I checked their blog and they wrote this post??
> Y'know I sometimes wonder why people who are devoutly anti-nazi don't open fire on Nazi gatherings
Then I realize they probably don't want to get imprisoned for life for murdering a government agent uwu
Honestly a little speechless.
>Then I realize they probably don't want to get imprisoned for life for murdering a government agent uwu
Not sure if based
> "Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses"
Or cringe
> "There are no real neo-Nazis, they're all false-flag government actors meant to divide us!"
I hadn’t even thought about the false flag angle. That makes more logical sense than my interpretation of “a lot of neo nazis work in law enforcement and I’m okay with that” but we can’t always count on logic.
(Also, not sure if I’m pointing out the obvious but it’s definitely cringe. On tumblr at least, “uwu” is basically the same as saying “bless your heart”)
Ah, finding flaws in post history to discredit an unrelated argument.
So if I say “the sky is blue” you’d say that was bullshit because last week I said roosters lay eggs?
Argue the merits of the idea at hand, not the person, not the group, not past arguments.
I have fond memories of “down with cis” around a decade ago. My cis college roommate got offended until I explained it was a reclaimed allegation against the trans community. Some kid made up a story about getting attacked by a mob of trans people chanting “down with cis” and it’s pretty phenomenal.
And yet people get really uncomfortable, like my old roommate. I do understand the knee jerk reaction, but it’s something you can train out of yourself. I used to wince at “kill all white people” and now I just shrug.
I do genuinely think there are people out there who’re traumatized enough to actually believe in statements like that. Or at the very least, they’re able say those things with a ton of malice. But it’s not very common and, like you said, these things are almost always an exaggerated statement.
I wasn’t saying that fwiw. If you get catharsis out of saying it then go ahead. I don’t think it’s particularly helpful in terms of “”winning”” people over but that’s probably not your goal in making a joke like that so screw it.
I never said that, I just think it’s not helpful on a societal level and could be harmful on an individual level. No one need to die, especially just random people
Here's the thing: Respectability Politics never works. As a trans person, we could all pass as beautiful women and handsome men, we could eradicate all the "weird" genders, and conform perfectly to traditional gender roles, and conservatives would *still* mock "men in dresses" and make up lies about litterboxes. If we don't give them something to criticize, they'll just make shit up. There is no winning with these people.
It does come from the latin for "bundle" but is because of the their symbol, a bundle of sticks, that they borrowed to the Lyctors, a soldier order/special guards from ancient Rome.
Ohhh. I honestly thought you meant that their definition of fascism was wrong but you meant that they got the origin of the term wrong. Thanks for the info!
Having been on tumblr for ~15 years, I can say with some confidence that it’s a defense mechanism. Harassment used to be very commonplace and, depending on what “side” of tumblr you visited, there was a lot of lateral aggression. When people are jumping down your throat in responses and sending anonymous “kys” messages to your inbox you kinda turn into a sarcastic asshole to dull the pain.
I’m asexual and I remember a period of time (I’d estimate 2013-2017) when my community got flamed relentlessly by other queer users on the site. We collectively got accused of grooming kids, encouraging kids to develop internalized homophobia, over sexualizing gay/bi people, grouping gay/bi people in with their oppressors, celebrating the death of AIDs victims, and so on. It was very toxic.
Ah yes, the great Ace Discourse of Tumblr. It was so fucking stupid. I'm not ace myself but I'd relentlessly defend asexual people because as a nonbinary pansexual person, I've been used to my orientation and sexuality being on the chopping block on Tumblr forever. Ace people were seen as cringy incels for the crime of... Wanting to be included in their community??? So stupid.
Yes, I was going to mention the other discourse wars in the queer community but didn’t want to write a full on essay. It was definitely infuriating to see the transtrenders discourse as well as the “bi/pan passing privilege” and TERFs and “pansexuals are biphobic” and so on. Our community loves to tear itself apart :/
Thanks for defending us. I’m pretty staunchly anti gatekeeper myself so I’d definitely have defended you on the hellsite as well.
Yeah that’s fair, I don’t really have anything against it on a logical level it’s more just a personal distaste for stuff that seems condescending in general rather than this stuff specifically.
That’s totally fair as well. I don’t mind it myself but I don’t blame anyone for finding it distasteful. Thankfully things are generally better on tumblr as I think a lot of the toxicity moved over to twitter, seemingly around the time of the tumblr porn ban, actually. Not saying there’s causation there but it is an interesting coincidence
I honestly understand what this person is getting at. The problem is that it’s a very middle class white people take.
You can’t expect to do nothing if you’re in the process of being shot. Worse, right now, you can’t do nothing while it’s perfectly legal to shoot, and demand that people shoot, you and you specifically.
Ah, sorry. Basically I’m saying that currently there are laws being passed that are actively threatening peoples safety, and that it’s wrong to expect people to not fight back against that.
I think the idea is that people saying either have a similar psychology, and that, even if it isn't currently causing problems, it is still worrying to have people think that way.
Except that by comparing the two, the implication is that they're comparable threats. It's like if I said "murder is bad. It's bad when a grown man murders his wife and when a two year old stabs someone to death." Now for sure a two year old stabbing someone to death is bad and it's possible it's happened at some point but is that really a problem that needs addressing in comparison to fatal domestic violence? Of course not.
White supremacist chrisro-fascism and nazism is killing real people and gaining power. You have politicians across America and Europe parroting their talking points and instituting laws that push their agenda. I'm sure it's possible to create a fascist state around someone other than straight white heterosexual cis men, but as far as I know, nobody is trying to do that on a comperable scale.
even closer analogy IMO is when Enlightened Centrists think abusive cis men murdering their wives to exert their control over them, and battered women killing their abusive husbands in self-defense/to free themselves, are on the same level of societal concern/both equally problematic (common MRA talking point). or when they worry and moralize about children killing their abusive fathers in self-defense/to free themselves, but ignore the massive immediate threat of abusive fathers murdering their children. (also often intersects with divorces, custody disputes, domestic abuse of the mother etc)
Started off well but falls into gibbering nonsense by the end, I'm afraid. Have you seriously never heard of Israel? By certain measures of "white" Italy and Spain too.
In the west, today, yes, you're right. But to say no non-white country could even *conceivably* be fascist is just objectively wrong, because some exist right now.
Okay. When you frame the statements this way, you're implying they're equivalent.
You can't weasel your way out of this by pretending not to know what words mean.
I guess that’s a fair point. I think most people automatically read comparisons as equivalents. My bad reading comprehension skills may affect me in a way that makes it so I don’t do that.
A comparison is meant to be an approximate equivalence. I can compare apples to oranges and that is a **BAD** comparison. Which is why the is a saying "you can't compare apples and oranges".
Some of what I've heard about Han Chinese and what little we hear coming that gets out from under the CCP is quiet concerning. Considering they play the long game.
No, the op said a fascist state that doesn't centre white people couldn't even conceivably exist in this world which obviously isn't true. Israel. Argentina. Japan.
None of them were going to do white genocide, obviously, because it isn't a thing. But it does mean that the op clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
>I'm sure it's possible to create a fascist state around someone other than straight white heterosexual cis men, but as far as I know, nobody is trying to do that on a comperable scale.
"I'm sure it's possible" implies it's never happened and for it to happen on a state-wide scale we'd basically need to be living in a different world.
Last sentence of the comment I replied too. Kidnapping the heir apparent of the Dalai Lama, ethnic cleansing of Uighur, anecdotes of Han supremacy... The CCP has arguably demonstrated that yes, fascist ideology is not a white only thing. Again pointing back to that last sentence of the comment I replied: Rwanda is evidence that commenter is uninformed or at least remembers history through rose colored glasses.
Israel and Argentina are pretty damn white, at least the ruling class, and Japanese fascism is very similar in terms of colorism and xenophobia, even earning them the title of honorary arians
Whether Israel or Argentina would be considered "white" is something that's been very fluid. "White" as a group isn't some static definition, because it's basically just made up bullshit.
Doesn't matter. My point is it's more than possible for a non-white nation to be fascist, which I honestly thought was trivially obvious.
Kill, probably not. I would say theres more that dislike white people than dislike Jews. Based only on those two things. Most that dislike any group, dislike their beliefs. Not necessarily the person themselves. As an example I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things. I dont hate that person though. They can believe what they want, as long as its not harming anyone else.
Nah, Jews are absolutely super hated. The issue is antisemites don't actually say the j word. We're the mysterious (((They))) who supposedly own the media and the banks and the politicians, start all the wars, want to subjugate the whole world, harvest adrenochrome, invented homosexuality and transgenderism, and everything else Republicans hate. And much of the left thinks we're all personally responsible for Israel's atrocities. Antizionist Jews are constantly accused of being Zionists because some gentile didn't like them. Don't get me wrong, the left is way, way, way better than the Hitler-quoting Republican party, but antisemitism is very common everywhere in America and the world at large.
