Yup, that and the context of a massacre. Also IIRC that pic was the one CNN decided to use in its publications, and at the time, CNN was the BIGGEST news media corp. Their influence in regards to this pic was massive
I was joking, because Tervell is a user who posts weapons on here. He's been posting swords and guns for years, so the interest in swords just reminded me. Was basically making an injoke that hexbear users'd recognise.
I appreciate that. For me it's thankfully mostly an annoyance because I learned I was asexual early on, and learned about forced sexuality and allonormativity around the same time. Asexuals experience SA at a significantly higher rate than other queer people, and so much of it could be prevented by teaching proper sex-ed in school which not only includes enthusiastic consent but asexuality and allonormativity as well. Luckily that info is now more readily available online.
On this site, people often suggest Dimitrov's work from 1935 as Marxist theory to learn about fascism. People shouldn't do that, as there are many, many flaws with Dimitrov's analysis of fascism. It's better to suggest historians who analyse fascist ideology and clarify the various positions historians have, like Robert Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism (2005), and Roger Griffin The Nature of Fascism (1993). Or, if you're Dutch, Te Slaa's Fascisme from last year. No historian, not even the Marxist ones, thinks fascism was simply "a result" of capitalist crisis, or a "terrorist dictatorship" without mass support. This is in part thanks to the numerous empirical studies and historical research done in the past 50 years. I'll close this comment with an excerpt from Kitchen's Fascism (1976).
The Comintern failed to see the importance of the
mass base of fascism and thus underestimated both its offensive strength
and its staying power. Greater emphasis on the mass base of fascism
would also have prevented the Comintern from thinking of fascist
movements as being little more than the paid agents of monopoly capitalism with virtually no autonomy. It was a strikingly crude example of vulgar
Marxist determinist economism, which denied Marx's insistence on the
dialectical relationship between basis and superstructure and which
reduced dialectical materialism to a mono-causal determinism.
Dimitroff's speech to the Seventh Congress remains the basis of the
present-day Marxist-Leninist heteronomic theory of fascism. Fascism is
seen as an essentially dependent movement, for fascists are the agents of
monopoly capitalism with little autonomous will. The problem with
this theory is to provide adequate empirical data on the ways in which
big capital supposedly dominated the fascist movement. [Hexbear note: empirical data showed the inverse was true, and fascism had great support from the masses.]
Note: I don't recommend Kitchen's book, I recommend the two I mentioned above, but his overview of the development of the Comintern's view of fascism in the intro is great.
tl;dr: want to learn about fascism? Read books by historians, not politicians!
I don't do the dunkin', but here's an idea: in a longer response to a lib who called you a Russian bot, put in one (1) word in Cyrillic, randomly, just to fuck with them. Bonuspoints if it's Ukrainian.
![President_Obama [they/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/964ebafe-78b4-4edd-8828-f3145ab8d753.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Oh I love subs like that. I get a similar fix from r/UFOs.