unironically, he ought to be next, and he better know it, and he better go quietly

I don’t think the fascism would exist if it wasn’t profitable to give it a platform.

That’s stupid!

I am shocked to see this pseudofascist apologia so highly upvoted.

It’s not the media’s coverage of the fascism that’s the problem.

You would rather deflect blame to the media than point the finger at the fascism. Shame on you.

you’re simplifying a complex situation

the ‘right wing’ believes climate change is a hoax. you’re struggling with a failed conception of ‘both sides’ politics. please receive a plot update.

acting like going through post history is discourse, like this, should merit a sitewide ban for 36 hours

As one of said assholes, the biggest problem I have with Lemmy is that it’s stuck trying to be both the Old Internet in which directness was prized and encouraged no matter how acerbic, and Comfort Internet for nonpartisans.

When these two crowds mix there’s going to be discomfort.

And freedom from participation in politics is hiding in privilege to some very real extent, so in some ways I don’t know how to be sympathetic to your plight.

But all politics is ragebait, isn’t it? I’ve come back to this general feeling that we need more rage, not less.

The doctrinal conflicts on the Internet are yet to be resolved. We still have the disaffected rightwing types who haven’t really had it sink in yet that they failed and their loser is and was always a loser. We still have moderate idiots who think that ‘both sides’ need to curtail their extremists.

It’s an irony that one of the Left’s strengths is dogmatism, because I do think there’s dogmatic leftists here that I find insufferable. I didn’t used to dislike male feminists as much as I do now, but let women represent women’s issues.

In the meanwhile, the leftist dogma of No Platforming Stupid Rightwing Shit needs to be more formidably advanced.

this means that if Unity sends you a bill, you don’t have to pay it, and if they take you to court, you prove that you’re acting within the terms of the license you agreed to, which keeps your lawyer fees to a manageable level because you already have all the documents you need: the contract and your source code.

I mean right? IANAL.

is very fascist in of itself.

No. It’s not fascist to have a firm and authoritative opinion. It is, perhaps, violent and authoritarian in outlook, but conservatives have just tolerated if not endorsed an insurrection under false pretenses and those conservatives have yet to kill the traitor responsible for it, so contemplation of violence is justified because this ‘cold civil war’ as Vivek called it is not going to end with that boomer criminal in power ever again.

you tell yourself a pretty story to make you feel better

I don’t think I shall commit to the insane proposition that humans use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors when climate change is currently killing the planet’s ecosystems off. To some extent I think you’ve got a high bar to clear for that proposition to be accepted!

Jokes or half-jokes aside, it’s not a new observation that people rationalize their politics after having decided what it is they feel. I’ve seen too much consensus reality with completely reasonable paragraph after paragraph to take reason all that seriously.

But I do believe that people are ‘reasonable’ in the way that you say: we don’t go around doing things just because (and to the extent that we do, it’s a good thing!). It’s when a group of people gather around a list of reasons that become an ideology that I start to get twitchy.

Feminism is a great movement but men who apply it as an ideology have missed something fundamental about the basis for reason in the expression of emotion.

I have explicitly told you I don’t care if I come off as unreasonable, so what’s your problem?

You need to accept the discomfort of disagreement or you don’t have my respect. This isn’t just weak shit, it’s repugnant: stop trying to police tone. I’m not a misogynist troll just because your feelings got hurt or whatever it is you’re trying to cover up.

Weakness doesn’t stop existing just because you’ve read enough theory.

Also consider that your approach is clearly combative, and that anger is something you need to address.

Don’t delegitimize anger, that’s basically why you’re failing here and generally. No shit it’s combative. So what?

Just because you’re trying to help doesn’t mean you’re good at helping. You feel motivated to block me, that’s another man for the trash can who thought his feminist credentials would, by themselves, prevent his opinions from being critiqued.

And what I do is speak with anti-women men online without trying to convert them to an ideology which is based around helping women.

Don’t gatekeep assistance by setting an arbitrary bar. It’s unhelpful.

fuck off? like do you understand how incoherent you are here? no, how could you, your entire ideology is based on the incoherent contradiction of feminism-for-women and feminism-for-everyone.

This is weak.

Then read it again. And don’t police tone.

We’re men helping men over here.

No, you’re posting online.

Do you personally volunteer at a battered women’s shelter? Then you’re a male ally.

Do you personally volunteer at a suicide hotline? Then you’re a man helping other men (when those men call in).

Otherwise I suspect, admitting that I don’t know you, that you think that you’re on a team that’s the good guys, and that you’re the only game in town, and you’re threatened that I don’t expect feminism to be something that it can’t and shouldn’t be, no matter how much ideological gymnastics are performed to try and convince men that feminism is on their side.

If you (or your ideology) profess a belief that you’re capable of being on everyone’s side you are grandiose and delusional. Help the people you can help, especially offline, but don’t be an ideological evangelist online because that isn’t meaningful participation in our society.

Yes we should try and make a society by everyone, for everyone. Intersectional feminism teaches us that the way to do this is to listen to the people with the experience, not the ideology which you, @surewhynotlem, are centering.

I am taking some rhetorical leeway towards a more radical presentation of the perspective, for clarity.

Solidarity can only be achieved once people can recognize one another as equals, and “women tell men how men should advocate for themselves” is not equal recognition. Of course women don’t think they’re womansplaining the oppression men experience.

I don’t believe in reason-based argumentation. Reason is how consent is manufactured. I trust reason only within the confines of the emotional message a so-called rational actor is emitting within the performance of the ritual of discourse. Too many women have been told to shut up for being ‘unreasonable’ for me to take reasonability all that seriously.

Certainly mothers should perform their motherhood within this lens. Their motherhood is centered, not the primacy of their opinion. The mistake the essentialization&monopolization type feminists make is centering feminism, when an ideology is not a cure for anything except the nagging sensation that if we come up with and communicate the right ideas the problems will go away.

I understood this perspective already. You’d rather process suicide into a pipeline in which “reasonable” suicide is more common than deal with the factors driving people to suicide.

Your need to control the “problem” is part of the overbearing control driving people to suicide. It’s my opinion that you’d be better off accepting the choice and not trying to second-guess men who shoot themselves, even if they’re drunk, impulsive, or any manner of “irrational” about it. (Rationality is a myth designed to sell more socially approved behaviors.)

In my left leaning circles it’s pretty well understood that feminism is about helping women. And that’s a good thing. Trying to make feminism an ideology which serves all genders is problematic because it implies an omniscient perspective counter to proper intersectionality. Men experience oppression but only men can represent their oppression in discourse.

Women can’t and shouldn’t feel like they can have an opinion on men’s issues. “Stay in your lane” comes to mind.

deleted by creator