wpb

joined 2 years ago
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

The entire country is sick to its core. Death to pissrael. All of it.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

You need to straighten out your definition of fascist. Hitler is a fascist. Take your favorite definition of fascist, like Ecco's or whatever, and Hitler will satisfy it. He does fascism. His policies are militaristic, nationalistic, he enacts laws to suppress minorities, etc. Someone who votes for Hitler does none of those things, but they're still a fascist by any sensible meaning of the word.

Today, there are fascists operating in our democratic systems. From the British National Party to Trump. Not all of them are actively overthrowing the systems they exist in. One such fascist is Tommy Robinson. DHH has expressed explicit support for Robinson and his white nationalist rallies.

You do not know DHH's politics. You don't know who he voted for. Nor do I. But we can make an educated guess based on his open white nationalism and his explicit support for fascists. If someone basically tells you "hi, I'm a fascist", you believe them.

Also, I don't know who you think you're helping by playing these semantic games (based on shoddy definitions btw).

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

That's "otherwise it's just sparkling fascism" level semantics.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 12 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (5 children)

The guy behind Omarchy is also likely not a Nazi

He once said London is worse because it has fewer whites. He used some shitty noncommital dogwhistle phrase like "native British" or something like that, but the statistic he referred to (and actually referenced when saying that) was about the percentage of white Londoners. When this was pointed out to him, he didn't go "oops, how embarrassing, let me adjust the statistics I referred to", or "let me clarify my point" or anything like that. He just whined that he wasn't allowed to have an opinion. Not what I'd expect from someone who said white nationalist stuff by accident.

So, is he a card carrying member of the early 20th century German National Socialist party? No. But I don't think it's overblown to call him a nazi.

This post has some more details:

https://tekin.co.uk/2025/09/the-ruby-community-has-a-dhh-problem

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

And if they didn't pollute so much

Edit: oh and the traffic accidents of course! But aside from their size, the required infrastructure, their number, the pollution, and the traffic accidents, cars are totally fine!

Edit 2: And the noise! But other than those things...

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Do you know about the great march of return?

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That last part was interesting to me. Every president since Eisenhower, every single one, no exceptions (none), was a war criminal. Has any administration ever prosecuted a previous one for war crimes?

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Funding a genocide is not normal.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Sadly, similar stuff does happen even when you have more parties.

In my opinion, what's happening here is that the policies of the parties do not align with the opinions of the public. If you care about not doing a genocide, there wasn't a candidate to vote for last cycle. If you care about universal health care, there wasn't a candidate to vote for. And so on.

And you can measure this. Research has been carried out into the congruence between policy and public opinion in the US. For example, in the paper Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, it was found that the impact the average American (as a group) has on policy is miniscule compared to the influence of economic elites. You and I don't benefit from invading Iran, but the owning class sure does, so that's what we do. All this is independent of who's in charge.

And so now you might rightly theorize that since there are only two parties, the democrats can fully cater to billionaires, as long as they're less bad than the republicans. And as time goes on they move further and further right, since they really don't have to care about voters, because the only other party consists of actual demons, and people will vote for them anyway.

However, you see this effect (the wealthy having a disproportionate amount of influence on policy) in pluralistic systems as well. Norway has about 9 major political parties, yet the study Affluence and Influence in a Social Democracy finds that here too, the rich have an outsized influence. Similar studies exist for other western European countries, most of which (if not all) have more than two major parties.

So I don't think the root of the problem is the two party system (although I'm sure it doesn't help).

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

No you don't understand, we have to do the same thing we've done for decades, and this time, instead of things getting worse, things will get better. Please be practical.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

So Biden sends 20B in aid to help pissrael commit genocide, and you feel like the blame is on people voting for republicans months after that happened? That's odd.

view more: next ›