|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents.
"Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people.
"Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher
www.livescience.com
Extremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today.
IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term.
|
United States42685 Posts
On December 16 2020 18:04 Slydie wrote:I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents. "Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people. Show nested quote +"Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher www.livescience.comExtremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today. IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term.
They are fascists though. We're not calling them fascists as an insult, it's just what they are. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology built around restoring a mythical glorious past that, per the mythos of the fascist party, was taken from them by an insidious enemy that must be defeated through state violence and national unity under the great leader. Their slogan, "America First", was literally taken from the American Nazi supporters in WW2. Trump and his supporters are fascists. They don't believe in lawful and civil society, nor democracy, nor tolerance, they're the enemies of all free societies.
|
On December 16 2020 11:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 11:23 Mohdoo wrote:On December 16 2020 10:03 Sent. wrote:
Praising specific actions of a fascist doesn't make you a fascist if they have little to do with fascism, just like shipping tanks to communists doesn't make you a communist, part time communist or a gulag endorser.
Political allies of NSDAP weren't fascists, they were morons who played with fire. Fascism relies on people like Danglars to say "This is clearly bad, but because of polarization, I can't possibly support the other side". Without people who see it as "wrong, but at least roughly in line with my ideology, so I'll go along with it" fascism falls apart. People like Danglars like to hide behind "I don't like him, but I don't stand against him" as if they are in some way not participating. But that has never been true, they are absolutely participants and enablers. You can't just say "They were morons" as if they thereby have no responsibility. To be fair, so does any other position that seeks to build a broad consensus around a leader that a lot of people don't like. Sub in "Clinton" in place of "fascism" and the argument works without much modification. Yes, it works for everything because no single party really perfectly embodies what a voter wants in all things.
There are always some things we like and some things we don't like and we live with the 2nd because we care about the 1st. And where one no longer becomes enough to justify the other is different for everyone and finding that line is often tricky.
This should not be one of those tricky cases. Trump is openly trying to overwrite a legitimate democratic election result to instate himself as a dictator. He is denying a global pandemic as the virus rages through the country and has killed more then 300.000 people.
There is no grey area here.
|
Norway28665 Posts
For what it's worth, I entirely agree that Trump is a fascist. It was 'up for debate' until the election, but now the anti-democratic bend is indisputable. But 74 million americans voted for him. I don't believe that all those 74 million americans are actually fascists (even if a disheartening number of them are). What more is, you guys do have to coexist with those 74 million americans.
I'm not really expecting to bring Danglars back into the democrat mold, the genuine political differences seem too stark for that. However, I don't think the 'admit that you were wrong' or 'admit that Trump is a fascist' or 'realize that you are a fascist enabler through voting for Trump' are messages even remotely likely to sway anyone, rather, these are messages that further cements the differences and that keep pushing former Trump voters away from us. Virtually nobody listens to someone who insults them, and I hope we can avoid doing just that. That's all.
|
On December 16 2020 18:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 18:04 Slydie wrote:I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents. "Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people. "Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher www.livescience.comExtremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today. IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term. They are fascists though. We're not calling them fascists as an insult, it's just what they are. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology built around restoring a mythical glorious past that, per the mythos of the fascist party, was taken from them by an insidious enemy that must be defeated through state violence and national unity under the great leader. Their slogan, "America First", was literally taken from the American Nazi supporters in WW2. Trump and his supporters are fascists. They don't believe in lawful and civil society, nor democracy, nor tolerance, they're the enemies of all free societies.
