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 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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...

▲

nerdponx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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?

▲

lkey 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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?