|
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 don't think anything can be discussed if you don't even agree on the terminology, like what a Nazi or a fascist is.
In the strict meaning of the term, a Nazi is one who belongs to the Nazi Party of Germany led by Adolf Hitler. A Fascist is one who belongs to the Fascist Party of Italy led by Benito Mussolini.
Obviously, neither party exists today, having been disbanded after their respective nations' defeat in the second world war.
Obviously also, no one who calls Nick Fuentes a Nazi or Trump a Fascist is referring to the historical meaning of those terms. What's really being meant here is that they are xenophobic and in favour of totalitarianism and ultra-nationalism.
|
|
|
In the strict meaning of the term, a Nazi is one who belongs to the Nazi Party of Germany led by Adolf Hitler. A Fascist is one who belongs to the Fascist Party of Italy led by Benito Mussolini.
Neither of these have been true for about 75+ years.
Fascism is a broad concept but has a number of well-accepted scholarly characteristics, and Trump hits almost every one of these.
One of the definitions of fascism is that you can't vote them out.
No it isn't.
But okay you're correct, Nick Fuentes, the American of Mexican heritage, is literally a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party. I concede the point to you, sir.
The Nazi political party doesn't exist. You don't need to be a member of a political party to be a Nazi post-WWII.
Also its ignorance (either purposeful or just an astounding level of it) to cite someone's race/ethnicity as a reason they can't be white supremacists or otherwise racist. There were black people that were pro-slavery, women that were anti-suffrage, etc.
Finally, Fetterman is perfectly capable of being a senator. Multiple medical professionals (i.e. not rando's in the internet) have attested to this. He has dysphasia (i.e. he has difficulty formulating words to express what is in his head, though he can fully understand others) and multiple physicians are confident that he will fully recover from this. It is a common effect of a stroke. The irony of you citing Reagan, who openly admitted that he had Alzheimer's once he was out of office, is incredible.
|
The "No True Nazi/Fascist" defense would've been interesting, it we hadn't been through it a hundred times why Trump is a fascist and why neo-nazis are happily cavorting with him. If the best you've got at this point is a tokenist "but he's a Muslim/Latino/black man" defense of legitimately awful people, you're not making the points you think you are.
Also, I think there's room to discuss what the fuck is going on with Kanye and what the real problem is, because I think he's genuinely not well, genuinely needs help, and is being exploited for political sensationalism by people who couldn't care less about his mental health. I believe that. However, I also believe that doesn't excuse what he's said and done. And also, Trump is one of the people exploiting him lol. You're deflecting a hand grenade the second before it blows; who cares if we agree that Kanye is not well and is being exploited, the whole point being made was that Trump was having dinner with questionable people to further his awful goals. Some own on the libs that is.
|
There were jews that were pro nazi and marched with them.
I would honestly argue that trumps statements on the campaign trail and in office have been closer to Bernie sanders than fuentes. We are talking about someone even Shapiro can't defend, and he talks about "bad jews".
|
Canada11367 Posts
For me it's less interesting whether or not someone has enough beliefs to fall into the category of a Nazi or a fascist or whatever, and it's more interesting to pinpoint the individual beliefs that are bad. And with Fuentes, he was was always better at obfuscating- he'd say a bunch of crap, but then meme a bunch and giggle, which made him harder to pin down. Kanye is far more earnest and so just outright states anti-semite conspiracy theories... and Fuentes as his little hanger on continues follow him around as a flunky which means Fuentes has a lot less cover for his actual beliefs than in the past.
|
On December 30 2022 02:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The Nazi political party doesn't exist. You don't need to be a member of a political party to be a Nazi post-WWII.
To be a "literal Nazi" you probably need to be a member of a group because it's a literal and it's proper noun, and if you watch the news you will notice there are still living original "literal Nazis" being sentenced for crimes in Germany in the current year, whereas fascist is hardly ever a proper noun, same as communist or capitalist, despite that those nouns do have eponymous political parties.
Fascist has more just an authoritarian denotation now. For example, one political party that controls a legislature and executive might create a committee of their own people to investigate one of their largest opponents, then use that to recommend to their own legal system to charge and imprison him to prevent him from challenging them in future elections.
On December 30 2022 02:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Also its ignorance (either purposeful or just an astounding level of it) to cite someone's race/ethnicity as a reason they can't be white supremacists or otherwise racist. There were black people that were pro-slavery, women that were anti-suffrage, etc.
