this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
915 points (98.2% liked)

Political Memes

10043 readers
1039 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 2 points 40 minutes ago

Reality check.

We aren't voting our way out of this. That shipped sailed in 2024.

When the orange rapist dies, all the fascists still exist. They'll still need to be dealt with.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I love when people say violence against fascism is fascism... how dumb are you?

They're the orange cat of people, malicious, disruptive, destructive, and only have a community brain cell to share around them.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 hours ago

Only the intolerant are tolerant of intolerance.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 8 points 14 hours ago

Yeah, remember how we defeated fascism in WW2 through polite conversation

Remember how Germans tried to defeat fascism before WW2!

There were a million people in a paramilitarized group, of which many were trained soldiers from WW1.

That simple club is not the scientific answer.

Since there doesn't seem to be a plan I would even guess that science isn't even funded to cure fascism. Of course, cause who should have provided the funding?

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Serious question though, there are now literal Nazis, dressed up and all, parading the streets of US cities. What would one risk just shooting them?

"Nazis were back your honour, what else could I do?"

I'm not advocating for this, but as a pessimist I think we are never getting these people back to reason, and they grow in numbers, and they are armed. If parading as Nazis is not seen as having crossed the red line, where does this all go? If there is only self-defense if they attack as a legitimate reason to shoot them, are we doomed to see them grow in numbers till self-defense becomes fucking impossible? Hence my question, if the first bunch of neonazis were just shot, there might have been less of them now, but what would have happened to those that shot them? Prison? Hero? Is there a jurisprudence? I haven't heard the news of a 'reverse' Kyle Rittenhouse

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

A murder is a murder, legally speaking.

Tbh, the big issue with why nazis exist in these large quantities is that the financial situation of people is going down. That's the one big thing there. And left-wing parties mostly all over the world did nothing against that.

The rich, the billionaires and all that lot are siphoning wealth off the rest of the world and nobody does anything against that. Instead, left-wing parties got entangled in social justice topics (which are important) but completely forgot left economics (which are critical). Left-wing discussion moved from important but rather boring topics (e.g. how to distribute wealth better) to extremely polarizing but not that critical-to-daily-life topics (e.g. "This politician used a word wrong!").

That was basically the whole 2000s and the first half of the 2010s.

In the 1990s, nazis were hardly a thing because people had jobs, housing and food. That's changed now. And since the left-wing parties aren't about to change anything, people are flocking to right-wing parties and -ideologies because they are literally to dumb to understand that the change that right-wing is going to effect is change against the people.

But if we actually wanted to stop nazis, we would have to abolish billionaires (and pretty much anyone who has more than >50 million) and redistribute wealth. We need a new new deal. Because what killed the nazis wasn't WW2, but new deal economics.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's also where my reflection typically leads, I'm just worried about the timescales of fascism well on its way vs anticapitalism/social policies that are nowhere to be found it seems (even if I believe the majority of people are on the right side of this schism, they are so unproperly represented by governments and leaders in general)

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

It's the golden rule again: The one who has the gold, makes the rules.

The ultra-rich (and even the regular rich) usually aren't that big on anticapitalism/social policies.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

"Left-wing" parties intentionally started focusing on ultimately meaningless topics so they didn't have to admit that they were in the same pockets as the other side.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

And right-wing parties did the same to distract idiot voters from what they are actually doing.

[–] Zoabrown@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago

This meme accidentally proves the point: you don’t beat authoritarianism by copying its methods.

[–] Zoabrown@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This meme accidentally proves the point: you don’t beat authoritarianism by copying its methods.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 2 hours ago

So what's the plan then buddy? Because the authoritarians have no problem with violence.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 17 points 22 hours ago

Also, that's not literally fascism.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Remember, if you sit at the table with Nazis, you're a Nazi!

So yeah, BoTh PaRtIeS strikes again, sorry

[–] Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

What if I'm sitting with them in order to better slip some poison in their drink when not looking?

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 10 points 16 hours ago

I think that's fine, because if you do it right, you will be sitting at a table with corpses instead of Nazis. You might run into trouble with unrelated aspects of the social contract (re: dining with corpses), but at the least the Nazi problem would be solved

[–] Killer57@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, I don't know, I think the ones that have been lit on fire are alright.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 1 points 3 hours ago

Narrator Voice: This kills the Nazi.