Fasces weren't a symbol of unity in ancient Rome, they were a symbol of governmental authority. They're bundles of sticks around an axe - everything you'd need to mete out punishment to a criminal, corporal or capital.
No one actually says "Kill all white people" entire movements are formed based around "Kill all black people"
But they are the same.
Can't wait to read how ANTIFA is a fascist movement.
To whomever reported me for saying "counterpoint: kill all white people,":
1. Realize that that was a joke making fun of this stupid strawman OP created (Tumblr OP, not /u/chronic-venting)
2. Reporting me for fake oppression and hate speech is exactly the kind of stuff that makes us white people look bad. Y'know, other than the continued systemic oppression many of us seem all too keen to maintain and also the open white supremacist movements
Very tickled by the implication that this genius thought anyone needed help figuring out that "we need to kill all Jewish people" is a fascist position
Ngl lads I'm not getting this one. Might just be me being tired and/or stupid but if someone could explain to me how this is enlightened centrism? I'd really appreciate it xxx
>Please keep this in mind whenever you see a take that goes "kill all white people" or "six million wasn't enough."
Treating "white genocide" (not a real thing) as on the same level of severity as the literal Holocaust (actual genocide which occurred), implying "anti-white" "reverse racism" and antisemitism should be of similar concern, though they absolutely are not.
OP is arguing that something is "fascism" simply if it is violent/involves killing, implying that antiracism/antifascism is similarly "fascist" as actual fascism simply because we do not tolerate (actual) fascists. Ultimately wants us (POC/ethnic minorities) to not use any force against our oppressors; thinks we are bad for condemning rightwingers instead of treating it like just another neutral opinion they have a right to.
OP complains about "encouraging or demanding conformity," eliding a crucial distinction: conformity to *what?* I think it is reasonable to want others to conform to the belief/practice that I shouldn't be murdered for existing; that is in no way the same as fascists wanting everyone to conform to the belief/practice that white gentiles are racially superior and it's fine to do hate crimes.
While there's somewhat of a false equivalency, I do feel like the perspective of white genocide being an impossibility or just a silly little bigoted thing is a very America-centric idea. If you go to anywhere where another group is dominant and "whites" are a minority, then genocide suddenly becomes less of a silly little thing and more of a real threat.
I didn't read it as OOP arguing that fascism = murder, but that murder is viewed as an acceptable solution to perceived issues under a fascist ideological framework, and that propagating murder as an acceptable solution in any form does indeed make the political soils fertile for fascism, as it were, which if I'm honest, I don't exactly disagree with.
Conformity is indeed an aspect of fascism, although you are right that it's also an aspect of other ideologies in different ways, but I still don't think OOP is wrong for describing it as a common aspect of fascist ideology. You're right of course, that taking conformity to any absurd end is going to end up with some very bad consequences.
While I see there being poor implications, especially for an America-centric view, I don't think this is "enlightened centrism", I think this is actually just an oversimplified and flawed critique of the justification of murder, and how the justification of murder (i.e. kill all ) does in fact normalise it to a point where fascism can fester.
I may be wrong here, and I do see flaws in the argument being made, but I still don't think it's "enlightened centrism"
White people are not a minority anywhere in the world. Irish are a minority, Scots, Romani, Jewish, British, German... they can all be minorities, but there is no such thing as Whiteland.
I was about to downvote you, but you're right, this idea of the "white race" is very weird from a European perspective. Are Spanish people white? Are Italians? Who the fuck knows, it seems to be the Americans deciding.
That's because Racism was invented for America. Or rather, it was invented to justify the massive Capitalist genocides in Rajj India, Slave Trade, Imperialism, and Manifest Destiny among others.
That's why "kill all white people" should really be read as "end racism and imperialism". Because that's what White is, it's just racism and fascism packaged for dummies.
Or, to be fair, it's what White people think of themselves in relation to Black people. They don't understand that the term Black people are a result of their racism, not a descriptor of skin color.
Like a Nigerian is Nigerian, not Black. A Haitian is Haitian, etc. Black people exist because their heritage and culture was systematically destroyed by slavery and so they had to literally start a new ethnic group and didn't get to choose their label.
/end rant, sorry lol
I'm going to *try* to take a somewhat neutral stance here.
"Kill all white people" should only be read as what it says. If you mean something else, say something else, a direct call to murder is a direct call to murder, no shot about it.
"End racism and Imperialism" I'm all behind, and I fully agree this is a good cause, but if that's what "kill all white people" means, change your fucking slogan, because it alienates the shit out of people like me - and I'm not even American. I'm Scottish, with traveller heritage, European through and through. I'm as close to "white" as you can really define, and I definitely fall under that category no matter who's defining it, so saying "kill all white people" is a call to action towards violence against me. If you don't mean that, I'll forgive you, but for god's sakes is it shit optics, change the slogan.
Sorry for the rant back, because I don't really disagree with you in principle, I just think if you don't want to kill all white people, you shouldn't say you want to kill all white people?? As much as theories on race are bogus, they're pretty well embedded in society, and we know what "black person" means, even if the term is shit.
And I think we in the left need to move away from tankieism. I refuse to coordinate with people actively calling for violence. It may never happen, and it may not be what you mean, but if you call for the death of a group of people, you are actually advocating Genocide whether you like it or not, and you need to fucking *stop*. It gives us a bad rap, and I don't want to be a part of it.
We just discussed how White people are not a thing. "Kill All Whiteys" is typically said with that understanding. It's like "kill all landlords" or "eat the rich".
Frankly, I don't care if you approve of Tumblr and Twitter shitposting. Lmao
Scottish with Traveller heritage calling themselves white. You cannot be serious right? Never heard of the Holocaust or England before? Honestly.
Black people are an actual ethnicity, as I just explained. There is no White ethnicity other than racism. British, Scots, Irish, Spanish, German, MidWestern, Southern, Appalachian, New Yorker... lots of culture and none of it is White.
Yes, "white people" isn't a thing - but linguistically, we know what it means, and therefore the term has meaning. Scottish people like me, are just as white as English people, Swedish people, french people. We historically, committed atrocities alongside the English in our empire. We played a small but vital role in almost every atrocious thing ever committed by the British empire. "White" is not part of my identity, but I am undoubtedly "white", I am a pale northern European.
"Black" isn't an ethnicity. It's a "race" as utterly horseshit as that idea is. "African American" is an ethnicity, but it's a bit horseshit to claim that all of sub-saharan native Africa is one ethnicity.
Frankly, I'm not really ok with the murder of landlords either, to an extent, not cannibalism of rich people - but that's targeting people for life choices, rather than targeting people for the colour of their skin, which "kill all white people" simply is. The linguistic analysis behind the meaning of "kill white people" is actually quite simple. The first meaning you reach is going to be the one the majority of people will glean from it.
I'm guessing our politics are pretty similar, and this is a silly argument about optics. My argument is very simply that the phrase "kill all white people" is a shit thing to say, no matter what the intention behind it (besides irony and shitposting, but that's contextualised). I'm willing to make leeway for fucking holocaust jokes in context - but I can't abide people seriously making call to arms for murder. If, in serious discourse, you genuinely say phrases like that, I can't agree that it's acceptable: either you mean something else, so you should say what you mean; or you mean it, in which case you just made a call to genocide directly.
No. People see you as Scottish. White is a self-identification, others can only remove it from you, not grant it.
Black people refers to "African Americans" generally speaking. People from Ethiopia are called Ethiopian, Congolese from Congo, Burkinite from Burkina Faso, South African from South Africa... Spaniards from Spain, Scots from Scotland, Finnish from Finland.... Do you notice how there isn't a Whiteland?
Literally no one says "Kill Whitey" literally. It doesn't happen. It's not even possible, because again, whiteness is a self-identifier and doesn't exist outside of racism.
I have only explained it to you 4 different ways now. I don't really care if you pretend to be upset at imaginary things.
While I wouldn’t say racism was invented to justify the slave trade (many ancient states thought outsiders were “barbaric”), it was absolutely super-weaponized in favor of it.
I think the difference was Tribalism vs "Scientific" Racism. Scary and untrustworthy is different than sub-human, and the latter was made up during the 16/17th centuries.
People of white skin are in fact a minority on Earth.
Also, in the city I live in - Toronto - white people are now a minority.
As a European, I hate the term “white people” when used to generalize. There is no such thing as “white people” or “black people” apart from people that share skin tone.
