Can we call them fascists yet?

The point being 'everything is fascist', if you don't like it.

"I'm not a fascist, you just don't like me. If we were friends my genocidal nationalist rantings would be okay with you." :cry:

Pro tip: genocidal nationalist rantings are why there is dislike in the first place.
 
The point being 'everything is fascist', if you don't like it.

And that's why I gave a detailed answer, since I knew what your point was. I was hoping to distinguish this case from your general criticism of the overuse of the word 'fascist'.
 
I will tell you what a fascist is, since so many of you are having such great difficulty.

A fascist, in his heart, believes he's doing great service for his community combating great evils, but it's not "what he fights", it's "how he fights".

A fascist employs compulsory behavior adjustment in those around him, first with shame, then with ostracization; with censorship then with destruction and violence.

A fascist tells you what you must condone. A fascist's ultimate dream is to "correct" the thoughts of others for the understood moral imperative.

"Punching a Nazi in the face" is fascism.

Antifa is, paradoxically, a fascist organization.

LGBTQ is a fascist organization.

Silencing or moving to silence people because they don't like your dumb, societal-manifest ideas is fascist.

SJWs are fascist.

This forum is a fascist, instiutional safe space by virtue of well-intentioned mods.

When you tell someone how they must feel, how they must communicate, how they must behave (outside parameters of physical or other material harm), you are, at least to some degree, absolutely fascist, because that's what it is to be fascist. That's what's going on in their heads.

You absolutely become the misunderstood bogeyman you hoped to defeat, in your absolute ignorance.
 
So, 99.99% of people are Fascist?

No, it just may seem that way for the crowd with which you surround yourself. Most people just don't give a flying flip what you think or how you think it. They're fine to walk away minding their own business.

It's not every person's damn job in life to conform to the virtues and values a bunch of bored loudmouths try to impress on us from the internet. Those people set the example for this new generation of SJW fascism and it's positively pathetic.
 
Welp, it's time for /pol/ bingo, everybody!
cfctrumpsupporterbingo.png
 
If you don't know what a fascist is you should ask, not tell.

Spouting off the wrong answer may be the quickest way to get the right one, but it's also a bit rude to do so intentionally.
 
Sing along now!
"Everyone is fascist! Everyone is cool, when he's part of the Reich..."
Lego_b46efa_871678.jpg
 
"I may not agree what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." is an excellent, appropriate expression for the narrative of liberal philosophy in western culture. What happens, however, when this starts to go south?

Let's first talk about "love". Love has little use for logic or reason, a person simply loves what he loves. We find aesthetic beauty in all manners of things, from other people to artistic expression to the simple things in nature as the patterns in leaves or in clouds. Telling someone what they should, or can, love is destructive. It leads to a deep welling of resentment and, generally ultimately, outright rebellion. On misplaced moral authority, humans throughout history have punished people for who and what they love, and that's pretty terrible.

Conversely, every person has a sort of comfort zone, a bubble surrounding each what they specifically do not love, do not find attractive or appropriate, feel is wrong for themselves and, by extension, those with whom they identify (in the given time). This should not be confused with hate, because hate is not the opposite of love, but apathy. Similar to what people love or like having little use for reason, what people dislike or in which they do not find the same love (you might feel) has little use for reason. Obligating or enforcing one to care for or embrace such concepts found abhorrent has exactly the same effect on the individual's psyche as obligating or enforcing what to love.

Now, you or I could tell each other we're wrong (really an abridged version of "you're wrong for me", unspoken), we can say, "that idea" or even "you" is/are stupid, and when it ends there, granted there's been some conflict, or friction, but both sides have been reasonably respected, opinions shared, and we walk away. However, when one side of this becomes destructive, or when one side is manipulated, by virtue of censorship, threat, intimidation, property or personal damage, destroyed art/literature or death, that is when the premise of hate (real hate, not label of hate for hyperbolic depiction for intentful dismissiveness) and fascism become legitimate arguments.

Because that type of practice is implicitly anathema to the principle of liberal thought in western culture.


One can "call himself liberal", but he is not practicing the ideals of liberalism if he is doing these kinds of things. Look at protests blocking speakers from speaking, demonstrations by people in pink piggy hats with the expressed intention of causing economic hardship, physically attacking or ripping the hats off of people who support a political opponent, breaking windows or setting fires in cities because one's not comfortable with the status quo, defacing property, shaming a multitude of followers into boycotting events as the Sochi Olympics or voting for whom they choose, denigrating or otherwise being critical in a libelous fashion toward people with whom you disagree...

These are all mannerisms, behaviors, practices of what one would do if actively seeking to suppress or impair other's (what we consider God-given) right to free thought and free expression. That is anti-liberalism. That is fascism. Agreeing to these actions, and becoming complicit in them, is equally anti-liberal and fascist agenda.

I will tell you I see identifiable forms of fascism from some sectors or the religious right, telling people how to live, who and how to love, how they can or should direct their lives, and by God I'm so sorry they have taken a beautiful idea of one's connection with the existential and turned it into a method of harm and destruction on others. It's shameful. That does not grant you license to push that pendulum so far in the opposite direction that you become the equally guilty practitioner. If you believe people have the right to think and feel as they, themselves, feel appropriate, then you lead by example, espousing those principles, showing how it's properly done.

