Quick thinking

Reminds me of a joke on a Bright Eyes song.

"There's a Communist and an Anarchist in a car who's driving? The cop."

I thought that was from David Rovics.
- That's entirely possible. My Brain made it a Bright Eyes song, but on reflection I have no idea why I thought that.

It's not a joke if it's true

“Do you know why people don’t like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?” - Will MacAvoy, Newsroom

Great show, great first episode

A leftist is stuck in a room with another leftist and a fascist.

The leftist has one gun and two bullets, and they must be used.

What does the leftist do?

Shoot the other leftist twice.

... then claim the other leftist making an edgy joke at the age of 14 is a proof they were the real fascist.
I mean it says the bullets must be used. You could just shoot the wall
- I use my two bullets to shoot the concept of this political thought experimentp. Let me out now puzzle master, we had a deal you can't keep
Makes it look like a suicide

Of course they started with 6 bullets but the liberal and the fascist liked to pass the gun around and take pot shots at the marxist every so often so the marxist couldn't ever influence or overpower them. This is just the moment the liberal realized there were only two bullets left.

What's a liberal according to Lemmy? Economically liberal and socially liberal? Social democrat? Obama or Bernie?

Anyone who supports capitalism.
Here's a reasonably quick read, 300 pages, going over what major liberal philosophers believed and how they managed various contradictions of liberalism.
- I'm just curious. How long would you consider a reasonably quick read expressed in hours?
- Losurdo is an excellent choice.
It kind of has a double meaning. One side is someone who believes in like democracy, freedom, human rights, and the other side is someone who believes in private property. For historical reasons, the two tendencies are like joined together on most things, but there are differences.
A lot of leftists don't like liberals because they defend private property and capitalism, but a lot of liberals see themselves as leftists because of those progressive values.
Whether or not a liberal is left wing very much depends on the liberal. Every socialist was once a liberal, whether they were political or not. Conservatives are a kind of liberal, but with the progressive parts removed so it only defends private property.
capitalism is really good at like hiding away its injustice behind contracts and laws, a socialist would see those laws as unjust and want to do radical reforms up to and including overthrow of the ruling billionaires. a liberal might not see the injustice, or if they do, tend to want to stick to courts and reforms because it does contain elements of fairness and justice. liberal justice is more fair than feudal justice, but less than what many socialists would like.
The meme is a reference to the idea that social democracy, liberalism and fascism are all different aspects of capitalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
- So rich people? 18th century bourgeois were probably quite liberal but I bet a lot of current bourgeois are more conservative than liberal, so it's hard to understand.
- Oh, workerONE eh, very nice. And how'd you get that, eh?
  By exploiting workerTWO!
Yes.
I have seen people call lemmy.world users liberals, but never fascists
I have seen someone call lemmy.world admins fascist working with the gouvernment to bring propaganda to lemmy
So between an average lemmy.world user and lemmy.world admin
I would use the terms as they mean depending on the context of the conversation and who the audience is. If I know that my audience is American and probably less knowing of the original meaning of the terms, I would use the words liberal and conservative as they mean in American mainstream sense. But if I know that the audience is knowledgeable enough to know what the word liberal means in the classical sense, I would use the term in such a way.
- TankovayaDiviziya
  Wow.
  And why not.

Same result, but the liberal asks Israel who should have the gun.

Lemmy.world is such a weird place, man. I also like how in the propaganda version, LW is like this crazy liberal place where you will get banned for saying what based on this comment and voting is clearly the majority view.

So this story actually happened, in 1932 Germany. No one had the gun at the beginning. The liberal said to the Marxist, “Holy shit that guy is really dangerous, let’s stop him.” The Marxist said “FUCK YOU YOU’RE REALLY DANGEROUS” and started swinging his fists in every direction. The liberal was still trying to talk with the establishment conservative, to gang up on the fascist, while the Marxist was still windmilling to no particular purpose, when the fascist got the gun. The first one he shot, of course, was the Marxist. The anarchist stood in the corner, facing away from the room, and said that turning around would be giving consent to what was going on, and so he refused to do it.

The Marxist, wounded, left the room, what was left of him, and found the communist room. When he got there, the communists shot him, and killed him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany and search for “KPD leaders purged by Stalin”