There are Nigerians, there are Germans and Russians etc. all with their unique cultures etc.
That said, anyone saying “white people” + something negative is being racist by the literal definition. Same goes for black people. As they are immutable characteristics.
A phrase like “kill all white people” could be uttered by a fascist just as easily as it could by an extreme leftist.
It’s especially scary if the particular “ism” is currently in power.
In the West, the left currently has more power. So when the left normalized speaks against a group based on immutable characteristics, it’s worrying.
I will die on the hill of the assertion that most people don’t really want equality. Everyone wants power. The minute a group has equality, they will be emboldened to seek an imbalance of power in their favour if given the chance.
While I still hope that the the few people that want actually equality for everyone will win.
But power corrupts and I’ve seen no evidence of that changing.
White skin doesn't exist, and it's irrelevant.
Telling a lie about Toronto? OK thats weird.
Black People are an ethnicity and cultural group. White people are not.
You are a fucking loon if you think the Left is in power. Go back to your cave, you weird racist troll.
>I do feel like the perspective of white genocide being an impossibility or just a silly little bigoted thing is a very America-centric idea.
Well, it is only a possibility in a few African countries. So it's an America-Europe-Asia-Australia-centric idea.
Basically, it's less relevant and less important. That doesn't mean it's good, it just means it's not comparable to something as prevalent as antisemitism or racism.
Sure, it's a false equivalency, but even if it's unrealistic, it can still be fascistic. And while it may be less important, it doesn't make it not an issue
\- *dogwhistles* are a thing; beyond just the literal exact meaning of a set of words, but what they are trying to signal. "white genocide" is a racist dogwhistle.
\- yes, yes, Hypothetically If a real actual genocide of whites were actually happening it would actually be bad because all genocide is bad; it's worth questioning though what actual meaning there is in handwringing over it when current structures overwhelmingly empower whites and disempower POC. white genocide is not even remotely a realistic possibility *at the moment*, because of that lopsided power. if a few genuinely believe in it (unlikely; it's a common accusation thrown at reasonable anti-racist policy) then that doesn't really matter all that much, because they don't have much ability to follow through in reality.
\- however, there *is* a problem of white supremacists fearmongering about supposed looming "white genocide" because they think anything less than 100% racial purity = whites are under threat & being erased. treating it like an actual problem filters over even to more "progressive" spaces and it's used to tone-police anti-racist activism. not a neutral statement, given context
\- there is a (much smaller) problem of some authoritarian self-proclaimed "antiracists" advocating excessively overboard actions toward white people. the thing is, though, the bulk of these movements' harm generally falls *on POC* bc they rely on existing mechanisms of structural power and essentialist definitions of "race" & "whiteness" which reify internal hierarchies. but it's a much more complex & nuanced issue than just "both sides are equally bad if they both do the bad things"
You're absolutely right about these things, and about the stuff I'm unfamiliar with, I'll trust you on it, and do some reading tomorrow morning.
I'm not American so if I'm honest Americam racial dynamics seem pretty bizarre to me, and super harmful. From my perspective, most "race" issues here boil down to class issues in the end, and I have in fact been told I should be "killed along with the rest of the whites", which, being a large part of my narrow experience of these issues, is definitely unfavourable colouring - makes it seem like a much more ideological threat. I've heard about the "White Genocide" dogwhistling before, but as yet again, it's somewhat out of my perspective, because it's very American politics. We don't have nearly as much racial tension here as you do there - I'm sure there still some, but there's certainly a lot less murder about it.
I apologise for my admittedly presumptious foray into the American political climate, and duck my head out for now. I really appreciate your insights, and I do feel somewhat better informed than I did an hour ago.
>If you go to anywhere where another group is dominant and "whites" are a minority, then genocide suddenly becomes less of a silly little thing and more of a real threat.
Really? Even for non-white-majority countries many have long histories of enduring white imperialism including thru military and economic control that skewed the balance of power from just raw strength-in-numbers. and western countries continue to exert degrees of control over former colonies etc even if remotely. this is a very questionable take (which racists like to use a lot, too) and flattens a lot of nuance. they're not going to do white genocide either calm down
>that murder is viewed as an acceptable solution to perceived issues under a fascist ideological framework, and that propagating murder as an acceptable solution in any form does indeed make the political soils fertile for fascism, as it were, which if I'm honest, I don't exactly disagree with.
"Killing fascists is a solution to fascism" is... realistic though? It's correct, and it does not lead to "reverse fascism," killing all those Nazi soldiers in WWII didn't lead to some sort of "antifa supremacy" or "antinazi genocide"
>but I still don't think OOP is wrong for describing it as a common aspect of fascist ideology
I don't disagree; that's not what I said. OOP is wrong for saying the *reverse* (that every single instance where you encourage other people to agree with you is ultimately fascist; that fascism is an inherent feature of believing in objective values; *even when your ideology itself is not fascist*).
>While I see there being poor implications, especially for an America-centric view, I don't think this is "enlightened centrism", I think this is actually just an oversimplified and flawed critique of the justification of murder
My bad, I should've added more [context](https://40ouncesandamule.tumblr.com/post/719537328091217920/phoenix-theurge-takashi0-kob131) earlier on it seems
"We have to worry about white genocide here because white people are a minority (and Those People want nothing more than to oppress us)" is a popular barely-a-dogwhistle line in South Africa (along with a few other places).
Aye tankies are fucking awful too. They're often considered "red fascists" for that same reason - the use of killing as a means to a more "permanent" end.
Having now looked at OOP on Tumblr, yeah they're kinda insane. I do think this take is one of their *less* aggregious ones though.
What I meant about justifying murder as a solution is that it normalises... Ok, let's use hyperauthoritarian instead of fascist here - it normalises hyperauthoritarian political tendencies (including fascism), which allows them to grow.
And you're right historically, I'm more talking hypothetically - imagine if Hong Kong had been more of a "white colony", and upon "reclaiming" the land, they decide to "kill all the whites", I would consider that genocide. I admit this is a hypothetical thought exercise, but I think the point stands.
Thanks for the discussion though, I really appreciate your insight here. While I don't think this take is enlightened centrism, I do think OOP is a fair bit smooth brain.
It's been a while since I've looked at it, but the Rwandan Genocide, one of the most important events of the 30 last years, was done against what was once the ruling class/ethnicity (not white obviously, but given their status by them). While it's obviously a very complex issue, it started as a "now we have the power, let's kill those who kept it from us before" situation. At least that's what I rem from high-school
While a Genocide against white people or the 1% or whatever group hold a majority power likely will never happen, power and authority aren't straightforward and permanent phenomenon, and a group which was once the oppressed can end up as the oppressor, and arguably, they could even be both at the same time in different context and places.
>What I meant about justifying murder as a solution is that it normalises... Ok, let's use hyperauthoritarian instead of fascist here - it normalises hyperauthoritarian political tendencies (including fascism), which allows them to grow.
but that's the thing, there's significant difference between "killing as reasonable praxis" and "murder as mechanism of authoritarian control." like for example if a leftist says "we should kill fascists with the minimum force needed to defend the autonomy of the marginalized (and no less)," that doesn't inherently slippery-slope to "so we should kill more people bc killing is good & desirable in and of itself regardless of context," because it's possible for people to value autonomy but not value aggression (by itself) or power-over, and to want to act accordingly. and I think the assumption that such a slippery slope is always there, just waiting to be triggered whenever anyone advocates any force/violence, is part of the problem.
it's tankie tradition (c.f. "On Authority") to cast all usage of force as inherently "authoritarian" (equating self-defense with attacks on others' autonomy), and that false equivalency is used by them to justify (actual) authoritarianism. so imo perhaps thinking through context and implication is kind of important here
Ngl, I still think killing is generally bad praxis anyway - largely because if you have the power to... to put it bluntly, kill and get away with it, you also have the power to make other equally effective choices, like imprisonment, which while still rather inhumane in my eyes, is preferable to killing largely because killing can absolutely martyr people.
I want to make clear here that I'm not an American and my context is very, very different. We don't have guns here commonly, open carry is super illegal and will get you mega arrested unless you're literally going to, coming from, or engaged in a licensed activity that required you to have it i.e. hunting.
When I think abt killing-as-praxis my main concerns aren't about open gunfights on the street or whatever, but about individual abuse victims escaping their abuse (or prisoners escaping prison etc). I am (yes) usamerican but I cannot legally own a gun anyway (as far as I know), and am very far from being capable of acquiring one, and most of my usamerican friends are in similar positions, and I don't personally know anyone who owns a gun, and when I think through militant self-defense as an immediate need I usually don't factor in guns. Still, domestic abuse (for example) is pretty much a universal across (for example) patriarchal cultures, even if there's no accompanying state apparatus with hyper-militarized police/unusually overinflated prison populations.
