At least one US fash has already, Chadwick Seagraves. The rest might need a little encouragement.

It’s a common and well-understood word, you’re completely correct, and really any word is a valid word, although it’s pretty clear the teacher was trying to teach formal English habits (which unfortunately can be useful to know) and it ain’t that.

You’re not just gonna leave us hanging without a link, right? …right?

It’s a vibe, not an actual analysis of political economy.

People don’t magically change their worldview because they have more money, but a person’s economic relationship (e.g. owning a business, or being an employee) will guide their class interests - someone like Rowling who primarily makes money from ownership rather than work will materially benefit from conservative economic interests. And since capitalism rewards profit over social contribution, those of the business owners who don’t care about other people enough to sacrifice profitability are (generally) more able to build wealth, so there are more right-wing types in mega-wealthy circles, not simply because they have wealth (this also includes those feigning left-wing ideals, like rainbow capitalism and philanthrocapitalism, to exploit real social movements for reputation and profit).

This Wikipedia page gives a quick rundown of how a person’s politics and their role in the economy intertwine, although it’s probably more useful to learn the concept through pamphlets or books which provide historical evidence, examples and related concepts. My recommendation - Not pointlessly academic or dated, relatively general, has nice and neat chapters for specific questions.

You also have to remember these people have a voice because we give it to them.

In some ways, sure, but these people also have a voice because owning-class mass media gives it to them. You can literally buy a figurative microphone. Pay for a platform. We don’t assume people with money are worth listening too, they’re simply the ones talking on every channel.

I don’t know, but my guess is it might still be able to detect some cross-platform malware signs and detect malware intended for Windows on Linux machines (e.g. I can download a PDF or .docx that is harmless on my machine, but if I reupload and a Windows user downloads it, I’ve spread malware regardless). IIRC ClamAV is sometimes used to scan attachments on an email server, often looking for Windows exploits being sent through the server.

Yes. There are also people who consider themselves apolitical and think excluding people for their beliefs is simply discrimination and therefore bad. There are also active neo-Nazis who pretend to criticism fascism to try and blur that line. It’s a complex world.

In the history of fascist movements, being mean to them hasn’t stopped their political actions or their motivations.

That alone hasn’t stopped them, but it does play a real part. Even just looking at resources alone, it detracts from their movement and its ability to operate. In my country, social ostracization has played a key role at thwarting their propaganda efforts and recruitment events, even reducing their reach in other reactionary circles.

They’re talking about ‘affiliating with’ too. The plain truth is that people who aren’t fascists themselves still enable fascism. (Yes, I know, the whole “1 fascist sitting at a table of 10 is just 10 fascists” line is a great slogan, but at the end of the day, there’s no point wasting time flaming someone by calling them a fascist when they don’t think they are one, it’s semantics, the critical point is they’re a fascist-enabler regardless and therefore responsible for and complicit in fascism)

I mean, it should be socially acceptable to punch Nazis.

Yes, it should be that way everywhere. In plenty of societies, it already is.

An international friend of mine in the UK was let off lightly by a judge for punching a Nazi, because the victim was a Nazi. Obviously judges can be a game of luck so I’m not claiming this is a low-risk action, but law isn’t set in stone.

It’s a dumb line anyway. There’s no obligation for us to tolerate their antisocial behavior in the first place. All that line does is betray that the fascist treats liberalist ideals as a game or a weakness, only a fool would humor their insincere appeals to liberalism.

Jean-Paul Sartre, Réflexions sur la question juive (1946)

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

The key word in that comment was “symbols”. The Nazi SS aren’t esoteric knowledge.

The post Man Wearing Nazi T-Shirt Gets a Beatdown from Fans at Punk Rock Bowling Fest appeared first on Consequence.

https://consequence.net/2025/05/punk-rock-bowling-nazi-t-shirt/

and direct Instagram link to the video on that page: https://www.instagram.com/p/DKJE7UpxXYX/

There’s an infamous article on Foreign Policy about how /leftypol/ managed to do that with 8chan’s infamous /pol/ board, and I recall some people saying it got them out of GamerGate (a right-wing recruitment pipeline). In fact, I remember hearing there’s some lineage of that board from 4chan’s /lit/erature board. So there’s certainly truth that users can often be directed away from incel and alt-right spheres into something more social and constructive.

At the end of the day, 4chan, if taken as a whole rather than just the political boards, is largely a popular hub for alienated nerds (even the /fit/ness board). Not sure how much that’s stayed true over the past 10 years, but screencaps like this show it’s still a complicated place despite the edgy surface.

I think that if the US government is overhauled, guaranteed UBI would be key to allowing for effective strikes.

In the meantime, we use voluntary strike funds for a similar effect.

I care more about where they are spent. My local government is spending it far better than my federal government. If it was half my income and was spent in ways that lower the cost of living and improve quality of life, then I’d have no problem with that.

If I get a tax cut, I think, cool, at least I choose where this money goes, because I actually do give some to non-profits that benefit society. Tax amounts are not something which determines how I vote, I gloss over it in the news, it’s just incidental that the anti-worker parties want to raise my taxes and spend them in worse ways.

The government just says “ok, strike.”

Got any examples? Because what’s first coming to mind for large modern strikes is the train strike that the Biden government explicitly outlawed. (before the environmental disaster in West Palestine, Ohio)

It’s more complex than that, and a protest has more important benefits than a mere direct message (incl. networking), but a ruler or military/police won’t change their mind because a million people said “I don’t like this”. There needs to be some threat, like a strike or even violence, to make them suddenly care about ethics.

What are the most important differences?

There are many, many systems of governance out there and plenty of democratic systems are wildly different from the ‘liberal democracy’ we’re familiar with. Cheran in Mexico is an interesting example, five minute documentary.