I agree. They're literally fascist. Now, one might argue that using certain labels/terms (however accurate they may be) in a discussion with those people might not be the best way to change their minds, as them getting offended by the label might shut down any sort of productive conversation... But in terms of defining them, it's pretty spot on.
|
On December 16 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 18:09 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2020 18:04 Slydie wrote:I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents. "Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people. "Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher www.livescience.comExtremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today. IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term. They are fascists though. We're not calling them fascists as an insult, it's just what they are. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology built around restoring a mythical glorious past that, per the mythos of the fascist party, was taken from them by an insidious enemy that must be defeated through state violence and national unity under the great leader. Their slogan, "America First", was literally taken from the American Nazi supporters in WW2. Trump and his supporters are fascists. They don't believe in lawful and civil society, nor democracy, nor tolerance, they're the enemies of all free societies. I agree. They're literally fascist. Now, one might argue that using certain labels/terms (however accurate they may be) in a discussion with those people might not be the best way to change their minds, as them getting offended by the label might shut down any sort of productive conversation... But in terms of defining them, it's pretty spot on. Is there productive conversation to be had with people who still support Trump?
|
On December 16 2020 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
For what it's worth, I entirely agree that Trump is a fascist. It was 'up for debate' until the election, but now the anti-democratic bend is indisputable. But 74 million americans voted for him. I don't believe that all those 74 million americans are actually fascists (even if a disheartening number of them are). What more is, you guys do have to coexist with those 74 million americans.
I'm not really expecting to bring Danglars back into the democrat mold, the genuine political differences seem too stark for that. However, I don't think the 'admit that you were wrong' or 'admit that Trump is a fascist' or 'realize that you are a fascist enabler through voting for Trump' are messages even remotely likely to sway anyone, rather, these are messages that further cements the differences and that keep pushing former Trump voters away from us. Virtually nobody listens to someone who insults them, and I hope we can avoid doing just that. That's all.
i agree mostly but it wouldn't surprise me if almost half of Americans have the potential to become fascist. Hitler won a plurality so it shows that fascism can be sold to the masses. It is obviously harder to sell "fascism" as an ideology today because of all of the negative history but it can (and somewhat has) been repackaged in a way that is palatable to many Americans.
This is how the alt-right got so much traction since the early 2010s. It is hard to sell fascism to people but if you relabel it as "memes," "freedom of speech," and "anti-SJWs," you'll have a much better chance of brainwashing.
|
On December 16 2020 19:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 16 2020 18:09 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2020 18:04 Slydie wrote:I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents. "Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people. "Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher www.livescience.comExtremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today. IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term. They are fascists though. We're not calling them fascists as an insult, it's just what they are. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology built around restoring a mythical glorious past that, per the mythos of the fascist party, was taken from them by an insidious enemy that must be defeated through state violence and national unity under the great leader. Their slogan, "America First", was literally taken from the American Nazi supporters in WW2. Trump and his supporters are fascists. They don't believe in lawful and civil society, nor democracy, nor tolerance, they're the enemies of all free societies. I agree. They're literally fascist. Now, one might argue that using certain labels/terms (however accurate they may be) in a discussion with those people might not be the best way to change their minds, as them getting offended by the label might shut down any sort of productive conversation... But in terms of defining them, it's pretty spot on. Is there productive conversation to be had with people who still support Trump?
That's definitely a valid question. As Drone puts it, we still need to find a way to coexist with these people. I don't know if a viable solution is to completely ignore them as they undermine our democracy and threaten various demographics of people. The educator in me wants to keep trying, in hopes that even the smallest amount of progress could be made with even a tiny subset of them, but then again we all only have a finite amount of time and energy (and sanity) to put towards those kinds of people. I think it comes down to figuring out who is willing to engage in good faith; ignore the trolls or the hardcore zealots that'll just 1a2a3a4a wherever Trump leads them, but it might be worthwhile to try having a discussion with anyone who's willing to come to the table and have an honest and open conversation.
|
United States42685 Posts
On December 16 2020 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
For what it's worth, I entirely agree that Trump is a fascist. It was 'up for debate' until the election, but now the anti-democratic bend is indisputable. But 74 million americans voted for him. I don't believe that all those 74 million americans are actually fascists (even if a disheartening number of them are). What more is, you guys do have to coexist with those 74 million americans.
