Hersh, Eitan; Royden, Laura (25 June 2022). “Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum” Political Research Quarterly.
doi:10.1177/10659129221111081
Thing is left right isn’t much of a line, no matter what shape it is.
The right is a point, they’ll get behind a populist and go to jail for them.
The left is a scattered mess of disagreeing elements who hate each other almost as much as they hate the far right.
And of course they both hate the dreaded “liberals”.
It’s amazing that the whole of humanity, or at the very least the United States citizens haven’t realized that we’re being played. We’re being told we need to fit into this specific group or that specific group causing division. When citizens aren’t able to unite, they are more easily controllable. Identity politics is chit and so are the fans who perpetuate division.
The only time, two opposing sides agreed… FJB
Everybody hates gormless morons that don’t believe in nothing at all.
Im just a tad disappointed that according to this graphic fascism (which isnt exactly the same as nazism but whatever) is strictly a white issue.
Which, if you look at the world, clearly isn’t the case. Fascism is everywhere.
Nobody is ever considering how the whites feel 😤
Have you ever heard of Japanese fascists? Or Jewish fascists? Any race can be fascist.
Oh wow, that’s crazy. White people too though right?
So you’re saying White Fascists Matter?
Yes, that’s what “any race” means.
Sigh.
Nazism isn’t the same as fascism. Nazism does care about your ethnicity. Fascism does not.
But whatever.
You’re not the smartest guy in the room, I think most people understand that.
I don’t think you understand that you’re white knighting (haha) for white people like they need protecting or something, like that’s the concern here.
It sounds like you don’t give a shit about countering fascism, you give a shit about defending white people.
Just be mindful that you’re in an echo chamber environment here.
Or don’t, keep fighting the fight for the whites 💪
Yeah, you seem a lot smarter. Good for you.
No need to sigh, your points are salient and valid
This shit is so misleading. Fascism isn’t the only authoritarianism. They too are anti-fascists. But you don’t get free speech.
Nor is it a white only problem, or deadly only to Jewish people.
I’d like to bet your average hard Antfa is a whole lot less authoritarian than the average Mega fan.
And while I agree that authoritarianism is bad, so is libertarianism (see Theresa May)
Communism is also a stinking pile of shit.
Communism by its nature must be combined with authoritarianism so yes.
But it would be wrong to conflate communism with current western left wing policies.
The main job of fascism is to protect capital when the majority of the working population grows disillusioned with capitalism and might get the wrong ideas about socialist revolution and stuff
I just want to point out that not all fascists are Nazis. Can I point that out without getting crucified?
I will clarify that if you’re any kind of fascist, you’re a trash person, doubly so for Nazis specifically… But not all fascists are Nazis. Which the OP chart seems to imply.
To drive my point home, I’ll quote Wikipedia: fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nowhere in there does it say that fascists are anti-Semites, nor white supremacist. Those ideologies are generally attributed to specific fascist ideologies… Eg. Nazis.
Let’s not sugar coat what people are. If they’re Nazi fucks, let’s call them Nazi fucks.
And if they aren’t, don’t call them Nazis. For example I strongly disagree with the term “grammar nazi” that English speaking people sometimes use for people who point out grammatical flaws in comments or articles - that may sensitise people to view the term lightly, not taking it seriously when someone seriously is a nazi. Apart from that it’s a cruel joke towards the people who suffered under the nazi regime or died fighting it.
I agree with this. We need better terms.
Nazis were such a heinous and specific evil that we probably shouldn’t do anything that could lighten that term. At all.
The part that makes me sad is that they appropriated the symbol of the swastika, and made it into a visage of hate and oppression. It’s a religious symbol for luck.
I don’t think that reputation is changing anytime soon.
The Nazis destroyed a lot, and corrupted so many things by association.
Memes that come with citations? Now that’s how you shitpost.
Fascist definition: Anyone I disagree with. That’s some solid research conrade.
Are you referring to something specific here or just venting? I certainly don’t call anyone I disagree with a fascist, but there are many people in the present society who advocate for fascist ideas. What else should we call them?
You should host a course titled:
How to identify yourself as a fascist 101
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Also, fuck off, fascist.
Thanks for proving my point.
Yes? Let’s not make this thread too, make your argument and let me reply, this is no irc chat.