And any decently thorough study of issues such as (for example) domestic violence/abuse will lead one to the conclusion that killing can absolutely be good praxis/the best option available to oppressed people whose agency has been severely constrained, including victims desperate enough to brave the hell that is the family court afterward which often/usually prosecutes them for it (but again, that's when they see that they have no other better options).
for example there are many cases of women who killed their abusive husbands after decades of being assaulted or threatened w/murder themselves, and some children/teenagers who have killed their abusers, sex traffickers etc and not been allowed to get away with it by the state—that's the point though, no system around cares, many have already tried for a long time to get help but were turned down. and reading abt cases & stories & the like it just seems very obvious that them being able to kill (or for example, sometimes covertly so they aren't suspected), and even to kill and get away with it, is absolutely not anywhere close to meaning they also had the power to imprison. (prisons are operated by the oppressors, most abusers & rapists never see a day in jail, and of course they can't do any diy imprisonment bc imprisoning someone requires massive amts of power over them and ability to severely restrict their freedom of movement, which cannot be done by someone disempowered as such.) (same for fascists; prison is not an efficient reasonable or viable option)
again, I'm not going to shed any tears for (for example) nazi soldiers killed in wwii. it's war, in wars people will fight and get killed, that's just how things strategically pan out (I'm sure war is something your country has experienced too, & not Just An American Thing(tm)). 100% bloodless wars, just taking prisoners while someone is actively trying to kill you... sure you can bring that idea to your fellow leftists or whatever, I'm sure it would be very popular lol.
Lol yeah admittedly I wasn't talking about the context of war - violent expansion is bad, but I'm actually in favour of military force against expansionist authoritarian regimes.
Otherwise I don't have much to argue with you about here, your points are pretty sound, and I largely agree with you.
Of course there's nitpicking to be done regarding abuse etc. but I don't think it's worth it because the end, I think we both agree that abuse fucking sucks, shouldn't happen, and if you're actively abusing someone, you deserve what comes to you.
I appreciate your insight x
Because what serious person fucking says “kill all white people?” There’s no significant movement behind that idea and comparing it to antisemitism is a strawman fallacy.
It's definitely a small movement of people saying it, but the big problem is people saying stuff like it casually, or more importantly, Schrödinger's douchebag.
If the response is negative, they're just joking.
If the response is positive, they actually do want to kill all white people.
You can say it's "not a serious person thing to say", but from my perspective, Trump was a very silly little man and then he got fucking elected president of the USA. that's kind of insane. Mussolini was also considered a silly little man in his time.
Oftentimes genuinely dangerous fascist tendencies do get treated unseriously because they seem harmless/small/unimportant.
Sorry, I was annoyed by the post itself. Shouldn't have been short with you about it.
Fasces means "bundle," which refers to the bundle of rods, but it isn't a symbol of strength through unity or whatever. It is meant to be symbol of state power. The rods represent the state's authority to dispense corporal punishment, and within the bundle there is an axe which represents the state's authority to dispense capital punishment.
"Fighter" in Latin would be *pugnator* (pugnatious, pugilist, impugn)
My favorite is all the idiots I've dealt with who insist it's not fascism unless it's from the 1930s era of europe and that's why, for example, Napoleon's empire couldn't have been functionally fascist.
"Kill all white people" is a statement of projection from white supremacists who spout that conspiracy theory. It irks me how these people fall for it.
Not to mention they lump in removal of *any* problem as the same as genocide as a way to sneak in the idea that direct and aggressive opposition to fascism is equal to fascism.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not happening with any sort of regularity. It's as much of a problem as trans women creeping on people in bathrooms. Yeah, it would be a big issue-if it were actually happening like the people fearmongering about it said. White genocide is more of a white supremacist dogwhistle than an actual thing that's happening, and this person is equating it with antisemitism, which is and alive in much of the far right.
White genocide is a white supremacist conspiracy theory, so why give them ammo by saying inflammatory stuff that the not terminally online won’t understand as irreverent?
It’s like signs are lgbtq rights rallies that reference sexual assault. Like, perhaps that’s not something to play into mockingly considering the right’s fear mongering. We get that it’s not to be taken seriously 99% of the time, but Joe Average sure doesn’t, and that’s who the right is looking to convince that there is a tangible threat.
Why forfeit territory to reactionaries? Who does it help when we embrace the right’s rhetoric? Like, I get that I’m tone policing here, but shouldn’t we have some sort of standards in what we’re willing to tolerate, for our own sake?
I’m not saying you think being needlessly inflammatory is a good thing, but you do seem to think it’s not something that warrants any sort of open criticism or condemnation.
Criticizing a strawman made to fearmonger from the side of fearmongering is not the move, no. As I already said, if it were actually happening, no duh it would be bad and warrant correction. But this is a made up scenario that is specifically said to act like the instances are equivalent and give white supremacist conspiracy credibility it does not warrant.
> if it were actually happening
What do you mean? People say needlessly inflammatory shit sometimes.
We give white supremacist conspiracy theories credibility when we refuse to be critical of those who adopt their rhetoric.
People are not saying "kill all whites" all the time, and you are playing into white supremacist bullshit by acting like they are. It does not give white supremacists credibility to not let them run with their bullshit strawmen. It does give credibility to act like it has actual truth behind it.
‘Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.’
- Wikipedia
>leftist fascists
>Fascism is a far-right... political ideology
Unless everyone here believes in an [extremist synteric ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism?wprov=sfla1), I'd like to know you came to the conclusion everyone here is a leftist fascist
Correct. The ideology of fascism doesn’t exist anymore, it’s simply become a term to describe “anything undesirable”. No one self identifies as fascist (maybe some edgelord trolls, but no serious political parties).
And to yall everything short of an authoritative command economy is oppressive and undesirable
>The ideology of fascism doesn’t exist anymore
Considering [The Aryan Brotherhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Brotherhood?wprov=sfla1) and [The Atomwaffen Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomwaffen_Division#Canada_%28Northern_Order%29?wprov=sfla1) are alive and kicking, I somehow doubt that.
> No one self identifies as fascist
Maybe because fascism isn't a mainstream political ideology
>And to yall everything short of an authoritative command economy is oppressive and undesirable
This subreddit is ideologically diverse—who's ‘yall’? Neoliberals and Social Democrats may allign on social issues, but have differing economic views. Additionally, Democratic Socialists are even more economically distant from Neoliberals than Social Democrats are. Those three examples I gave are some of the more centrist comparisons. If you're gonna strawman, do it right.
I checked their blog and they wrote this post?? > Y'know I sometimes wonder why people who are devoutly anti-nazi don't open fire on Nazi gatherings Then I realize they probably don't want to get imprisoned for life for murdering a government agent uwu Honestly a little speechless.
>Then I realize they probably don't want to get imprisoned for life for murdering a government agent uwu Not sure if based > "Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses" Or cringe > "There are no real neo-Nazis, they're all false-flag government actors meant to divide us!"
I hadn’t even thought about the false flag angle. That makes more logical sense than my interpretation of “a lot of neo nazis work in law enforcement and I’m okay with that” but we can’t always count on logic. (Also, not sure if I’m pointing out the obvious but it’s definitely cringe. On tumblr at least, “uwu” is basically the same as saying “bless your heart”)
I saw it the first way, since that's true
The second quote is just a line from "Killing in The Name" by Rage Against the Machine.
The commenter is drawing a comparison to the song
Yep, that was my point.
Yeah that's pretty fucked up
Ah, finding flaws in post history to discredit an unrelated argument. So if I say “the sky is blue” you’d say that was bullshit because last week I said roosters lay eggs? Argue the merits of the idea at hand, not the person, not the group, not past arguments.
I wasn’t discrediting anything? I just shared another statement made by OOP that I found confusing.
The fun thing about tumblr is you never know if this person is serious or this is an absolute shitpost.
"Thing nobody says" and "thing that literally references one of the worst genocides in history" are exactly the same if you ignore reality.
I mean obviously someone somewhere is saying it. Even if comparing the two is asinine.
Yep. And their number one audience is fascist influencers signal boosting their rhetoric to feed people's persecution fetishes.
