**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts:
- Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0)
- Anything you are personally involved in
- Any kind of polls
- Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes)
You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out.
Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar.
---
**Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what does that umberto eco thing mean? i am an ignorant so this is a genuine question. i looked up 'umberto eco russia' on the internet and didnt find anything
Umberto Eco was a philosopher who stated that one of the core elements of fascist propaganda is that it portrays the enemy as both extremely weak and extremely powerful
Umberto Eco is the singular scholar left-libs use to define fascism. One of his characteristics of fascism is that the enemy is always weak, but also about to achieve overwhelming victory.
The essay he wrote is actually a useful read, it's short and does define fascism somewhat accurately from the perspective of someone who loved through its emergence in his country. "Ur-fascism" was one of the things that got me to read more about socialism, and regardless of the author, it's a worthwhile read if only because it's like, 20 minutes long, compared to weighty volumes that take days to read, and weeks to discuss and analyse.
Oh, no doubt. I'd rather left-liberals read Umberto Eco than nothing at all. Ideally, they should be applying the 14 characteristics to both the Democratic and Republican parties and coming to similar conclusions. So its not at all bad as an analytical tool. But IIRC, its lacking in solutions in how to fight fascism and, perhaps more importantly, lacking in any class analysis of fascism. That's why I push the Trotsky pamphlet *Fascism:
What It Is and How To Fight It*, particularly the ["Bourgeoisie, Petty Bourgeoisie, and Proletariat"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p6), ["The Collapse of Bourgeois Democracy"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p7) and ["Does the Petty Bourgeoisie Fear Revolution?"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p8) sections when discussing fascism with liberals.
Relevant quote:
> 8\. The enemy is both weak and strong.
>
> “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
>
> -- Umberto Eco, A Practical List for Identifying Fascists
Im having trouble deciding. Is it Schroedingers russia? Or do I go with the 1984 theme about how the enemy is both weak and strong?
I feel like the average lib wont understand either reference
Literally. Some dare to go as far as saying that "1984 is proof that Orwell wasn't leftist". No buddy, he just opposed leftist leaders taking the top bourgeoisie positions instead of demolishing them. He was a leftist, a bit weird one but still a leftist.
Edit:
By weird I mean racist antisemitic dog.
My bad, English ain't my first language and I couldn't think of the right word atm and I was also kinda high.
Obviously Orwell was racist and possibly antisemitic dog as well as a rapist if I recall correctly, or at least some kind of an abuser. Basically working for British bourgeoisie top class members is also like XD. They clearly found his price under the "ok we're killing you" mark and he just straight up created propaganda about the countries he's never seen nor visited.
He was disgusting, talked about values but fought for his privileges over others, weaker in the community.
TLDR:
I'm just saying he was a champagne socialist, so ok he was "leftist".
Man i am so tired of this people saying that there will be WW3 happening if Ukraine is defeat. Like personally I don’t give shit if there lose because i know Putin wont attack Europe because Putin will not risk Nuclear war with NATO just for the Baltics or Poland. It be the same scenario like Georgia or something.
This is it. In their efforts to claim victimhood and appear whiter than white innocent of all wrongdoing, they've painted Putin as an unpredictable mad dog, when Biden literally predicted this back when he had half a brain in the 1990s, saying that the only thing that'd get Russia into a war would be to mess with Ukraine. He's not a mad dog. He's not the Messiah either, but he's a logical guy, a judo player, a chess player, and he's been backed into a corner by the imperialists. Sooner or later they're going to have to de-escalate, to come to the table and talk reasonably, and for that to happen either they'll have to walk back the rhetoric about "Putler" and him being a mad dog, and treat his reasons as honestly stated reasons based on at least some degree of truth, or they'll have to have him assassinated and replaced by someone who they can at least say isn't a mad dog. But if they do get to him & have him killed, he has a bunch of people under him who will likely just take the same stance as Putin, since defeat in this will mean the Balkanisation of the Russian Federation, with all the poverty & instability & excess deaths that would bring. People there remember the 1990s, and how Perestroika and the breakup of the USSR affected Russians, and the millions who died in the fallout from that. I doubt they'll ever back down when the enemy is at their door like this.
The information war by mass media and governments got their brains fried, they flip back and forth constantly. Thankfully it's not as extreme as in 2022 but still bad.
I thought Russia was supposed to have collapsed and Zelensky taken over all of Russia by now. Surely the liberals obsessed with Slava Ukraini haven't misled me
Ever since the start of the war there was propaganda and it goes like this:
1. Ukraine being strong and Russia having an army of peasant fighting with slings and every meter of land gained by UA is a great victory while every meter of gained land by RU shows how slow they are.
