Fascism always has enemies that are simultaneously so weak that they will be easily defeated by fascist superiority ... while also being terribly oppressive that it will take a great battle to overthrow the powerful enemies of fascism
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
782 points (100.0% liked)
196
5165 readers
717 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I've heard something similar for conspiracy theories also.
NASA is at the same time an agency with enough advanced technology and resources that they were able to fool the entire world for a several-day-long broadcast of a fake moon landing, while also being too feeble and pathetic to have actually gone to the moon.
Then they snuck all the stuff they said they had on the moon to the moon before the other nations got there to look.
Well put. Also works with the classic trope of lazy but simultaneously job stealing immigrants
If you want to keep the fiction up, you need to keep imagining additional things: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RequiredSecondaryPowers.
That list was way too short
There's no coming back once I click on that link
Umberto Eco - Ur-Fascism
"The enemy is massing their military near our border, which is a threat to us! We can defeat their military easily of course, they are disorganised and weak. But their movements are hostile and threatening to us! So we must preemptively attack them! Not because we need the element of surprise, but because we want to demonstrate our superior military tactics! This will be a quick 3-day special military operation. Because they are weak and we are strong but they are an existential threat to us."
It seems that their imagined enemy is both too strong and too weak... Jeez, where have I heard that before?
The quantum immigrant that is both stealing jobs from Americans while simultaneously nothing more than a drain on welfare?
Isn’t it cuz they aren’t “mentally fit”?
Which still isnt a good excuse to be a bigot, you can be non trans and less mentally fit than a trans person yet allowed in the military. I hate this country sometimes
If you're "mentally fit" then the military will fix that.
TBF, Pete Hegseth also doesn't want cis-women in the military.
Imagine being at war for literally over 90% of your societies existence and you don't want half your population to have the ability to become combatants.
F tier warrior race
There's some --some---reason to not want women in front-line infantry positions. The combat load that infantry has to carry around works out to be over 100#, and it's a struggle to get cis-men fit and strong enough to carry that, and still ruck 20+ miles at a time without collapsing. Most women are unlikely to be able to achieve that, particularly when they may weigh only 25# more than the load that they have to carry. But, IMO, as long as they can meet fitness standards, let 'em serve in the infantry if that's what their ASVAB scores allow and it's the MOS they want.
Give that the new rifle--XM7, I think?--weighs more than the M5, and the ammunition is heavier, that load is gonna get heavier, and people that are more in-tune with the military than I am tend to believe that we need to get the combat load lighter, by a lot.
Honestly, most of it really comes down to Pete Hegseth being sexist.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fascism requires a group of others to persecute. Ideally, that group would be very small (as a percentage of the overall population) and already somewhat marginalized/"different".
So here we are.
if ex military trans want to kick off the revolution, they will have earned my respect.
Respect shouldn't have to be earned, it should be the default to respect everyone. It is reasonable for trust or admiration to be earned, but not respect.
There are two distinct kinds of respect: for the human being (respect the human rights) and for the person (respect what that person does).
Agreed. But too often the two are conflated and individuals rights are lost not for what they do, but for what demographic group they are a member of.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Bigots are too weak to participate in society. They should be banned.
Being bigoted is literally a skill issue. People with less money, status, or loved ones are more likely to hold bigoted views. Even in competitive online games higher ranks is less bigots
That's a pretty bigoted stance though. Same mindset that's led to the US prison system re: criminals, which is exactly what banning people from society is in function. I'm more on the structural rehabilitative side when it comes to addressing harmful anti-social behaviour.
Proving that it's all just about hate. We're strong though, we've been through so much, though not many of us made it. But we can keep going and we will win. Never forget. 💙🩷🤍🩷💙
I agree with the sentiment being discussed here, but the argument being peddled isn't that they are too strong for sports, it's that they are too strong for womens sports, like women are so weak and their sports are a joke. The current right wing arseholes in the US are also claiming that women shouldn't be in the military. This nonsense is layers of bigotry deep.
You aren't really refuting the conundrum presented by the woman. She is pointing out the same thing you are, but I feel like you're not getting the point.
Trans women are too strong to be in women's sports, implying they are stronger than cis women. Yet simultaneously being told they are too weak to be in the army, something that they aren't even saying of cis women, implying that trans women are weaker than cis women.
The woman in the interview is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy here to highlight that it's not logical, it's just bigotry.
I feel like their hypocrisy and transphobia can be pointed out even simpler by:
"No!! You can't be in women's sports, because you are a man!!"
and
"No!! You can't be in the military, because you're not... a... man...?"
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
All three of those dudes are trying to hide their boners.
This is a stupid argument. Trans women are not too strong for sport, but too strong for women's sport.
What's the point of segregating sports by gender?
If it's a matter of performance then they can break sports into performance classes, no gender segregation needed.
If it's a matter of fairness and making space for women in sports, then trans women deserve not to have to play with the boys just like any other woman.
What’s the point of degregating sports by gender?
Because men outclass women in almost any physical ability, be it strength, speed or endurance. Just look at world records.
If it’s a matter of performance then they can break sports into performance classes
Ah yes, let's make sport less accessible by introducing arbitrary limitations. Do we have basketball up to 1.60m height, then up to 1.70m height, then up to 1.80m height and so on? And do we introduce different tiers within those tiers by only having people up to 1.70m and 60kg, then 1.70 and 70kg ...
You CANT split sport into "performance classes", at least not in a way where it would help - men would on average still be in the higher "performance class" and nothing would change.
If it’s a matter of fairness and making space for women in sports, then trans women deserve not to have to play with the boys just like any other woman.
I know you probably don't want to hear that, but biologically, trans women aren't women. They are still physically superior to cis women. That's why we prefix them with "trans". Even after extensive hormone therapy, trans women still have some advantages over cis women.
Nobody has a problem with trans women in non-physical sports. Nobody would bat an eye if there was a trans women in chess. Nobody would care if there was a trans woman in e-sports (we actually had one years ago in league if I remember correctly). But we can't just abandon fairness for cis women in sport because we want to appease a small number of trans women, and on a physical level (especially before hormone therapy), they still do have an advantage.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
The difference is smaller than you might think
Abstract Objective: To examine the effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance among transwomen and transmen.
Methods: We reviewed fitness test results and medical records of 29 transmen and 46 transwomen who started gender affirming hormones while in the United States Air Force. We compared pre- and post-hormone fitness test results of the transwomen and transmen with the average performance of all women and men under the age of 30 in the Air Force between 2004 and 2014. We also measured the rate of hormone associated changes in body composition and athletic performance.
Results: Participants were 26.2 years old (SD 5.5). Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster. Prior to gender affirming hormones, transmen performed 43% fewer push-ups and ran 1.5 miles 15% slower than their male counterparts. After 1 year of taking masculinising hormones, there was no longer a difference in push-ups or run times, and the number of sit-ups performed in 1 min by transmen exceeded the average performance of their male counterparts.
Summary: The 15-31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women's events.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›