Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 22 2025 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: In my opinion we should use fascism rather than nazism because the nazi allegation is pretty easy to deflect through 'where are the concentration camps' or 'dude's been way more pro Israel than democrats are' or 'he was the first president in forever to not get involved in a new military conflict' whereas the potential 'where's the extreme nationalism' or 'where's the focus on a strong leader supposed to fix everything' or 'where's the autoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies' are pretty easy to answer.
If they are openly doing nazi salutes im calling them fucking nazis
I don't think arguing about whether the angle he extends his arm is more consistent with a nazi or a fascist salute is very productive. It can be either. Fascist is bad enough.
Nah man, this is softening the language, when theyre flying Nazi salutes theyre Nazis, they're also fascists, but theyre choosing to do Nazi things and just calling them fascists is, in my mind, less harsh than calling them Nazis. Everyone knows what a Nazi is and that Nazi = Evil, but fascists are a little fuzzier, a little easier to talk people into liking.
Elon Musk is a Nazi and anyone down with him Seig'ing the fuck out of that Heil like he did at the inauguration is also probably a fuckin' Nazi.
Feels like Trump's Day 1 was more impactful than Biden's first 100 days. These are just some of the things he did.
Pardoning fascist insurrectionists
Mr. Trump on Monday pardoned roughly 1,500 individuals who were convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the far-right group the Proud Boys who was serving a 22-year sentence for seditious conspiracy, and Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, were both released from prison.
Leaving the people that helped the US fight in Afghanistan in limbo
President Donald Trump’s executive order to suspend the US refugee program could leave at least 2,000 Afghans in limbo who had previously been approved to resettle in the US, a major Afghan advocacy organization is warning.
“When you’re in hiding, and when you’re terrified, every day feels like an eternity,” VanDiver said. “Years results in lost trust. We are creating national security problems for ourselves by making it impossible for these folks, to whom we made a promise, to enjoy that promise.”
TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) — They came from Haiti, Venezuela and around the world, pulling small rolling suitcases crammed with clothing and stuffed animals to occupy their children. They clutched cellphones showing that after months of waiting they had appointments — finally — to legally enter the United States.
Now outside a series of north Mexico border crossings where mazes of concrete barriers and thick fencing eventually spill into the United States, hope and excitement evaporated into despair and disbelief moments after President Donald Trump took office. U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced Monday that the CBP One app that worked as recently as that morning would no longer be used to admit migrants after facilitating entry for nearly 1 million people since January 2023.
Tens of thousands of appointments that were scheduled into February were canceled, applicants were told.
That was it. There was no way to appeal, and no one to talk to.
nazi salute behind the seal of the president of the united states but both sides are the same. trumps a great president. people voted for this proudly.
sucks that next time the world decides to start killing nazis it’ll be on our soil.
On January 21 2025 08:41 Zambrah wrote:
On January 21 2025 08:34 brian wrote: nazi salute behind the seal of the president of the united states but both sides are the same. trumps a great president. people voted for this proudly.
sucks that next time the world decides to start killing nazis it’ll be on our soil.
Its shameful were gonna have to do it again, but maybe this time we won't be so gracious. Noticing a lot of problems are from being nice to really bad people, should've cracked down harder on the Confederate South post war, should have cracked down harder on the Nazis.
These are valid sentiments.
Questions that need answering:
1. Where's the line/who is going to draw it? 2. Who do people imagine is going to do the killing of the fascists when they cross it?
I don't think anyone believes it is going to be Democrats or that Democrats will let anyone else do it in their stead.
Definitely gonna be a split within the Democrats as plenty of them are gonna absolutely side with the fascists by virtue of them being "legitimate" (legitimate in this case just meaning In Power) I think the rank and file members will probably be less involved in the kowtowing than the politicians, a sizeable chunk of whom I'd imagine just siding the fascists first chance they get if they think itll benefit them in any way.
As for who is gonna start killing fascists, thats a tough one, I imagine it'll start with some massive atrocity, a lot of handwringing at the start, a lot of justification about why violence isnt the answer, and then I think it'll wind up in broader scale war-type stuff. Obviously the most marginalized communities will be doing the work at the start as they have to defend themselves, I think a majority of society will eventually fight the fascists though.
This is all inane postulation on my part, I'm completely guesstimating based on history and my own thoughts about the state of the average person in the year of our dark lord 2025.
I mean it wasn't the Germans that stopped the rise of fascism in the ~1920's-40's, I don't think it'll be USians stopping it in the ~2020's-40's.
Libs/Dems/Republicans can't draw a line (they've demonstrated bipartisan support for genocide already) and still can't even imagine where they'd draw one today. Presumably some of them will still be alive and working as fascists while for some reason (probably personal, like them being next in the line of people targeted by fascists) being receptive to aiding an outside party in subversion.
Then (presuming the fascists lose) the outside party will have to look at that subverter that worked as a fascist until the fascists started to target people like them and decide whether they deserve clemency or condemnation.
"Lesser evilism" will be a sort of modern version of "just following orders" when that time comes.