No, this is airing dirty Nazi laundry. Say Nazi shit, get called a Nazi.
It’s so frustrating to see something like this and realize that an increasing number of people align their views with the anti-fascists, thinking they are the “good guys”, without seeing the inherent hypocrisy of the beliefs they hold. On paper the anti-fascists portray themselves as accepting, but the reality is quite the opposite. Generally speaking they are authoritarian pricks who will label anyone who disagrees with them as racist or bigoted simply to undermine their point of view. No idea should be above criticism.
I think privileged white people are the largest problem in society these days. I think violence should only be used as a last resort to self defense. I prefer minorities because I find them to be hard working with strong family values. I think freedom of speech only works if it is universal (especially extending to those I disagree with). I’m not entirely sure what classifies as a “dissenter”. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for Jewish culture and the way in which they build community. And yet I have been called a fascist/racist/bigot many times online because I respectfully find the actions and beliefs of ANTIFA abhorrent.
If you scream down viewpoints you don’t like rather than seek to understand, if you use violence to intimidate, if you seek to wield power to destroy your political enemies, then YOU are the bad guys. ANTIFA does all of these things then hides behind the ruse of being “anti-fascists” because they are cowards and are no better than the fascists they claim to fight against.
Hey look it’s a fascist.
While I don’t agree with the op, you’re kind of proving their point…
It’s more like this:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
- MLK
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
I don’t personally like to pretend to be civil with people who do not extend the same courtesy, even if they are ignorant of their own contradictions. Good friends tell people they are wrong when they need to be told.
What specific thing did I say that makes me a fascist?
Ah yes, big Antifa.
Meaning what exactly?
No OP, but you’re saying they’re authoritatian when it’s patently a decentralized, anti-authoritarian and leaderless movement. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what anti-fascists are.
No offence, but it sounds like your views are largely shaped by more right-leaning media’s depictions of antifa.
You get me.
I think privileged white people are the largest problem in society these days. I think violence should only be used as a last resort to self defense. I prefer minorities because I find them to be hard working with strong family values. I think freedom of speech only works if it is universal (especially extending to those I disagree with). I’m not entirely sure what classifies as a “dissenter”. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for Jewish culture and the way in which they build community. And yet I have been called a fascist/racist/bigot many times online because I respectfully find the actions and beliefs of ANTIFA abhorrent.
While I would never put words in Angela Davis’ mouth, I think this more or less covers it. Please avoid the temptation to skip forward or you won’t appreciate what she is bringing together to make her final point. It’s not a very long video, only about 3 minutes.
Assuming the most benign interpretation: sorry but you are confusing justified self-defense with what actual fascist do. I guess you are familiar with the paradox of tolerance, but I recommend you thinking about that one again in the context of Antifa.
I feel like we’re gonna need a lot of citations here.
I’ve usually heard horseshoe theory referring to tankies/authoritarian communists, not anti fascists.
Guess where the antifaschistische aktion has it roots…
In 1919, Benito Mussolini united various groups in the then Kingdom of Italy to form the Fasci di combattimento. During the Biennio rosso (1919-1921), the Black Shirts used targeted terror against striking industrial workers, the Partito Socialista Italiano (PSI) and all opposition. As a result, local and regional anti-fascist groups as well as vigilante groups emerged from 1920 onwards, encompassing the entire political spectrum, from Catholics and liberals to socialists and anarchists.
Emphasis by me
In 1921, Mussolini transformed his militia movement into the National Fascist Party. The first armed anti-fascist organization came into being in 1921 with the Arditi del Popolo. It was open to anarchists, communists, social democrats, Christians and bourgeois republicans. However, the leadership of the PSI and the Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI) rejected the League. It remained limited to a few thousand members and a few cities.[3] This was the first organization with an explicitly anti-fascist self-image. Its supporters referred to themselves as antifascisti[4].
Emphasis by me
Arditi del Popolo
It grouped revolutionary trade-unionists, socialists, communists, anarchists, republicans, anti-capitalists, as well as some former military officers
Composed of Italian anarchists, socialists, and communists, the Arditi del Popolo were not supported by leftist parties (neither by the Italian Socialist Party, PSI, nor by the Communist Party of Italy, PCd’I).
