Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
So, Instagram has started pushing threads into users’ feed, and every now and then we get a glimpse into the unmoderated crapshoot that is that app…
L.E.: should be noted I do not have a threads account, have never even downloaded the app, this is sorta like “advertising” to try to convince you to move to their platform.
I’m honestly surprised and shocked that Nazism is rising up again. It is a scary idea that, that ideology is growing bit by bit.
Have people not learnt about and from the past?
I think it’s quite likely they’ve learned too well about the past. If recent history (and internet-documented behavior patterns) are to be analyzed, I think it shows that people yearn for power and control over others: just look at all the karens, the reddit mods (you know which kind), the trolls, supporters of certain parties and so on.
I guess they imagine that extremist regimes will provide them with that power, without taking a moment to think “oh, wait, the chances that I’ll be the one oppressing and not the one oppressed are miniscule” (and that’s setting all other moral things aside).
It’s a scary thought, like you said.
I think part of that stems from a lack of control over their own lives. They feel powerless in their own situation in life, and an easy excuse fed to them to satisfy that lack of control is by stomping on somebody else. "It's not our fault that your life sucks, it's obviously insert minority here who's to blame!"
I'm pretty sure the ones oppressing and the regimes always have something in common (race most often, then wealth). Even if there is a slight chances the regime might turn against them, the minority and the rest will be the first to bear the brunt of the force which will be cheered on. And by the time the regime turns on them (unlikely), most will have had enough of a clue to prepare or escape.
I think that's way too generalized. "The internet" paints a very distorted picture picture. First, the absolut vast majority of people online are lurkers, so you don't see what they think or do at all. "Nuanced takes" barely exist because people just blast whatever is on their mind right now into the void that is then interpreted by millions of differently biased people.
The mods, trolls, etc. are the fringe of the fringe, often the types of people who have no real life, who cannot really fit into society and who have to find other ways to get attention/validation.
Mods aren't some kind of villanous power hungry monsters, they are socially untalented nerds who want to do something that feels important, but who often feel unthanked, underappreciated and feel as if everything they do is wrong no matter what they do and who have to deal with the worst of the worst on the internet constantly. And then they are expected to have a discussion about every second decision they make because somebody feels that their comment was not interpreted the way it was intended and cries censurship if the discussion is blocked.
Given that it is somehow expected that moderation often happens without compensation (even though it is essential to a community), I'm suprised it even works as well as it does. If people in general were as powerhungry as you seem to make it out to be, people would kill for the chance to become a mod. In reality, the absolute vast majority of people doesn't even think about it, which means the job is left those who probably having human interactions in the first place.
Most don't think too much about that stuff (or anything really) in the first place. Many "right wingers" aren't like the disturbed "true believers" you see at rallys or stuff like that, for many it's just the community aspect they crave and the rest is no mostly larping.
People don't do that as such. They search for power as a result of being under power. In a sense complaining about Nazism is like complaining that some people, when trying to get rid of their shackles, flail violently instead of using a lockpick: It's a symptom of a symptom, by no means core nature.
The United States was the primary source of inspiration for the German Nazis. Even as the fascist Nazi party was rising up in Germany. They were mimicking fascists in the United States. The German beer hall putch was not an isolated or unique event. The fascists here in the United States had the business plot. Which FDR almost completely dropped the ball on in exchange for short-term gains. Letting these seditious fascist escape with their lives to regroup and continue plotting. Long ago having clawed back most of the short-term gains FDR got.
Within barely a generation they were running bigoted racists like Nixon and winning. Soon followed by the rather open protofascist Reagan. Whose vice president was former head spook at the CIA. The same CIA that had spent much of the early 20th century overthrowing democracies and destabilizing the rest of the world. He also happened to be the son of the man that was most likely to have been their intended leader to install as fascist dictator. Who's coke adult son a little over a decade later followed in his father's footsteps.
Fascists in the US at least have never had consequences to learn from. They've barely had to setbacks. They just slow boiled it here. But we still arrived at poisoning the blood of our country and blood and soil. Eventually. January 6th was not even the first Republican coup plot that we know about.