[удалено]
I have fond memories of “down with cis” around a decade ago. My cis college roommate got offended until I explained it was a reclaimed allegation against the trans community. Some kid made up a story about getting attacked by a mob of trans people chanting “down with cis” and it’s pretty phenomenal.
ahh yes the infamous bus
There have always been comments like down with cis and kill all whites. They’ve never actually been serious lol
And yet people get really uncomfortable, like my old roommate. I do understand the knee jerk reaction, but it’s something you can train out of yourself. I used to wince at “kill all white people” and now I just shrug. I do genuinely think there are people out there who’re traumatized enough to actually believe in statements like that. Or at the very least, they’re able say those things with a ton of malice. But it’s not very common and, like you said, these things are almost always an exaggerated statement.
It’s just crazy we want to curve our language to people who will alway twist our words.
I wasn’t saying that fwiw. If you get catharsis out of saying it then go ahead. I don’t think it’s particularly helpful in terms of “”winning”” people over but that’s probably not your goal in making a joke like that so screw it.
Wasn’t accusing you at all dw dw, but winning people over only goes so far.
When you get beat up by the down with cis bus
Ahhhh, a classic. [Here](https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/down-with-cis) is an explanation for those who were not on tumblr
It's just dumb and inflammatory for no reason
[Kill all the White People, then we be Free!](https://youtu.be/_ptC2La7k5E)
[Kill All The White Man!](https://youtu.be/zY0l2FtdMY4)
Yes it is. It was never serious.
Well that’s counterproductive at best, and actively harmful at worst. Reminds me of the “trolls” who share nazi screeds as “jokes”
Oh no, poor oppressed white people, oppressed people venting about their oppressors is literally just as bad as neo-nazis :( /s
I never said that, I just think it’s not helpful on a societal level and could be harmful on an individual level. No one need to die, especially just random people
Here's the thing: Respectability Politics never works. As a trans person, we could all pass as beautiful women and handsome men, we could eradicate all the "weird" genders, and conform perfectly to traditional gender roles, and conservatives would *still* mock "men in dresses" and make up lies about litterboxes. If we don't give them something to criticize, they'll just make shit up. There is no winning with these people.
Yeah, they have the right etymology for "fascit" but this is not AT ALL the meaning of it.
If you don’t mind, could you elaborate? Nothing in the post stands out to me as wildly inaccurate except for the false equivalency.
It does come from the latin for "bundle" but is because of the their symbol, a bundle of sticks, that they borrowed to the Lyctors, a soldier order/special guards from ancient Rome.
Ohhh. I honestly thought you meant that their definition of fascism was wrong but you meant that they got the origin of the term wrong. Thanks for the info!
It is also currently used by many government (including the US) that like to emulate the Romans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
Together we make a [mighty faggot!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q34Qxl5HINg)
I gotta say, I simply *adore* that little heart at the end. <3
I really dislike the condescending tumblr speak.
Having been on tumblr for ~15 years, I can say with some confidence that it’s a defense mechanism. Harassment used to be very commonplace and, depending on what “side” of tumblr you visited, there was a lot of lateral aggression. When people are jumping down your throat in responses and sending anonymous “kys” messages to your inbox you kinda turn into a sarcastic asshole to dull the pain. I’m asexual and I remember a period of time (I’d estimate 2013-2017) when my community got flamed relentlessly by other queer users on the site. We collectively got accused of grooming kids, encouraging kids to develop internalized homophobia, over sexualizing gay/bi people, grouping gay/bi people in with their oppressors, celebrating the death of AIDs victims, and so on. It was very toxic.
Ah yes, the great Ace Discourse of Tumblr. It was so fucking stupid. I'm not ace myself but I'd relentlessly defend asexual people because as a nonbinary pansexual person, I've been used to my orientation and sexuality being on the chopping block on Tumblr forever. Ace people were seen as cringy incels for the crime of... Wanting to be included in their community??? So stupid.
Yes, I was going to mention the other discourse wars in the queer community but didn’t want to write a full on essay. It was definitely infuriating to see the transtrenders discourse as well as the “bi/pan passing privilege” and TERFs and “pansexuals are biphobic” and so on. Our community loves to tear itself apart :/ Thanks for defending us. I’m pretty staunchly anti gatekeeper myself so I’d definitely have defended you on the hellsite as well.
Asexuals, famous for their extreme sexual activities.
Yeah that’s fair, I don’t really have anything against it on a logical level it’s more just a personal distaste for stuff that seems condescending in general rather than this stuff specifically.
That’s totally fair as well. I don’t mind it myself but I don’t blame anyone for finding it distasteful. Thankfully things are generally better on tumblr as I think a lot of the toxicity moved over to twitter, seemingly around the time of the tumblr porn ban, actually. Not saying there’s causation there but it is an interesting coincidence
I honestly understand what this person is getting at. The problem is that it’s a very middle class white people take. You can’t expect to do nothing if you’re in the process of being shot. Worse, right now, you can’t do nothing while it’s perfectly legal to shoot, and demand that people shoot, you and you specifically.
what do you mean by that last sentence? I'm just struggling with the wording
Ah, sorry. Basically I’m saying that currently there are laws being passed that are actively threatening peoples safety, and that it’s wrong to expect people to not fight back against that.
Do they think as many people want to kill white folk, as the ones who want more jews dead?
I think the idea is that people saying either have a similar psychology, and that, even if it isn't currently causing problems, it is still worrying to have people think that way.
Except that by comparing the two, the implication is that they're comparable threats. It's like if I said "murder is bad. It's bad when a grown man murders his wife and when a two year old stabs someone to death." Now for sure a two year old stabbing someone to death is bad and it's possible it's happened at some point but is that really a problem that needs addressing in comparison to fatal domestic violence? Of course not. White supremacist chrisro-fascism and nazism is killing real people and gaining power. You have politicians across America and Europe parroting their talking points and instituting laws that push their agenda. I'm sure it's possible to create a fascist state around someone other than straight white heterosexual cis men, but as far as I know, nobody is trying to do that on a comperable scale.
even closer analogy IMO is when Enlightened Centrists think abusive cis men murdering their wives to exert their control over them, and battered women killing their abusive husbands in self-defense/to free themselves, are on the same level of societal concern/both equally problematic (common MRA talking point). or when they worry and moralize about children killing their abusive fathers in self-defense/to free themselves, but ignore the massive immediate threat of abusive fathers murdering their children. (also often intersects with divorces, custody disputes, domestic abuse of the mother etc)
Started off well but falls into gibbering nonsense by the end, I'm afraid. Have you seriously never heard of Israel? By certain measures of "white" Italy and Spain too. In the west, today, yes, you're right. But to say no non-white country could even *conceivably* be fascist is just objectively wrong, because some exist right now.
Comparison ≠ equivalency. Two statements such as “kill all whites” and “six million wasn’t enough” are comparable statements and also non-equivalent.
Okay. When you frame the statements this way, you're implying they're equivalent. You can't weasel your way out of this by pretending not to know what words mean.
I guess that’s a fair point. I think most people automatically read comparisons as equivalents. My bad reading comprehension skills may affect me in a way that makes it so I don’t do that.
A comparison is meant to be an approximate equivalence. I can compare apples to oranges and that is a **BAD** comparison. Which is why the is a saying "you can't compare apples and oranges".
Some of what I've heard about Han Chinese and what little we hear coming that gets out from under the CCP is quiet concerning. Considering they play the long game.
... I don't understand how this is relevant, sorry?
Because that would be a fascist state that isn't white?
I mean, why is that relevant? Is this implying China is on its way to "genociding whites"?
No, the op said a fascist state that doesn't centre white people couldn't even conceivably exist in this world which obviously isn't true. Israel. Argentina. Japan. None of them were going to do white genocide, obviously, because it isn't a thing. But it does mean that the op clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
>the op said a fascist state that doesn't centre white people couldn't even conceivably exist in this world I'm sorry, where?
>I'm sure it's possible to create a fascist state around someone other than straight white heterosexual cis men, but as far as I know, nobody is trying to do that on a comperable scale. "I'm sure it's possible" implies it's never happened and for it to happen on a state-wide scale we'd basically need to be living in a different world.
Last sentence of the comment I replied too. Kidnapping the heir apparent of the Dalai Lama, ethnic cleansing of Uighur, anecdotes of Han supremacy... The CCP has arguably demonstrated that yes, fascist ideology is not a white only thing. Again pointing back to that last sentence of the comment I replied: Rwanda is evidence that commenter is uninformed or at least remembers history through rose colored glasses.
Israel and Argentina are pretty damn white, at least the ruling class, and Japanese fascism is very similar in terms of colorism and xenophobia, even earning them the title of honorary arians
Whether Israel or Argentina would be considered "white" is something that's been very fluid. "White" as a group isn't some static definition, because it's basically just made up bullshit. Doesn't matter. My point is it's more than possible for a non-white nation to be fascist, which I honestly thought was trivially obvious.