EDIT: So were still left wondering where the line will be drawn and who will draw/enforce it.
No idea where the line drawn will be, probably notably further out than any civilized person would have wanted it to, somewhere past camps and somewhere into mass systematic killings is my guess.
I will say that I dont see anyone else fighting and killing fascists in any major way in the US, I think it'll be closer to Civil War style than World War style
The North beat the South in part because they had significant strategic and systemic advantages that are in no way replicated in the fascist vs anti-fascist dynamic we face in the US currently.
What I see as far more likely based on the current evidence is that the lines will continue to be drawn by several groups as they/their comrades are targeted by fascists until there's only one side (and "pragmatic lesser evilists" lol) left in the civil war (sorta like 1930's Germany). Then they will focus more on their international fascist endeavors.
I expect Europe to be complicit appeasers and the US to find opposition to it's attempt to take its open fascism global from the East and Global South. Who will ultimately win is probably nobody, and humans will just end up "fighting World War IV with sticks and stones".
A small part of me still believes there are enough "progressives/social dems/etc" that can recognize the necessity of the revolution you're describing and they will take this opportunity to course correct and get organized as socialists. Then I watch some Pod Save America type content or read a lib/Dem post here and have that optimism bleed out of me like a stuck pig.
I dunno, I honestly dont see the US military siding with the fascists in the foreseeable future, I see them not being very willing to strike hard against the fascists, but I dont see the military being used in force by the fascists tbh, maybe in another 20 - 40 years when the fascists have done more work in infiltrating and filtering out opposition, but atm I think society vs fascists has society winning the majority of the time
I don't see foreign powers doing shit, we still have nuclear arms and I dont think anyone wants to FAFO with that in a time of desperate political upheaval, best the US gets is moral support from abroad
The US military that did Abu Ghraib? The one that arms and trains a genocidal Israel? The one policing the public in NYC? I'm sorry, but I think they already side with fascists. Nevermind the actual neonazis and various forms of authoritarianism fans you find in the military.
That said, veterans went Trump ~65-35 so I wouldn't expect all of them to join the fascists. It's probably more evenly split among younger/active duty troops, but it's still ~half of the military that is already supporting Trump. You're not wrong to suggest watching the military to see if there are significant changes as an indication especially dangerous moves are being made. Though I doubt it would take 20-40 years.
Small upside is that it still looks like Trump isn't faking his rapacious incompetence and narcissism so hopefully the fascists that support him take a backseat to his insatiable need to enrich himself and have his ass kissed. Buuuut the wealthiest person in the country doing Nazi salutes on Trump's stage and pushing far right politics in Germany poses dangerous overlapping potential for Trump's greed and fascism generally.
The US military killing brown foreigners is different than the police killing brown americans, the police are far more fully fascistized imo, or at the very least infinitely more accepting of it than the military, the highest ranks of the military I think would more probably not fold over ('til theyre replaced with fascists, 20 - 40 years is my guesstimate timeline for that) Cops are used to killing and fucking with citizens, the military doesnt engage with the citizenry like that nearly as much (thats what the FBI is for! I definitely see them going SS-style before the military flips)
As for Trump, yeah I dont think hes a proper fascist flag holder in any serious ideological way, hes fascist for his own gain and thats why my timelines for fascitic takeovers are more in the 20 - 40 year range, gives them time to build more power and get a proper ideologically committed fascist psychopath leader in charge, capture the military, etc.
Naturally Democrats will do fuck all to stop any of this in any meaningful way and on any level, throwing this in here because I am filled with irritation and disgust thinking through these sorts of scenarios and seeing how Democrats did little to nothing to stop any of it. Spineless fuckin' shits.
They are more similar than you think. Angela Davis' "Abolition Democracy" touches on this. Nazi Germany's crime was in many ways treating its citizens/other Europeans like those Europeans treated the Global South for centuries. Trump is in that same vein. He is basically promising to bring US foreign policy home. Something about the fear of being its victim makes people recognize the policies the politicians they vote for have supported for decades are actually fascism.
The military will hopefully be among the last to go and it'll likely be when they are tasked with confronting the police, private security forces (like Pinkertons), and of course the Proud Boys/Boogaloo Boys/various other neonazi militia types. When the military troops see guys they served with in those various gangs, the ~50% that agree with Trump and his fascism will not be willing to interfere with them.
Eventually that causes a schism which the fascists seize on and go after anyone that isn't on board with fascism, by any means necessary.
On January 22 2025 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: In my opinion we should use fascism rather than nazism because the nazi allegation is pretty easy to deflect through 'where are the concentration camps' or 'dude's been way more pro Israel than democrats are' or 'he was the first president in forever to not get involved in a new military conflict' whereas the potential 'where's the extreme nationalism' or 'where's the focus on a strong leader supposed to fix everything' or 'where's the autoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies' are pretty easy to answer.
They're always going to say they're not because Nazis don't give a fuck about good faith discourse.
