I mean, yeah. It goes far beyond just Britain and France though. They want you to forget about the military dictatorships they upheld in Spain and South Korea too. They also want you to forget that the fascist Empire of Japan killed far more people during world war 2 than any other nation, and by most counts actually killed more people by themselves than was killed in the European theater entirely. They slaughtered entire nations.

And then you can talk about the American actions that ended the pacific war. The atrocities committed by both America and Japan on occupied nations. It’s a mess. Both of those states committed a littany of horrific acts of violence on millions of people. There is no good side or bad side. Only the side that surrendered.

History is this way for the most part. It’s deeply unsatisfying. But the lie was that there are any good wars to begin with. We only regard the holocaust as so unique because of the incidental details of how it was carried out. The rounding up, the trains, the gas chambers, the whole industry of it. But it was not all that unique an event in truth. In the late 19th and early 20th century the Armenian genocide came about in a similar manner and functioned in a similar way. There are many similarities in genocide. The holocaust exists as an archetypal series of events mostly because it was documented by the modern super powers of the world. We remember it because they want us to. They dont want us to remember the Nakba or the atrocities carried out by the military dictatorships they upheld across the world.

I am saying there should not be any other socioeconomic class other than the working class. The ruling class should be dissolved, the landowner class should be dissolved, the capitalist class should be dissolved, so and so forth until there is only the working class and all people are members of the working class.

If all members of society have the same relative power and access then there can be no monopoly of violence.

As to your second paragraph I cant tell what youre trying to get at? Are you saying that in order to criticize something I must entirely seperate myself from it? I am not a representative of the state which claims authority over me. I do not support or endorse the actions of the state i am subjected to. I would gladly accept the systemic changes necessary to give all workers the same power.

I don’t see a reality that is entirely free from violence of any kind as conceivable. I do however see a future wherein there is no monpoly of violence as possible, and that such a future would result in far less violence as a whole.

I also completely agree that we need to solve the root causes of fascism. Fascism is very much a consequence of capitalism and inequalities as well.

There is no contradiction there. I’m an anarchist and fundamentally anti-capitalist.

The working class or the proletariat is by far the largest class in society. It encompasses all those who labor to survive, and all those who cannot profit by exploitation of labor.

All other classes should be dissolved and all people should hold the same relative power. Whenever anyone comes along and proposes giving all the guns to another specific group of people who will use violence on behalf of the working class, the working class should respond with collective violence to prevent a monopoly of violence from forming.

I fundamentally disagree. No one should be trusted to wield violence on behalf of the working class. The working class should use collective violence to prevent a monopoly of violence from ever forming in the first place.

This is all fine and well, but ultimately in my opinion doomed to failure. The state and the ruling class do not just have a monopoly on violence because of the social attitudes protecting them, but also because of the conditions they have created for the working class and the rewards they give to class traitors.

You will never convince the ruling class to give up their monopoly on violence. And they will never willingly change the conditions that allow them to maintain that monopoly.

Violence is also something of a law of the natural world. The relative freedom from violence that we experience in our lives is just an illusion. In actuality the state is able to maintain this illusion, which benefits them, by shifting violence out of our field of view towards impoverished communities who cannot defend or advocate for themselves. For those communities violence is a direct constant in their lives, it only appears to be otherwise from our ignorant perspective.

There is also the problem posed by fascism. Fascism is very specifically an ideology that exploits the attitudes of liberal democracy, one of those being a refusal to respond violently to extreme bigotry and mass manipulation. Fascists do not gain power by debate and reasoned argument, they do so by appealing to supremacist sentiment and bigotry. They are aware that liberal democracy will protect them so long as they present an air of legitimacy. The appropriate response to fascists, like any other kind of decay, is to remove them from society. No matter how you seek to do that it will be violence. Fascism must be met with a violent response. Fascism exploits the way people view this violence as distasteful, and it seeks to portray anyone who would violently remove them as morally evil. It positions itself as the victim of this violence by insisting that all violence must be judged only on immediate circumstances stripped of context. That changes nothing however. If fascists are allowed to exist and spread their ideology freely, then you already exist in a proto-fascist state.

Ahhh, yes i see the post in the div0 governance community. Thanks for clarifying.

Is it against the rules to deride the use of image generation models in this community? Clarifying because your rules section says nothing about it.