And there are plenty in the UK and Europe that learned the wrong lessons from world war II as well.
Long ago, I saw a documentary series about dictators, and it had some interesting things to say about the source of inspiration Hitler had. You see, Benito Mussolini transformed Italy and wrote the book on how to build a fascist country. Hitler took those ideas and started applying them on a larger scale.
People HAVE learnt from the past. It’s just the wrong people, and they learned the wrong lessons.
It's kind of a cycle with capitalism. There's no real way to control it other than to get rid of capitalism altogether.
yes! historically, the only way we have ever defeated fascism so far was with socialism.
i hate that people are watching nazism grow and are still timid about actually embracing the fight against it.
That simply isn't true unless your definition of "socialism" is an alliance of segregation era American liberals, the British Empire, the Chinese Kuomintang warlords, and Stalinists, in which case
Uh, okay bro.
Now if you want to say "socialism removes the pressures that create support for fascism instead of creating them like in capitalism," sure, okay.
that isnt true, what other way to defeat fascism?
or have you just not been paying attention? Nazism and fascism never went anywhere, and have been openly on the rise again for a significant while now, and those of us who it already impacts have been fighting them as best we can every step of the way. So maybe instead of pointing your finger at others, you should be asking yourself how this can possibly be taking you by surprise, unless you weren't paying as much attention as you like to think you have..
Don’t know about you but in my country there’s barely to no Nazism. Sorry if I don’t go out of my way to search for it.
ETA: It is also illegal in my country.
Which country are you from?
The Netherlands
Seriously? Right after Wilders got the most votes?
Extremists in the Netherlands don't call themselves Nazis but the ideology isn't very different.
Wilders is fairly far removed from Nazism. He's a populist who I don't particularly like, but he isn't a fascist either.
He also got a plurality of the votes (barely 25%), but not a majority. Whether or not he can govern is still unclear, and he's going to have to do it with more moderate parties.
https://www.trouw.nl/politiek/is-geert-wilders-rechts-populistisch-radicaal-of-toch-extreem~bc51f2c3/
Is Geert Wilders rechts, populistisch, radicaal of toch extreem?
Woorden doen ertoe, en dus maakt het uit hoe de PVV van Geert Wilders wordt beschreven. Media maken hun eigen afwegingen, maar politicologen zijn eensgezind. Judith Harmsen16 december 2023
Is de PVV van Geert Wilders een radicaal-rechtse, een extreemrechtse een populistische of gewoon een rechtse partij? Nu de verkiezingswinnaar volop in het nieuws is, valt op dat de terminologie waarmee de PVV wordt beschreven nogal eens verschilt.
De trouwste Trouw-lezers hebben misschien al opgemerkt dat ook op de redactie van deze krant meningsverschillen bestaan. Zo noemde columnist Stevo Akkerman de PVV vorig weekend nadrukkelijk een extreemrechtse partij, omdat die term volgens hem van toepassing is op elke groep die onderscheid maakt tussen burgers op het gebied van etniciteit, religie ‘of wat dan ook’. Hoofdredacteur Cees van der Laan pleitte een week eerder juist nog voor de term radicaal-rechts omdat Wilders binnen de democratie opereert en geen geweld toepast.
Die laatste typering heeft ook de voorkeur van de NRC-redactie, zo weten luisteraars van de wekelijkse politieke podcast van die krant, waarin de kwestie werd besproken. RTL Nieuws kiest dan juist weer voor rechts-populistisch, al staat die aanduiding volgens de chef van de politieke redactie, Fons Lambie, niet geheel vast. De duiding kan per uitspraak of programma verschillen.“Soms schuiven partijen op naar het midden, soms worden juist steeds verregaandere uitspraken gedaan.” Geert Wilders (PVV) tijdens een debat in de Tweede Kamer over de verkiezingsuitslag en het verslag van verkenner Ronald Plasterk. Beeld ANP Geert Wilders (PVV) tijdens een debat in de Tweede Kamer over de verkiezingsuitslag en het verslag van verkenner Ronald Plasterk.Beeld ANP Term met een negatieve connotatie
Redacteuren van persdienst ANP kunnen ondertussen kiezen uit drie termen: radicaal-rechts, rechts-nationalistisch en rechts-populistisch. ‘Feitelijk en helder’, vindt hoofdredacteur Freek Staps alledrie die beschrijvingen voor de PVV.