It doesn't matter if they deflect. You don't actually need the permission of Nazis to call them Nazis. The idea of softening the language to try to get their buy-in is absurd, why are you still trying to find middle ground with these people? In what world do you say "meet me half way, will you at least agree you're a fascist?" and the guy saying that we need to cleanse the blood of the nation says "eh, that's fair"?
On January 22 2025 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Nazi Germany's crime was in many ways treating it's citizens/other Europeans like those Europeans treated the Global South for centuries.
Few thoughts here. Firstly, yes, kinda. It was taking the worst aspects of US Manifest Destiny or the Australian genocide and applying it in Europe.
But also the industrialized murder of the Holocaust was an entirely new kind of atrocity. There have been pogroms and massacres since time immemorial but Genghis Khan never would have dreamed of Auschwitz, nor would he have understood the purpose or ideology of it. The Einsatzgruppen, maybe, but Auschwitz was an entirely new meta.
Additionally Nazi Germany came at a time after western Europe had moved on from (or a cynic might argue finished with) Lebensraum style colonialism. Irish home rule was agreed upon in 1912. Colonial empires were being garbed with the fig leaf of stewardship. It was at least a hundred years too late.
It was also ideological in nature, rather than economic. When the Spanish looted South America for gold they at least got gold out of it. When the Confederacy insisted upon the racial supremacy of whites they did so knowing that their financial station depended upon enslaved black labour. It might not make a whole lot of difference to the people being killed but it is a difference.
It also irks me a bit that you try to preach on this while carrying so much water for the states that never moved on from naked expansionist imperialism. I'd much rather hear about the intrinsic evils of colonialism from someone who didn't mindlessly repeat the propaganda points of Putin verbatim. It implies that you've reached the correct conclusion through the broken clock method, you're not actually understanding why it's wrong to invade or colonize places. If you actually understood the ethical framework behind it you'd be less eager to simp for the CCP or Russian Empire. It feels more like you got to a reasonable criticism of western imperialism by accident without understanding that it's the imperialism bit that's bad, not the western part.
On January 22 2025 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: In my opinion we should use fascism rather than nazism because the nazi allegation is pretty easy to deflect through 'where are the concentration camps' or 'dude's been way more pro Israel than democrats are' or 'he was the first president in forever to not get involved in a new military conflict' whereas the potential 'where's the extreme nationalism' or 'where's the focus on a strong leader supposed to fix everything' or 'where's the autoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies' are pretty easy to answer.
If they are openly doing nazi salutes im calling them fucking nazis
I don't think arguing about whether the angle he extends his arm is more consistent with a nazi or a fascist salute is very productive. It can be either. Fascist is bad enough.
Nah man, this is softening the language, when theyre flying Nazi salutes theyre Nazis, they're also fascists, but theyre choosing to do Nazi things and just calling them fascists is, in my mind, less harsh than calling them Nazis. Everyone knows what a Nazi is and that Nazi = Evil, but fascists are a little fuzzier, a little easier to talk people into liking.
Elon Musk is a Nazi and anyone down with him Seig'ing the fuck out of that Heil like he did at the inauguration is also probably a fuckin' Nazi.
Would that include the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt as probable Nazis? They seemed to imply that he was awkwardly gesturing from enthusiasm, as you might expect an autistic person with a now older chubbier and less wieldy body to do. Perhaps it's yet another case of a long line of Judeo-Nazi apologism...?
On January 22 2025 17:26 KT_Elwood wrote: There has been no scientific evidence that WFH decreased worker's performance in germany.
The measured benefits:
- less stress - more free time - less costs for the employer - better time/wage ratio if you count in commutes - far less polution - far less unhealthy consumption of convinience food and drinks, more time for cooking - better physical fittness, due to 1-2 hours gained PER DAY to work out or just walk somewhere.. which is workout in industrialized world. - Less cost for transportation.. - Less public cost for transportation
A happy worker, is a bad consumer.
I thought the real problems were knowledge transfer, getting new workers trained, teambuilding and probably most importantly oversight and management.
I can work from home one day a week and it's great but I still come in 90% of the time. Because there are a lot of benefits being around coworkers even if I am as effective in my specific tasks on my own.
I expect goverments and companies to pull back wfh, evaluate and then roll it out again in some modified form where it is appropriate.
And yes, many people were already pissed off about the bureaucratic class and new public management (with some right I would say) and didn't enjoy them getting more benefits, even if it came with no cost to themselves.
As for the transgender issue.
If you push a change in society and you have an overlapp where people with different opinions on what gender is lay claim to the same definition it's going to lead to backlash. When it comes to gay men both sides can agree that it's a man and he's gay. The conservative part of the population might think it's wrong but a large amount of people don't care enough if they don't think it intrudes on them directly. With trans rights you put people on a direct collision course because both sides fundamentally disagree on gender which they are both part of and whichever side is in power and gets to decide will lead to grievences on the other side. Only option to get them to coexist is to merge their ideas of what gender is, which takes a long time. Maybe pushing for trans rights is the best way to do this but setbacks are expected as the conservative part of the population pushes back. And the only thing that's really changed is the definition of gender which has been fluid lately.