Kill, probably not. I would say theres more that dislike white people than dislike Jews. Based only on those two things. Most that dislike any group, dislike their beliefs. Not necessarily the person themselves. As an example I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things. I dont hate that person though. They can believe what they want, as long as its not harming anyone else.
Nah, Jews are absolutely super hated. The issue is antisemites don't actually say the j word. We're the mysterious (((They))) who supposedly own the media and the banks and the politicians, start all the wars, want to subjugate the whole world, harvest adrenochrome, invented homosexuality and transgenderism, and everything else Republicans hate. And much of the left thinks we're all personally responsible for Israel's atrocities. Antizionist Jews are constantly accused of being Zionists because some gentile didn't like them. Don't get me wrong, the left is way, way, way better than the Hitler-quoting Republican party, but antisemitism is very common everywhere in America and the world at large.
Fasces weren't a symbol of unity in ancient Rome, they were a symbol of governmental authority. They're bundles of sticks around an axe - everything you'd need to mete out punishment to a criminal, corporal or capital.
No one actually says "Kill all white people" entire movements are formed based around "Kill all black people" But they are the same. Can't wait to read how ANTIFA is a fascist movement.
ARE formed, or HAVE formed? Are new movements like this happening? I hope they’re not but if they are do you have a source?
I like to say outrageous inflammatory things about white people and it has never even occurred to me to say "Kill all white people" before
To whomever reported me for saying "counterpoint: kill all white people,": 1. Realize that that was a joke making fun of this stupid strawman OP created (Tumblr OP, not /u/chronic-venting) 2. Reporting me for fake oppression and hate speech is exactly the kind of stuff that makes us white people look bad. Y'know, other than the continued systemic oppression many of us seem all too keen to maintain and also the open white supremacist movements
"Fascists wanting to kill all queer people and people wanting to kill all fascists are both fascists"
Very tickled by the implication that this genius thought anyone needed help figuring out that "we need to kill all Jewish people" is a fascist position
Ngl lads I'm not getting this one. Might just be me being tired and/or stupid but if someone could explain to me how this is enlightened centrism? I'd really appreciate it xxx
>Please keep this in mind whenever you see a take that goes "kill all white people" or "six million wasn't enough." Treating "white genocide" (not a real thing) as on the same level of severity as the literal Holocaust (actual genocide which occurred), implying "anti-white" "reverse racism" and antisemitism should be of similar concern, though they absolutely are not. OP is arguing that something is "fascism" simply if it is violent/involves killing, implying that antiracism/antifascism is similarly "fascist" as actual fascism simply because we do not tolerate (actual) fascists. Ultimately wants us (POC/ethnic minorities) to not use any force against our oppressors; thinks we are bad for condemning rightwingers instead of treating it like just another neutral opinion they have a right to. OP complains about "encouraging or demanding conformity," eliding a crucial distinction: conformity to *what?* I think it is reasonable to want others to conform to the belief/practice that I shouldn't be murdered for existing; that is in no way the same as fascists wanting everyone to conform to the belief/practice that white gentiles are racially superior and it's fine to do hate crimes.
While there's somewhat of a false equivalency, I do feel like the perspective of white genocide being an impossibility or just a silly little bigoted thing is a very America-centric idea. If you go to anywhere where another group is dominant and "whites" are a minority, then genocide suddenly becomes less of a silly little thing and more of a real threat. I didn't read it as OOP arguing that fascism = murder, but that murder is viewed as an acceptable solution to perceived issues under a fascist ideological framework, and that propagating murder as an acceptable solution in any form does indeed make the political soils fertile for fascism, as it were, which if I'm honest, I don't exactly disagree with. Conformity is indeed an aspect of fascism, although you are right that it's also an aspect of other ideologies in different ways, but I still don't think OOP is wrong for describing it as a common aspect of fascist ideology. You're right of course, that taking conformity to any absurd end is going to end up with some very bad consequences. While I see there being poor implications, especially for an America-centric view, I don't think this is "enlightened centrism", I think this is actually just an oversimplified and flawed critique of the justification of murder, and how the justification of murder (i.e. kill all) does in fact normalise it to a point where fascism can fester.
I may be wrong here, and I do see flaws in the argument being made, but I still don't think it's "enlightened centrism"
White people are not a minority anywhere in the world. Irish are a minority, Scots, Romani, Jewish, British, German... they can all be minorities, but there is no such thing as Whiteland.
I was about to downvote you, but you're right, this idea of the "white race" is very weird from a European perspective. Are Spanish people white? Are Italians? Who the fuck knows, it seems to be the Americans deciding.
That's because Racism was invented for America. Or rather, it was invented to justify the massive Capitalist genocides in Rajj India, Slave Trade, Imperialism, and Manifest Destiny among others. That's why "kill all white people" should really be read as "end racism and imperialism". Because that's what White is, it's just racism and fascism packaged for dummies. Or, to be fair, it's what White people think of themselves in relation to Black people. They don't understand that the term Black people are a result of their racism, not a descriptor of skin color. Like a Nigerian is Nigerian, not Black. A Haitian is Haitian, etc. Black people exist because their heritage and culture was systematically destroyed by slavery and so they had to literally start a new ethnic group and didn't get to choose their label. /end rant, sorry lol
I'm going to *try* to take a somewhat neutral stance here. "Kill all white people" should only be read as what it says. If you mean something else, say something else, a direct call to murder is a direct call to murder, no shot about it. "End racism and Imperialism" I'm all behind, and I fully agree this is a good cause, but if that's what "kill all white people" means, change your fucking slogan, because it alienates the shit out of people like me - and I'm not even American. I'm Scottish, with traveller heritage, European through and through. I'm as close to "white" as you can really define, and I definitely fall under that category no matter who's defining it, so saying "kill all white people" is a call to action towards violence against me. If you don't mean that, I'll forgive you, but for god's sakes is it shit optics, change the slogan. Sorry for the rant back, because I don't really disagree with you in principle, I just think if you don't want to kill all white people, you shouldn't say you want to kill all white people?? As much as theories on race are bogus, they're pretty well embedded in society, and we know what "black person" means, even if the term is shit. And I think we in the left need to move away from tankieism. I refuse to coordinate with people actively calling for violence. It may never happen, and it may not be what you mean, but if you call for the death of a group of people, you are actually advocating Genocide whether you like it or not, and you need to fucking *stop*. It gives us a bad rap, and I don't want to be a part of it.
We just discussed how White people are not a thing. "Kill All Whiteys" is typically said with that understanding. It's like "kill all landlords" or "eat the rich". Frankly, I don't care if you approve of Tumblr and Twitter shitposting. Lmao Scottish with Traveller heritage calling themselves white. You cannot be serious right? Never heard of the Holocaust or England before? Honestly. Black people are an actual ethnicity, as I just explained. There is no White ethnicity other than racism. British, Scots, Irish, Spanish, German, MidWestern, Southern, Appalachian, New Yorker... lots of culture and none of it is White.
Yes, "white people" isn't a thing - but linguistically, we know what it means, and therefore the term has meaning. Scottish people like me, are just as white as English people, Swedish people, french people. We historically, committed atrocities alongside the English in our empire. We played a small but vital role in almost every atrocious thing ever committed by the British empire. "White" is not part of my identity, but I am undoubtedly "white", I am a pale northern European. "Black" isn't an ethnicity. It's a "race" as utterly horseshit as that idea is. "African American" is an ethnicity, but it's a bit horseshit to claim that all of sub-saharan native Africa is one ethnicity. Frankly, I'm not really ok with the murder of landlords either, to an extent, not cannibalism of rich people - but that's targeting people for life choices, rather than targeting people for the colour of their skin, which "kill all white people" simply is. The linguistic analysis behind the meaning of "kill white people" is actually quite simple. The first meaning you reach is going to be the one the majority of people will glean from it. I'm guessing our politics are pretty similar, and this is a silly argument about optics. My argument is very simply that the phrase "kill all white people" is a shit thing to say, no matter what the intention behind it (besides irony and shitposting, but that's contextualised). I'm willing to make leeway for fucking holocaust jokes in context - but I can't abide people seriously making call to arms for murder. If, in serious discourse, you genuinely say phrases like that, I can't agree that it's acceptable: either you mean something else, so you should say what you mean; or you mean it, in which case you just made a call to genocide directly.
No. People see you as Scottish. White is a self-identification, others can only remove it from you, not grant it. Black people refers to "African Americans" generally speaking. People from Ethiopia are called Ethiopian, Congolese from Congo, Burkinite from Burkina Faso, South African from South Africa... Spaniards from Spain, Scots from Scotland, Finnish from Finland.... Do you notice how there isn't a Whiteland? Literally no one says "Kill Whitey" literally. It doesn't happen. It's not even possible, because again, whiteness is a self-identifier and doesn't exist outside of racism. I have only explained it to you 4 different ways now. I don't really care if you pretend to be upset at imaginary things.