On December 30 2022 02:32 NewSunshine wrote:
The "No True Nazi/Fascist" defense would've been interesting, it we hadn't been through it a hundred times why Trump is a fascist and why neo-nazis are happily cavorting with him. If the best you've got at this point is a tokenist "but he's a Muslim/Latino/black man" defense of legitimately awful people, you're not making the points you think you are.
Yes, we all know any race can be racist against any other race. What I'm suggesting is that by Occam's razor if you are making judgments that the levels of white supremacist blacks, Latinos, and Muslims are increasing, you may have gotten one of your assumptions wrong and should look for a simpler explanation like the honest ones the black anti-semite specifically gives in every podcast he went on during the process of becoming persona non grata and destroying his career and brand within a matter of mere days. And someone who considers everyone else to be despicable may do well to reexamine the common denominator of their judgments.
On December 30 2022 02:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Finally, Fetterman is perfectly capable of being a senator. Multiple medical professionals (i.e. not rando's in the internet) have attested to this. He has dysphasia (i.e. he has difficulty formulating words to express what is in his head, though he can fully understand others) and multiple physicians are confident that he will fully recover from this. It is a common effect of a stroke. The irony of you citing Reagan, who openly admitted that he had Alzheimer's once he was out of office, is incredible.
Thank you for reading my post. Ignoring for a moment, for the sake of argument, the fact that Alzheimer's is not a tachyon and it experiences the arrow of time the same as the rest of the universe, meaning that having Alzheimer's after you leave office doesn't give you Alzheimer's in the past - Are you suggesting that there is some merit to the suggestion that Reagan couldn't hold office because of his difficulty remembering things, even though he could fully understand others? Don't you think those comments are "fucking disgusting (and completely inaccurate) and if you have a shred of integrity you should be ashamed of yourself?"
Because my position is we don't have tests to run for public office for exactly the same reasons we don't have tests to vote. Because "multiple medical professionals" (Fetterman only released one doctor's note that I know, and every doctor with a spine will tell you specific remote diagnosis of a public figure is not ethical, they can only speak generally about conditions of people they haven't examined and don't know) don't decide and aren't tasked with deciding who serves in office, or indeed what makes one fit for it. And indeed dysphasia, auditory processing problems, speech problems, Alzheimer's, dementia, mental fitness, potential of cognitive issues, narcissism, any one of these lots of real estate is all zoned potentially relevant to a voter. Much more so than something they said or tweeted 10 years ago or an untoward photograph.
On December 30 2022 02:32 NewSunshine wrote:
Also, I think there's room to discuss what the fuck is going on with Kanye and what the real problem is, because I think he's genuinely not well, genuinely needs help, and is being exploited for political sensationalism by people who couldn't care less about his mental health. I believe that. However, I also believe that doesn't excuse what he's said and done. And also, Trump is one of the people exploiting him lol.
Kanye supported Trump years ago and was a friend, and recently they had a private dinner at his private home. He brought two guests. It's like a bizarro version of Guess Who's Coming To Dinner.
On December 30 2022 02:32 NewSunshine wrote:
the whole point being made was that Trump was having dinner with questionable people to further his awful goals.
How?
How does pissing everybody off by merely having dinner with someone further his awful goals or exploit Kanye? Help me to understand.
Because again I don't get the worldview, you are creating this 12D evil genius Trump who like weeks into his presidential campaign had dinner with a few colorful anti-semites for some as yet unspecified nefarious master plan, knowingly exploiting a man who is going insane, then dumped them immediately after. Then you have to cynically believe Trump only dumped them because of the brave CNN and tweeting backlash that revealed his treacherous schemes. Making Trump not only an anti-semite white supremacist, but a backstabbing betrayer of brave white supremacists of color. So he's doubly damned. Why not simply believe he had dinner with a black man who was his friend, because he's not a racist, that man surprised him with extra guests. Then quickly realized they were all three mentally ill and obnoxious bigots and didn't want anything to do with them? Try to imagine the number of people Trump has met in his life and honestly ask yourself if he has room in his head to have known or cared who Milo and Nick Fuentes were.
Like you are saying you see the same things you've seen a hundred times. That's interesting. I just see the same things as 7 years ago too. Hello, this is the news, we're here with Obscure White Supremacist. What do you think about the fact that Trump has never called you poopy? "Oh, I think it's great." Okay, we're here outside Mar-a-Lago and - MR TRUMP! Any comment on Obscure White Supremacist? Can you respond to the criticism that you haven't called him poopy yet? - "Literally who?" Not so interesting anymore.
|
This is not complicated. Trump's favorite people are bigots, bullies, loudmouths, liars, and sycophants. Everyone already knows it unless they live under a rock, opinions just differ on whether that's a good or bad quality in a leader.
