[nerdponx]

This line of reason is actually becoming more frequently used to justify things. For years, the right wing propaganda machine has been establishing the concept that conservatism and America as a whole is besieged by authoritarian leftists and their smug out-of-outch enablers the liberals.

THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat, our methods are justified. THEY have been doing this to us for years, now this is our chance to fight back.

[tobias3]

Yes, and then they call this openly a Reichstag fire moment and people still don't get the parallels.

And back then there was a proper systems conflict. People like Krupp actually had to fear being disowned by communists.

[stevenwoo]

The elevation of Charlie Kirk to sainthood rhymes with Horst Wessel’s death being used to make legitimate targets of all enemies of the German state.

[brightball]

Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view?

When you take a step back it becomes very clear that this escalating messaging is being push onto both sides of the political isle to create these feelings.

I remember in the span of two weeks seeing almost identical posts urging people to train because you are going to have to fight. The wording was almost identical only one post said “leftists” and the other “fascists”.

My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit?

[AvAn12]

In what way are democrats (or, “leftists,” if you must) authoritarian?

Requiring face masks in a pandemic (which happened under the trump admin, in case anyone forgot) is not the same as masked goons throwing brown people into vans.

[mindslight]

As a libertarian, I see authoritarianism as the imposition of top-down control, often fine-grained, onto individuals' lives. The reflexive reaching for government/law to solve problems. The war on drugs. Mass surveillance, regardless of its goals or who is in charge. The crushing weight and lack of justice in the criminal justice system. The draconian copyright regime.

This makes the Democratic [establishment] bureaucratic authoritarians, while the current Republican [establishment] are autocratic authoritarians.

Obviously I would prefer anti-authoritarianism - a goal of reducing government control in our lives (including corporate de facto government). I think so would most people, but for being lured in by partisan messaging. Authoritarian singular-perspective narratives always sound so simplistically compelling.

But while the autocratic authoritarians weren't in power, it was all too easy to point to the bureaucratic authoritarians as a creeping problem. So now we have autocratic authoritarianism "good and hard". Between the two, I'd prefer bureaucratic authoritarianism as it at least keeps the worst impulses in check (eg the capricious tariff taxes, the naked corruption/bribes, politicizing departments to go after political enemies, wanton cruelty against immigrants for circenses, etc). The only real question is whether at least some of our institutions will hold out so that we can collectively decide to change course, or if it's just set now.

As far as the mask issue, I want to live in a world where they weren't mandated, but yet most everyone wears one out of enlightened self interest. The traditional Republican message would have been "wear a mask to protect yourself". The fact that it was self-harming contrarianism instead has more to do with edgelordism and foreign influence campaigns.

[ruszki]

What you wrote can be even an anarchist view. What’s the difference in your point of view? How should a government solve problems without laws? What other options are there? Besides ignoring, obviously. I’m absolutely not familiar with the tools of an imagined truly libertarian government (AFAIK this never happened).

[mindslight]

You can run down the policies of either major party and find topics where they advocate against government intervention, or at least a light touch. So the idea that we could have less government intervention isn't really a unique or rare one.

It's not a matter of imagining some "truly libertarian" government, as that is an artifact of US "Libertarianism" which is itself fallacious (it mostly just renames "government" to "corporations"). It's a matter of which ideals to strive towards.

[throw0101c]

> Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view?

Well, the actual neo-Nazis do support one particular party (and it's not the Democrats); see (e.g.) Charlottesville, 2017:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

And it was (is?) official Republican strategy to court racists:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

As The Simpsons once joked “Fox News: Not Racist, But #1 With Racists”:

* https://www.nydailynews.com/2017/07/24/simpsons-creator-matt...

[lkey]

You must separate actions from words, and government actors from private citizens, and powerful monied interests from powerless randos. If you don't do this your brain will remain cooked.

There are no "Leftists" in government. No, Bernie and AOC do not count. Soc Dems are nice, don't get me wrong, but the vanguard they are not.

There is no "Leftist" billionaire funding propaganda, no the boogyman 'Soros' doesn't count. He's very much a 'liberal' capitalist, just ask the UK.

There is no major US media outlet or platform owned by a "Leftist". If you insist that actually Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, or Pelosi are leftists, please please just stop talking about politics.

Again, I'm begging you to separate "things pseudonymous people say online" from "things government officials say and do"

Let's try an example: "Fascists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies" or "Leftists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies"

Which of these statements is true?

[nerdponx]

> My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit?

You get 0 "both sides gotcha" points for this one because there is a clear answer when it comes to right wing messaging, and it has been the same since the 19th century, long before modern conservatism existed. It's big business owners and anyone else who stands to gain from an oligopoly economy backed by an authoritarian state that punishes and suppresses anything that could destabilize said oligopoly. There's no conspiracy theory here.

Meanwhile who is pushing the horrible left wing messaging that racism is bad? A bunch of professors and kids on social media?

[ThrowMeAway1618]

>who is pushing the horrible left wing messaging that racism is bad?

It's those triple-damned Demonrats! In between molesting and eating babies, they go on and on about "multiculturalism" and "systemic racism" and all kinds of other ridiculous crap.

Yes. The darkies are inferior and need to be firmly controlled and/or exterminated. No sane person thinks any different. Those people aren't really people, are they?

They're subhuman animals who need to be dealt with. The fact that they can touch our women should be an immediate death sentence.

Hell, I'm not really sure why we're even bothering with these "deportations." Just shoot on sight for heaven's sake. Just the way Jesus says we should!

[ethical_source]

Are you just going to ignore the 2016-2024 state-directed viewpoint censorship on social media?

[convolvatron]

I think the appropriate response to a lack of due consideration to the bill of rights should be doubling down on the bill of rights. not setting it on fire as show of oneupmanship

[bad_haircut72]

Now we have 2025-? stare censored social media. Of all the hypocrisies, people screaming "but what about THEM" while ignoring what people in power NOW are doing is the most insufferable