No no you don't understand. It's always the people with the least amount of economic power who are responsible for everything!

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

I mean yeah, but how is this a shower thought?

How exactly is this a shower thought? (I agree by the way, but how?)

Also one of the aspects of fascism

The enemy or 'other' is both simultaneously weak and unworthy and should be defeated ... and powerful and oppressive and is the cause of all problems.

I keep thinking about that, and I keep coming back to how the ones being lied to will double down on "but the ____ actually are very powerful! That's why they've taken so much for themselves! That's why they have so many protections!"

I've had a conversation like that.

Many of the weak and vulnerable are responsible for putting the rich and powerful into power though. Power is entirely a social construct. Bit of a paradox but that's the way it is.

It's a pretty incredible trick to convince people that those who, demonstrably, have the least power in society are responsible for all of its problems. What's that thing about how there has to be an enemy, and that enemy has to simultaneously be weak, wretched and inferior but also strong enough to pose a threat that justifies an authoritarian response? I forget who tends to do that...

Well it's really not that simple. I assume you're referring to things like climate change and privacy concerns and general de-evolution of government.

Just to boil down a very complex subject into a lazy comment:

Let's take climate change for instance. Do corporations and government do almost nothing to curb climate change? Yes. Do they actively lie to people about climate change? Yes.

Does the public still know that climate change is a real thing? At least some of them.

Do a ridiculous proportion of people still buy gas-guzzling SUVs and plastic water bottles and use plastic bags at the grocery store unnecessarily? Yes.

Do some people have full access to the information to educate themselves very quickly on the science, and yet choose to ignore that and instead actually actively promote what they want to believe instead? Absolutely

The reality is that "blame" is seldom simple and we all carry some amount of responsibility.

Personally I view this as a sliding scale. And while I do take personal responsibility in driving an efficient vehicle and refusing plastic bags and bottles (even though people look at me like some kind of crazy hippie and mock me accordingly), I also refuse to live in a yurt in the forest. When more people move down the scale toward me, it will make it easier for me to move even further down the scale.

Not always. Half of these putzes openly fight to protect the system because they benefit from exploiting their neighbors, too.

EDIT: Here they come right now lol

Well, yeah.

It's not the powerless that made things how they are, it's the powerful that shape the world.

It's also worth noting that when you're powerful but don't have the votes it takes to do a thing you want, the shortest path to getting those votes is unifying people around being mad at some sort of scapegoat.

This is why fascism looks the way it does

• it emerges from a democracy in some sort of crisis

• it's always that elites (a voting minority of powerful interests) need political support

• the way they always get it is by focusing anger on a scapegoat, with promises to punish them

Only a Death-Eater uses absolutes.

• Gandalf or some shit

Let us examine the couch movers analogy.

A) If two people, A and B, who can lift 25 lb move a 50 lb couch, and A does not try 100%, whose fault is is that couch does not get moved?

B) If A can lift 20 lb and B 30 lb, and A does not give 100%, whose fault is it then?

C) If A can lift 30 lb and B 20 lb, and A does not give 100%, whose fault is it then?

D) What if both can lift 20 lb?

E) What if A can lift 100 lb and B can lift 20 lb?

F) What if A can lift 20 lb and B can lift 100 lb?

G) What if A and B can both lift 100 lb?

I find it interesting that whose fault seemingly changes even if it is always assumed A is not giving 100% in all cases.

Not necessarily. I think that lying requires intent. Someone could tell me something verifiably false without lying because they truly believe it to be true.