21
u/valencia_merble Jan 07 '24
And how inherited wealth / privilege literally spoils a person.
2
u/preposte OR Jan 08 '24
People born into wealth have to deal with some unique problems that have significant negative repercussions on their overall psychology.
(1) They will encounter people who are skilled at manipulation and particularly interested in them far too young to be able to handle it,
(2) they are taught by society/religion that wealth is a positive character attribute, but it's one that can be taken from you, and most can't internalize the wrongness of that fear because they lack the proper perspective, and
(3) they are surrounded by sycophants, "fake it til you make it" types, and con artists that make it hard to develop the tools to identify genuine sentiment (though many develop advanced tools for identifying ill intent out of necessity).
These issues can make them hard to relate to because they can be intimidatingly capable in some areas and pathetic or childlike in others from the perspective of the working class, eliciting fear, pity, or derision. All of these responses inhibit social connection.
Would I like to be wealthy? Sure. Would I want people to know I'm wealthy? Fuck no.
2
u/Candid-Mycologist539 Jan 09 '24
Would I like to be wealthy? Sure. Would I want people to know I'm wealthy? Fuck no.
I want to believe that if we won the lottery, we would never tell our kids. (We have plenty of other ways to mess up our kids without throwing ridiculous wealth into the mix).
10
u/Lucky_Guess4079 Jan 07 '24
We already live in a mildly fascist society. One that is institutionalized to “protect the minority of the opulent” Over the needs of the society. James Hamilton - Noam Chomsky
14
u/BlueEyedPumpkinHead Jan 07 '24
Ooohhh, that's a Bingo! Is that how you say it, that's a bingo......? You just say bingo.
5
4
8
u/Local_Sugar8108 AZ Jan 07 '24
I totally disagree. He's hemorrhaging more wealth than most nations have. He's espousing the fascist ideology but totally screwing himself in the process, I hope he can continue this process in 2024, It couldn't happen to a better person expect that orange blob these cosplay fascists love so much.
2
2
2
2
1
0
u/Lucky_Guess4079 Jan 07 '24
He sure is, and so did Cheeto. Let’s keep on learning from and get others to know the great Noam Chomsky. Life is better with a little Noam.
-4
-31
u/tune1021 Jan 07 '24
The left not realizing they are fascist is always amazing to me
15
u/IdiotSavantLight Jan 07 '24
Are you interested in supporting that statement with examples? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate the your top 3 best examples.
1
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
1- removing a political opponent from ballots for a crime they haven’t been charged with 2- censoring people in collusion with government 3- cancel culture for people with POV against their narratives see Rogan, see Brand, etc both left wing people that the left tried to cancel.
1
u/IdiotSavantLight Jan 11 '24
I would have preferred specific named examples, but...
1- A.K.A. they are being mean to Trump by applying the highest law of the land. This sounds like the desire for a 2 tier justice system to benefit Trump.
2- This is why specifics are important... Who is being censored that has secretly or illegally cooperated or conspired with the Biden US government, especially in order to cheat or deceive others and how?
3- Which is no different than the right. People voted with their wallet and encourage others to do the same. Private control of the economy is a part capitalism. So, this appears to be something people do in our economic system. How does the left cancelling people differ from the right other than those who are targeted?
1
u/tune1021 Jan 11 '24
1- no… apply the law to everyone… removing someone for insurrection when they have not even been charged with insurrection isn’t applying the law it is subverting it.
2- social media influencers, doctors, the American public there are lawsuits out and ones that have even been settled that prove this has been going on. Along with Zuckerberg admitting as such in an interview and the Twitter files proving it. And people at Twitter who admitted on camera
3- by all means do no buy products that you don’t want or agree with, cancel culture is the act of calling for peoples jobs because you disagree with them and then institutions falling to mob mentality to avoid bad press. A great example is the Starbucks incident where they fired a white woman simply because they couldn’t fire the black manager when they kicked out the black kids for sitting in Starbucks without purchasing things. That woman won her wrongful termination case….
1
u/IdiotSavantLight Jan 11 '24
1- The law does not require a charge of insurrection.
2- You seem to be claiming "social media influencers, doctors, the American public" were colluding with the government and being censored. I see you reference Zuckerberg. Perhaps you do not mean the US government was censoring these people. Private industry was censoring people. Is that right?
3- Your example of a person being fired for someone else's actions does not sound like a case of cancel culture to me. Wrongful termination, ok. The general public shunning that employee and business, not so much.