I'm from a generation which was raised on equal opportunity and the ideas that neither gender or your sexuality defined a person so I see both as minor parts of someone. Also means I think the trans movements fixation on gender is pretty weird in general. I think a focus of making things more gender neutral in general would have been a better way forward. Instead of fighting if trans men are allowed in women's sports, quietly change sports into biological parameters instead. Instead of figthing over bathrooms make more unisex bathrooms. You want to push the conservative part of the population they will push back.
As for international treaties I don't think you can tie an unwilling country into cooperation. The US population don't want it and it is what it is.
On January 22 2025 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: In my opinion we should use fascism rather than nazism because the nazi allegation is pretty easy to deflect through 'where are the concentration camps' or 'dude's been way more pro Israel than democrats are' or 'he was the first president in forever to not get involved in a new military conflict' whereas the potential 'where's the extreme nationalism' or 'where's the focus on a strong leader supposed to fix everything' or 'where's the autoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies' are pretty easy to answer.
If they are openly doing nazi salutes im calling them fucking nazis
I don't think arguing about whether the angle he extends his arm is more consistent with a nazi or a fascist salute is very productive. It can be either. Fascist is bad enough.
Nah man, this is softening the language, when theyre flying Nazi salutes theyre Nazis, they're also fascists, but theyre choosing to do Nazi things and just calling them fascists is, in my mind, less harsh than calling them Nazis. Everyone knows what a Nazi is and that Nazi = Evil, but fascists are a little fuzzier, a little easier to talk people into liking.
Elon Musk is a Nazi and anyone down with him Seig'ing the fuck out of that Heil like he did at the inauguration is also probably a fuckin' Nazi.
Would that include the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt as probable Nazis? They seemed to imply that he was awkwardly gesturing from enthusiasm, as you might expect an autistic person with a now older chubbier and less wieldy body to do. Perhaps it's yet another case of a long line of Judeo-Nazi apologism...?
Yeah, all these authistic people constantly making accidental Nazi-Salutes are really getting on my nerves since quite some time.
It just a nice showing of how much these organisations/people look after their own cushy positions over what's right.
On January 21 2025 13:23 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
[quote] These are valid sentiments.
Questions that need answering:
1. Where's the line/who is going to draw it? 2. Who do people imagine is going to do the killing of the fascists when they cross it?
I don't think anyone believes it is going to be Democrats or that Democrats will let anyone else do it in their stead.
Definitely gonna be a split within the Democrats as plenty of them are gonna absolutely side with the fascists by virtue of them being "legitimate" (legitimate in this case just meaning In Power) I think the rank and file members will probably be less involved in the kowtowing than the politicians, a sizeable chunk of whom I'd imagine just siding the fascists first chance they get if they think itll benefit them in any way.
As for who is gonna start killing fascists, thats a tough one, I imagine it'll start with some massive atrocity, a lot of handwringing at the start, a lot of justification about why violence isnt the answer, and then I think it'll wind up in broader scale war-type stuff. Obviously the most marginalized communities will be doing the work at the start as they have to defend themselves, I think a majority of society will eventually fight the fascists though.
This is all inane postulation on my part, I'm completely guesstimating based on history and my own thoughts about the state of the average person in the year of our dark lord 2025.
I mean it wasn't the Germans that stopped the rise of fascism in the ~1920's-40's, I don't think it'll be USians stopping it in the ~2020's-40's.
Libs/Dems/Republicans can't draw a line (they've demonstrated bipartisan support for genocide already) and still can't even imagine where they'd draw one today. Presumably some of them will still be alive and working as fascists while for some reason (probably personal, like them being next in the line of people targeted by fascists) being receptive to aiding an outside party in subversion.
Then (presuming the fascists lose) the outside party will have to look at that subverter that worked as a fascist until the fascists started to target people like them and decide whether they deserve clemency or condemnation.
"Lesser evilism" will be a sort of modern version of "just following orders" when that time comes.
EDIT: So were still left wondering where the line will be drawn and who will draw/enforce it.
No idea where the line drawn will be, probably notably further out than any civilized person would have wanted it to, somewhere past camps and somewhere into mass systematic killings is my guess.
I will say that I dont see anyone else fighting and killing fascists in any major way in the US, I think it'll be closer to Civil War style than World War style
The North beat the South in part because they had significant strategic and systemic advantages that are in no way replicated in the fascist vs anti-fascist dynamic we face in the US currently.
What I see as far more likely based on the current evidence is that the lines will continue to be drawn by several groups as they/their comrades are targeted by fascists until there's only one side (and "pragmatic lesser evilists" lol) left in the civil war (sorta like 1930's Germany). Then they will focus more on their international fascist endeavors.
I expect Europe to be complicit appeasers and the US to find opposition to it's attempt to take its open fascism global from the East and Global South. Who will ultimately win is probably nobody, and humans will just end up "fighting World War IV with sticks and stones".
A small part of me still believes there are enough "progressives/social dems/etc" that can recognize the necessity of the revolution you're describing and they will take this opportunity to course correct and get organized as socialists. Then I watch some Pod Save America type content or read a lib/Dem post here and have that optimism bleed out of me like a stuck pig.
