DS9 - Tribunal

[FlynnTaggart]

Could the same danger exist if we replaced "fascist" with "pedophile" or "rapist"? Is it dangerous to be anti-pedophilia? Are you worried about the anti-rapists raging out of control? Have you ever stopped to ask "are people who want to diddle kids and people who want to stop those people actually morally the same"?

Apologies for jumping in but yes I think it can be dangerous to be anti-pedo or anti-rapist and for the same reasons anti-fascists can be dangerous. In a perfect world being against fascists, rapists, "pedoists", and every other ist that is objectively bad would not be a problem (though I guess in a perfect world they wouldn't exist). The problem is we don't live in a perfect world if a carrot being in charge hadn't clued you in, we live in a world of human biases and imperfection.

Being anti-pedo can and should be a good thing...... right up until its not. Who is a pedophile? Anyone convicted, anyone accused, anyone you feel is? Do you go after people who committed pedo acts or anyone who admits to having pedophile leanings? Is some scumbag who rapes small children the same as some 18 year old kid who banged their 17 year old boy/girlfriend or some grandma who took a picture of little Timmy in the tub? Who is the "bad guy"?

Being anti-pedo can lead to innocent people being attacked, their lives ruined by mob justice, even killed. Of course one can justify it or try to, say its better safe then sorry or you cannot wait for the legal system to work for justice but those are some effed up positions to take. There is a reason why some people even victims of abuse by pedophiles prefer the law to do its job, the for wheels of justices to roll rather then mob justice to lynch. Same with rape, an equally heinous thing that can sometimes lead to mob justice and innocent people becoming victims too.

Being anti-fascist is similar in my opinion, it can be dangerous because who can agree what fascism is, how can a mob accurately tell who is a fascist? They can't, even in this very thread the definition of fascism seems to change from person to person, while you yourself have a definition I might mostly agree with as fascism but others might not. To them being all they can be American might be nationalistic as all hell but not fascist while others might consider any strong state at all to be fascism (I wonder if the fucking idiots at Bundy ranch and Malheur wildlife preserve called the cops fascists, excuse the harsh language but thats one group of scum that make me a bit...... not happy), some Commie leaning groups might consider anything but Communism fascism, and certainly in the Soviet Union anything considered anti-Soviet was considered fascist with echo of that in recently omnomnomed Ukraine with the pro-Russian side calling Ukraine fascist for not bending the knee to Trump piss buddy.

A fascist to some people can be anyone who disagrees with them, fascist has become quite the insult these days and apparently back in like 60s and 70s for anyone who was considered The Man. For some being anti-fascist could mean just being against or opposed to them. The term is nebulous as all heck.

Though also I have to point out while being legit fascist saying "Howdy Hitler" and wearing some made in Taiwan jackboots is reprehensible as all hell (and not only because it made wearing long riding boots or even longer combat boots nearly impossible without some idiot saying "Nazi boots") but not atleast in the US illegal. A pedophile and a rapist by their very definitions are committing illegal acts. There should atleast in my opinion be a difference between illegal and legal heinous acts and the response. Attacking some cousin lover from Charleston named Cletus from wearing his momma's finest bedsheets is attacking someone who is doing a legal if reprehensible act, the person committing the crime is the attacker. Attacking someone pulling a jogger or a child into the bushes, thats stopping a crime.

Now to make it extra crystal Pepsi clear I am not defending fascists or thinking they are worthy of civil engagement or any such thing, just saying not everyone who is a "fascist" actually is (hence the need for the clarification as I myself could easily be accused of being one for not just mindlessly spouting "fascist bad") and they have rights the same as every other law abiding citizen doing something disgusting, horrifying, pants on head stupid, and stupid but still quite legal.

[GreyICE]

Being anti-fascist is similar in my opinion, it can be dangerous because who can agree what fascism is, how can a mob accurately tell who is a fascist? They can't, even in this very thread the definition of fascism seems to change from person to person, while you yourself have a definition I might mostly agree with as fascism but others might not...

A fascist to some people can be anyone who disagrees with them, fascist has become quite the insult these days and apparently back in like 60s and 70s for anyone who was considered The Man. For some being anti-fascist could mean just being against or opposed to them. The term is nebulous as all heck.