BTW, If you ever find yourself saying, "No no, that guy isn't literally a Nazi because they stopped admitting people into the Nazi Party after WW2," what other people are hearing is "Yep, I agree that person is horrible but I still want to argue with you."
|
On December 30 2022 04:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2022 02:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The Nazi political party doesn't exist. You don't need to be a member of a political party to be a Nazi post-WWII. To be a "literal Nazi" you probably need to be a member of a group because it's a literal and it's proper noun, and if you watch the news you will notice there are still living original "literal Nazis" being sentenced for crimes in Germany in the current year, whereas fascist is hardly ever a proper noun, same as communist or capitalist, despite that those nouns do have eponymous political parties.
No you don't.
Fascist has more just an authoritarian denotation now. For example, one political party that controls a legislature and executive might create a committee of their own people to investigate one of their largest opponents, then use that to recommend to their own legal system to charge and imprison him to prevent him from challenging them in future elections.
Holding someone accountable for their crimes isn't fascist. Literally none of this is inherent to the definition of fascism. Maybe you should stop simping for a criminal if you don't like that they're being exposed for the crimes they committed.
Do we want to talk about actual components of fascism? Because I'd love do. How many does Trump hit?
Umberto Eco's 14 properties of fascism:
1) Cult of tradition? Check
2) Rejection of modernism? Check
3) Cult of action for action's sake? Check
4) Disagreement is treason? Check
5) Fear of difference? Check
6) Appeal to a frustrated middle class? Check
7) Obsession with a plot? Check
8) Casting enemies as both too strong and too weak simultaneously? Check
9) Life is permanent warfare? Check
10) Contempt for the weak? Check
11) Hero mythology/culture ("cult of death")? Check
12) Machismo? Check
13) Selective populism? Check
14) Newspeak? Check
How about Emilio Gentile's definition? 10 points that are really long so you can Google them.
1) Check
2) Check
3) Check
4) Check
5) Check
6) Attempted
7) Attempted
8) Check
9) Check
10) Check
I could go on with specific scholars but here are some common traits cited by numerous other individuals:
1) Anti-democratic and authoritarian? Check
2) Single charismatic leader with an inconsistent ideology that insists they're the only one that can fix things? Check
3) Villifies cultural out-groups to rile up a base of followers? Check
4) Treats political opponents as enemies and uses aggressive/violent language against them? Check
5) No respect for checks on power and will use both public and private institutional power against enemies illegally? Check
6) Hypernationalism with strong tinges of imperialism? Check
7) Hyper-masculine, focus on traditional gender roles, family values, and "hero/warrior" mythos? Check
I've listed thirty one properties, some of which overlap, and Trump either already does or has attempted to do every single one of them. Not a great look.
Show nested quote +On December 30 2022 02:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Finally, Fetterman is perfectly capable of being a senator. Multiple medical professionals (i.e. not rando's in the internet) have attested to this. He has dysphasia (i.e. he has difficulty formulating words to express what is in his head, though he can fully understand others) and multiple physicians are confident that he will fully recover from this. It is a common effect of a stroke. The irony of you citing Reagan, who openly admitted that he had Alzheimer's once he was out of office, is incredible. Thank you for reading my post. Ignoring for a moment, for the sake of argument, the fact that Alzheimer's is not a tachyon and it experiences the arrow of time the same as the rest of the universe, meaning that having Alzheimer's after you leave office doesn't give you Alzheimer's in the past - Are you suggesting that there is some merit to the suggestion that Reagan couldn't hold office because of his difficulty remembering things, even though he could fully understand others? Don't you think those comments are "fucking disgusting (and completely inaccurate) and if you have a shred of integrity you should be ashamed of yourself?"
The irony is in you citing someone who had an explicit cognitive defect (one of the most severe chronic diagnoses one could have, and one that could very well have been present before his actual diagnosis, as Alzheimer's pretty much always is) in an arrogant attempt to Whataboutism your opponents. I never said anything about the merit of specific claims regarding Reagan's fitness for office while you make embarrassing and insulting comments about Fetterman's.
Because my position is we don't have tests to run for public office for exactly the same reasons we don't have tests to vote. Because "multiple medical professionals" (Fetterman only released one doctor's note that I know, and every doctor with a spine will tell you specific remote diagnosis of a public figure is not ethical, they can only speak generally about conditions of people they haven't examined and don't know) don't decide and aren't tasked with deciding who serves in office, or indeed what makes one fit for it. And indeed dysphasia, auditory processing problems, speech problems, Alzheimer's, dementia, mental fitness, potential of cognitive issues, narcissism, any one of these lots of real estate is all zoned potentially relevant to a voter. Much more so than something they said or tweeted 10 years ago or an untoward photograph.