I'm not really expecting to bring Danglars back into the democrat mold, the genuine political differences seem too stark for that. However, I don't think the 'admit that you were wrong' or 'admit that Trump is a fascist' or 'realize that you are a fascist enabler through voting for Trump' are messages even remotely likely to sway anyone, rather, these are messages that further cements the differences and that keep pushing former Trump voters away from us. Virtually nobody listens to someone who insults them, and I hope we can avoid doing just that. That's all.
Who is trying to sway fascists? That's never been how we've stopped them in the past.
|
On December 16 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 18:09 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2020 18:04 Slydie wrote:I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents. "Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people. "Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher www.livescience.comExtremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today. IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term. They are fascists though. We're not calling them fascists as an insult, it's just what they are. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology built around restoring a mythical glorious past that, per the mythos of the fascist party, was taken from them by an insidious enemy that must be defeated through state violence and national unity under the great leader. Their slogan, "America First", was literally taken from the American Nazi supporters in WW2. Trump and his supporters are fascists. They don't believe in lawful and civil society, nor democracy, nor tolerance, they're the enemies of all free societies. I agree. They're literally fascist. Now, one might argue that using certain labels/terms (however accurate they may be) in a discussion with those people might not be the best way to change their minds, as them getting offended by the label might shut down any sort of productive conversation... But in terms of defining them, it's pretty spot on.
It is impossible to be "literally facist". If you look it up, there is simply no clear definition of the term. There are also some very obvious differences between Trump and the classical facists who are defining the term, but even putting all of them into a broad definition is next to impossible without dilluting so much it is no longer useful.
-Is the USA even compatible with a facism dictatorship considering how many important decisions are done on a state level?
-Is Trump a "militarist"? Sure, he likes the military, but his power over the armed forces is very limited compared to the classical facists.
-Is Trump advocating a strong goverment for every citizen is morally obliged to serve to reach a common goal? I would say no, he is generally working towards a smaller government with government involvement.
-Does he want to expand the US empire? No, he has generally worked for less US military involvement abroad.
-Is Trump idealizing violence? You can see traces of it, but imo he is not comparable to the classic facists.
While it is obvious that Trump is attacking democratic processes and institutions, calling him facist is still very debatable. That he uses tricks from their playbook does not automatically make him one, if "facists" even exist.
From Wikipedia:
George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist
|
United States42685 Posts
On December 16 2020 19:44 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 16 2020 18:09 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2020 18:04 Slydie wrote:I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents. "Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people. "Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher www.livescience.comExtremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today. IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term. They are fascists though. We're not calling them fascists as an insult, it's just what they are. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology built around restoring a mythical glorious past that, per the mythos of the fascist party, was taken from them by an insidious enemy that must be defeated through state violence and national unity under the great leader. Their slogan, "America First", was literally taken from the American Nazi supporters in WW2. Trump and his supporters are fascists. They don't believe in lawful and civil society, nor democracy, nor tolerance, they're the enemies of all free societies. I agree. They're literally fascist. Now, one might argue that using certain labels/terms (however accurate they may be) in a discussion with those people might not be the best way to change their minds, as them getting offended by the label might shut down any sort of productive conversation... But in terms of defining them, it's pretty spot on. It is impossible to be "literally facist". If you look it up, there is simply no clear definition of the term. There are also some very obvious differences between Trump and the classical facists who are defining the term, but even putting all of them into a broad definition is next to impossible without dilluting so much it is no longer useful. -Is the USA even compatible with a facism dictatorship considering how many important decisions are done on a state level? -Is Trump a "militarist"? Sure, he likes the military, but his power over the armed forces is very limited compared to the classical facists. -Is Trump advocating a strong goverment for every citizen is morally obliged to serve to reach a common goal? I would say no, he is generally working towards a smaller government with government involvement. -Does he want to expand the US empire? No, he has generally worked for less US military involvement abroad. -Is Trump idealizing violence? You can see traces of it, but imo he is not comparable to the classic facists. While it is obvious that Trump is attacking democratic processes and institutions, calling him facist is still very debatable. That he uses tricks from their playbook does not automatically make him one, if "facists" even exist. From Wikipedia: Show nested quote +George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist
George Orwell isn't an authority on the meaning of the word fascist. Additionally you have taken that quote out of context, it was part of a larger essay called "What is fascism" in which he attempts to describe and explain it. You appear to be trying to say that Orwell couldn't explain fascism but he wrote an essay doing exactly that which you're quoting from.