Like... it's literally a political philosophy. I just outlined it. It's not some nebulous thing, fascists expounded at length about it. If there's one thing fascists seem to love more than even stomping on people, it's the sound of their own fucking voice. It has a commonly agreed on definition. This is not "make up your own shit day". Actual political philosophy.

You might get some corner cases at the edge on what is and isn't fascist, but that's simply the same definitional problem you always get into whenever you make categories, see the duckbill platypus. The duckbill platypus doesn't suddenly mean alligators can be mammals.

I feel like the problem is much more that people like you don't actually know what the definition is.

Though also I have to point out while being legit fascist saying "Howdy Hitler" and wearing some made in Taiwan jackboots is reprehensible as all hell (and not only because it made wearing long riding boots or even longer combat boots nearly impossible without some idiot saying "Nazi boots") but not atleast in the US illegal. A pedophile and a rapist by their very definitions are committing illegal acts. There should atleast in my opinion be a difference between illegal and legal heinous acts and the response. Attacking some cousin lover from Charleston named Cletus from wearing his momma's finest bedsheets is attacking someone who is doing a legal if reprehensible act, the person committing the crime is the attacker. Attacking someone pulling a jogger or a child into the bushes, thats stopping a crime.

Okay, but if Cardassia makes it a crime not to salute the Cardassian state three times a day, but legal to kill anyone suspected of disloyalty, it's now illegal not to salute the Cardassian state, but legal to murder people. So if you murder someone for not saluting, you'd be committing a perfectly legal act. And that's what I think of anyone who says "that's illegal!" with no further reasoning behind it.

The point being that you're complaining that some people are being too mean and too aggressive towards the people who want to literally round up black people, Jews, gay people, and anyone they judge different, and kill them. If that's the extent of the complaint, let me look around, I'm sure the world's tiniest violin is around here somewhere.

[FlynnTaggart]

Like... it's literally a political philosophy. I just outlined it. It's not some nebulous thing, fascists expounded at length about it. If there's one thing fascists seem to love more than even stomping on people, it's the sound of their own fucking voice. It has a commonly agreed on definition. This is not "make up your own shit day". Actual political philosophy.

You might get some corner cases at the edge on what is and isn't fascist, but that's simply the same definitional problem you always get into whenever you make categories, see the duckbill platypus. The duckbill platypus doesn't suddenly mean alligators can be mammals.

I feel like the problem is much more that people like you don't actually know what the definition is.

Yes it is a political philosophy. So is communism and socialism, doesn't stop people from abusing those terms either. There is a good reason McCarthyism is considered a term and not a positive one, a bunch of people accused of being Commies based on shoddy evidence and outright false accusations, just being accused of being a Communist was enough to get people blacklisted or worse. People today like to accuse the European Union of being Communist (its even got Union in its name) for fishing quotas and social programs. Red-baiting is just as much of a time honored argument as calling someone as fascist.

For some people it is "make up your own shit day" and its not like thats a new thing, even freaking George Orwell commented on the overuse of the term as just an insult. People call Antifa fascists despite being "anti-fascist" because some of their tactics might resemble fascism like attacking opponents verbally and especially physically to suppress them. Are Antifa fascists just because someone called them that?

There isn't even a single accepted concrete definition of fascism even by experts, there is debate by scholars, historians, and political experts. My lack of knowledge on the definition is of course explainable on me being a dumbass, can't afford the same status to experts with real degrees from real colleges.

Apologies for using wikipedia as a source, I know some people don't like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

The definition doesn't even matter really, could mean oppressive authoritarianism or fans of facsimiles but it doesn't when people apply it inaccurately anyway. When some people call others an fascist they are not saying "this fellow is some ultranationalist with a hardon for killing minorities" as a commentary on that person's political beliefs they mean "this fellow is bad and should feel bad" to insult or denigrate.

Okay, but if Cardassia makes it a crime not to salute the Cardassian state three times a day, but legal to kill anyone suspected of disloyalty, it's now illegal not to salute the Cardassian state, but legal to murder people. So if you murder someone for not saluting, you'd be committing a perfectly legal act. And that's what I think of anyone who says "that's illegal!" with no further reasoning behind it.

The point being that you're complaining that some people are being too mean and too aggressive towards the people who want to literally round up black people, Jews, gay people, and anyone they judge different, and kill them. If that's the extent of the complaint, let me look around, I'm sure the world's tiniest violin is around here somewhere.