I dunno, I honestly dont see the US military siding with the fascists in the foreseeable future, I see them not being very willing to strike hard against the fascists, but I dont see the military being used in force by the fascists tbh, maybe in another 20 - 40 years when the fascists have done more work in infiltrating and filtering out opposition, but atm I think society vs fascists has society winning the majority of the time
I don't see foreign powers doing shit, we still have nuclear arms and I dont think anyone wants to FAFO with that in a time of desperate political upheaval, best the US gets is moral support from abroad
The US military that did Abu Ghraib? The one that arms and trains a genocidal Israel? The one policing the public in NYC? I'm sorry, but I think they already side with fascists. Nevermind the actual neonazis and various forms of authoritarianism fans you find in the military.
That said, veterans went Trump ~65-35 so I wouldn't expect all of them to join the fascists. It's probably more evenly split among younger/active duty troops, but it's still ~half of the military that is already supporting Trump. You're not wrong to suggest watching the military to see if there are significant changes as an indication especially dangerous moves are being made. Though I doubt it would take 20-40 years.
Small upside is that it still looks like Trump isn't faking his rapacious incompetence and narcissism so hopefully the fascists that support him take a backseat to his insatiable need to enrich himself and have his ass kissed. Buuuut the wealthiest person in the country doing Nazi salutes on Trump's stage and pushing far right politics in Germany poses dangerous overlapping potential for Trump's greed and fascism generally.
The US military killing brown foreigners is different than the police killing brown americans, the police are far more fully fascistized imo, or at the very least infinitely more accepting of it than the military, the highest ranks of the military I think would more probably not fold over ('til theyre replaced with fascists, 20 - 40 years is my guesstimate timeline for that) Cops are used to killing and fucking with citizens, the military doesnt engage with the citizenry like that nearly as much (thats what the FBI is for! I definitely see them going SS-style before the military flips)
As for Trump, yeah I dont think hes a proper fascist flag holder in any serious ideological way, hes fascist for his own gain and thats why my timelines for fascitic takeovers are more in the 20 - 40 year range, gives them time to build more power and get a proper ideologically committed fascist psychopath leader in charge, capture the military, etc.
Naturally Democrats will do fuck all to stop any of this in any meaningful way and on any level, throwing this in here because I am filled with irritation and disgust thinking through these sorts of scenarios and seeing how Democrats did little to nothing to stop any of it. Spineless fuckin' shits.
They are more similar than you think. Angela Davis' "Abolition Democracy" touches on this. Nazi Germany's crime was in many ways treating its citizens/other Europeans like those Europeans treated the Global South for centuries. Trump is in that same vein. He is basically promising to bring US foreign policy home. Something about the fear of being its victim makes people recognize the policies the politicians they vote for have supported for decades are actually fascism.
The military will hopefully be among the last to go and it'll likely be when they are tasked with confronting the police, private security forces (like Pinkertons), and of course the Proud Boys/Boogaloo Boys/various other neonazi militia types. When the military troops see guys they served with in those various gangs, the ~50% that agree with Trump and his fascism will not be willing to interfere with them.
Eventually that causes a schism which the fascists seize on and go after anyone that isn't on board with fascism, by any means necessary.
Few thoughts here. Firstly, yes, kinda. It was taking the worst aspects of US Manifest Destiny or the Australian genocide and applying it in Europe.
But also the industrialized murder of the Holocaust was an entirely new kind of atrocity. There have been pogroms and massacres since time immemorial but Genghis Khan never would have dreamed of Auschwitz, nor would he have understood the purpose or ideology of it. The Einsatzgruppen, maybe, but Auschwitz was an entirely new meta.
Additionally Nazi Germany came at a time after western Europe had moved on from (or a cynic might argue finished with) Lebensraum style colonialism. Irish home rule was agreed upon in 1912. Colonial empires were being garbed with the fig leaf of stewardship. It was at least a hundred years too late.
It was also ideological in nature, rather than economic. When the Spanish looted South America for gold they at least got gold out of it. When the Confederacy insisted upon the racial supremacy of whites they did so knowing that their financial station depended upon enslaved black labour. It might not make a whole lot of difference to the people being killed but it is a difference.
It also irks me a bit that you try to preach on this while carrying so much water for the states that never moved on from naked expansionist imperialism. I'd much rather hear about the intrinsic evils of colonialism from someone who didn't mindlessly repeat the propaganda points of Putin verbatim. It implies that you've reached the correct conclusion through the broken clock method, you're not actually understanding why it's wrong to invade or colonize places. If you actually understood the ethical framework behind it you'd be less eager to simp for the CCP or Russian Empire. It feels more like you got to a reasonable criticism of western imperialism by accident without understanding that it's the imperialism bit that's bad, not the western part.
If we take into account the forced labor aspect of Nazi Germany camps, it's similar enough to Leopold II in the Congo. Which would have been something in Europeans living memory at the onset of Nazi Germany.
