In the picture in this post, the person who read the “down with fascism” message expressed disappointment with the person’s message, thus revealing that they are associating fascism with their own political leaning.
In your example, the left-winger just mentions a name of someone else they don’t like in response, which isn’t even connected to the topic.
You’re missing the point that certain political ideologies have very strong connections with each other. Except one side is arguably connected to many much worse terms.
You can say “down with authoritarian marxists!” and you might get a few tankies to pipe up and say “wow I can’t believe you are attacking the glorious people’s blah blah blah” to which you can say “aha called out your politics!” but nobody really takes tankies seriously anyway nor are they a threat to modern nation-building the same way they were a century or two ago.
It doesn’t matter that we’re correct that right-wingers are fascists while they’re wrong that we’re pedophiles. The rhetoric works exactly the same in either case.
As I responded to the other commenter, right-wingers are obviously well aware that left-wingers will call them fascists, even if they do not consider themselves fascist and hold a negative perspective of fascism. I consider pedophiles bad but I’m aware that right-wing people are going to call me one just because I’m gay.
In a flipped conversation, where the third commenter is a right-winger who says “look, you didn’t deny being a pedophile!,” I’m sure they would take a screenshot of the conversation and post it to twitter and get lots of upvotes since that looks like such an own. They’d probably even say they can tell by my disappointment that I was implicitly acknowledging I’m a pedophile.
If your clever comeback sounds exactly as smooth coming out of the enemy’s mouth, it’s not a very good comeback.
I’m arguing that your example isn’t communicating your thesis very well, and I don’t think I’m alone in that feeling, but I’m doing the courtesy of letting you know that it’s not connecting and why.
Apparently it’s not communicating it well, but your response doesn’t really clear up why for me. I appreciate your trying though. I am left with the lingering feeling that it’s not connecting because it’s hard to picture a right-wing zinger landing well, and not because I’m fundamentally wrong about the symmetry of these scenarios. I’ll concede I could be missing the point.
Well yeah, obviously. The right wing, regardless of whether they consider themselves fascist or not, are obviously aware that left is going to call them out for being fascists. Just as I’m aware that when right-wing people say “pedophiles” they likely are talking about queer people. It’s not going to go over anyone’s head.
Riegel could have done better here; his comeback isn’t really that smart. See, this same script works exactly the same in reverse:
EXACTLY the Same! Because saying Down With Pedophiles has NOTHING to do with People who want to Label LGBTQ people PEDOPHILES!
Your counter-example doesn’t make sense.
In the picture in this post, the person who read the “down with fascism” message expressed disappointment with the person’s message, thus revealing that they are associating fascism with their own political leaning.
In your example, the left-winger just mentions a name of someone else they don’t like in response, which isn’t even connected to the topic.
You’re missing the point that certain political ideologies have very strong connections with each other. Except one side is arguably connected to many much worse terms.
You can say “down with authoritarian marxists!” and you might get a few tankies to pipe up and say “wow I can’t believe you are attacking the glorious people’s blah blah blah” to which you can say “aha called out your politics!” but nobody really takes tankies seriously anyway nor are they a threat to modern nation-building the same way they were a century or two ago.
It doesn’t matter that we’re correct that right-wingers are fascists while they’re wrong that we’re pedophiles. The rhetoric works exactly the same in either case.
As I responded to the other commenter, right-wingers are obviously well aware that left-wingers will call them fascists, even if they do not consider themselves fascist and hold a negative perspective of fascism. I consider pedophiles bad but I’m aware that right-wing people are going to call me one just because I’m gay.
In a flipped conversation, where the third commenter is a right-winger who says “look, you didn’t deny being a pedophile!,” I’m sure they would take a screenshot of the conversation and post it to twitter and get lots of upvotes since that looks like such an own. They’d probably even say they can tell by my disappointment that I was implicitly acknowledging I’m a pedophile.
If your clever comeback sounds exactly as smooth coming out of the enemy’s mouth, it’s not a very good comeback.
I’m arguing that your example isn’t communicating your thesis very well, and I don’t think I’m alone in that feeling, but I’m doing the courtesy of letting you know that it’s not connecting and why.
Apparently it’s not communicating it well, but your response doesn’t really clear up why for me. I appreciate your trying though. I am left with the lingering feeling that it’s not connecting because it’s hard to picture a right-wing zinger landing well, and not because I’m fundamentally wrong about the symmetry of these scenarios. I’ll concede I could be missing the point.
The bit about calling sam out and down with lies makes it pretty clear that he views it as a counter attack
Well yeah, obviously. The right wing, regardless of whether they consider themselves fascist or not, are obviously aware that left is going to call them out for being fascists. Just as I’m aware that when right-wing people say “pedophiles” they likely are talking about queer people. It’s not going to go over anyone’s head.