Bad comparison considering while some Nutzi spewing his garbage is reprehensible for anyone with functioning ears its not harmful beyond feelings (of course acting on their rhetoric is different) nor do we live in a fascist dictatorship where casual murder is tolerated for not kowtowing to the state (probably). The reasoning behind the "stop you violated the law" is that we live in a relatively free society where people are relatively free with their speech but are not relatively free to physically attack others for speech even reprehensible. Murdering people for now smacking yourself in the head is a law from an unjust state and an unjust law in my opinion, allowing people to say bad stuff is not a sign of an unjust state or an unjust law.

The point being that I'm complaining (I try to stick with my strengths) about some people physically assaulting people for saying they want to literally round up black people, Jews, and so on, for doing a legal if disgusting act to be met with a disproportionate and illegal act. You ain't supposed to be feeling bad for them (and you wouldn't be a bastard to take some pleasure when one of them is hit, its only human thus confirming I ain't an anthropomorphic cat like I thought as a kid, I've never been bright) but supposed to acknowledge they are having their rights violated, being treated as if the law doesn't apply to them because they are the bad people. To run the risk of pulling a "but both sides bad" fallacy that sounds an awful lot like fascism (or some peoples definition of fascism) right there with the accepted oppression of a group that is considered bad.

To get into self serving territory having the rights violated of even the worst person is bad not for their sake but the sake of everyone else, the worst person today may not be the worst person tomorrow. A fascist getting punched is fine today but not so great tomorrow when its you being accused of being a fascist which leads kinda back to my earlier point of a suspect definition. When a fascist is anyone who is considered bad, when facism is just a smear word rather then a label put on someone as an accurate reflection of their ideology.

[Darth Wedgius]

I'll use America as the example, see if this rhetoric rings any bells.

Thank you! Sincerely. Your definition doesn't meet the dictionary's, for example (Merriam-Webster):

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

But that's OK. I asked for your definition, and you (more or less) gave me your definition.

Fascism is the doctrine of the extreme nationalist state - the state not as a servant of the people, or a necessary evil, but instead the state as a higher purpose. Not just the name of where you live, or a culture, but an ideal to strive for - to become more American, to embody the spirit of America, as an ideal, and a higher calling, and the source of morality. Fascism is a fusion of spiritualism and materialism - the nation is both an object of veneration, and serving the fascists makes this abstract nation better. Fascism does not set aside religion, but co-opts it. Like everything in fascist society, religion becomes an agent of the state. The state chooses what religious displays are appropriate, and destroys other religions actively (fascism also rejects atheism and agnosticism).

The fascist vision of nationalism is that the fascist state is no longer a location or a people. It is a spiritual ideal that is greater than simply a location, and thus justifies damage to the physical location in the name of furthering the spiritual ideal. America, not as a land mass in the continent of North America, or the 330 million people living here, but America as an ideal to strive for, even if some of those people get sacrificed or land gets damaged along the way. Because of this, you can make America "more American" - in fact Fascists will often decry that their country is not "American enough" despite that being tautologically false (America is the maximum amount of America anything can be). To a fascist this makes sense though, because what it means is "the nation and people of America do not embody these 'American ideals'" (and naturally we, the fascists, shall fix this).

It's true that Americans often talk of American ideals, and think of some things as more American than others. I'm not sure that having national ideals is a bad thing, or that striving to meet those ideals is a bad thing, though of course it can be done badly.

Fascism preaches rugged individualism for the self. That every man's life is a struggle (fascism is quite sexist) and that strong men overcome the struggle. Strong men become the implement for winning the struggle - morally, physically, and intellectually, they become the ideal fascist man. They fight to overcome, they look down on those who are weaker, they disdain an easy life and reserve nothing but scorn for those who seek it. This self-made strong man willingly joins with other strong men to make a strong state.

Rugged individualism is fascist? Here is where you miss the dictionary definition the most, I think. Fascism (as it is usually defined) is supposed to make the individual important mainly as he/she serves the nation/state.

But that's interesting to hear from you. In all seriousness, do you believe Libertarians are quasi-fascist? I'm not being flippant. I'm really curious.

Facists bring this struggle outwards as well. Fascism is pro-use of force, pro-military. The fascist state is a strong state, ready and willing to use military power to project itself and protect its identity. Fascists view war as having a grim nobility - that it is the great crucible of the spirit, and that the strongest and the bravest emerge from there.

