(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
727 points (92.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
7388 readers
3556 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
why did the system let them run in the first place? this leads back to my original point, electoralism and liberalism are inherently dangerous and normalize fascism by allowing people to vote them into power just like they did for Hitler.
it makes as much sense as "the marketplace of ideas". we don't debate or "vote out" fascists, we use force
Who decides what ideas are and aren't okay? Who decides which ideas are bad enough to use force against? What's to stop those in charge of making those decisions from being compromised, or plants, or changing their minds, or having morals counter to the morals of their society, seeing as the voting clearly cannot be trusted. All it takes is fascism and conservatism to quietly seep into government and now we've created the perfect framework for them to shift the targets to those they oppose.
This week, trans people have been declared anti-party. Next week it's disabled people. Tune in the week after for nationalism.
This is like building a big gun to protect ourselves from fascists but not putting any checks to make sure it's wielded in the best interests of the people.
what makes you think someone against electoralism believes in having a state?
That's a fair point, but the question still stands. In a stateless society, who decides when violence is appropriate and which ideas deserve violence? What differentiates such individuals from the state, seeing as they are acting in lieu of one, enforcing certain ideals and rules via violence? My questions still stand.
ah yes the classic "any form of violence is a state". go to sleep old man Engels
Who. Decides.