You're also completely mischaracterizing both the definition of fascism you're trying to disagree with and Trump's policies.
There are clear definitions of the term and they have been described. If you wish to continue to have this discussion you really should try harder to understand the discussion.
Orwell's essay can be found here
https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
Interestingly the part you omitted in the middle of your quote included
Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning.
You took a quote of Orwell saying that it appears meaningless but has a buried meaning, cut off the second half, and tried to say that Orwell said it was meaningless.
|
I think Orwell nails it (in the complete quote). The word fascism is a mess, but there is a buried meaning that makes the word hard to replace. The alt-right is not "just" right wing authoritarian, or nationalist, or xenophobic, or militaristic. It's more than that, and the word that encompass this "more" is "fascist".
Deleuze described fascism as an ideology that has death at its core. The secret - or not so secret - motto of all fascists is "viva la muerte". Maybe it gives an element if answer.
|
On December 16 2020 19:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
For what it's worth, I entirely agree that Trump is a fascist. It was 'up for debate' until the election, but now the anti-democratic bend is indisputable. But 74 million americans voted for him. I don't believe that all those 74 million americans are actually fascists (even if a disheartening number of them are). What more is, you guys do have to coexist with those 74 million americans.
I'm not really expecting to bring Danglars back into the democrat mold, the genuine political differences seem too stark for that. However, I don't think the 'admit that you were wrong' or 'admit that Trump is a fascist' or 'realize that you are a fascist enabler through voting for Trump' are messages even remotely likely to sway anyone, rather, these are messages that further cements the differences and that keep pushing former Trump voters away from us. Virtually nobody listens to someone who insults them, and I hope we can avoid doing just that. That's all. Who is trying to sway fascists? That's never been how we've stopped them in the past.
Is the implication here that we should just punch Nazis Trump supporters in the face and move on with our lives? Or do you mean we should just ignore them completely? I feel there are potential pros and cons to each of those two ways, but I'm not sure if either of those two ways will effectively stop them from mobilizing and gaining in numbers.
|
On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
MAGAs truly live in a different world. They are all celebrating today, saying the second sets of electors sent by various states will guarantee Trump has another 4 years. Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win. The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater.
Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz
Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated
Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol.
The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess.
|
Norway28665 Posts
On December 16 2020 19:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
For what it's worth, I entirely agree that Trump is a fascist. It was 'up for debate' until the election, but now the anti-democratic bend is indisputable. But 74 million americans voted for him. I don't believe that all those 74 million americans are actually fascists (even if a disheartening number of them are). What more is, you guys do have to coexist with those 74 million americans.
I'm not really expecting to bring Danglars back into the democrat mold, the genuine political differences seem too stark for that. However, I don't think the 'admit that you were wrong' or 'admit that Trump is a fascist' or 'realize that you are a fascist enabler through voting for Trump' are messages even remotely likely to sway anyone, rather, these are messages that further cements the differences and that keep pushing former Trump voters away from us. Virtually nobody listens to someone who insults them, and I hope we can avoid doing just that. That's all. Who is trying to sway fascists? That's never been how we've stopped them in the past.
I dunno what you are advocating here? You're even more of a historian than I am, but my understanding is that we defeated fascism through militarily defeating the fascist countries. And then some countries did it with their own revolutions without outside aid, although that took a lot longer.