Well, Trump wants to bring troops home... But I might be being unfair. You might not consider Trump especially guilty of this, but still consider America guilty of it. I wonder if this makes the USSR fascist. or if that would only be in common with other traits. Anyway, moving on...

Fascism vocally and explicitly rejects what it sees as "Marxism". Specifically, it rejects any notion that well being can be measured by happiness, that inequity of material goods is a problem, and that there is any issue with the idea of classes. To be higher class is to be more deserving, because you worked harder. If the hard work does not reward the fascist, it is because Marxists/Socialists/Jews/Immigrants have conspired to steal that success away from the American, the man who embodies the ideals of America, who works hard and who struggles, and who has earned those rewards. If hard work does reward the fascist, it is their due.

Well, Marxism is authoritarian, is it not? But, to be fair, you said that fascism rejects what it sees as Marxism. I do not see widespread belief that richer people are necessarily more deserving. Some people just inherit wealth. Some people are lucky. Ask the average conservative what he thinks of millionaires in Hollywood.

However, it is statistically true that the rich do tend to work longer than average hours, and there is a correlation between IQ and wealth.

Fascism is the embrace of this absolute, total being of "America" as a mission, as a goal, as an ideal, as a purpose, and as a state. It is the ultimate totalitarian ideal. Your identity should be American, your goals should be American, your life should be American, your morality should be American.

A central narrative to fascism is that when the state is not this, the state has been robbed of its greatness - by Marxists, by liberals, by Jews. And the fascist must retake this greatness, and return the nation to its absolute root, so that everyone knows how American it is.

Well, if your morality is not American, maybe America isn't the best place for you? Also, conservatives, in my experience, tend to be liberty-minded, including being in favor of people directing themselves to their own goals. That is, you can set your own purpose in life. Want to be rich? OK. Want to help the poor? OK. Want to bicycle around the world? OK. Want to reach the ultimate human performance in juggling avocados? OK.

This sound like anyone? In any parts?

Edit: Trump's July 4th Speech, a brilliant example.

THE PRESIDENT: We gather tonight to herald the most important day in the history of nations: July 4th, 1776. At those words, every American heart should swell with pride. Every American family should cheer with delight. And every American patriot should be filled with joy, because each of you lives in the most magnificent country in the history of the world, and it will soon be greater than ever before. (Applause.)

...

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.

AUDIENCE: Booo —

THE PRESIDENT: Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-south-dakotas-2020-mount-rushmore-fireworks-celebration-keystone-south-dakota/

Lets look at this:

"Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them. (Applause.)"

But... "these people" are "the American people." Both groups are American, right? Unless "America" is something other than a nation and a people - unless America is a collection of morals, values, and ideals, a philosophy and a faith, a value system that is greater than the nation and the people.

You see what I mean, I do hope.

Yes, when He said "the American people", He didn't mean literally every American.

If you'll indulge my curiosity, do you think "antifacists" mostly use your idea of "fascism" more than the ones that involve authoritarianism?

[GreyICE]

Thank you! Sincerely. Your definition doesn't meet the dictionary's, for example (Merriam-Webster):

The dictionary is not where you find meaning for complex philosophies. Or anything complex really, it's a dictionary. It's meant to be used because you've literally never seen the word before and encountered it for the first time. If this is your first time seeing the word fascism, that is a decent breakdown in only three lines of text.

I'm using the definition used by people like Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. Who would kind of be experts on it, seeing as how they invented it.

Rugged individualism is fascist? Here is where you miss the dictionary definition the most, I think. Fascism (as it is usually defined) is supposed to make the individual important mainly as he/she serves the nation/state.

But that's interesting to hear from you. In all seriousness, do you believe Libertarians are quasi-fascist? I'm not being flippant. I'm really curious.

From The Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito Mussolini:

Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it. As for the individual, so for the nation, and so for mankind (4). Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (artistic, religious, scientific) (5) and the outstanding importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, by which man subjugates nature and creates the human world (economic, political, ethical, and intellectual).

This flavor of rugged individualism is certainly fascist. The idea of man struggling to win himself a worthy place by becoming the physical, moral, and intellectual paragon that win themselves a worthy place is the fascist ideal. Fascists often see history as a procession of Great Men who are these paragons. These Great Men are part of the ideal of their nation state, paragons to strive towards being.

