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.
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
983 points (98.2% liked)
Political Memes
10043 readers
1003 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
Vote our way out of what?
Idk the majority of people who voted DID vote for Trump, and generally people like Bernie just didn't get votes because Americans are propagandized against """socialism""". I guess the DNC basically refuses to give us a good candidate though but I'm not sure how to solve that.
And the Cheeto got less votes than he did the first time around. People are fed up with the system on both sides it seems.
That's totally true.. but we currently have masked goons grabbing people off the street and locking them in cages in mystery torture camps; massive technology oligarch empires attempting to subjugate the entire world; and a population letting all of that happen.
Stephen miller occupying the top 3 spots on the list...
I'd pay money to watch people try to defeat fascism with nothing but bats in 2026.
Edit: I lied. I don't pay to watch anything. But I would watch a couple of ads.
Ah yes.. being morally correct will stop the fascism! Just like how it stopped fascism in WW2 and so on!
Even if we could "vote out" MAGA, if our response is as passive and non-disruptive as we have been, we've effectively legitimized big business' strategy here. The oligarchs don't care who is in power. If they can get massive tax cuts from one Nazi term every 16 years, they will back those Nazis once every 16 years -- If the people rioted and destroyed their businesses during Nazi/gilded regimes, the big business CEOs would rethink that strategy.
The point of an uprising now isn't just about stopping the current fascists -- it's about sending a clear message that the USAmerican people will not tolerate fascism. In business terms: Fascism is not profitable, regardless of what financial policy is on the table. This was the unspoken societal assumption throughout our nation's history, but bit by bit the line has been tested, and the bar has been lowered.
The War on Drugs' intrusions in our personal lives; The War on Crime's mass imprisonment of US residents; The economic pressures of Trickle-down policy; The War on Terror's normalization of mass-surveillance; ICE detentions, assaults, and human trafficking -- Each step is built upon the last. Each step begets the next intrusion of our quality of life.
When we go on working and consuming, keeping this system running; we normalize all the injustices that have occurred up to this point. Year by year, we give all politicians, oligarchs, and corporations less of a reason to fear us. Every time we boast about non-violence, we further push the narrative that the people will take whatever you give them.
We deserve the treatment we allow.
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.
Only the intolerant are tolerant of intolerance.
I like that version of the phrase
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
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.
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)
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.
"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.
And right-wing parties did the same to distract idiot voters from what they are actually doing.
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?
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)
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.
"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)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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)
Also, that's not literally fascism.
Remember, if you sit at the table with Nazis, you're a Nazi!
So yeah, BoTh PaRtIeS strikes again, sorry
What if I'm sitting with them in order to better slip some poison in their drink when not looking?
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
The whole Tolerance Paradox thing, yk
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.
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
(16 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
This meme accidentally proves the point: you don’t beat authoritarianism by copying its methods.
view more: next ›