Fash gonna fash, that's why we gotta always be ready to bash bash bash.
Work towards peace. Prepare for the inevitable.
SocialistRA.org
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
99 points (83.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27265 readers
1899 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Congress adopted In God We Trust over E Pluribus Unum and added Under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's in response to the Red Scare and America has been pretty fanatical about it since then.
I'd suspect it's reaction to large cultural shifts in the last couple of decades - including gay and trans rights, George Floyd and increased racial integration in media, me too, etc. For whatever reason, perhaps loss aversion, many people tend to react angrily and violently to change and the threat of change. Perhaps it's analogous to how communist movements in the early 20th century led to fascist movements a decade or two later.
I also don't think it's the US only, so you can't put it all on Trump. I'd argue Trump and similar figures around the world are the result of the above counter-reaction.
I’m pretty sure that would be ex uno, plura
why? because it's all they have left.
demographics are changing. their population is aging. their kids hate the way they live and move away.
I would argue the difference between republicans and conservatives is the fanaticism. Conservatism is believing that we want to do the most good things we can afford, but we have to be conservative in our estimates of what we can afford. That is the only belief inherent to being conservative. I would likewise define the core belief of Liberalism that we have to take care of many basic needs, and figure out how to pay for it, even if it creates hardship. I greatly respect that point of view, and feel the best answer for society lies somewhere between the two.
Republicanism doesn’t care about conservatism any more; I vote for middle of the road Democrats as a conservative. The abortion/gun/god crap is ridiculous.
Radicals radicalize radicals.
Only stable conditions, equaliberiam or entropy deradicalize.
Social was a flash point. Large parts of society interacted for the first time. Echo chambers formed, energy level increase, radical leave the bubbles and new groups militerize in defense.
It made less sense to people out of the loop though. Nazis, antifa, police are raciest, lgbtq, Christian nationalism, socialism, etc. All of these ideas were subcultures that grew bubble online cause they could (much like the Arab spring), and the radicals that formed and took action made big moves from everyone else's ignorance.
The majority didn't have the means, and frankly still don't, to hold the concepts or ideas as unique groups so instead they mapped onto the two party system warts and all. Because "right wing" was Republican the opposing side told everyone "right wing" is Republican. So Republican had to either disavow or defend them, but when these groups wanted to act politically they had almost no choice but to fit in predefined parties.
Its been mostly good, that's the crazy thing, gay rights, trans rights, police reforms, the DoJ has how many anti trust cases going on now?, how unions are forming?, etc
Tell me you don't know what the term radical means without telling me you don't know what the term radical means.
Riots, terriost plots, open calls for revolutions, etc all fall in that camp in my mind
Should you be using terms if you don't actually know what they mean?
I mean I guess I could use the Victoria 3 definition but I chose this one since its more contemporary
I mean I guess I could use the Victoria 3
Is that one better than the cheap one CNN (and you) are using?
Radical is just further left than reformer.
Is that better?
I use it more like free radicals but applied as people. Little agents of chaos that disrupt the system. Again for better and worse.
I was going to say radicalism (as a political concept) refers to the practice of looking for the root causes of society's ills as opposed to merely fixating on (if we're going to be charitable about it) superficial ones as reformist and reactionary politics would have us to do, and this makes radicalism an inherently left-wing thing and something reactionaries (and most of their reformist allies) will take extreme measures to prevent - including completely handing the state and it's repressive apparatus over to reactionaries (ie, what we call fascism today).
But you know what? This...
Radical is just further left than reformer.
...is, so far, the only half-way decent response I've ever had to this in about five year's time - so I'm just going to leave it as is.
It's kinda funny how fanatically people point out that it's the other side that's the problem.
load more comments
(8 replies)
America has always rejected fanaticism
Right... the country that literally perfected white supremacism has "always rejected fanaticism" - I guess in your book rejecting white supremacism counts as fanaticism, then?