Myself? I probably identify closest as a Libertarian, although not the typical flavor of "fuck the government, let corporations run everything Blade Runner is our future" AnCap shit. Libertarians differ in an extremely important way. A Libertarian does not give themselves the moral authority to judge your lifestyle (or you the moral authority to judge theirs). As long as you do not impinge upon others freedoms, as long as you are not seeking to cage them, any way you choose to use your freedom is as good as any other. Do you choose to paint pictures? Did you dedicate your life to birdwatching? Write a bestselling novel? Work in a factory? Do custom landscaping and topiary? Work at a convenience store? Strip your clothes off and do sexy dances to bad music?

These are all beyond the moral authority to judge for a Libertarian, because that's how you choose to use your freedom. There is no "winning", there is no "worthy place", there is no "essential value of work", and work certainly shouldn't subjugate anyone or anything. In this way the Libertarian might be the most complete rejection of the ideals of the fascist, because a Libertarian rejects the entire concept their ideology is based on wholesale.


Now if we're talking some brand of Randroids who tend to have the IQ of lukewarm water, yeah, they frequently spout off semi-fascist rhetoric. They're not really fascists, they just found the rhetoric and think it makes them sound smart. All their rhetoric is based around what they think sounds smart, because certainly if you possess any ability to analyze anything (or even an appreciation for good literature) you started puking about 50 pages into Atlas Shrugged and it never lets up.

Well, Trump wants to bring troops home... But I might be being unfair. You might not consider Trump especially guilty of this, but still consider America guilty of it. I wonder if this makes the USSR fascist. or if that would only be in common with other traits.

The USSR had fascist elements, although it's a poor example, mostly because of how fragmented its government was. It's really hard to assign any strong values to the state when Stalin's brand of leadership was raw pragmatism, the NKVD/Party/Army all had separate values (as planned by Stalin), and the entire thing was held together through fear.

Current day China is a good example of a modern fascist state.

Well, Marxism is authoritarian, is it not? But, to be fair, you said that fascism rejects what it sees as Marxism. I do not see widespread belief that richer people are necessarily more deserving. Some people just inherit wealth. Some people are lucky. Ask the average conservative what he thinks of millionaires in Hollywood.

However, it is statistically true that the rich do tend to work longer than average hours, and there is a correlation between IQ and wealth.

Ever noticed how many anti-Semitic conspiracy theories float around about Hollywood? About any businessman who isn't sufficiently "American"? Many people will tell you (ABS is one) that Hollywood is a communist (jewish) institution that pushes Marxist values.

There are the undeserving rich, those who were made so not by American values, but by the shadowy conspiracy that lurks behind the scenes. This enemy explains why anything that is inconsistent about a fascist worldview happens. If something in reality does not match the ideology, it is a result of the conspiracy. The Lugenpresse (literally: lying press) who are owned by the Jews reporting fake news. The conspiracy to push superstar singers and actors with "un-American" values. The money flowing from shadowy Jewish hands (George Soros?).

This is ever an inevitability in Fascism, because an absolute worldview allows for no grey edges, and yet reality has a pesky way of not behaving as fascists wish it to. Therefore the vast conspiracy - the Jews, the Marxists, the Deep State, the Soros fund, etc. - must be responsible for altering the entire world, so it works this other way. The paradox of the fascist's enemy - so powerful it must be everywhere, but so weak that this "self-made man adhering to strong German/Italian/American values" can defeat them easily.

Well, if your morality is not American, maybe America isn't the best place for you?

The United States of America is a land mass, 3.8 million square miles in size. It has many forests, mountains, plains, beaches, deserts, every type of geography you can imagine. You know what it does not have, in all of its 3.8 million square miles? Morality.

The United States is an arbitrary geographical area carved out of a larger continent. It has no morality whatsoever. It cannot. It is inanimate. Inanimate objects simply exist. They are. A sofa has no morality, a lawn chair is not a moral tutor, and neither is some piece of geography.

To assign it some abstract morality and then hold other people to it is the delusion of the fascist mind.

Yes, when He said "the American people", He didn't mean literally every American.