Becoming the fascist doesn't somehow make you anti-fascist or wise to the idea. It just makes you as wrong as they are.

Agree to disagree.

Or just let the idea of free thought go out the window.
 
Last edited:
"I may not agree what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." is an excellent, appropriate expression for the narrative of liberal philosophy in western culture. What happens, however, when this starts to go south?

Let's first talk about "love". Love has little use for logic or reason, a person simply loves what he loves. We find aesthetic beauty in all manners of things, from other people to artistic expression to the simple things in nature as the patterns in leaves or in clouds. Telling someone what they should, or can, love is destructive. It leads to a deep welling of resentment and, generally ultimately, outright rebellion. On misplaced moral authority, humans throughout history have punished people for who and what they love, and that's pretty terrible.

Conversely, every person has a sort of comfort zone, a bubble surrounding each what they specifically do not love, do not find attractive or appropriate, feel is wrong for themselves and, by extension, those with whom they identify (in the given time). This should not be confused with hate, because hate is not the opposite of love, but apathy. Similar to what people love or like having little use for reason, what people dislike or in which they do not find the same love (you might feel) has little use for reason. Obligating or enforcing one to care for or embrace such concepts found abhorrent has exactly the same effect on the individual's psyche as obligating or enforcing what to love.

Now, you or I could tell each other we're wrong (really an abridged version of "you're wrong for me", unspoken), we can say, "that idea" or even "you" is/are stupid, and when it ends there, granted there's been some conflict, or friction, but both sides have been reasonably respected, opinions shared, and we walk away. However, when one side of this becomes destructive, or when one side is manipulated, by virtue of censorship, threat, intimidation, property or personal damage, destroyed art/literature or death, that is when the premise of hate (real hate, not label of hate for hyperbolic depiction for intentful dismissiveness) and fascism become legitimate arguments.

Because that type of practice is implicitly anathema to the principle of liberal thought in western culture.


One can "call himself liberal", but he is not practicing the ideals of liberalism if he is doing these kinds of things. Look at protests blocking speakers from speaking, demonstrations by people in pink piggy hats with the expressed intention of causing economic hardship, physically attacking or ripping the hats off of people who support a political opponent, breaking windows or setting fires in cities because one's not comfortable with the status quo, defacing property, shaming a multitude of followers into boycotting events as the Sochi Olympics or voting for whom they choose, denigrating or otherwise being critical in a libelous fashion toward people with whom you disagree...

These are all mannerisms, behaviors, practices of what one would do if actively seeking to suppress or impair other's (what we consider God-given) right to free thought and free expression. That is anti-liberalism. That is fascism. Agreeing to these actions, and becoming complicit in them, is equally anti-liberal and fascist agenda.

I will tell you I see identifiable forms of fascism from some sectors or the religious right, telling people how to live, who and how to love, how they can or should direct their lives, and by God I'm so sorry they have taken a beautiful idea of one's connection with the existential and turned it into a method of harm and destruction on others. It's shameful. That does not grant you license to push that pendulum so far in the opposite direction that you become the equally guilty practitioner. If you believe people have the right to think and feel as they, themselves, feel appropriate, then you lead by example, espousing those principles, showing how it's properly done.

Becoming the fascist doesn't somehow make you anti-fascist or wise to the idea. It just makes you as wrong as they are.

Agree to disagree.

Or just let the idea of free thought go out the window.

Note the false equivalences being drawn between protests and boycotts and censorship.

Only one side is allowed to speak its part in ADH's mind. If the wrong side speaks up then it is censorship, even when no state actor or ability to enforce this is in place.

Saying that LGBTQ people are fascist for requesting equality in law is really sinister though. I get that this is a game for you that idly play to score points, but its a matter of survival for others.

Well written, superficially persuasive, vile.
 
A fascist, in his heart, believes he's doing great service for his community combating great evils, but it's not "what he fights", it's "how he fights".
well sure, but that does not mean that somone who "believes he's doing great service for his community combating great evils, but it's not "what he fights", it's "how he fights"" is a fascist

Spoiler :
E1pUqvo.png


B is A, but A is not B
 
Note the false equivalences being drawn between protests and boycotts and censorship.

Only one side is allowed to speak its part in ADH's mind. If the wrong side speaks up then it is censorship, even when no state actor or ability to enforce this is in place.

Saying that LGBTQ people are fascist for requesting equality in law is really sinister though. I get that this is a game for you that idly play to score points, but its a matter of survival for others.

Well written, superficially persuasive, vile.

No where, once, does the text read, "someone is some thing for requesting some thing". That wasn't even flawed logic or a reading comprehension problem, it was invented.

Nothing says "LGBTQ people are fascist".

And survival?