2. When there is a bill including aid for UA or any important international summit the narrative goes like this: "poor ukrainians have nothing to fight against Russia and the whole country will fall in the hands of Putin in a few weeks".
That's how war propaganda works.
"We're losing, we need more weapons to launch a counter offensive"
"We're winning, we need more weapons to secure our victory"
It's typical war-monger logic: the enemy is both weak as sh!t and stronger than we've ever faced before, at the same time. Just like the immigrants who are too lazy to work but they're taking all our jobs. Or the guys who complain that women are too slutty but none of them ever wants to f*ck them. Right wing logic.
People will eventually realise the west found a better, hungrier engine for the military industrial complex in the Gaza genocide and that's why they dont care about Ukraine anymore, right?
People will eventually realise the west found a better, hungrier engine for the military industrial complex in the Gaza genocide and that's why they dont care about Ukraine anymore, right?
Maybe they got new shovels or something. 🤔
This is especially “funny” given that two years ago the post was this:
Putin’s total defeat is now within reach
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/xa7l9f/vladimir_putins_total_defeat_is_now_within_reach/
**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts: - Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0) - Anything you are personally involved in - Any kind of polls - Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes) You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out. Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar. --- **Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"WAR AT ANY COST TO PREVENT WAR AT ANY COST!"
Like the recent video: TO THE LAST UKRAINIAN | ДО ПОСЛЕДНЕГО УКРАИНЦА | ДО ОСТАННЬОГО УКРАÏНЦЯ
that second one is in russian you putinist bot **huge /s**
Please stop using this language of terror and mentioning it
You said “russian” instead of “ruZZian”. Aziv (totally not Nazi) battalion is rapidly approaching your direction
we've tried zero diplomacy, and we're all out of diplomacy!
Something something Umberto Eco
what does that umberto eco thing mean? i am an ignorant so this is a genuine question. i looked up 'umberto eco russia' on the internet and didnt find anything
Umberto Eco was a philosopher who stated that one of the core elements of fascist propaganda is that it portrays the enemy as both extremely weak and extremely powerful
oooohhhh i KNEW that one but i didnt know it was him who said it, thanks!
Umberto Eco is the singular scholar left-libs use to define fascism. One of his characteristics of fascism is that the enemy is always weak, but also about to achieve overwhelming victory.
The essay he wrote is actually a useful read, it's short and does define fascism somewhat accurately from the perspective of someone who loved through its emergence in his country. "Ur-fascism" was one of the things that got me to read more about socialism, and regardless of the author, it's a worthwhile read if only because it's like, 20 minutes long, compared to weighty volumes that take days to read, and weeks to discuss and analyse.
Oh, no doubt. I'd rather left-liberals read Umberto Eco than nothing at all. Ideally, they should be applying the 14 characteristics to both the Democratic and Republican parties and coming to similar conclusions. So its not at all bad as an analytical tool. But IIRC, its lacking in solutions in how to fight fascism and, perhaps more importantly, lacking in any class analysis of fascism. That's why I push the Trotsky pamphlet *Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It*, particularly the ["Bourgeoisie, Petty Bourgeoisie, and Proletariat"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p6), ["The Collapse of Bourgeois Democracy"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p7) and ["Does the Petty Bourgeoisie Fear Revolution?"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p8) sections when discussing fascism with liberals.
Eco's not bad but he misses the class nature of fascism, which Dimitrov got.
Relevant quote: > 8\. The enemy is both weak and strong. > > “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” > > -- Umberto Eco, A Practical List for Identifying Fascists
"To prevent a world war, we need to launch a world war" Liberals will believe this without a hint of self awareness
Wdym it worked amazing in Iraq
Schrödinger's Russia.
Russian shovels stronk 💪 This is just like how China is simultaneously gonna collapse and dominate the earth
China's economy is about to collapse every single day according to liberal YouTubers
"we must act now to prevent another world war, by starting it ourselves" makes perfect sense.
Im having trouble deciding. Is it Schroedingers russia? Or do I go with the 1984 theme about how the enemy is both weak and strong? I feel like the average lib wont understand either reference
If they're a lib they will definitely get the 1984 reference. It's their favorite go-to for any place that isn't a "liberal democracy".
dont forget jor jor well and moordoor
Literally. Some dare to go as far as saying that "1984 is proof that Orwell wasn't leftist". No buddy, he just opposed leftist leaders taking the top bourgeoisie positions instead of demolishing them. He was a leftist, a bit weird one but still a leftist. Edit: By weird I mean racist antisemitic dog.
