I have been looking through a long thread on another instance where a few users have been trying to convince that instance to defederate from Exploding Heads - because they do not want to see the content posted on Exploding Heads.
I have thought long and hard about how to please these people. They do have the option to individually block Exploding Heads communities or users, but they either do not know how to or simply do not want to.
In the end I realized if I ban those specific users requesting defederation from Exploding Heads - they will not see any content from Exploding Heads and therefore will not be offended by it. (Truth be told I am not sure if some of these users have really visited our site or interacted with our users).
So today I have banned those users with the explanation that they have said they do not want to see Exploding Heads content. If any of those users wish to be unbanned in the future, all they have to do is say so and I will happily unban them.
These users are not being banned in order to censor them, but to help them achieve what they have been requesting - to not see Exploding Heads content.
I hope you all find this a fair and reasonable action - if not let me know.
Alright I make it a point to try and engage people in good-faith, so I’m gonna actually try to explain why. I think that in practical terms, fascism is an ideology who’s mythic core relies on ultra-nationalist rhetoric involving “rebirth” of the nation. (this is from Roger Griffin in his book “Fascism”, which I learned from this medium essay) In this way, Trump, and many in the GOP in his footsteps, resemble this with their talk of “making america great again” and “taking their country back”, rejection of multilateralism in favor of “America First”, and the demonisation of outgroups (be it immigrants, queer people, muslims, etc), for example. hence the association.
The linked article does say that Trump is not fascist, but was written in 2019, before Trump did actively try to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power. It ends with the following:
With anarcho-capitalism, you are right in the sense that the ideology as stated would be a capitalism society without a State (or government, as you put it) - but many ancaps do hold views against interracial and same-sex marrage, which often leads to them adopting other common fascist views like racial segregation, religious fundamentalism, etc.
thank you, i understand now the trump fascist perspective
i’m still feeling a bit left out on the anarcho-capitalist fascist perspective tho. Anarchists have a long history of wanting to use violence to get out of an authoritarian system. I’d say that’s a similarity with fascism where they would circumvent the law to put themselves and their views first. But I’m not sure that’s enough for that, as you did say that “as stated”, it is an ideology that seeks to have a society without a ‘state’ or ‘government’.
Is being racist, homophobic and monogamist and otherwise moralistic with some skewed morals enough to be called a fascist? Or to point toward being a fascist? Again afaik fascism is like Hitler or Mussolini where ppl decide “this figure is great and we need to break the law to get them absolute power, they will be equivalent to a king and will favor our people”.
Not necessarily (although it does make one a bigot), but taking part in an organised political movement to enshrine that racism, homophobia, and
monogamismtraditional marriage (that’s what I hear the Right refer to it as) into law and to advocate the use of violence to enforce their view of sex, race, and religion onto other people is fascistic. Think of it like a square and rectangle. All squares (fascists) are rectangles, but not all rectangles (right wing) are fascists. At the end of the day, fascists do need to appeal to a broad enough segment of the population beyond their most devoted base in order to gain power, so they’ll do that by appealing to common prejudices and fears held by people, which can in turn radicalise them further.That said, people on the right wing or conservative end of the political spectrum who identify as anti-authoritarian still, somewhat hypocritically, tend to believe in hierarchical structures elsewhere, be it familial, economic, racial, or sexual. In fact, many libertarians and “anarcho-capitalists” simultaneously argue for increased police funding while complaining about government tyranny.
I do want to be fair to those who identify as being right wing but do honestly leave other people alone (like New Hampshire-style libertarianism), but I believe that a confrontation between their wish for small government and the broader goals of their other right wing allies is inevitable, and that they will either be forced to abandon their stated limited government values.
Yes, and the rest of the anarchist movement has largely disowned anarcho-capitalism. Many political philosophies have long held that violence is justified when it’s an oppressed people trying to end their oppression.
From the wikipedia article on ancapism
A core part of political anarchism is the belief that capitalism is another unjust form of hierarchy that must be dismantled. Anarcho-capitalists, by definition, support an unrestrained form of capitalism wherein instead of using the State as a tool of violence through civil institutions like the police and military, corporations are able to do it themsleves by having their own private police forces and armies.