Of course not. No fascist means "everyone" when they say "the American people". What they mean is "the people who align to the true vision of America, the fascist ideal of the nation state." That's why they're fucking fascists. You can't just have a disagreement, a disagreement means you're not an American, but living on American soil. You're a foreign invader! They can use force to fight off a foreign invader, they can use any tactics they want to. If you can't be re-educated, you're a problem that needs a "solution"

If you'll indulge my curiosity, do you think "antifacists" mostly use your idea of "fascism" more than the ones that involve authoritarianism?."

Do you think anything I've described is NOT authoritarian?

Most anti-fascists do indeed understand fascism, and can make a distinction between non-fascist authoritarians (like Saddam Hussein, King George III, or present day Saudi Arabia) and fascist groups (ISIS, modern China, North Korea, and plenty of movements in America and parts of Europe). There's a very clear distinction between what I've described here and the House of Saud, for instance.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Mussolini is a bit of an unreliable narrator imho.

[GreyICE]

Yes it is a political philosophy. So is communism and socialism, doesn't stop people from abusing those terms either. There is a good reason McCarthyism is considered a term and not a positive one, a bunch of people accused of being Commies based on shoddy evidence and outright false accusations, just being accused of being a Communist was enough to get people blacklisted or worse. People today like to accuse the European Union of being Communist (its even got Union in its name) for fishing quotas and social programs. Red-baiting is just as much of a time honored argument as calling someone as fascist.

I can and have pointed out rhetoric from the Republican party and the right wing that is fascist in nature. Not that I am calling fascist, that meets every definition of fascism. The only person who responded to that Trump quote is Darth Wedgius, and his response was "what if fascism was right about The State and they had the right idea all along?"

Their rhetoric is actually, legitimately fascist. Stop pretending otherwise.

Bad comparison considering while some Nutzi spewing his garbage is reprehensible for anyone with functioning ears its not harmful beyond feelings (of course acting on their rhetoric is different) nor do we live in a fascist dictatorship where casual murder is tolerated for not kowtowing to the state (probably). The reasoning behind the "stop you violated the law" is that we live in a relatively free society where people are relatively free with their speech but are not relatively free to physically attack others for speech even reprehensible. Murdering people for now smacking yourself in the head is a law from an unjust state and an unjust law in my opinion, allowing people to say bad stuff is not a sign of an unjust state or an unjust law.

The point being that I'm complaining (I try to stick with my strengths) about some people physically assaulting people for saying they want to literally round up black people, Jews, and so on, for doing a legal if disgusting act to be met with a disproportionate and illegal act. You ain't supposed to be feeling bad for them (and you wouldn't be a bastard to take some pleasure when one of them is hit, its only human thus confirming I ain't an anthropomorphic cat like I thought as a kid, I've never been bright) but supposed to acknowledge they are having their rights violated, being treated as if the law doesn't apply to them because they are the bad people. To run the risk of pulling a "but both sides bad" fallacy that sounds an awful lot like fascism (or some peoples definition of fascism) right there with the accepted oppression of a group that is considered bad.

To get into self serving territory having the rights violated of even the worst person is bad not for their sake but the sake of everyone else, the worst person today may not be the worst person tomorrow. A fascist getting punched is fine today but not so great tomorrow when its you being accused of being a fascist which leads kinda back to my earlier point of a suspect definition. When a fascist is anyone who is considered bad, when facism is just a smear word rather then a label put on someone as an accurate reflection of their ideology.

I don't think punching a fascist is super productive, but it's funny, and it's entirely in line with their philosophy. If you turn someone's philosophy around, apply it to them, and they go "nooooo you can't do that! You can't treat me like how I treat others! You're so mean and awful!" I think it's nothing but fucking humor value.

Excuse me if I'm not getting super worked up about Richard Spencer getting punched. That was what, three years ago? There hasn't been some epidemic of Nazi punching. The violence before that was from the right wing, the violence after that was from the right wing. The best argument against that is the BLM protests, and you're STILL looking at most of the violence coming from right wing sources (and BLM literally being unrelated to "punch a Nazi" except in Trump's diseased little head).

I've been listening to this rhetoric ever since Richard Spencer got punched. You know what? No fucking wave of violence. Same hand wringing, same excusing fascism, no wave of violence.

Where is the violence my friend? And do you have any desire to discuss the fascist rhetoric being used and why it's dangerous? Or are you just going to pretend it's not happening?

[GreyICE]

Mussolini is a bit of an unreliable narrator imho.