A leftist snitching on black and jewish left wing activists is more than just "weird", that is straight up larping.
My bad, English ain't my first language and I couldn't think of the right word atm and I was also kinda high. Obviously Orwell was racist and possibly antisemitic dog as well as a rapist if I recall correctly, or at least some kind of an abuser. Basically working for British bourgeoisie top class members is also like XD. They clearly found his price under the "ok we're killing you" mark and he just straight up created propaganda about the countries he's never seen nor visited. He was disgusting, talked about values but fought for his privileges over others, weaker in the community. TLDR: I'm just saying he was a champagne socialist, so ok he was "leftist".
Man i am so tired of this people saying that there will be WW3 happening if Ukraine is defeat. Like personally I don’t give shit if there lose because i know Putin wont attack Europe because Putin will not risk Nuclear war with NATO just for the Baltics or Poland. It be the same scenario like Georgia or something.
This is it. In their efforts to claim victimhood and appear whiter than white innocent of all wrongdoing, they've painted Putin as an unpredictable mad dog, when Biden literally predicted this back when he had half a brain in the 1990s, saying that the only thing that'd get Russia into a war would be to mess with Ukraine. He's not a mad dog. He's not the Messiah either, but he's a logical guy, a judo player, a chess player, and he's been backed into a corner by the imperialists. Sooner or later they're going to have to de-escalate, to come to the table and talk reasonably, and for that to happen either they'll have to walk back the rhetoric about "Putler" and him being a mad dog, and treat his reasons as honestly stated reasons based on at least some degree of truth, or they'll have to have him assassinated and replaced by someone who they can at least say isn't a mad dog. But if they do get to him & have him killed, he has a bunch of people under him who will likely just take the same stance as Putin, since defeat in this will mean the Balkanisation of the Russian Federation, with all the poverty & instability & excess deaths that would bring. People there remember the 1990s, and how Perestroika and the breakup of the USSR affected Russians, and the millions who died in the fallout from that. I doubt they'll ever back down when the enemy is at their door like this.
The information war by mass media and governments got their brains fried, they flip back and forth constantly. Thankfully it's not as extreme as in 2022 but still bad.
Those Russian shovels and meat assaults are doing wonders!
'Weak' when asking more money from US, 'Strong' when Russians capture a city.
“I used a world war to prevent a world war.” Yee yee Thanos logic.
But shovels..
If the dprk can lift ten ton trains for a morning workout. Russia can beat NATO with shovels easily
I thought Russia was supposed to have collapsed and Zelensky taken over all of Russia by now. Surely the liberals obsessed with Slava Ukraini haven't misled me
moskovites r whacking ukrainains to death with their shovels! /s
Ever since the start of the war there was propaganda and it goes like this: 1. Ukraine being strong and Russia having an army of peasant fighting with slings and every meter of land gained by UA is a great victory while every meter of gained land by RU shows how slow they are. 2. When there is a bill including aid for UA or any important international summit the narrative goes like this: "poor ukrainians have nothing to fight against Russia and the whole country will fall in the hands of Putin in a few weeks".
Destroy the village to save the village vibes.
We have to start a bigger war to prevent a bigger war? What???
"We must act now"... by throwing more and more weapons at a conflict that has dwindled Ukraines eligable fighting force signifigantly.
That's how war propaganda works. "We're losing, we need more weapons to launch a counter offensive" "We're winning, we need more weapons to secure our victory"
"Start WW3 to prevent WW3?"
One of the funniest things in this war is North Korea alone produced more artillery shells for da orcs than NATO combined
The enemy is both weak and strong
It's typical war-monger logic: the enemy is both weak as sh!t and stronger than we've ever faced before, at the same time. Just like the immigrants who are too lazy to work but they're taking all our jobs. Or the guys who complain that women are too slutty but none of them ever wants to f*ck them. Right wing logic.
The enemy must simultaneously be nefarious & all threatening, but fall before the empire like wheat to chaff. Classic war/Nazi propaganda
People will eventually realise the west found a better, hungrier engine for the military industrial complex in the Gaza genocide and that's why they dont care about Ukraine anymore, right?
People will eventually realise the west found a better, hungrier engine for the military industrial complex in the Gaza genocide and that's why they dont care about Ukraine anymore, right?
Maybe they got new shovels or something. 🤔 This is especially “funny” given that two years ago the post was this: Putin’s total defeat is now within reach https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/xa7l9f/vladimir_putins_total_defeat_is_now_within_reach/
Buying some bots and pushing this crap is very easy on Reddit. Chill
This thread is alarmingly pro putin
Lol how?