The liberal said to the Marxist, “Holy shit that guy is really dangerous, let’s stop him.”
The liberal in question had spent the last decade handing military equipment to the freikorps to massacre communists before staffing the cabinet with fascists and making Hitler chancellor.
- The liberal in question had spent the last decade handing military equipment to the brownshirts to massacre communists
  Citation?
  They also hadn't been massacring, that I know of, it was street fighting, almost all non-fatal. You can show me if I'm wrong, though, that's just my impression.
  before staffing the cabinet with fascists
  and making Hitler chancellor
  Incorrect. The conservatives did both of those things. The liberals had gotten castrated by the refusal of the KDP to work with them in any respect, and so they couldn't really do anything against either the KDP or the fascists, and so the left went down as did the liberals as did the rest of the establishment, without any unified front against the fascists. But the liberals had tried very explicitly to ally with the KDP against the fascists, and the KDP refused, calling the social democrats "the main enemy."
  I am sure there is some portion of blame to go to the SDP as well. Pointing fingers after a catastrophe is a time-honored tradition and maybe not a useful one. My point was that in the one real-world example of this that I know of, the Marxists absolutely refused to form a coalition against the fascists, if it meant they would have to work with the liberals, and the fascists were able to win amongst all the leftist infighting. So the particular brand of finger-pointing that exists in OP's meme definitely has a real-world counterexample.
  I actually don't think there is a strong enough left in the US for this to be a useful model of what just happened in the recent election here. But it wasn't for lack of trying, by the portion of the supposed far-left that is on Lemmy.

Is it a US liberal, or a "rest of the world" liberal (which typically means the opposite)?

The lib was both the Marxist and the anarchist

That would never happen in a million years
Calling Stalin a Marxist is like calling the Nazi party socialists, or North Korea a democracy.
They can use whatever words they like in their ideology/party/country's name but it doesn't mean a thing.

My political positions are somewhere on the left outskirts of Social Democracy, so I've no love for liberals. That said, when I look at the US, it was not the liberals that just gave a fascist not only a gun but an entire army.

Social democracy is a liberal doctrine.
- Arguing about words is stupid.

shoot himself in the foot and then the face?

This one, at least as applies to liberals in government in the USA, is a lot more accurate.
Oh and also they need some money for medical bills now. They’ll be sure to send you some texts about it.

Shoot the lock to escape the room, and save the other bullet for whoever locked you up in there.

Okay, this isn't a movie, the bullet did nothing to the lock, and now you're bleeding from a ricochet sliver.
- I mean It could of been a really shitty lock

So basically there are 2 fascists in the room.

Scratch a liberal...

How is that supposed to be a riddle?

The only actual threat in the room is the fascist. Anarchists aren't actually dangerous, they're just annoying, they never actually do anything they just talk a lot.

The Marxist won't kill you either. They'll just argue with you.

No it's to show the idiocy of liberals in siding with fascists time and time again.
The only thing missing is that after the fash shot the two leftists, that they would bash the libs head in with the handle.
There are violent and nonviolent ideologues on all sides of the political spectrum. There have been violent Marxists, fascists, anarchists, liberals, vegans. Just the same, there have been nonviolent members of all of these ideologies. I wouldn't consider some tankie or neofash teen making hexbear or /pol/ posts in their bedroom to be violent.
I would say that the fascist and the Marxist are equally threatening to my safety, all else equal.

Just crushingly depressingly accurate

Meme-maker probably didn’t vote.

Yeah, Kamala lost because of that one vote. It's all op's fault.

Wow that's deep

I mean its also what happened.
- Only if you replace liberal with self-proclaimed leftist. It's fucking hilarious how similar leftist are to the right wing. You've even got the projection thing going.

But the rules say that I have to! And dont I want to show how much better than them I am at following the rules?

They're a liberal. They give the gun but sell the bullets.

the lib gives the gun to the fascist the fascist shoots the lib in the back of the head twice, the fasicst then gaslights the marxist into believing the lib committed self harm

Almost, you forgot the part where the liberal shoots himself in the foot before giving the fascist the gun.

Fascist proceeds to press the trigger 3 times and get dissapointed they could not shoot the liberal as well. Another anarchist arrives then punches the fascist and takes his gun. The liberal concludes the anarchist to be the real fascist.

See, the problem is that a Marxist and an anarchist stuck around a liberal and a fascist. Not only that, they spent all that time doing nothing, even though there was a gun in the room and two bullets. Looks to me like the Marxist and the anarchist were kinda dumb.

Perhaps the Marxist and the anarchist should have voted when the liberal was asking who should be given the gun.

Ah yes, Nazis, famous for packing up their bags when losing elections.
Perhaps they did, but it was a first past the post voting system and resulted in a hung parliament.

*Sells

So, three authoritarians, and only two get to survive.

I feel like wanting to kill 3/4ths of the population is part of some ideologies, but i wouldn't count anarchy among them.
- Yes, that’s why I said three authoritarians. The Nazis, and the two groups that have historically worked with them at several points.

Fascist shoots the liberal and the anarchist

Historically speaking, the Nazis literally first built the camps to put Marxists in.

Throw the gun away and beat thw shit out of the fascist with the other two would be my choice. That hurts more than a gunshot.

beat thw shit out of the fascist with the other
You mean ask them for help, or use them as oversized clubs?
- Yes.
- If they wanna be oversized clubs im down for that but originally i meant ask fof help

More like spot themselves in the foot and drop the gun at the fascist's feet.

it's a conceal carry, i do nothing with it.