Talk about false equivalency. Every person struggles to survive in the manner you're implying. Every one of us could be in danger at any given time by a person with senseless intent of violence or senseless intent of a myriad of discriminations, from the way we look to the way we dress to the way we smell to the way we speak to the way we keep our hair to... being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Are you going to argue, societally, gay people are in more danger, because the western world's out to get them? People call this "drinking the punch".

well sure, but that does not mean that somone who "believes he's doing great service for his community combating great evils, but it's not "what he fights", it's "how he fights"" is a fascist

Spoiler :
E1pUqvo.png


B is A, but A is not B

You've removed the qualifiers from the rest of the message. Nice try.
 
And survival?

Talk about false equivalency. Every person struggles to survive in the manner you're implying. Every one of us could be in danger at any given time by a person with senseless intent of violence or senseless intent of a myriad of discriminations, from the way we look to the way we dress to the way we smell to the way we speak to the way we keep our hair to... being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Are you going to argue, societally, gay people are in more danger, because the western world's out to get them? People call this "drinking the punch".

Mmmm. An curious claim.

Just to explore your position further, would you say that specific hate crime legislation in the US was NEVER necessary, or that it became OBSOLETE in a particular year. Are you able to state this year?
 
That really doesn't matter

Of course it does.

Mmmm. An curious claim.

Just to explore your position further, would you say that specific hate crime legislation in the US was NEVER necessary, or that it became OBSOLETE in a particular year. Are you able to state this year?

Doesn't matter. It is what it is because people in higher position of authority made it that way.

People have a right to not like things, not approve of things, keep things away from them which make them feel uncomfortable. "My" position is that I don't care about sexuality, it's just chemical bubbles popping in someone's head which give him stimulation and I'm 99.9999% likely to not ever be part of that stimulation. It. does. not. matter. But to people to whom it does matter , if they're grossed out by the conduct, if they're made agitated by the conduct or it gives them very real anxiety, those people have a right to say they don't like it, they have a right to keep it as far away from themselves as they deem fit until it starts to infringe on the freedom, actual movement, progress or existence of the person deemed "offensive".

People have that right to say "I don't like that, I think that is wrong, I won't have that on my property, I won't conduct myself with people who do that", and that freedom to make that decision is slowly being stripped away, not because of what anyone "needs". A person doesn't need to be all up in someone's grill with their lifestyle choices, but it's slowly becoming just ok that what "some people want" must infringe on the feelings and choices of others.

It's not always about what YOU want. Sometimes it really is about what others want and what makes them feel uncomfortable. Ignoring that just makes you an awful person, not a justice warrior.
 
Last edited:
I will tell you what a fascist is, since so many of you are having such great difficulty.

A fascist, in his heart, believes he's doing great service for his community combating great evils, but it's not "what he fights", it's "how he fights".

A fascist employs compulsory behavior adjustment in those around him, first with shame, then with ostracization; with censorship then with destruction and violence.

A fascist tells you what you must condone. A fascist's ultimate dream is to "correct" the thoughts of others for the understood moral imperative.

"Punching a Nazi in the face" is fascism.

Antifa is, paradoxically, a fascist organization.

LGBTQ is a fascist organization.

Silencing or moving to silence people because they don't like your dumb, societal-manifest ideas is fascist.

SJWs are fascist.

This forum is a fascist, instiutional safe space by virtue of well-intentioned mods.

When you tell someone how they must feel, how they must communicate, how they must behave (outside parameters of physical or other material harm), you are, at least to some degree, absolutely fascist, because that's what it is to be fascist. That's what's going on in their heads.

You absolutely become the misunderstood bogeyman you hoped to defeat, in your absolute ignorance.


Protecting yourself does not equal fascism. Not allowing people to protect themselves does.
 
Protecting yourself does not equal fascism. Not allowing people to protect themselves does.

That blanket statement is not all-encompassing. It entirely depends on the nature of the offense and the nature of the defense.

You've said something which appears as sense, but is loaded.

People in the early part of the 20th century, who were genuinely the textbook, old style fascists, genuinely believed, via pseudo-science or misunderstanding or even discombobulation, that they were protecting themselves and their communities. They believed they were very much protecting their ways of life and the ways of life they would hand to their children. You're entirely misunderstanding the point and motivation behind these types of actions if you're not getting this fact.

Were they misled? Yes, of course, at least probably, 90 percent? Things seemed to be getting so much better in the western world, albeit slowly. Maybe it's not moving fast enough for some people.
 
Last edited:
That blanket statement is not all-encompassing. It entirely depends on the nature of the offense and the nature of the defense.

You've said something which appears as sense, but is loaded.

People in the early part of the 20th century, who were genuinely the textbook, old style fascists, genuinely believed, via pseudo-science or misunderstanding or even discombobulation, that they were protecting themselves and their communities. They believed they were very much protecting their ways of life and the ways of life they would hand to their children. You're entirely misunderstanding the point and motivation behind these types of actions if you're not getting this fact.

Were they misled? Yes, of course, at least probably, 90 percent? Things seemed to be getting so much better in the western world, albeit slowly. Maybe it's not moving fast enough for some people.


Wrong. They were motivated by hating others for their situation, and thinking that they had a right to harm others so that they could have their own way.

On the other hand, the people you are attacking just want to be left alone. But can't because they are being attacked, and have to fight back to defend themselves.

There is a right to self defense. There is not a right to persecution.
 
Back
Top Bottom