Oh and this? Stuff it. Mussolini is one of the founders of fascism, and he co-wrote that with Giovanni Gentile, who is literally called "the philosopher of fascism". If I quoted The Communist Manifesto when discussing communism, you wouldn't say "well Karl Marx isn't the most reliable source on Marxism, after all."

The Doctrine of Fascism is literally Fascism 101, from the words of a Fascist - what they find good, true, and right about Fascism. When someone starts to sound like they're quoting it, well. (Also if anyone thinks Starship Troopers isn't written from a deliberately fascist perspective, read the two side-by-side. Heinlein uses paraphrases of the Doctrine all the time)

If you ever want to know what Fascism is about and why it's attractive, well... actually, read Starship Troopers. It's better written. But the Doctrine is much shorter.

[FlynnTaggart]

I can and have pointed out rhetoric from the Republican party and the right wing that is fascist in nature. Not that I am calling fascist, that meets every definition of fascism. The only person who responded to that Trump quote is Darth Wedgius, and his response was "what if fascism was right about The State and they had the right idea all along?"

Their rhetoric is actually, legitimately fascist. Stop pretending otherwise.

Okay, when did I or you bring up Republicans in our little back and forth? And also very very false. Some Republicans might be, some do fascist sort of things but to say the Republicunt party and the right wing in general is fascist shows you are fully embracing the "fascism is whatever I believe it is" bologna. The free market numbskulls small government right wingers don't come off as authoritarianism, fascists want the government to control every aspect of their life. I mean for fucks sake you could make the argument Dems are more fascist considering some want a larger government with more control over daily life and its just as bull then as when people call them Communists for wanting bigger social(ist) safety nets.

Republicans bad, Trump bad, yeah okay fine but calling them fascists completely bungles the meaning of the term and deprives it of the horror that should be associated with real fascism. Fascism is not people you don't like.

I don't think punching a fascist is super productive, but it's funny, and it's entirely in line with their philosophy. If you turn someone's philosophy around, apply it to them, and they go "nooooo you can't do that! You can't treat me like how I treat others! You're so mean and awful!" I think it's nothing but fucking humor value.

Excuse me if I'm not getting super worked up about Richard Spencer getting punched. That was what, three years ago? There hasn't been some epidemic of Nazi punching. The violence before that was from the right wing, the violence after that was from the right wing. The best argument against that is the BLM protests, and you're STILL looking at most of the violence coming from right wing sources (and BLM literally being unrelated to "punch a Nazi" except in Trump's diseased little head).

I've been listening to this rhetoric ever since Richard Spencer got punched. You know what? No fucking wave of violence. Same hand wringing, same excusing fascism, no wave of violence.

Where is the violence my friend? And do you have any desire to discuss the fascist rhetoric being used and why it's dangerous? Or are you just going to pretend it's not happening?

If you turn around and apply someone's philosophy to them then you stoop to their level, can be just as bad as them if you are doing the same sort of reprehensible garbage they are doing. You can't take the moral high ground to lop of limbs when you are down in the dirt punching people for disagreements, when you act like them. To use a wildly outsized comparison, little hard to act like the good guy against the Nazis when you got death camps of your own.

Its not about waves of violence (which one could argue have been happening at Antifa/far reich.... sorry right protests which always end with people injured on both sides) its about violence in general. You shouldn't feel sorry for Richard Spence for being punched you should dislike it because a person not doing anything violent (unless you consider words violence which I think would be insane) who had violence visited upon him for stating his (horrible) opinion. A difference of opinion no matter how vast should not turn into fisticuffs.

Fascist rhetoric is dangerous but its just words, it only holds power when you give it power. Shitbags like Richard Spencer are only going to appeal to morons and losers unless people empower him, make him sympathetic. I mean for fuck sake I am about as anti-Nazi as they get and here I am defending that piece of fecal stain on the underwear of society because his rights were violated, because he was made into a victim, because somehow in this crazy fucked up world he was the one in the right legally and even arguably morally. A freaking legit Neo Nazi, an actual fascist.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Mussolini is a bit of an unreliable narrator imho.

Stuff it.

Are you daft? There's no official or coined definition of Fascism. Benni didn't make up the concept, he made up a campaign. He's an example of Fascism, not a purveyor. Forefront maybe, but nobody is taking his "definition" of it seriously.