Whether they are precisely the same or not isn't really the point though. The point is that Trump is essentially going to bring US foreign policy home. Only then will a bunch of people in the US (particularly Democrats and their ilk) realize their Democrat politicians have been supporting fascism this whole time.
One reason for both is as a response to previously exploited groups gaining some level of autonomy that leaves the capitalist fascists scrambling for new people to exploit or places/ways to ramp up the exploitation to make up for the loss.
On January 22 2025 21:31 Uldridge wrote: What does an alliance only on paper even entail? That doesn't mean anything. If they held up the terms of the signed paper during the time they said they were going to not come at each other, they were allies de facto, no? An alliance does not have to extend indefinitely for them to be seen as allies. Call it a short term alliance if you will, would that make you happy?
Alliance on paper is pretty simple. Britain became hostile towards Germany two days after the invasion of Poland. Hitler was offering peace to Britain, to which Churchill said "no eff you, you've fooled us enough. Surrender unconditionally and also I can do this all day". Meanwhile the USSR, which had a pact with Nazi Germany, did not go to war against Britain the whole time, while Germany was getting pummeled by Britain. In the most common sense, allies would help each other when they're being attacked by another country. They would send troops if possible. Just like the US would fight for Israel with its own troops. Those are real allies, US and Israel. The USSR had no such relationship with Nazi Germany.
Poland had an alliance with France and the UK, which specifically mentioned an attack by Germany but excluded the USSR. When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, France and the UK declared war on Germany but not the Soviet Union. Does that mean that Poland and France/the UK were or were not allies?
On January 22 2025 21:31 Uldridge wrote: What does an alliance only on paper even entail? That doesn't mean anything. If they held up the terms of the signed paper during the time they said they were going to not come at each other, they were allies de facto, no? An alliance does not have to extend indefinitely for them to be seen as allies. Call it a short term alliance if you will, would that make you happy?
Alliance on paper is pretty simple. Britain became hostile towards Germany two days after the invasion of Poland. Hitler was offering peace to Britain, to which Churchill said "no eff you, you've fooled us enough. Surrender unconditionally and also I can do this all day". Meanwhile the USSR, which had a pact with Nazi Germany, did not go to war against Britain the whole time, while Germany was getting pummeled by Britain. In the most common sense, allies would help each other when they're being attacked by another country. They would send troops if possible. Just like the US would fight for Israel with its own troops. Those are real allies, US and Israel. The USSR had no such relationship with Nazi Germany.
Poland had an alliance with France and the UK, which specifically mentioned an attack by Germany but excluded the USSR. When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, France the the UK declared war on Germany but not the Soviet Union. Does that mean that Poland and France/the UK were or were not allies?
Or Japan not declaring on the USSR despite Germany declaring on the USA.
On January 22 2025 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: In my opinion we should use fascism rather than nazism because the nazi allegation is pretty easy to deflect through 'where are the concentration camps' or 'dude's been way more pro Israel than democrats are' or 'he was the first president in forever to not get involved in a new military conflict' whereas the potential 'where's the extreme nationalism' or 'where's the focus on a strong leader supposed to fix everything' or 'where's the autoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies' are pretty easy to answer.
If they are openly doing nazi salutes im calling them fucking nazis
I don't think arguing about whether the angle he extends his arm is more consistent with a nazi or a fascist salute is very productive. It can be either. Fascist is bad enough.
Nah man, this is softening the language, when theyre flying Nazi salutes theyre Nazis, they're also fascists, but theyre choosing to do Nazi things and just calling them fascists is, in my mind, less harsh than calling them Nazis. Everyone knows what a Nazi is and that Nazi = Evil, but fascists are a little fuzzier, a little easier to talk people into liking.
Elon Musk is a Nazi and anyone down with him Seig'ing the fuck out of that Heil like he did at the inauguration is also probably a fuckin' Nazi.
Would that include the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt as probable Nazis? They seemed to imply that he was awkwardly gesturing from enthusiasm, as you might expect an autistic person with a now older chubbier and less wieldy body to do. Perhaps it's yet another case of a long line of Judeo-Nazi apologism...?
Yeah, all these authistic people constantly making accidental Nazi-Salutes are really getting on my nerves since quite some time.
It just a nice showing of how much these organisations/people look after their own cushy positions over what's right.
They could also just be wrong to be fair. Although it seems somewhat unlikely to me.
Regardless, I think it’s pretty patently ridiculous to pull a ‘but the ADL said…’ on this occasion from folks who’ve mocked the ASL for calling out dog whistles and whatnot for years now.
On January 22 2025 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: In my opinion we should use fascism rather than nazism because the nazi allegation is pretty easy to deflect through 'where are the concentration camps' or 'dude's been way more pro Israel than democrats are' or 'he was the first president in forever to not get involved in a new military conflict' whereas the potential 'where's the extreme nationalism' or 'where's the focus on a strong leader supposed to fix everything' or 'where's the autoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies' are pretty easy to answer.
If they are openly doing nazi salutes im calling them fucking nazis
I don't think arguing about whether the angle he extends his arm is more consistent with a nazi or a fascist salute is very productive. It can be either. Fascist is bad enough.
