Epistemic Status: Not likely to be true things. Right?
Liberals know nothing, fascists know everything.
Most of the policies democratic governments could pass are fascist policies that expand government power.
The remaining policies are liberal policies. There is no such thing as a conservative policy.
Liberal policies do nothing.
If the liberals do nothing enough times, they win and can congratulate themselves, no matter how much more fascist things got in the meantime.
Governments must always be passing new policies, and never take away old policies. Thus, government inevitably gets more powerful over time.
The more liberal policies you pass, the more likely it is any future policy will be fascist.
The more fascist policies you pass, the more likely it is any future policy will be fascist.
When the time comes to pass a policy, the government will choose from whatever proposals are lying around, even if all of them are fascist and everyone choosing is a liberal. There is almost never an option to just not do that, as such bold action requires a mostly fascist policy already be in place.
If the government fails to agree to pass one of the things lying around, that’s even worse, because it will then choose a new policy completely at random from what is lying around, which will probably be fascist.
Liberals spend most of their time being paranoid over which people claiming to be liberals are secretly fascists, or even secretly actual literal Hitler, as opposed to attempting to write or choose good policies.
Someone enacting liberal policies, but not in a position to assume dictatorial power, is providing strong evidence they are probably secretly Hitler.
When good people often have no choice but to do bad things, but there is no way to verify this, the default is for no one who is good to have any idea who is good and who is bad.
Despite this, good people think they know who is good and who is bad.
Introducing a random element to the play is good for veteran players, because the ‘good guys’ are no longer able to (and thus forced to as in Resistance/Avalon) fall back purely on an announced, deterministic strategy, as the ‘bad guys’ could know the rules and game the system.
Cute. I have friends who won’t play because the game mechanics you describe tie too closely to their view of reality, and it makes them sad. Are you also claiming these are things that apply to (or remind you deeply of) the real world?
“The more liberal policies you pass, the more likely it is any future policy will be fascist.”
Sadly this one is likely true irl. When you have a government that passes more and more laws, and does not repeal old laws, then the degree of restriction of people’s lives increases monotonically. This creates a precedent for ever more control, until the end is either a backlash or tyranny.
This post was ridiculous. Many liberal policies have had clear effects, such as civil rights legislation, and Jimmy Carter creating DECADES-LASTING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST BETWEEN ISRAEL AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES after virtually continuous war.
This is not about actual liberal policies. This is a humorous post about the social board game “Secret Hitler”, in which players can enact liberal and fascist policies as part of the game mechanics. Like, the conflation between the game world and the real world is part of the joke, but should not be taken as a literal statement.
If it shouldn’t be compared to reality, than why are the other posts not also voted down? They are both about how the real world is comparable to the game. Aiyen even has “Sadly this one is likely true irl” when explaining one of the points.
There is a difference between engaging with an allusion, and accusing the author of making a claim he did not make. None of the other comments took what the author said at face value in the way your OP seems to do. (I.e. the author definitely does not believe that no liberal policy ever had any effect)