Furthermore, the PCd’I ordered its members to quit the organization because of the presence of non-communists in its ranks.[8] The PCd’I organized by themselves some militant groups (the Squadre comuniste d’azione), but their actions were relatively minor and the party kept a non-violent, legalist strategy.
The Antifaschistische Aktion grew in the soil of the SPD and KPD in Nazi Germany (which themselves where not autoritarians or tankies at the time), but it’s roots are older, decidedly anti-authoritarian and open to the entire political spectrum that wanted to fight fascism.
Edit: Antifascism is represented by a red and a black flag. How you could ever think is has anything to do with the authoritarian left when it’s roots are so extremely anarchist is beyond me.
My dad swears up and down that antifa are the real nazis. I think this would be a response to that type of thing.
Is your dad in this thread? I think I just replied to him.
Ask him if he opposes the antifa fascists. When he says yes, call him antifa
My favorite thing in the world is calling him antifa :)
This is playing down the actual behavior of fascists in a very careless way.
-
They do not just kick out minorities, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
-
They do not just jail dissenters, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
-
They do not just “say no” to Jews, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!
Didn’t Trump say he would nuke Palestinians?
I think “at the bare minimum” did a lot of heavy lifting.
Not to be defending Fascists, but those you describe are the Nazi style ones.
Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece too had Fascist dictatorships and those pretty much did not care about Jews or minorities and whilst they were all autoritarian and happy to use state violence for oppression and suppression of dissidents, the only ones who did anything close to systematical murder were the ones in Spain in their early days and their targets were mainly those they deemed “Communists”.
By comparison Zionists are more murderous than all of those 4, though not as much as the Nazis, and consider and treat a whole different ethnic group as “human animals” than the Nazis did.
In fact the use of specific ethnicities for Fascism in that table is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist with a very specific slant on who their “good” ethnicities and “bad” ethnicities are: even without going into the whole Israel thing, just look at Modi in India to see Fascism in action whithout the perpetrators being White or the victims Jews.
is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist
Or, maybe, they’re just using the most well-known instance of fascism in history as a concrete example, in order to not overcomplicate the message. Jumping to accusations of racism at the slightest suspicion is not gonna help anyone.
They’re doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.
In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn’t really a thing.
Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.
Racism is seeing race as what makes people “goodies” or “badies”. The “good” races and “bad” races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.
It’s pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be “badies”.
Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.
It’s not a long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Yeah, you’re right on that point: you’re dividing people into behavioural groups using “English speaking world” as identity tag rather than a race.
So the prejudice you voiced was using “geographical area of birth defined by language spoken” to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.
Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their “geographical area of birth”.
It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
If you’re obcessed with the race of the people involved, you’re probably a racist.
Describing Fascism as something that only victimizes a specific ethnicity - Jews, curiously forgetting other Nazi-victimized ethnicities like Roma, not to mention non-ethnic groups such as those with disabilities - is also a long running hasbara strategy of Zionists to portray themselves as impossible to be Fascists, all the while behaving as such to quite an extreme level, something extra poignant right now when they’re in the middle of committing Genocide.
Even if all that was just the product of naivety of the author rather than something else, to limit one’s description of Fascism to only Nazis is an insult to people who lived under other Fascist dictatorships, something which just so happens to include me - just because the dictator in my homeland “only” had censorship, a secret police, political prisioners, forced labour of the natives in the “colonies” in Africa and kept the country incredibly poor except for the 9 families of the Regime, doesn’t mean that shit wasn’t Fascism because he was “equal opportunity” when it came to the ethnicity of the people he oppressed and exploited.
The simplest explanation for somebody only seing the race angle of Fascism, only the Nazis and only a specific ethnicity they victimized when there is at least one other that they equally victimized (the Roma) is racism.
Not quite.
Some fascsist do this, absolutely. Others, to appear moderate, kick out minorities and “just” jail dissenters. Will they eventually start murdering people? Absolutely.
But nearly no fascist nowadays advocates for murder. They must first radicalize the people once in control via salami slicing tactics. If you look for fascists, do not look for people advocating for murder - they will be noticeable enough anyways. Look for those who can be described with the picture in this post.
-
Remember kids, it’s not hypocrisy to be intolerant of the intolerant. They have broken the social compact and are therefore no longer protected by it.
I was going to joke about some kind of social powder case, but it turns out that compact and contact are synonymous here.
