• Nakoichi [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    255·
    9 months ago

    How I learned to defeat fascism with the power of love:

    Chapter one:
    Realizing you cannot stop fascism with the power of love.

    Chapter two:
    The power of incredible violence.

  • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
    2211·
    9 months ago

    This is like the 3rd or 4th comic from this artist with the same message, same punchline, and same structure. We get it, Jennie.

      • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
        155·
        9 months ago

        Yeah. The ones who are capable of getting it already got it before the comics were made. The ones who don’t get it are already lost. Nothing important is being done here. We could all go an entire century without the creation of even more more little bit of trite, sanctimonious political proselytization and the course of human development would be literally 100.0% identical because that’s what happens when you shovel your opinion into a hypersaturated market for that opinion.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    91·
    9 months ago

    A society that values free speech rejects Mustache’s philosophy. He never gains enough of a following in panel 1, 2, or 3 to be able to enact panel 4.

    As soon as we allow ourselves to silence someone, Mustache can use the same argument to justify silencing Black Shirt. When we allow ourselves to suppress an enemy of society, Mustache merely needs to suggest to us that Black Shirt is such an enemy.

    The insidious part of fascism is that by the time we get to Panel 4, we are the ones carrying Black Shirt to the gallows.

    • racsol@lemmy.ml
      2·
      9 months ago

      I couldn’t have said it better.

      You have dictatorships you would not identify stereotypically as fascist, yet they silence anyone dangerous by calling them a fascist. Oldest trick in the book.

      A very simple test: A f*ing fascist could use the same comic to justify repressing communists in a fascist regime. It just has to replace those “fascists” believes by communist ones.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        5·
        9 months ago

        This is what worries me about large centralized platforms. They normalize the idea that offensive speakers should be silenced, or should be able to silence dissent. They shouldn’t. They should be challenged or ignored. You can block an individual, controlling what you listen to. You can urge others to ignore them. But it should be a cringeworthy act of authoritarianism to lay down a banhammer and block someone from speaking.

        The offensive, intolerant asshole should not be banning dissenters; dissenters should not be banning assholes. Any banning anywhere should be seen as deeply troubling, and only done openly, publicly, and with the consent and agreement of the community.

        Unilateral control over the process should be seen as fascism.

        I am thrilled at the decentralized nature of Lemmy effectively eliminating that capability.

    • flora_explora@beehaw.org
      1·
      7 months ago

      You seem to have learnt nothing from history and how fascism manifests itself. Adderaline had many good points but you just don’t want to actually respond to them? There are so many rightwing, fascistic parties in various countries that already use the rhetoric of panels 1-3. And now society debates if e.g. trans people should be allowed to exist or not, if immigrants should be deported or not, if racism is actually a thing or not. We need to define a line where we will not tolerate further discussions. Because if we allow any form of discussion on certain topics, we will again and again get to the point where we argue about someone’s right to exist. And this will result in panel 4. I’m glad for you that you don’t seem to be affected by this. But please listen to people who are. It is very very frightening if people are publicly debating if they should consider you a valuable human being or not. And even more so as right wing and fascist politics are gaining more traction worldwide.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        1·
        7 months ago

        Adderaline did, indeed, have many good points, just not any that were actually relevant. None of my arguments denied the prosecution or condemnation of death threats. As I am not defending threats or other forms of violence, there is no issue under dispute, and nothing for me to engage.

        Every fascist movement has attempted to suppress groups they deem undesirable or offensive. Your determination that racists are undesirable does not impress me. Nor your targeting of homophobes, transphobes, sexists. The reason your calls for suppression against these people don’t impress me today is because I have no idea who you are going to be trying to suppress tomorrow.

        I take my guidance from Thomas Paine:

        He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

        Fascism manifests by constantly identifying new and exciting targets for oppression. I reserve my right to disagree with you in the future, so I must defend against your suppressive acts today.

    • adderaline@beehaw.orgEnglish
      21·
      9 months ago

      i really don’t understand this perspective. we aren’t talking about the ability for anybody to silence anyone for any reason, we’re talking specifically about rhetoric calling for the death of human beings. is that not a well defined category of speech we should at least keep an eye on? should we let people actively call for the death of other people, when we know historically that that specific kind of rhetoric can lead to people being put in camps?

      like, if somebody’s sole contribution to an platform is doxxing anybody they don’t like, they should be stopped. if they shout death threats in a public forum, they shouldn’t be in that forum. we don’t need to give platforms unchecked power over our lives to put reasonable limitations on conduct for public platforms.