "I'm so glad Hitler was elected, I hope the social fascists and Germans suffer?"

                    There was a real effort to stop the Nazi takeover of power, so (just like my position on America) I'd hope that succeeded. I'm not well-informed enough on Weimar history to make a judgement beyond that, but the active contributors and passive onlookers did deserve what they got.

                    • Yes. A good chunk, if not most, of Egypt is guilty for allowing the military back into power. I mean heck, Sadat was assassinated and we’re letting Sisi roam free?

                      Man, it's not reasonable or realistic to regard entire nations as guilty for a failure of the populace to become suddenly heroically active in matters other than trying to keep themselves alive and sane in a hard fucking world.

                      One of the reasons why mass democracy, historically, has been such a powerful thing is because it allows people to effect significant change with minimal participation. Most people are not going to end up on the streets even in incredibly dire or unjust situations - not even incredibly dire or unjust situations that affect them, personally. Most people spend their lives just trying to survive.

                      There is a spectrum here, but the level of guilt over not overthrowing one's government as some working Joe is so minimal as to be not worth a serious discussion beyond the matter of extremely abstract principle. You may as well condemn anyone who buys goods to sustain themselves as capitalist dogs. The envisioning of a 'moral' society as a society of waiting martyrs is neither realistic nor, really, all that moral.

                      Not quite, but it would warrant those who didn’t actively resist (especially when they could) being punished. There is, however, a proportion of accomplice to resister that makes society-wide consequences start making sense.

                      Man, that collective punishment shite is exactly the same fucking twattery that Israel peddles. If Israel was a long-standing nation instead of a post-Ottoman construction of the British, would you be asspatting them right now for applying collective punishment to the Gaza Strip? After all, they're 'just' judging that the proportion of accomplices of Hamas to resisters is sufficient that the entire Palestinian people warrant 'punishment'.

                      The majority of Germans in 1945 were also there for the Nazi takeover. Why didn’t they do something about it?

                      For the same reason I outlined - most people spend their lives trying to keep their heads down and survive.

                      Things get more nuanced when you consider people who were children at that time, but they still had a duty to do what they could to avoid contributing to the Wehrmacht. Simply put, the life of the aggressor isn’t worth any more than the life of the victim, so why should the aggressor get to prioritize one over the other?

                      That the life of the aggressor isn't worth any more than the life of the victim is why brutal methods like strategic bombing were, theoretically, justified. In practice, I must note, postwar analysis suggests that terror bombing of German cities was pointless at best and counterproductive at worst. When working to stop the aggressor, the level of culpability of a citizenry is legitimate to consider when discussing collateral damage. When the entire nation is at your mercy, collective punishment is a vile and disgusting act which violates the basic tenets of human rights and human decency that have arisen with the Enlightenment and the rise of Leftist thought in the 19th century.

                      It's the same reason why soldiers are permitted to shoot a resisting enemy (though some modern militaries even quantify this, with the resistance necessary to be of a certain intensity before firing is lawfully permitted), but not put a bullet in the back of the head of even a surrendered one. A greater intensity of means are morally permitted for stopping an evil act than for punishing it. Prevention comes first - punishment only as it is moral to do so. And collective punishment is not fucking moral.

                      If they knew (or were willfully ignorant of) the consequences of their inaction, yes. Someone eho was legitimately uninformed due to no fault of their own can’t be reasonably subjected to the same standard.

                      So you support punishing everyone who abstained from voting in the 2024 American presidential elections, correct? You regard them as evil and in need of very real and serious punishment and suffering?

                      There was a real effort to stop the Nazi takeover of power, so (just like my position on America) I’d hope that succeeded.

                      And if they didn't, would it be acceptable to wish not just suffering, but fascist-empowering suffering on the whole of the nation?

                      I’m not well-informed enough on Weimar history to make a judgement beyond that, but the active contributors and passive onlookers did deserve what they got.

                      Unfortunately, what actually happens when you punish an entire nation is that punishment is distributed largely randomly across the fucking nation, regardless of innocence or guilty - save for the ability of some to escape punishment by criteria other than their own morality. IE when you punish a nation, you get a few of the powerful (regardless of guilt, even though they're the most likely to be guilty and the ones who carry the most intense guilt), and a lot of the powerless (regardless of guilt). The 'active contributors and passive onlookers' are not especially punished by collective punishment; they are punished LESS than the resisters, because the resisters are less likely to hold power in the regime which would allow them to escape the punishment.

                      You may as well wish a fucking plague as a collective punishment. There's no morality to it.

      • I'm not agreeing with it, but to translate its more along the lines of "You Americans have spent so long being comfortable and benefitting from the imperialist project of the US and all the death and destruction it perpetrates across the world and have not offered any resistance to their own government in all this time. Liberals have been content to be complaicent in it too as long as a woman gets to drop some of those bombs, for fairness. Now you won't be able to avoid the consequences of the evil imperialist core that all these other countries have been crushed under for over a century and may actually be driven to do something about it, since it actually affects you now."

        Which again I don't agree with, but can also aknowledge that its more nuanced than just wishing harm for harm's sake.

    • "I hope there is a genocide in the US" usually is a controversial position. So is killing all political opponents.

    • I'm Canadian and I don't want Americans to suffer. But the US has shitty politicians in power that force me between making a choice between people in my own country eating shit or the US eating shit, and the choice is obvious.

      The far left and far right are using the same tactics, just different targets for their hate politics.

      Hopefully Americans see through the bullshit of the radicals (both left and right) that make them hate certain people in their own country and people in certain other countries (again, the targets vary but the tactics are the same). But it seems there's not much anyone outside of the US can do until that happens.

60 comments