What part of that solution is transferrable to the US today? If Trump voters are fascists, there are 74 million people who will need to be defeated. I don't even know what 'defeating' them would entail, here. If they're not all fascists, then we need to try to present a viable alternative to the fascist leadership they've become allured by. Then, my impression is that the viable alternative is never going to be the side that insults them for having been stupid in the past.
|
On December 16 2020 20:38 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
MAGAs truly live in a different world. They are all celebrating today, saying the second sets of electors sent by various states will guarantee Trump has another 4 years. Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win. The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater. Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol. The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess.
I think your statement that "the left has won the long game" depends on what kind of game we're looking at. I think there is certainly an argument to be made that some conservative values are going to be preserved for a reasonably long period of time, given Trump's and McConnell's influence over the Supreme Court. That being said, to quote the great philosopher Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well known liberal bias", and the slow push leftward is something that happens anyway, regardless of who is in power.
Also, what do you mean by "trump is a trojan horse by the left"? Do you mean that attacking Trump is mistakenly attacking a symptom of the problem, rather than the underlying, fundamental issues that should be solved? Or do you mean that Trump is somehow a puppet of the left / useful idiot for the left?
|
On December 16 2020 20:38 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
MAGAs truly live in a different world. They are all celebrating today, saying the second sets of electors sent by various states will guarantee Trump has another 4 years. Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win. The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater. Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol. The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess.
Dude sorry, but you are mental. Do you even realize how insane you sound?
|
There are clear definitions of the term and they have been described. If you wish to continue to have this discussion you really should try harder to understand the discussion.
Really? Then why don't you list them? Go ahead, and I will find you 10 other definitions which completely or partly contratict them, all by historians, philosophers and researchers. You can spend a lifetime studying "facism", and the more you know about it, the harder it will become to make a clear definition. That so few use the term to define themselves makes it even harder. It should be beyond discussion that "facism" has mainly been used as an insult to discredit political opponents.
I found another quote from Deleuze:
The problem of fascism today cannot simply be addressed as that of the potential or variable return and reconstitution of fascism, as if fascism had ever, or could ever, ‘disappear’, only to return and be made again, like some spectral figure from the past. The problem of fascism cannot, we believe, be represented or understood as that of an historically constituted regime, particular system of power relations, or incipient ideology. Fascism, we believe, is as diffuse as the phenomenon of power itself.
|
On December 16 2020 18:04 Slydie wrote:I really don't like the "facist" word used to discribe political opponents. "Facist" is too negatively charged, and it means completely different things to different people. Show nested quote +"Being asked to define fascism is probably the scariest moment for any expert of fascism."
"As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much [that] it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries"
-Lachlan Montague, Australian writer and facism researcher www.livescience.comExtremely few would brand themselves as "facists" today. IMO, calling someone like conservatives or Trump supporters "facists" is counterproductive, and they will easily distance themselves from such a vague term.
Trumpism matches most scholarly definitions or explanations of fascism to a T.
|
On December 16 2020 20:50 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +There are clear definitions of the term and they have been described. If you wish to continue to have this discussion you really should try harder to understand the discussion. Really? Then why don't you list them? Go ahead, and I will find you 10 other definitions which completely or partly contratict them, all by historians, philosophers and researchers. You can spend a lifetime studying "facism", and the more you know about it, the harder it will become to make a clear definition. That so few use the term to define themselves makes it even harder. It should be beyond discussion that "facism" has mainly been used as an insult to discredit political opponents. I found another quote from Deleuze: Show nested quote +The problem of fascism today cannot simply be addressed as that of the potential or variable return and reconstitution of fascism, as if fascism had ever, or could ever, ‘disappear’, only to return and be made again, like some spectral figure from the past. The problem of fascism cannot, we believe, be represented or understood as that of an historically constituted regime, particular system of power relations, or incipient ideology. Fascism, we believe, is as diffuse as the phenomenon of power itself.
Yep, I know many people would find Deleuze awfully vague here, but he is still the one who described the most clearly fascism. He also talks about micro-fascisms, which imo is also a really useful concept. Other french philosophers also have some interesting takes; Rancière with his opposition police / politics, or Badiou and his "petainist transcendental" offers quite insightful analysis of contemporary fascisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