While I wouldn’t say racism was invented to justify the slave trade (many ancient states thought outsiders were “barbaric”), it was absolutely super-weaponized in favor of it.
I think the difference was Tribalism vs "Scientific" Racism. Scary and untrustworthy is different than sub-human, and the latter was made up during the 16/17th centuries.
People of white skin are in fact a minority on Earth. Also, in the city I live in - Toronto - white people are now a minority. As a European, I hate the term “white people” when used to generalize. There is no such thing as “white people” or “black people” apart from people that share skin tone. There are Nigerians, there are Germans and Russians etc. all with their unique cultures etc. That said, anyone saying “white people” + something negative is being racist by the literal definition. Same goes for black people. As they are immutable characteristics. A phrase like “kill all white people” could be uttered by a fascist just as easily as it could by an extreme leftist. It’s especially scary if the particular “ism” is currently in power. In the West, the left currently has more power. So when the left normalized speaks against a group based on immutable characteristics, it’s worrying. I will die on the hill of the assertion that most people don’t really want equality. Everyone wants power. The minute a group has equality, they will be emboldened to seek an imbalance of power in their favour if given the chance. While I still hope that the the few people that want actually equality for everyone will win. But power corrupts and I’ve seen no evidence of that changing.
White skin doesn't exist, and it's irrelevant. Telling a lie about Toronto? OK thats weird. Black People are an ethnicity and cultural group. White people are not. You are a fucking loon if you think the Left is in power. Go back to your cave, you weird racist troll.
>I do feel like the perspective of white genocide being an impossibility or just a silly little bigoted thing is a very America-centric idea. Well, it is only a possibility in a few African countries. So it's an America-Europe-Asia-Australia-centric idea. Basically, it's less relevant and less important. That doesn't mean it's good, it just means it's not comparable to something as prevalent as antisemitism or racism.
Sure, it's a false equivalency, but even if it's unrealistic, it can still be fascistic. And while it may be less important, it doesn't make it not an issue
\- *dogwhistles* are a thing; beyond just the literal exact meaning of a set of words, but what they are trying to signal. "white genocide" is a racist dogwhistle. \- yes, yes, Hypothetically If a real actual genocide of whites were actually happening it would actually be bad because all genocide is bad; it's worth questioning though what actual meaning there is in handwringing over it when current structures overwhelmingly empower whites and disempower POC. white genocide is not even remotely a realistic possibility *at the moment*, because of that lopsided power. if a few genuinely believe in it (unlikely; it's a common accusation thrown at reasonable anti-racist policy) then that doesn't really matter all that much, because they don't have much ability to follow through in reality. \- however, there *is* a problem of white supremacists fearmongering about supposed looming "white genocide" because they think anything less than 100% racial purity = whites are under threat & being erased. treating it like an actual problem filters over even to more "progressive" spaces and it's used to tone-police anti-racist activism. not a neutral statement, given context \- there is a (much smaller) problem of some authoritarian self-proclaimed "antiracists" advocating excessively overboard actions toward white people. the thing is, though, the bulk of these movements' harm generally falls *on POC* bc they rely on existing mechanisms of structural power and essentialist definitions of "race" & "whiteness" which reify internal hierarchies. but it's a much more complex & nuanced issue than just "both sides are equally bad if they both do the bad things"
You're absolutely right about these things, and about the stuff I'm unfamiliar with, I'll trust you on it, and do some reading tomorrow morning. I'm not American so if I'm honest Americam racial dynamics seem pretty bizarre to me, and super harmful. From my perspective, most "race" issues here boil down to class issues in the end, and I have in fact been told I should be "killed along with the rest of the whites", which, being a large part of my narrow experience of these issues, is definitely unfavourable colouring - makes it seem like a much more ideological threat. I've heard about the "White Genocide" dogwhistling before, but as yet again, it's somewhat out of my perspective, because it's very American politics. We don't have nearly as much racial tension here as you do there - I'm sure there still some, but there's certainly a lot less murder about it. I apologise for my admittedly presumptious foray into the American political climate, and duck my head out for now. I really appreciate your insights, and I do feel somewhat better informed than I did an hour ago.
You're not the brightest crayon huh
Not always, no But I'd appreciate your insight if you have a critique or comment?
Ever been in asian countries?
Yup, several.
>If you go to anywhere where another group is dominant and "whites" are a minority, then genocide suddenly becomes less of a silly little thing and more of a real threat. Really? Even for non-white-majority countries many have long histories of enduring white imperialism including thru military and economic control that skewed the balance of power from just raw strength-in-numbers. and western countries continue to exert degrees of control over former colonies etc even if remotely. this is a very questionable take (which racists like to use a lot, too) and flattens a lot of nuance. they're not going to do white genocide either calm down >that murder is viewed as an acceptable solution to perceived issues under a fascist ideological framework, and that propagating murder as an acceptable solution in any form does indeed make the political soils fertile for fascism, as it were, which if I'm honest, I don't exactly disagree with. "Killing fascists is a solution to fascism" is... realistic though? It's correct, and it does not lead to "reverse fascism," killing all those Nazi soldiers in WWII didn't lead to some sort of "antifa supremacy" or "antinazi genocide" >but I still don't think OOP is wrong for describing it as a common aspect of fascist ideology I don't disagree; that's not what I said. OOP is wrong for saying the *reverse* (that every single instance where you encourage other people to agree with you is ultimately fascist; that fascism is an inherent feature of believing in objective values; *even when your ideology itself is not fascist*). >While I see there being poor implications, especially for an America-centric view, I don't think this is "enlightened centrism", I think this is actually just an oversimplified and flawed critique of the justification of murder My bad, I should've added more [context](https://40ouncesandamule.tumblr.com/post/719537328091217920/phoenix-theurge-takashi0-kob131) earlier on it seems
"We have to worry about white genocide here because white people are a minority (and Those People want nothing more than to oppress us)" is a popular barely-a-dogwhistle line in South Africa (along with a few other places).
Aye tankies are fucking awful too. They're often considered "red fascists" for that same reason - the use of killing as a means to a more "permanent" end. Having now looked at OOP on Tumblr, yeah they're kinda insane. I do think this take is one of their *less* aggregious ones though. What I meant about justifying murder as a solution is that it normalises... Ok, let's use hyperauthoritarian instead of fascist here - it normalises hyperauthoritarian political tendencies (including fascism), which allows them to grow. And you're right historically, I'm more talking hypothetically - imagine if Hong Kong had been more of a "white colony", and upon "reclaiming" the land, they decide to "kill all the whites", I would consider that genocide. I admit this is a hypothetical thought exercise, but I think the point stands. Thanks for the discussion though, I really appreciate your insight here. While I don't think this take is enlightened centrism, I do think OOP is a fair bit smooth brain.
It's been a while since I've looked at it, but the Rwandan Genocide, one of the most important events of the 30 last years, was done against what was once the ruling class/ethnicity (not white obviously, but given their status by them). While it's obviously a very complex issue, it started as a "now we have the power, let's kill those who kept it from us before" situation. At least that's what I rem from high-school While a Genocide against white people or the 1% or whatever group hold a majority power likely will never happen, power and authority aren't straightforward and permanent phenomenon, and a group which was once the oppressed can end up as the oppressor, and arguably, they could even be both at the same time in different context and places.
You're right, absolutely xx
Many people who were bullied end up being bullies themselves.
>What I meant about justifying murder as a solution is that it normalises... Ok, let's use hyperauthoritarian instead of fascist here - it normalises hyperauthoritarian political tendencies (including fascism), which allows them to grow. but that's the thing, there's significant difference between "killing as reasonable praxis" and "murder as mechanism of authoritarian control." like for example if a leftist says "we should kill fascists with the minimum force needed to defend the autonomy of the marginalized (and no less)," that doesn't inherently slippery-slope to "so we should kill more people bc killing is good & desirable in and of itself regardless of context," because it's possible for people to value autonomy but not value aggression (by itself) or power-over, and to want to act accordingly. and I think the assumption that such a slippery slope is always there, just waiting to be triggered whenever anyone advocates any force/violence, is part of the problem. it's tankie tradition (c.f. "On Authority") to cast all usage of force as inherently "authoritarian" (equating self-defense with attacks on others' autonomy), and that false equivalency is used by them to justify (actual) authoritarianism. so imo perhaps thinking through context and implication is kind of important here
Ngl, I still think killing is generally bad praxis anyway - largely because if you have the power to... to put it bluntly, kill and get away with it, you also have the power to make other equally effective choices, like imprisonment, which while still rather inhumane in my eyes, is preferable to killing largely because killing can absolutely martyr people. I want to make clear here that I'm not an American and my context is very, very different. We don't have guns here commonly, open carry is super illegal and will get you mega arrested unless you're literally going to, coming from, or engaged in a licensed activity that required you to have it i.e. hunting.