Nah man, this is softening the language, when theyre flying Nazi salutes theyre Nazis, they're also fascists, but theyre choosing to do Nazi things and just calling them fascists is, in my mind, less harsh than calling them Nazis. Everyone knows what a Nazi is and that Nazi = Evil, but fascists are a little fuzzier, a little easier to talk people into liking.
Elon Musk is a Nazi and anyone down with him Seig'ing the fuck out of that Heil like he did at the inauguration is also probably a fuckin' Nazi.
Would that include the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt as probable Nazis? They seemed to imply that he was awkwardly gesturing from enthusiasm, as you might expect an autistic person with a now older chubbier and less wieldy body to do. Perhaps it's yet another case of a long line of Judeo-Nazi apologism...?
Yeah, all these authistic people constantly making accidental Nazi-Salutes are really getting on my nerves since quite some time.
It just a nice showing of how much these organisations/people look after their own cushy positions over what's right.
They could also just be wrong to be fair. Although it seems somewhat unlikely to me.
Regardless, I think it’s pretty patently ridiculous to pull a ‘but the ADL said…’ on this occasion from folks who’ve mocked the ASL for calling out dog whistles and whatnot for years now.
False negatives and false positives are fundamentally different errors. For the same reason you are hopefully more likely to criticize a doctor who gave antacids to someone complaining of chest pain and died of a heart attack, than you are to criticize a doctor who gave a patient a blood test, EKG, ultrasound, MRI, and angiogram who ended up only having heartburn. The mechanics of the selective invocation of the ADL you want to get at are more than the possible gotcha you are otherwise right to be initially skeptical about. There is no risk to the ADL, who created themselves to police antisemitism, calling an inanimate green frog an antisemitic hate symbol. It's not going to sue them for defamation and it's not going to have any negative consequences - it's safe.
When you get a self-described pro-semite doing an apparent LITERAL Nazi salute, you'd think it would be the perfect opportunity to nail him to the wall, so to speak. Rather, they were extra careful to get it right this time. The deeper issue is that this part of the left cannot sincerely use the moral gravity of Nazism to criticize a political faction made up of alleged fascists who are all... Israel supporters, Zionists, Jewish, or all of the above (or indeed whose defenders are any or all of the above as in the ADL's case), when the left has rabid antisemitism. Antisemitism is fundamental to every iteration of Nazism. Calling supporters of Israel Nazi is as laugh-out-of-the-roomable as calling Hitler Jewish. It is a painful category mistake. In fact it's so absurd that I can only picture it as a bar insult among opposite aisle bigots. Like a skinhead saying to a guy Netanyahu is a Nazi and then him responding oh yeah? well Hitler loved Israel and ate matzo balls every day. And both of their faces turning red and going "you take that back." What Drone is correct on for reasons of basic decorum, is actually also correct in basic facts.
On January 22 2025 21:31 Uldridge wrote: What does an alliance only on paper even entail? That doesn't mean anything. If they held up the terms of the signed paper during the time they said they were going to not come at each other, they were allies de facto, no? An alliance does not have to extend indefinitely for them to be seen as allies. Call it a short term alliance if you will, would that make you happy?
Alliance on paper is pretty simple. Britain became hostile towards Germany two days after the invasion of Poland. Hitler was offering peace to Britain, to which Churchill said "no eff you, you've fooled us enough. Surrender unconditionally and also I can do this all day". Meanwhile the USSR, which had a pact with Nazi Germany, did not go to war against Britain the whole time, while Germany was getting pummeled by Britain. In the most common sense, allies would help each other when they're being attacked by another country. They would send troops if possible. Just like the US would fight for Israel with its own troops. Those are real allies, US and Israel. The USSR had no such relationship with Nazi Germany.
Poland had an alliance with France and the UK, which specifically mentioned an attack by Germany but excluded the USSR. When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, France and the UK declared war on Germany but not the Soviet Union. Does that mean that Poland and France/the UK were or were not allies?
I'm not interested in involving myself in this ridiculous discussion any longer because we're all clearly talking past each other and nobody except me appears to be willing to admit to the fact that we are indeed talking past each other. I don't care about a pointless discussion about semantics. I'll refer to two credible sources, quoting from one of the sources, and that'll be it on my part. If people still don't understand the point, that's their problem and I won't be wasting my time.
"The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was never intended and never became an alliance based on ideologies shared by Germany and the Soviet Union, since these had little in common. The Pact was evidence of temporarily shared interests that brought Hitler and Stalin together and kept them allied for nearly two years."
On January 22 2025 17:26 KT_Elwood wrote: There has been no scientific evidence that WFH decreased worker's performance in germany.
The measured benefits:
- less stress - more free time - less costs for the employer - better time/wage ratio if you count in commutes - far less polution - far less unhealthy consumption of convinience food and drinks, more time for cooking - better physical fittness, due to 1-2 hours gained PER DAY to work out or just walk somewhere.. which is workout in industrialized world. - Less cost for transportation.. - Less public cost for transportation
A happy worker, is a bad consumer.