I was going to joke about some kind of social vision correction device that goes on your eyeball, but then I realized you meant contract. ;)
Instructions unclear, stabbed myself in the eye with the things from Prey
Someone hasn’t listened to anti fa and modern communists talk about jews
I think this anti fascist stuff is retarded but I don’t think that’s true. Care to explain?
Lived on the coast a long time, listened to people talk.
“I heard a racist guy once, pretty sure he was antifa!”
Just cause you’ve never left your fucking basement, doesn’t mean others haven’t hung out with the hippies, burners and crazies in Portland, Vancouver, Seattle and LA for years
Just cause you’ve never left your fucking basement,
So you freely and openly make up assumptions and lies about people based on whether or not they agree with you, and you expect me to believe you totally met a bunch of hippies at Portland, Vancouver, Seattle and LA. For years. You hang out with hippies all the time. Can’t leave your house without bumping into a hippie that introduces themselves to you with “I’m Antifa and I hate Jews!”
Well, it’s pretty plain you’ve never been to Portland.
I live in Portland, you’re full of shit.
Never claimed I had. Good thing all the racist Antifa love in Portland. Keeps them all contained.
You know what’s worse than being a basement dweller? It’s being unaware that you’re vulnerable to propaganda, being unaware that you’re an emotional creature and your brain doesn’t try to make sense, it tries to connect stories and ideas to explain why you’re feeling what you feel.
In other words, you can be a smart person and easily influenced into positions that either are not your own, or not even connected to reality just because you had a feeling once validated by someone saying the right thing at the right time and you don’t question the story that you start piecing together in your head.
So the question you would need to always ask yourself, is what is it that you feel that you need to cling to such cynical and hateful stereotypes to the extent of even invalidating or denying the testimony of others who are directly contradicting your obviously exaggerated tales of “listening to hippies talk about jews.”
You are describing a personal experience and because it validates some feeling you already had, it feels like a real evaluation of the broader world. Other people who do this include: scientologists, flat-earthers, modern nazis, cult members and generally people who just go through life angry and miserable and blaming that misery on others. Don’t be a pawn to others or your own brain, have some control over your narratives.
Stfu moron.
Wow, what a rational, level-headed response. You sure showed them.
Everyone here thinks you’re the reasonable one. We all take you more seriously now.
You’ve got to be trolling. No one, I mean NO ONE is this stupid.
i guess you don;t own a mirror
I did, but your mom stole it after I fucked her.
Don’t be bitter. Be better!
Well SHIT son, you lived on the COAST??
Well that shit changes everything, I had no idea you overheard things out on the coast, I mean I was here ready to talk about crime stats and systemic inequality and the USA’s history with civil rights, but here is a person who heard some stuff out on the coast! I guess I should reconsider everything and stop supporting efforts to squash nazis in an industrial nazi-squashing machine.
Yeah, so all you have is shit you read. Brilliant.
Could YOU care to explain? Do you have some issue with antifascism?
The concept is cool but the youth of America is just doing it as a fad. Obviously I don’t like fascism but I dislike so called anti fascists way more lol
People against Nazis are worse than Nazis, is literally what you are saying.
Not what I said but thanks for making my point. You and anyone else anti fascist adjacent are so whack 🤣
Okay let me be more accurate, sorry. You said you dislike people that call themselves antifascist more than people who murder Jewish people and queers.
Sure bud 🤣🤣🤣
Jews or Israel? They aren’t the same and saying they are is unironically antisemitic.
Did I stutter? If I meant Israel, I would have said so. Why do people have this much trouble with direct statements? I generaly suspect they want multiple paragraphs to dissect because they can’t find what they need in concise statements.
I mostly only hear good things about Jews from the left. I hear a lot of negative thoughts on Israel (which does not represent jews, and are just a state) and zionism. Most jews are no Israeli and/or Zionist. Many Israeli jews aren’t in favor of the current government, their actions, or zionism either. There is a clear distinction between the three, and only being against one is anti-semetic.
Yeah…heard this one before. Anyone says anything unpleasant is suddenly right wing.
No. Just when someone says something against Israel, Zionism, or in favor of Palestine it isn’t anti-semetic.
stay on topic
The topic of your strawman? Yeah, sure… that seems reasonable.