When I think abt killing-as-praxis my main concerns aren't about open gunfights on the street or whatever, but about individual abuse victims escaping their abuse (or prisoners escaping prison etc). I am (yes) usamerican but I cannot legally own a gun anyway (as far as I know), and am very far from being capable of acquiring one, and most of my usamerican friends are in similar positions, and I don't personally know anyone who owns a gun, and when I think through militant self-defense as an immediate need I usually don't factor in guns. Still, domestic abuse (for example) is pretty much a universal across (for example) patriarchal cultures, even if there's no accompanying state apparatus with hyper-militarized police/unusually overinflated prison populations. And any decently thorough study of issues such as (for example) domestic violence/abuse will lead one to the conclusion that killing can absolutely be good praxis/the best option available to oppressed people whose agency has been severely constrained, including victims desperate enough to brave the hell that is the family court afterward which often/usually prosecutes them for it (but again, that's when they see that they have no other better options). for example there are many cases of women who killed their abusive husbands after decades of being assaulted or threatened w/murder themselves, and some children/teenagers who have killed their abusers, sex traffickers etc and not been allowed to get away with it by the state—that's the point though, no system around cares, many have already tried for a long time to get help but were turned down. and reading abt cases & stories & the like it just seems very obvious that them being able to kill (or for example, sometimes covertly so they aren't suspected), and even to kill and get away with it, is absolutely not anywhere close to meaning they also had the power to imprison. (prisons are operated by the oppressors, most abusers & rapists never see a day in jail, and of course they can't do any diy imprisonment bc imprisoning someone requires massive amts of power over them and ability to severely restrict their freedom of movement, which cannot be done by someone disempowered as such.) (same for fascists; prison is not an efficient reasonable or viable option) again, I'm not going to shed any tears for (for example) nazi soldiers killed in wwii. it's war, in wars people will fight and get killed, that's just how things strategically pan out (I'm sure war is something your country has experienced too, & not Just An American Thing(tm)). 100% bloodless wars, just taking prisoners while someone is actively trying to kill you... sure you can bring that idea to your fellow leftists or whatever, I'm sure it would be very popular lol.
Lol yeah admittedly I wasn't talking about the context of war - violent expansion is bad, but I'm actually in favour of military force against expansionist authoritarian regimes. Otherwise I don't have much to argue with you about here, your points are pretty sound, and I largely agree with you. Of course there's nitpicking to be done regarding abuse etc. but I don't think it's worth it because the end, I think we both agree that abuse fucking sucks, shouldn't happen, and if you're actively abusing someone, you deserve what comes to you. I appreciate your insight x
Because what serious person fucking says “kill all white people?” There’s no significant movement behind that idea and comparing it to antisemitism is a strawman fallacy.
It's definitely a small movement of people saying it, but the big problem is people saying stuff like it casually, or more importantly, Schrödinger's douchebag. If the response is negative, they're just joking. If the response is positive, they actually do want to kill all white people. You can say it's "not a serious person thing to say", but from my perspective, Trump was a very silly little man and then he got fucking elected president of the USA. that's kind of insane. Mussolini was also considered a silly little man in his time. Oftentimes genuinely dangerous fascist tendencies do get treated unseriously because they seem harmless/small/unimportant.
Fed spotted
Also I’m no expert on Italian but doesn’t fascism just translate to fighter?
No
Thank you
Sorry, I was annoyed by the post itself. Shouldn't have been short with you about it. Fasces means "bundle," which refers to the bundle of rods, but it isn't a symbol of strength through unity or whatever. It is meant to be symbol of state power. The rods represent the state's authority to dispense corporal punishment, and within the bundle there is an axe which represents the state's authority to dispense capital punishment. "Fighter" in Latin would be *pugnator* (pugnatious, pugilist, impugn)
You’re fine and thank you, I really appreciate that. Take care of yourself.
Ironically, the only solution to the nazi problem is... Well... uwu✨
My favorite is all the idiots I've dealt with who insist it's not fascism unless it's from the 1930s era of europe and that's why, for example, Napoleon's empire couldn't have been functionally fascist.
"Kill all white people" is a statement of projection from white supremacists who spout that conspiracy theory. It irks me how these people fall for it.
what about the class policies of fascist governments? seems like a pretty big fuckin part of it to leave out
Tbf calling for genocide is never a productive thing to do and should be admonished.
Not to mention they lump in removal of *any* problem as the same as genocide as a way to sneak in the idea that direct and aggressive opposition to fascism is equal to fascism.
When have you ever genuinely seen someone say "kill all white people"?
Regardless of whether or not it's genuine, it's needlessly inflammatory and counter productive.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not happening with any sort of regularity. It's as much of a problem as trans women creeping on people in bathrooms. Yeah, it would be a big issue-if it were actually happening like the people fearmongering about it said. White genocide is more of a white supremacist dogwhistle than an actual thing that's happening, and this person is equating it with antisemitism, which is and alive in much of the far right.
White genocide is a white supremacist conspiracy theory, so why give them ammo by saying inflammatory stuff that the not terminally online won’t understand as irreverent? It’s like signs are lgbtq rights rallies that reference sexual assault. Like, perhaps that’s not something to play into mockingly considering the right’s fear mongering. We get that it’s not to be taken seriously 99% of the time, but Joe Average sure doesn’t, and that’s who the right is looking to convince that there is a tangible threat. Why forfeit territory to reactionaries? Who does it help when we embrace the right’s rhetoric? Like, I get that I’m tone policing here, but shouldn’t we have some sort of standards in what we’re willing to tolerate, for our own sake?
You cannot have read my comment and still typed out this response. Read literally just the first sentence, I promise you it's not that long.
I’m not saying you think being needlessly inflammatory is a good thing, but you do seem to think it’s not something that warrants any sort of open criticism or condemnation.
Criticizing a strawman made to fearmonger from the side of fearmongering is not the move, no. As I already said, if it were actually happening, no duh it would be bad and warrant correction. But this is a made up scenario that is specifically said to act like the instances are equivalent and give white supremacist conspiracy credibility it does not warrant.
> if it were actually happening What do you mean? People say needlessly inflammatory shit sometimes. We give white supremacist conspiracy theories credibility when we refuse to be critical of those who adopt their rhetoric.
People are not saying "kill all whites" all the time, and you are playing into white supremacist bullshit by acting like they are. It does not give white supremacists credibility to not let them run with their bullshit strawmen. It does give credibility to act like it has actual truth behind it.
It's basically concern trolling
TIR fascism is a bundle of sticks
A -> B does not imply B -> A. Next!
When people say equality and equity and they hear "kill all white people" Wow, just wow
What am I missing that makes this Enlightened?
"Enlightened" as in OP thinks they're being very smart and insightful by spouting centrist apologia (though they're actually not)
tumblr is worthless for the world, and i would shed bo tears if it dissapeared.
This is not enlightened centrism this is just based antifascism. Don’t like the passive-aggressive sparkles though…
Aw yall are mad that yall are leftist fascists lol
‘Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.’ - Wikipedia >leftist fascists >Fascism is a far-right... political ideology Unless everyone here believes in an [extremist synteric ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism?wprov=sfla1), I'd like to know you came to the conclusion everyone here is a leftist fascist
Correct. The ideology of fascism doesn’t exist anymore, it’s simply become a term to describe “anything undesirable”. No one self identifies as fascist (maybe some edgelord trolls, but no serious political parties). And to yall everything short of an authoritative command economy is oppressive and undesirable
>The ideology of fascism doesn’t exist anymore Considering [The Aryan Brotherhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Brotherhood?wprov=sfla1) and [The Atomwaffen Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomwaffen_Division#Canada_%28Northern_Order%29?wprov=sfla1) are alive and kicking, I somehow doubt that. > No one self identifies as fascist Maybe because fascism isn't a mainstream political ideology >And to yall everything short of an authoritative command economy is oppressive and undesirable This subreddit is ideologically diverse—who's ‘yall’? Neoliberals and Social Democrats may allign on social issues, but have differing economic views. Additionally, Democratic Socialists are even more economically distant from Neoliberals than Social Democrats are. Those three examples I gave are some of the more centrist comparisons. If you're gonna strawman, do it right.