Comment on I feel like Fediverse users are nicer to each other and more generous with upvotes than reddit.

• b3nsn0w@pricefield.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  i’m always baffled by how the only people who hate far right authies more than the average person who has to live in their crosshair are far left authies. but that’s some interesting insight into 4chan, i didn’t know it was authies with specifically the right-aligned flags, they just scan the same to me.

  so yeah, thanks for the info, good to know that 4chan trolls are expected to appear on burggit or exploding-heads, and that they don’t overlap with tankies much

  source

  • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Why don’t liberals “scan the same” to you? They are far bigger authoritarians than marxist-leninists. Is it just generally because the average liberal is politically checked out and you don’t come across the politically active ones because they hide themselves inside the status quo and hegemony better?

    source

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That’s a very interesting question, actually. Can you explain how liberals are authoritarians? Beyond the contradiction in the wording (which, I mean, the DPRK exists, wouldn’t be the first time something isn’t what it says on the tin, lol) it sounds like a super interesting topic. I actually can’t figure out why they should scan as authoritarians to me so I would appreciate your input there.

      (Absolutely no sarcasm intended. I can’t seem to figure out how to phrase this better – I think it’s because from the context of the discussion there is an expectation that what I’m asking for elaboration on should be a trivial subject, but I’m no expert on this.)

      source

      • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Well the first thing to understand is that they’re statists, and all statists are authoritarians by default. Every state seeks to preserve itself and so every state will use authority when it is faced with potential destruction. This is not inherently a bad thing, it obviously depends on the government in question, and who is trying to destroy it, and why. Obviously I as a socialist defend the use of authority to protect the continued existence a socialist state. Liberals tend to always justify the use of authoritarian means used by whoever they support, and then they are intellectually dishonest and pretend that somehow their use of authority isn’t “authoritarian”.

        Additionally, democracy itself is authoritarian. It is the means by which the democratic will of the people express its authority, by means of force. What happens if someone picks up a gun and tries to oppose the democratic consensus? Do you just sit by and let the democracy be destroyed? No, the democratic state uses its own authority to oppress the opposition.

        There is no such thing as a distinction between “democracy” and “authoritarian”. It’s a meaningless buzzword. The opposite of a democracy is an autocracy or an oligarchy, not “authoritarian”. The use of this word in modern day political discourse is just something westerners fling at other people’s democracies they don’t like for daring to vote for something against US interests and want to see them blown up and millions killed and displaced.

        I’m not sure if I need to get into the record of liberals on war. Both world wars, and the history of almost every war in the last hundred years not involving a socialist state. There’s also the question of the massive ideological mass murders liberals have carried out, but that’s a much bigger issue explored in things like The Jakarta Method, which I warn you is really really horrific reading.

        source