Meer omstreden is de term ‘extreemrechts’. Deze week zei de kersverse Kamervoorzitter Martin Bosma van de PVV dat hij er moeite mee heeft als die term in het parlement wordt gebruikt. De ANP-redactie heeft afgesproken ‘extreemrechts’ niet te gebruiken voor de PVV.
Staps: “We merken dat extreemrechts voor verschillende mensen een verschillende betekenis heeft, waardoor er discussie over kan ontstaan. Dat leidt af van wat we willen, namelijk goede, feitelijke journalistiek aanbieden. Bovendien heeft de term voor sommige mensen een zeer negatieve connotatie, waardoor die emoties oproept. Daar willen we van wegblijven. We willen dat de lezer zelf kan oordelen en de journalist moet dat proces niet sturen.”
Doet het ertoe met welke woorden journalisten een politieke partij beschrijven? Ja, vindt Staps dus. “Woordkeuze telt.” Ja, zegt ook politicoloog Matthijs Rooduijn, van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. “Je gaat partijen met elkaar vergelijken en dan moet je dat wel op een zuivere manier doen.”
Over het algemeen zijn politicologen het redelijk eens waar het de definities van termen als radicaal-rechts, populistisch of extreemrechts betreft. In het kort komt hun conclusie op het volgende neer, zegt Rooduijn: de PVV is radicaal-rechts én populistisch, maar niet extreemrechts. Natie bedreigd door elementen van buitenaf
Populistisch is de PVV omdat de partij steevast spreekt over een kloof tussen het volk en de ‘elite’, een groep met macht en invloed die de zorgen van gewone mensen niet serieus neemt. Radicaal-rechts is van toepassing omdat de partij gebruik maakt van het nativisme. ‘Een exclusieve vorm van het nationalisme’, noemt Rooduijn dat. “Het is het idee dat de eigen groep, de natie, wordt bedreigd door mensen of elementen van buitenaf.” Of het daarbij gaat om migranten, of bijvoorbeeld om mensen met een bepaald geloof of een bepaalde huidskleur, verschilt per radicaal-rechtse partij.
Ook extreemrechtse partijen gebruiken die vorm van ‘wij-zij-denken’, zoals ze ook – net als radicaal-rechtse groeperingen – geloven in een strak geordende samenleving, waarbij overtredingen streng worden gestraft. Toch is er ook wezenlijk verschil tussen radicaal- en extreemrechts. Want radicaal-rechts ‘beweegt zich binnen de grenzen van de democratie’, zoals Rooduijn het uitdrukt. “Radicaal-rechts wil de democratie in stand houden en is ook tegen geweld. Extreemrechts wil het democratisch bestel omver werpen. In veel gevallen schuwen extreemrechtse groeperingen geweld daarbij niet.” ‘Ieder label schiet tekort’
Het betekent niet, zo benadrukt de politicoloog, dat een radicaal-rechtse partij als de PVV geen opvattingen heeft die strijdig zijn met de liberale democratie zoals we die in Nederland kennen. Wilders is niet tégen verkiezingen, maar doet wel voorstellen die bijvoorbeeld de rechten van minderheden beperken. Uitspraken over een ‘nepparlement’ of journalisten als ‘tuig van de richel’ zijn in strijd met de liberale democratische waarden, zegt Rooduijn. “Maar de PVV steunt wel het idee dat burgers zelf bepalen door wie ze worden bestuurd. Extreemrechts doet dat niet.”