Lol, nope. You actually have it entirely backward.

Nazis can never win arguments. They can’t. Their ideology is not based on reality. It’s not based on material conditions. It’s not based on convincing others to join them with hard data or well reasoned positions. Nazis win people over by talking to them. They win people over because people who are privileged are opposed to any recognition of that, and above else want to continue to be privileged.

You will never lose a rational debate with a Nazi. It’s not really possible, because the nazi will never make rational arguments with you. Nazis instead will allude to conspiracies. They will allude to secret shadow societies that control everyone and that have the explicit goal of upending class hierarchy to take away privilege. Pay attention next time you see a Nazi argue something. See the language they use and see the way they position reality. Nazis lose rational debates. So they never have them to begin with.

Nazis will instead reach for the nearest loudest microphone and will scream their bigotry as loud as possible. They print newspapers, they do interviews, they famously were highly intertwined with radio networks, and so on. The method by which their ideology spreads is by subversion. It’s by creating fear of a secret other controlling everyone. The sad fact of the reality is that you cannot argue against that subversion. The argument isn’t rational to begin with, rationality cannot disprove it in the minds of those who believe it. A core part of the conspiracies are actually that anyone who argues against them is a part of the conspiracy. Any opposition to Nazism comes from those secret shadow society elements, and so any argument against it can be immediately dismissed.

Simply put, no. The marketplace of ideas is actually perfect for Nazis. If Nazis can’t create mass subversive fear of minorities then they cannot recruit. The KKK has largely been expelled from society for the past century (not entirely). You’d think that in a hundred years if, recruiting from the shadows was better for them, membership would be most of the country. Say what you will about American fascism the average voter definitely doesn’t think positively about the KKK.

Speaking with a Nazi posits that their ideology has the same value as yours. By engaging in a debate with a Nazi, which they won’t win but will instead use the opportunity to further spread Nazi ideology, you legitimate Nazism as a valid position to take. Now someone can be a Nazi, it’s okay to be one you can be a Nazi and still deserve the respect of an audience.

Nazis should be expelled from society in their entirety. Neoliberal propaganda has convinced you that all ideas have value. They do not. Killing minorities is inherently wrong. Spreading ideology that advocates the genocide of minorities is inherently wrong. Nazis should be met with a fist. Their media should be dismantled, and they should be imprisoned or expelled from society. Time and time again we arrive at this same place. When I wonder will anyone actually learn?

75% of white men voted for Trump. It was categorically not the fault of people criticizing her support of genocide, her militarization of the border, or her continued appeal to conservatives. Your failure to recognize this is exactly what theyre counting on to continue with the exact same platform. No, they do have to change. If a future world where fascism is defeated is the goal than either the democratic party has to change into a party that will actually challenge it, or else the system of politics in America itself must be dismantled.

That’s what I’m saying, though. Incredibly justified criticism of her did not lose the election. She chose to ignore criticism and focus on appealing to conservatives.

To Trump. Her platform was essentially a “stay the course, maintain the status quo” platform which has been terrible for a lot of people.

The average voter doesn’t know or understand what the word fascism means, what project 2025 is even if you explain it to them, or what trans rights are. They don’t know whether illegal immigration is a problem or not. They live within massive propaganda machines that often confuse them and are taught to believe anything else is wrong on principal.

For many of those people, including many minorities and many women, the status quo has not treated them well. And someone who’s entire campaign was built on maintaining the status quo was deeply unpopular with those people. Trump offered a radical restructuring of society. He offered a dramatic shift in status quo and a government with entirely different priorities.

That appealed to those people, who both do not understand politics and are confused about what any of it really means anyway. All they know is that life under Biden saw their lives get much worse and the other guy says he’s going to change that and says he knows how. He doesn’t, of course. But they don’t know that. They don’t live in the echo chambers we do discussing these problems. Their primary use of social media is sharing pictures with friends and family. They’re annoyed by their friends who keep talling politics online, politics confuses and frustrates them.

Obama’s campaign was built on change and it’s what one him 2 elections. The first one by a landslide. Lessee of two evil politics, staying the course politics, is never going to drum up support enough to defeat fascism.

Kamala’s participation and enthusiastic support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was a significant factor in her losing. As was her enthusiastic support for border militarization and conspiracies about illegal immigrants.