This is wrong. There have been several physicians that have treated Fetterman that have made statements.
Maybe you shouldn't be such a hypocrite. Let's just remind you of your exact words:
However, PA voters went for a literal blob who can't form a sentence and is the puppet of his spouse over a thoracic surgeon
As, yes, please continue to wax poetic about it being unethical to judge someone's fitness for office with no direct access to them while you do that exact thing while also having no expertise in the medical field.
Also Oz has been repeatedly shown to be a total hack, an exploitative business charlatan, and apparently an animal abuser. Trying to quote him as a thoracic surgeon (a lazy appeal to authority) is a joke. He's an embarrassment to the medical community and no one with any professional integrity associates themselves with him due to his nearly two decades of horrendous conduct.
|
What is with the "own the libs" refrain that gets used so often around here? Do people actually believe that anyone would go to a 20 year old starcraft forum and make long ass posts just to trigger the handful of active liberal posters in a politics thread?
|
On December 30 2022 07:08 BlackJack wrote:
What is with the "own the libs" refrain that gets used so often around here? Do people actually believe that anyone would go to a 20 year old starcraft forum and make long ass posts just to trigger the handful of active liberal posters in a politics thread?
I mean, when they write unhinged diatribes that reek of desperation as they try to defend or praise literally everyone in Trump's sphere just because someone might dislike the man for an actual reason, yeah. They would. It's the idea of picking stupid arguments and flinging projected accusations of being obsessed with Trump because they can't stand the idea that they threw their hat in the ring with a proven conman, criminal, and above all loser.
|
United States43159 Posts
On December 30 2022 07:08 BlackJack wrote:
What is with the "own the libs" refrain that gets used so often around here? Do people actually believe that anyone would go to a 20 year old starcraft forum and make long ass posts just to trigger the handful of active liberal posters in a politics thread?
Yes. They're fucking weird.
|
Pretty sure we also had one of the since banned right wing posters literally use that as an argument. "Its not great but it pisses you off so I'm in favour of it".
|
I guess that begs the question that if people actually believe they aren't genuine and just want to troll by "owning the libs" then isn't engaging with them just giving them exactly what they want?
|
On December 30 2022 08:03 BlackJack wrote:
I guess that begs the question that if people actually believe they aren't genuine and just want to troll by "owning the libs" then isn't engaging with them just giving them exactly what they want?
Most people don't have a mind reader available, so you kinda have to engage with people to understand their position. Or you just dismiss every single right winger users?
|
On December 30 2022 08:03 BlackJack wrote:
I guess that begs the question that if people actually believe they aren't genuine and just want to troll by "owning the libs" then isn't engaging with them just giving them exactly what they want?
I would tend to say that’s exactly what engaging oBlade rn is doing. His arguments are so obviously unserious, I have no idea what his motives are but I don’t remember his arguments ever being so over-the-top self-parody before so I have to imagine there’s an element of trolling to it.
To your other question: yeah dude, we’ve had a bunch of posters over the years that clearly just wanted to “own the libs.” It was like xDaunt’s whole thing. Less common these days, admittedly.
|
It's an unfortunate side effect of using racist and white supremacist as a generic insult. If you use the term as a stand in for "this person is a horrible human being" then you open yourself up to legitimate criticism from your opponents for rightly claiming the absurdity of saying a black man is a white supremacist or similar, and then therefore your claims of racism can be dismissed as hyperbole.
Yeah, that person is still an absolute piece of shit, but you just gave them ammunition to fight back. Why not just call them, accurately, a piece of shit?
|
They called the "other side" Communist for the last ~80 years, maybe even longer. Now it's ok for them to throw a fit because the stuff works both ways?
|
On December 30 2022 17:49 Velr wrote:
They called the "other side" Communist for the last ~80 years, maybe even longer. Now it's ok for them to throw a fit because the stuff works both ways?
Exactly. If you call everyone to the left of Bush a communist, then you really don't have a high horse to sit on in this discussion.
Sure, exact terms are important and useful. But sometimes calling a nazi a nazi is also useful, even if they are technically a neonazi.
|
Calling someone a white supremacist isn't a generic insult, it's a description of the gestalt of their behavior. It just feels generic because the right routinely does things to deserve the description. That doesn't mean the words are wrong.
Contrary to all the moaning from Republicans on the subject, words still have meanings. And the words used to describe bigots, fascists and etc. have very, very specific meanings. If you don't like the label, don't earn it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