What do they say? Because I am a lifelong antifascist and communist and we love Jewish people but shun Zionism, maybe you have conflated the two.
As a Antifascist and AnSynd I am Jewish :3
You deaf? Or just in denial.
So what you’re saying is you can’t answer their question.
Edit: check their post history, they’re obviously a troll
No. You all just have what brains you have, so far in fantasy land, common sense sounds like trolling. Like it’s 2024 and yall think communism is an option. FFS, you huys talk about pattern recogntion and trustin the sciencem, try readin a fucking book and not dieregarding the repeated results.
Yeah, so all you have is shit you read. Brilliant.
-John McMurray, “Totally not a Troll Guys”
I can’t tell - do I need to read a book or live on the coast? Message unclear.
Try both, it’ll definitely expand your horizons
Horseshoe theory is dumb, but it’s really just an observation of the loudest ideologies on the far left and far right, which both happen to be authoritarian. Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system. And it’s true that real-world instances of both Fascism and Communism have been authoritarian, and so they share some things in common. It isn’t a particularly nuanced or deep understanding, but it is true that authoritarian forms of gov’t are authoritarian. The difference lies in the details. Communists used authoritarianism against capitalists and the nobility, and fascists used it against minorities. Horseshoe theory conflates “authoritarianism” with extreme Left and Right-wing ideologies.
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Do you consider anarchists and anarchocommunists to be extremists? Or authoritarian?
Extremists? Sure - they are, by definition, as they are outside of normal, status quo political ideologies. Authoritarian? No of course not. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian. I’m only saying that past communist states (namely PRC and USSR) have been authoritarian and fascist states have also been authoritarian.
Obviously modern neoliberal states are also authoritarian, but the classic horseshoe is almost exclusively applied to fascism and communism. Since it is incoherent as a political theory, I’m sure you could apply it similarly to any polar opposite ideologies and come up with something they share in common.
You might want to consider that those who call themselves leftist may not actually be leftist.
For instance, “Nazi” is short for “national socialist”. They are clearly right wing, however, if you pay attention to their actions.
So-called socialist states are generally deeply repressive and that is not left wing. They were better at branding than the Nazis, but for instance the USSR neutered the soviets - the workers’ councils after which the state was named - very soon after taking power. The state owned rhe means of production, not the workers. It was state capitalist. After that workers had to strike just like under any other capitalist regime, and they were brutally repressed by the state.
Under no honest description of socialist does that qualify. So they failed on both the “Soviet” and “Socialist” parts of their name.
Horseshoe theory is just capitalists happily buying into the USSR and other state capitalists’ self mythology about being socialist because it’s good propaganda to scare the workers they rule over into believing that there is no alternative to neoliberalism’s stochastic brutality.
If we understand “Leftism” to be about a relationship to the means of production - namely one in which the workers/plroletarian class owns the means of production - then the USSR certainly was socialist/leftist to a significant degree.
Since leftism is about that relationship to the means of production, that also means that a government can be both Leftist and Authoritarian. We can discuss to what degree an ideal leftist government should be “authoritarian”, but that is less a conversation about the economic aspects of leftist political ideology and more about the political philosophy around personal freedoms, freedom of speech, etc. - none of which are completely cut & dry.
One could easily argue that some degree of “authoritarianism” is necessary to protect greater freedoms at the expense of lesser ones - that could be a coherent pro personal freedom and pro authoritarian argument. One could also argue that the anarchist conception of personal freedom is doomed to fail without an “authoritarian” power hierarchy to protect those freedoms. All I’m saying is the question of to what degree the power of the state should be limited is by no means answered.
Ownership means having power, having control, over the thing you own.
An authoritarian government that maintains control over the means of production, no matter how much they nominally “belong” to the workers, inherently alienates the workers from having power and therefore from ownership. In that sense it is state capitalist.
You cannot have it both ways unless you change the meaning of words like “own”, or “authority”. Your own description of leftism precludes authoritarian methods.
Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.
Why is this only necessary at the extremes? I don’t want to accept the current system I live under, but I’m coerced into complying with it through force (police).
I’d argue that: 1) what is extreme changes over time, 2) a system of government being extreme de facto means it will have less support, if it had more support it would cease to be extreme, 3) the less support a system of government hass, the more force will be required to maintain it.