She dug her own grave. We were told to shut up whenever we mentioned how unpopular those positions are with anyone who’s not a far right nationalist. She drove millions of voters away from her by being a neoliberal conservative. This outcome was entirely predictable.

Yeah, everyone who spoke up was told to shut up. Already white middle class liberal Americans are scrambling to blame anyone but themselves and the democratic party. Liberals are not a challenge to fascism.

Yikes :( that’s brutal. You could use a seedbox and encryption? I think that would mostly circumvent that issue. If storing it locally isn’t a concern, then just hosting it on the seedbox and connecting services like Plex to it works as well.

In Canada, they can send those letters but not much else.

You might know someone who has, I sure don’t. I’ve been in rehab, I’ve been in women’s shelters. I’ve been in homeless shelters. I’ve met a lot of people who have been victims of violence. Loads who have gone to the police for help too. I cannot name a single person for whom the police did literally anything beneficial whatsoever. There are a lucky few. Mostly white mostly middle class people.

But that’s all besides the point. And you’re choosing to continue to ignore that this is not the purpose of the police. A side action that they are occasionally asked to perform, and which they very rarely do anything beneficial towards. More often than not police are themselves perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse (their daily job is literally commiting acts of violence and using the threat of violence, it’s not surprising). The primary purpose of their job has nothing to do with violent crime or with violent crime prevention.

My point being getting rid of them isn’t going to change all that much if they don’t actually do all that much anyway. Women get raped every day. Sexual violence is essentially a given for the majority of women in our society. The number of victims is staggering, especially when you poll people indirectly. Police do nothing about this. It’s literally not their job. I know a girl who was sexually assaulted at 15 by a man in his mid 20s. Not only did the police fail to do anything, but the justice system actually supported the man and absolved him of all wrong doing just because. She was harassed by members of law enforcement who were friends with the man and local members of her community to the point that her family literally fled out of the country out of fear for her safety. Hers is just one story in a mile high pile.

There are millions of women who have been victimized again when trying to report crimes that happened against them. Being a woman or a minority immediately dispels any fucking notion that the police are there to protect you. That’s not the point of their job. It literally isn’t that is literally not why police were conceived of nor is it what they spend their time doing. I don’t have to come up with a system that ends all violence. No such system presently exists.

If I’m being asked to replace the police then I’m sorry your question doesn’t actually make sense. I’m an abolitionist, I don’t believe that the police should exist at all. I’m also an egalitarian who believes every hierarchy is coercive and we should dismantle all of them. I think that dismantling patriarchy as a concept and giving women and non-binary people equal power and respect within every realm of society would do many times more to prevent sexual violence than any amount of coked up gun toting militaristic assholes with shiny badges will. When it comes down to individual instances of violence, I believe how it is handled should be decided by those in the community in question, those directly impacted. I believe that violent crime warrants some kind of response but it shouldn’t be up to some uninvolved unempathetic judicial system to decide how.

How do we deal with them now? Is dealing with serial killers the day to day of the police? Is that their primary function? Do they even really do anything about it without constant prompting from victims and the community?

I’ve been a victim of physical and sexual violence. Nearly every woman I know has been at some point. None of us have ever had any positive experience with the police. At most they hand wave us away, at worst we are accused of being liars and of wasting their time. Police don’t prevent anything. They don’t solve anything. They don’t address anything. They are only occasionally turned towards a specific person who has done something wrong and used a means of state violence against that person. That is an exceptionally rare occurrence. They are the perpetrators of violence many times more than they are the defenders of victims.

Essentially, what is being currently done about the john Wayne Gaceys of the world? What is currently being done about the Bill Cosby’s, about rapists and pedophiles? What are the police currently doing that actually prevents those things from happening? Nothing. They only do anything after something has already happened. And they don’t do anything to prevent those things happening again. Their daily job has literally nothing to do with the John Wayne Gaceys of the world. It is in the things I listed in another comment. In rent enforcement and eviction, in enforcing private property and means of production, in collecting menial tax from the impoverished, in defending the interests of the rich and of the state, and in harassing minorities while enforcing hierarchies of gender race and class.

No, I’m an anarchist and a police abolitionist.

I mean, it’s not a slur, but an insult? Sure. Liberals are not allies to leftists, and actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.