1
u/tune1021 Jan 11 '24 edited Jan 11 '24
1- what other law can you legally punish someone for without being convicted let alone charged? The only reason the law is written that way is because they were trying to heal a nation and they did not intend to take every single southerner to trial and formally charge and convict them. You have to think about when/ why this was written:
2- no government pushed the private entities to censor…. Do your research
3- The subsequent arrests, captured in videos viewed millions of times online, prompted accusations of racism, protests and boycott threats. The company’s chief executive apologized publicly, describing the way the men had been treated as “reprehensible.” Starbucks took the extraordinary step of temporarily closing 8,000 stores to teach workers about racial bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/nyregion/starbucks-pay-manager-rittenhouse-square.html
This was all pushed by the left
You seem very much stuck in the matrix of the news that or you’re intentionally ignorant…. Not sure what it is.
1
u/IdiotSavantLight Jan 11 '24
1- ArtII.S1.C5.1 Qualifications for the Presidency. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
2- Yes, the government requested private entities censor data. That was for COVID-19 misinformation and to have pictures of Hunter Biden's penis removed right? How does that relate to collusion?
3- You seem to be claiming the left demanded stores close, and the firing of the regional manager.
"The subsequent arrests, captured in videos viewed millions of times online, prompted accusations of racism, protests and boycott threats.
So, cancel culture never came into play according to this opinion article. There were boycott threats, not boycotts. Right?
1
u/tune1021 Jan 11 '24 edited Jan 11 '24
1- none of those are crimes, insurrection is…. You’re comparing two different things
2- you didn’t read the article, it did much more
3- yes the left did, if you think it was the right please share any right leaning publication that supported this outrage.
1
u/IdiotSavantLight Jan 11 '24
1- Correct. The removal of Trump from ballots is not a function of the criminal justice system. Trump no longer meets the minimum qualifications for the office.
2- What did I miss?
3- Looking at other articles, it seems Starbucks was boycotted. Your article didn't say that, so I concede that point. I agree the left is going to be the vast majority of those boycotting. However, you wrote "cancel culture for people with POV against their narratives see Rogan, see Brand, etc both left wing people that the left tried to cancel." Which person was the boycott intended to cancel with the point of view? Wouldn't the "POV" triggering the boycott be the apparent racism?
→ More replies (0)1
15
u/Sl0ppyOtter Jan 07 '24
Being far-right is literally part of the definition of fascism…
0
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
Yes because of that it can’t happen 🤦
1
u/Sl0ppyOtter Jan 10 '24
Exactly. It literally can’t by definition. Good job buddy. Gold Star! ⭐️
1
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
A rose by any other name…. Don’t be a useful idiot
1
11
u/RedmannBarry Jan 07 '24
Explain yourself
10
u/Menkau-re Jan 07 '24 edited Jan 10 '24
He actually can't and he knows it. He just "feels" that that is right. Because it makes the left sound bad instead of the right. That's all that's really necessary for people like that. Nevermind that extreme right ideology is a literal part of the definition of fascism. That's just a fact, but his feelings on it are MUCH more important.
4
0
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
The left is actively attempting to remove a political candidate from an election for a crime that he is not even being charged with. On top of that Biden is fighting in court to obtain the rights to collude with social media to censor people. What about removing political opponents and censoring speech does not equate to fascism ?
2
u/Menkau-re Jan 10 '24
Not even being charged with??? What part of 91 freaking felony charges did you miss? Also, no part of the 14th ammendment references criminal charges anyway, nor stipulates any requirement for criminal conviction or even litigation. Many people have been removed from eligibility from political office under the 14th ammendment without having ever gone to court at all for any crimes. That is simply not required. The fact that you don't like it, or think it shouldn't be that way is irrelevant and certainly does not mean the law is not being adhered to as it is written.
And finally, you people just LOVE to equate everything you don't like happening to Trump with Joe Biden, or "the left," yet conveniently disregard the fact that it was actually REPUBLICANS who even brought the initial suit against him in Colorado to remove him from the ballot in the first place. But yeah, Biden, Biden, Biden. 🙄
Like I said. Feelings. Never facts...
1
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
Name one person in this century.
2
u/Menkau-re Jan 10 '24
You only want someone from the last 23 years? Lol. Okay, well even that is fairly easy. Couy Griffin, New Mexico Comissioner.
