this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
30 points (87.5% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
947 readers
33 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
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
This is essentially saying that the western patriarchal family unit is a force against fascism. If that were the case, then fascists would be against "the family", but exactly the opposite is true. You also more or less directly say that compromising with reactionaries will somehow make people less fascist, which is ridiculous. Someone who's estranged from their family specifically because they're reactionary isn't going to somehow become more fascist as a result of that, that doesn't make any sense. A deranged ultra or something, perhaps, but that's not the same thing.
I get that this is a thread about your most right-wing opinion, but yeah, this idea is reactionary as hell and trying to clumsily graft on an argument about isolation doesn't make it any better. Isolation is deranging and that is a societal problem, but this idea is absolutely not a solution to that. If anything it's a description of the problem - yes, a society where community and public spaces have been destroyed makes for a situation where this "family or isolation" dichotomy exists, and that can lead to derangement and ultimately fascism. The solution to this problem is to fix that situation, not decide that it's a good thing.
I think you're completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not making a "thing good" or "thing bad" argument. Like I'm not saying "the family as it has been constructed under capitalism is as force for good and should be protected at all costs"
what I'm specifically talking about is in a context that is totally removed from any real political action, which is most conversations with my reactionary family members. at least in my context they aren't materially opposing me in any real way, they just saw some shit on facebook and are vomiting it me. what I mean by find a synthesis is not find the direct center point between my opinion and theirs(my opinion being based in reality and theirs not) but instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs. the thing about peoples insane right-wing delusions is most of the time its not grounded in anything other then rhetoric, at least here in north America.
(sorry if I didn't use the quote function right, I'm very new to lemmy)
What is an "aesthetic compromise" in this context? Do you have an example?
It sounds like you're just doing "tolerate people's insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs" but obscured with lots of fancy words.
Propaganda has a very real effect on material circumstances anyway. To suggest otherwise in 2025 is wild.
sure, I'll use a personal example. I was talking with a relative of mine who hates rich people but loves elon musk because he owns the libs or whatever. instead of beginning the interaction by disagreeing about elon musk being a super cool guy who's smart and awesome, I started the conversation from the perspective of agreeing with her about how much the rich suck and libs suck and yada-yada-yada but the place it ended at was that elon also sucks and that they should value less the performative aspect of our modern political climate more the substantive. so not an aesthetic compromise in the scene of a middle ground between aesthetics but the aesthetic of compromise itself. basically what I'm saying is just chill the fuck out and talk to people who you have a long relationship with instead of cutting them out in some sort of purity testing way.
that's not at ALL what I'm saying. I'm saying challenge those beliefs in a way the is effective. thinking about social interactions in a punishment/reward way isn't very effective in my experience. Also some family systems are much worse then others and some ARE in fact good and something to be protected, specifically indigenous family systems should be protected as they are to a large extent inherently anti-colonial/anti-imperialist.
sorry if this still doesn't make scene I'm not really used to having a conversation in this format so I might not be representing my point of view in the best way. please try to be charitable when interpreting what I'm saying.
I see. That's good propaganda strategy, and I agree that cutting people who have potential out in "some sort of purity testing way" is bad. That's the sort of thing insufferable shitlibs do and is a big reason why people all across the political spectrum despise them so much.
... although the "who have potential" part there is important. Fascists, famously, don't care about the norms of polite conversation or the marketplace of ideas or any of that, debating with them only legitimizes their ideas and is a serious mistake. The modern-day full-blown MAGA chud is the same way, even though they may not be a self-aware fascist. Unfortunately, many of our families are full of these people. They don't respect this nuanced discussion and compromise stuff at all. Quite the opposite, they think it's weak and gay or whatever and will use it as a weapon against you. These are people who literally don't respect facts or material reality itself.
Your relative, for example, hates rich people. Assuming this is actually true (a sort of faux-populist hatred of "elites" is an integral part of far-right propaganda and doesn't count), that's already much more potential then some of the absolutely hopeless bootlicking trash that many of us have to deal with. Even so, you said earlier (and I agree) that if something is never going to make any material difference, then it's pointless, so... have you convinced this relative to significantly change their political alignment? Did you get them to stop prioritizing triggering the libs (i.e., bigotry), over everything else? If not, then nothing was achieved, because that's the main mechanism that the fascists use to mobilize the right.
Sometimes, open hostility, ostracism, and other things that aren't nice are actually the most effective strategy. I've spent plenty of time doing exactly what you suggest, and in retrospect, in most cases I should have simply told them to go fuck themselves and seriously rethink their entire world view if they ever want to talk to me again. Personal consequences are the only thing that these people understand.