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 94 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The cure for fascism is... politically-motivated threats of brutal physical violence? That's literally fascism.

Hate this. This is not fascism. It’s arguably not even one of the tenets of fascism. That user has no clue what they’re talking about.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 128 points 1 day ago (9 children)

It's always morally correct to beat the shit out of Nazis. And if they don't like that, they can always stop being Nazis.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

"they can always stop being Nazis."


Assholes:

"Well you can also stop being the thing that you're being oppressed for!"

Me:

"Stop being disabled? Yeah, no, I wish I could, but the only way I could stop being disabled is by not being alive"

Assholes:

"..."

Me:

"Oh, that's what you meant, isn't it? Cool, so you're not just a Nazi apologist, you're literally a Nazi. Good to know"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they can always stop being Nazis

I think that's something a lot of right wing people struggle to comprehend.

Left wing violence is targeted toward those who would do us harm, i.e. Nazis. It's self defence.

Right wing violence is targeted toward those who they believe is causing harm. In their minds it's the same justification, self defence.

The difference is you can choose to be intolerant or not, you can choose to treat others with kindness or not, you can choose to be a Nazi or not. You can't choose whether you're gay, black, trans, disabled, Jewish, whatever form of "other" they have chosen.

Obviously there's also the fact that being "other" isn't harmful in any way. But that's a separate rabbithole of delusion that needs tackled.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they think we are driven by the same fears as them and that these fears are universal to the human experience rather than them not confronting and processing their traumas

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don't even believe it's traumas. Most hatred is born from lack of experience and therefore empathy. The trauma they claim is usually fantasy, to feed into the mentality that they are right to be afraid. Like the whole oppressed Christian rhetoric I was fed at an early age, it doesn't exist in the US. Pray to the guy on the cross, I won't stop you. Just don't him as an excuse for causing harm to others. You can practice your religion, but it shouldn't stop others from living their lives without fear or harm.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

But Christians have been using him as an excuse for violence since they were Jews, probably because he was said to be so violent (per his own words and Revelation, in which he is downright murderous)

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

I so want to go back to a wave of media about brutal violence towards Nazis.

Sure, put in a moral dilemma. A little “Is it really okay for us to be doing this?” Just certify that the answer is YES.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is so stupid, that's not the cure for fascism, beating them with bats?! Honestly.

That's a short term treatment at best. At least drive some nails in that thing.

The cure comes with not putting down the bat.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 16 hours ago

I find the analogy of the immune system useful in this respect: a tiered response, where the initial response is mainly about recruiting useful cells to the area. Some immune cells work by immobilising a pathogen and signalling to more specialist cells to come in and properly sort stuff out (prize for the most badass sounding cell is the T-killer cell). In this analogy, the people with regular bats are the ones immediately disabling the Nazi, keeping them down until the specialists with nails come along

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dwalin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I would say nazism as an ideology was not defeated (yeah i know it still exists, thats not the point) by fighting. It was a long process of re-education after the war. The nazis did not woke up the next day and said: "we lost, i guess the jews are ok now"

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 8 points 21 hours ago

So long as we live under the hierarchical authority of nation-states that creates the authoritative dynamic for fascism to take root, further enabled by the capitalist hegemony and the private ownership of necessity resources that keeps people reliant on these hierarchical powers, we will never truly defeat fascism. They will just run back to their hovels and bide time as the system helps them to consolidate wealth and power until they can again make their play for power.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I would say there are more Nazis now then there were in WW2, they just don't wear those uniforms, which were the best thing about the Nazis. So weird.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 61 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The whole Tolerance Paradox thing, yk

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

I refer to it as the tolerance pact. I'll tolerate the weird things you do, so long as they don't significantly affect the unwilling. In return, I expect you to tolerate the same from my weird stuff.

There's also a slightly weaker addition where I will help stand up for those that are both under the pact and under attack. ("They came for...")

Nazis and an alarming section of the political right are breaking that pact. They are void of protection by it.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 82 points 1 day ago (14 children)

This solution always made sense to me:

Another solution is to place tolerance in the context of social contract theory: to wit, tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance?wprov=sfla1

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›