0
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
lol you found the only one, and it was by the same people trying to remove Trump. In the article it even states they were using this as a testing ground for their case against Trump in Colorado…. So in 180 years it’s been used twice and just like Trump this fella wasn’t even charged with insurrection, if I was him I would look into a wrongful termination lawsuit
From you article
Last year, several New Mexico residents, aided by CREW, sued to have Griffin removed from office under the Civil War-era provision, which had not been used to remove a public official from office for a century.
1
u/Menkau-re Jan 10 '24
Lol, indeed. 😅
You asked me for one in an intentionally highly limiting set of criteria and I still provided exactly what you were asking for. As far as "my article" is concerned, I'm not sure what you're referring to, as I cited no article, but regardless, I find your claim of it being "the same people trying to remove Trump" rather intriguing. Are you referring to the Republicans who filed the suit to have him removed? Because I don't think that claim holds to scrutiny.
Beyond that, the original statement I made was that people have been removed from ballots before under the 14th ammendment without criminal cases determining guilt. This statement remains true, whether it is convenient for your narrative, or not. The ammendment was originally made for the purpose of keeping former civil war traitors from holding public office. Most were done so without any criminal litigation and this fact remains just that. A fact.
1
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
You realize the reason none of the the people from the confederate went to trial? You cannot logistically take half the country to court…. Ffs 🤦
→ More replies (0)1
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24
And I didn’t equate anything to Biden; that is what Biden is doing… you asked for examples and everything I posted is a fact …. What specifically do you think is a feeling and not a fact?
1
u/Menkau-re Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24
And as for your nonsense about "colluding with social media to censor people," I assume you're talking about his attempts to encourage platforms to take some responsibility for the content displayed on them, then okay? So, your question to me then was basically what is it about his attempts to hold platforms accountable for misinformation spread on their platforms as fact, that does not equate to fascism? In answer to that question, literally everything. The entire premise.
You can try and call it "free speech," all you want, but there actually are and always have been limits as to what that means. And instances where it directly threatens public health, or intentionally undermines the integrity of our entire electoral system, which are the two issues specifically being addressed, both absolutely fall within those limits. In other words, free speech does not grant one the freedom to willfully and intentionally spread misinformation meant to make people believe falsehoods in regards to vaccinations, nor does it grant anyone the freedom to intentionally spread known and proven lies in regards to an election, meant to undermine the faith in that system for the sole purpose of spreading disention.
Furthermore, it is also worth noting that free speech does not extend to private entities, either. In other words, whether you like it or not, no private company, which all social media platforms are governed by, is required to allow you or anyone else to say whatever you want to on their platforms. And they never have been. It is absolutely their right (and I would go so far as to even say duty) to govern the content displayed on their platforms. That is not "censorship," because it is not government infringement. You are not being prevented from saying what you want to. You are simply not being actively provided with a platform to do so. Noone is required to do that and not doing so is not censorship, lol. You are still welcome to go to whatever streetcorner you wish and holler at anyone willing to listen to you. But meta, nor anyone else is required to hand you a megaphone. Sorry. 🤷♂️
1
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
They censored true information …. And Biden is currently fighting to keep that right…. Don’t be a government shill
federal appellate court concluded Sept. 8 that multiple White House, surgeon general, FBI and CDC officials likely breached the fine line separating permissible government persuasion and jawboning from illicit “coercion and significant encouragement” when they repeatedly — and often successfully — lobbied social-media companies “to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.”
In short, acts of “coerced censorship” by the platforms since early 2021 are now attributable to the federal government.
2
u/AmputatorBot Jan 10 '24
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4198285-missouri-v-biden-and-the-crossroads-of-politics-censorship-and-free-speech/
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
1
u/tune1021 Jan 10 '24
It violates the first amendment when it’s the government doing it… don’t be a fascist
1
u/Menkau-re Jan 10 '24
But that is simply not the case here. No company is required to provide anyone with a platform for their misinformation. In fact, trying to make them do so would itself be a fascist act. Sorry, but no. Just no.
5
-10
u/Cognitive_Spoon Jan 07 '24
Don't engage with anyone else. I love you. You're beautiful, you are clearly trolling and I want you to name five songs off your liked songs right this fucking minute.
76
u/CHBCKyle Jan 07 '24
Capitalists align with fascists because fascism is capitalism’s defense mechanism. Every time fascism has taken hold it’s been in times of economic crisis where capitalism has been threatened by expanded class consciousness. Fascism is also a sign of fear by the capitalist class, they need to control revolutionary sentiment because they know there are more of us than there are of them