Moeten journalisten kiezen, dan is radicaal-rechts dus een betere term dan extreemrechts, vindt ook Edwin Kreulen, ombudsman van deze krant. Al is hij eigenlijk van mening dat ieder label tekortschiet. “Journalisten zijn op de wereld om feitelijk te beschrijven hoe een partij in elkaar zat en zit”, zegt hij. “Daarom zou ik er voorstander voor zijn om te blijven benoemen dat Wilders extreme standpunten heeft op het gebied van immigratie en moslims, en is veroordeeld voor zijn minder-Marokkanen-uitspraak.”
Dat kan bijvoorbeeld door de PVV een ‘anti-migratie, of anti-islam’ partij te noemen, zoals bijvoorbeeld de BBC doet. In geen geval wil Kreulen een eventueel kabinet met daarin de PVV 'centrumrechts’ noemen, zoals VVD-leider Dilan Yesilgöz doet. “Dat is een frame van de VVD, die daarmee de indruk wil wekken dat ze een rechtse partij aan een meerderheid helpt. Maar in zo'n geval gedoogt de VVD niet zomaar een rechtse partij, men gedoogt een partij die de rechten van een minderheid wil inperken. Het is wat mij betreft goed dat te blijven benoemen.” Lees ook: Lessen uit Polen en Hongarije: juist een mildere Wilders moet je wantrouwen
Hoe moeten we omgaan met de PVV en Wilders? In Hongarije en Polen hebben ze al langer ervaring met autoritaire leiders en extreemrechts. Lees ook: Waar niemand rekening mee hield, is gebeurd: met winst PVV sluit Nederland aan bij rechts-populistische trend
De PVV is de overrompelende winnaar van de verkiezingen. Nederland sluit aan bij een Europese rechts-populistische trend.
This article is not relevant to the discussion. Just because Wilders is far right, does not mean that he is also a Nazi/fascist. I dislike him for his policies, I don't need to wrongly attach a Nazi label to him as well.
First, I didn’t vote for him. Secondly, majority voted him to avoid the VVD winning.
I wish he didn’t win.
However claiming that Wilders is similar to Nazi is.. Odd. He doesn’t want to kill others.
Also why tryin to change subject from Nazism to Wilders?
I don't know anything about the Netherlands situation, but Nazism is just one particular flavor of fascism, and all forms of fascism have been on the rise in recent years. Especially white supremacist forms.
Hitler didn't start out with killing people either. He started out the exact same way as Trump (in fact, one of Trump's former wives has said that he used to read Hitler's speeches before bed, so it would be no surprise to learn that he's straight up copying Hitler); blaming Germany's problems on immigrants and Jews, going after the LGBTQ population in Germany, even promising to build a wall around the German border to keep out illegal immigrants if he got elected. Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," came from a pro-Nazi WW2 political party called America First. There is now an "America First Foundation" that proudly declares themselves as a movement that's an "amalgamation of traditional values, Trumpian populism, and American Nationalism" (their own words right off their website). Not only are they literally using the exact same name, but "traditional values" is one of those major red flags that means "white supremacy," as is nationalism. They don't call themselves Nazis, but they sure as hell share all the same values.
isn't it banned basically everywhere?
at least the antisemitism part of it
I think, it is, but we all see that banning something isn't enough to get rid of it
This comment reminds me of the Chumbawamba song "The Day The Nazi Died", the lyrics are about pretty much what you said.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OLkPwxcIji0
As the number of people who personally had interactions with the OG Nazis continues to reduce toward zero, the people who are following that same fascist ideology will start to slither their way into influence and the whole cycle will try to repeat.
Yep, they didn't learn anything.
I dunno about other countries but here in Poland (the same Poland that the nazis invaded) some teens joke about it all the time. I'm pretty sure that it's probably some teenager tryin to be funny instead of an actual nazi
The Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996 and there have since been thousands upon thousands of radical fascist talk shows all over the US airwaves for millions upon millions of hours. This is Hitler + a PA system all over again. Nazism is rising because it is encouraged by the right and supported as free speech by liberals.