I thought the real problems were knowledge transfer, getting new workers trained, teambuilding and probably most importantly oversight and management.
I can work from home one day a week and it's great but I still come in 90% of the time. Because there are a lot of benefits being around coworkers even if I am as effective in my specific tasks on my own.
I expect goverments and companies to pull back wfh, evaluate and then roll it out again in some modified form where it is appropriate.
And yes, many people were already pissed off about the bureaucratic class and new public management (with some right I would say) and didn't enjoy them getting more benefits, even if it came with no cost to themselves.
..........
If I need step by step instructions, I prefer a shared screen and Zoom call over having somebody hanging over my shoulder at my pc.
If I have a broader problem... having a group call and everyone has access to their documents... feels far more efficient.
Wasting hours on the street feels so dumb.
Also basicly every company can use project management tools with tickets, open points, call them whatever.
Replace middle management by a dashboard of how many tickets are left open (in developement) or how many customer emails are left unanswered.)
On January 23 2025 02:40 oBlade wrote: False negatives and false positives are fundamentally different errors. For the same reason you are hopefully more likely to criticize a doctor who gave antacids to someone complaining of chest pain and died of a heart attack, than you are to criticize a doctor who gave a patient a blood test, EKG, ultrasound, MRI, and angiogram who ended up only having heartburn. The mechanics of the selective invocation of the ADL you want to get at are more than the possible gotcha you are otherwise right to be initially skeptical about. There is no risk to the ADL, who created themselves to police antisemitism, calling an inanimate green frog an antisemitic hate symbol. It's not going to sue them for defamation and it's not going to have any negative consequences - it's safe.
When you get a self-described pro-semite doing an apparent LITERAL Nazi salute, you'd think it would be the perfect opportunity to nail him to the wall, so to speak. Rather, they were extra careful to get it right this time. The deeper issue is that this part of the left cannot sincerely use the moral gravity of Nazism to criticize a political faction made up of alleged fascists who are all... Israel supporters, Zionists, Jewish, or all of the above (or indeed whose defenders are any or all of the above as in the ADL's case), when the left has rabid antisemitism. Antisemitism is fundamental to every iteration of Nazism. Calling supporters of Israel Nazi is as laugh-out-of-the-roomable as calling Hitler Jewish. It is a painful category mistake. In fact it's so absurd that I can only picture it as a bar insult among opposite aisle bigots. Like a skinhead saying to a guy Netanyahu is a Nazi and then him responding oh yeah? well Hitler loved Israel and ate matzo balls every day. And both of their faces turning red and going "you take that back." What Drone is correct on for reasons of basic decorum, is actually also correct in basic facts.
You don't realize supporting Zionism is the new fascist dogwhistle? Get the Israeli state so strong so that all the Jews can go over there and be Jews together so that they can stop their white dilution plans in the USA and so that they can stop having all the wealth and mind control through Hollywood. The left's "antisemitism" stems from Israel's continuous oppression. Please get your narratives straight.
On January 22 2025 21:42 Magic Powers wrote: Just like the US would fight for Israel with its own troops. Those are real allies, US and Israel. The USSR had no such relationship with Nazi Germany.
But the US didn’t deploy its troops to Gaza when Israel declared war on Gaza. Nor did it during the Yom Kippur war. Nor the six day war. Nor the occupations of Lebanon. Nor the suez crisis. Your example of a real alliance where they come through with troops on the ground is an alliance where that literally didn’t happen. You contrast this with a paper alliance where they contributed a quarter million men and overran Poland with their ally. If we’re using the Soviet invasion of Poland as an example of no troops being deployed and the imaginary US non invasion of Egypt as an example of troops being deployed then I think we’ve given up on the meaning of words.
The back and forths with Magic Powers making his own definitions for words is a recurrent theme. You can sit there until you're blue in the face and tell him that, for example, shooting someone in back does not constitute "self-defense" but it's not going to change his mind. He's not going to be deterred by everyone disagreeing with his unique use of words.
On January 22 2025 21:42 Magic Powers wrote: Just like the US would fight for Israel with its own troops. Those are real allies, US and Israel. The USSR had no such relationship with Nazi Germany.
But the US didn’t deploy its troops to Gaza when Israel declared war on Gaza. Nor did it during the Yom Kippur war. Nor the six day war. Nor the occupations of Lebanon. Nor the suez crisis. Your example of a real alliance where they come through with troops on the ground is an alliance where that literally didn’t happen. You contrast this with a paper alliance where they contributed a quarter million men and overran Poland with their ally. If we’re using the Soviet invasion of Poland as an example of no troops being deployed and the imaginary US non invasion of Egypt as an example of troops being deployed then I think we’ve given up on the meaning of words.
The back and forths with Magic Powers making his own definitions for words is a recurrent theme. You can sit there until you're blue in the face and tell him that, for example, shooting someone in back does not constitute "self-defense" but it's not going to change his mind. He's not going to be deterred by everyone disagreeing with his unique use of words.
Remind me, when was the last time you admitted that you were wrong about something.
EPT