I am also under a system of government that is oppressive and monopolizes violence, but if the government had less popular support, I fully believe it would proportionally ramp up the oppression and violence. In fact, I’d argue that it’s currently happening in the US.
I don’t know that I agree with your definition of extreme. On the one hand, there’s popularity of various ideas, and on the other, there’s how much the idea differs from the way things are currently done. It’s possible for an idea drastically different from the status quo to be popular, but it would still be considered extreme because of how big of a change it would be.
Look, can’t we just find some common ground and meet in the middle?
…hmm.
Alternatively
…double hmm.
Don’t forget the speech one. Both said no on that one.
The rest I’m on board with.
This very special take on Fascism brought to you by Zionists-R-Us.
Colour scheme: blue on white
Black isn’t a colour.
Yes it is. It’s one of the 4 colors that can make all other colors! Blue, Magenta, Steve, and Black.
Steve is a secondary color!
I was gonna say something about scientific definitions not being too useful and that you would need to deny that orange and purple are colors, while claiming that WIFI is, but then I actually looked it up and I can’t find a definition that doesn’t include “lightness” in the equation, aka, black and white (and orange too). Literally can only find an Adobe article claiming this and then countless online discussions.
It’s pretty easy, black isn’t a colour.
A good troll should require barely any intervention from the person trolling. This chain has 20 comments; nine are yours. 9/20 = you suck at trolling. Sauce.
A master troll can survive for a year on a few grains of MDMA and the dew on his bag of grass.
I’m just having a friendly discussion.
You’re supposed to start with “Pardon me, I couldn’t help but overh…” no no no wait nevermind that’s a different type of troll, my bad.
I like these trolls.
I don’t, their faces are creepy looking
Never bought paint before, eh?
Black is the absence of light and therefore not a colour.
But it is a shade.
Color is a far broader word than that, even if in some niche uses it’s specific.
Next you’re going to tell me zero is a number and not just a placeholder.
You’re not good at this.
Apparently not.
Is purple a colour?
Yes but it is one of the lesser colours like orange.
Lol I guess we have a hierarchy of colors now
Next thing you know it’s going to be a book about the superiority of some colours and how inferior colours should no longer exist… wait a minute 🤔
Uh, yes? ‘Blue and green reign supreme’ as the saying that I just made up goes
Yesterday we were discussing capitalism and today it’s colours.
Well you contradict yourself, since there’s no such thing as purple light, it must be as much a colour as black is. Have you considered your third-grade gotcha might not be quite nuanced enough for the real world? Or that the science of colours might be a little more complex than you first thought?
Pigments dude…
Black is every single color at once in pigment.
White is every single color at once in light.
That’s not black, that’s a mix of every colour.
MIT engineers made a ‘black’ using vertically aligned carbon nanotubes but it’s only 99.995% of the way to being a true black.
A mix of every color in pigment is black because it absorbs every color wavelength of light so no color is reflected back to your eyes. All the things like vantablack are doing is trying to get the amount of light reflected back off the object to your eyes to be completely 0. Visible, or otherwise.
You’re focusing entirely on the light aspect, forgetting that pigments and light work together to create what we understand as color.
Any pigment can be black depending on the lighting, but only black can be black in full light.
They are only 99.995% of the way to that using the carbon fibre pigment I described.
Not a mixture of every colour.
Any pigment can be black depending on the lighting
No… Just because there isn’t enough light to illuminate the object doesn’t mean its pigmentation is black. Would you say that an object that is red becomes black if you close your eyes or turn off the lights?
The reason an object is black in full lighting is because it’s absorbing all the wavelengths of colored light you can see due to its pigment containing all of those colors. That’s why we have black objects that we can see and call “black.” Because they’re black.
Are you 12? This is the kind of context-less pedantry that could only come from someone with no real-world experience.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and can belong in different categories depending.
Damn you got baited hard. Look at the username. Have you never seen a troll?
Satansmaggotycumfart has been a Lemmy regular for many months. What’s your problem with funny usernames? Do you find laughter offensive?
Anyone internet user can choose to troll if they like. Maybe some people have troll alter ego but for most username is unrelated.
Light isn’t color. Color is exclusively in your head. It’s a mental construct.
Not all colours are made of light.
Remember not to feed the trolls, people.
