Can we call them fascists yet?

[AppleDumplingHead]

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.

To the former, you're... not right. That's not how these things work. It might seem very 2-sided from the vantage point of the disenfranchised, but it's never so simple. I can't "make" you understand that, but if you cared to find the root of the problem, and it was and still is a problem, you'd put forth that effort.

To the latter, again, it depends on the nature of the attack and the nature of the defense. You're being so vague, I can't help but be equally vague. Most of these slights or trespasses to which you're alluding can simply be hashed out without special protections or just saying "that's just your opinion, man". Some people are just very good at playing the victim and wish disproportionate negativity to the person or persons which specifically offend them. That has repercussions, too, as charges of malicious prosecution. Be very measured in your responses, or even the jerk with the loud mouth will end up with your paycheck, no matter how good you are at the "soccer flop".

Also, who in your hyperbolic nonsense are you accusing me of "attacking"? Are you trying to win the internet award for exaggeration?

 

[El_Machinae]

This seems an odd turn. Fascism is a small piece of the entirety of political history. It's not super-well defined, but it's reasonably defined. "Anti-liberal" is not the same thing as "fascist".

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

This seems an odd turn. Fascism is a small piece of the entirety of political history. It's not super-well defined, but it's reasonably defined. "Anti-liberal" is not the same thing as "fascist".

Robert Paxton says that fascism is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

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

So what's missing? The outward, blatant displays of violence? no... Preoccupation with humiliation or victimhood? no.... Militants? no... Abandonment of democratic liberties? no....

ok, I give up. What makes those anti-liberal groups I listed non-fascist?

 

[Lexicus]

ok, I give up. What makes those anti-liberal groups I listed non-fascist?

Did you even bother to read your own links? Paxton identifies fascism specifically as aligned with the political right and tactically allied with conservatives.

Are any of the "groups" you listed (I put "groups" in scare quotes because as @Lohrenswald points out, many of them are not really groups or organizations) aligned with the right or tactically allied with conservatives?

No.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Did you even bother to read your own links? Paxton identifies fascism specifically as aligned with the political right and tactically allied with conservatives.

Are any of the "groups" you listed (I put "groups" in scare quotes because as @Lohrenswald points out, many of them are not really groups or organizations) aligned with the right or tactically allied with conservatives?

No.

You know as well as I, you can pretty much throw "left/right political spectrum" out the window when comparing these things 2 or more decades apart. What was leftist in 1880 was not leftist in 1915, and what was leftist in 1940 was not leftist in 1965. JFK was more of a republican than I am by today's standards, Lincoln was more of a modern democrat. Then throw in all the various "whatever" that cling to the fringes of the tickets...

Are you for one minute going to call Hillary Clinton a "leftist"?

You can do better than that. I've seen it.

 

[El_Machinae]

As an aside, though, I really did like the term 'regressive left'. It was a useful description. It quickly spiraled into a pejorative. But it's a good term, in that it exists and is a bad thing.

xpost: but the term was 'conservative'. An incredible number of people self-identify with the term. It's still a useful indicator. As well, the article was written only 20 years ago. So, the inheritance of that term (while mutated) is still a reasonable proxy.

Transgender political consideration is certainly not 'conservative'. If it's going to be over-indulged, it will be by the regressive left.

 

[Lexicus]

You know as well as I, you can pretty much throw "left/right political spectrum" out the window when comparing these things 2 or more decades apart.

No, I don't. And I don't see what Hillary Clinton, JFK, or Lincoln have to do with this. Fascism was far-right in the '30s and it's far-right now. Your views bear far more resemblance to fascism than any of the things you listed in that post.

That you would bring in Paxton, and claim that his definition of fascism supports the assertions you made in posts 43 and 49 is almost surreal.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Heck, what's "left" in Europe today is more akin to the USA "right". Our "left" today, in any other era, might have been called the "what the hell are you saying" side.

 

[Lexicus]

Heck, what's "left" in Europe today is more akin to the USA "right".

Yet another entirely delusional statement. I'm not sure why you think the US right resembles social democrats or Communists, but I suppose that's no less ridiculous than your assertion that "SJWs are fascist" or that "LGBTQ is a fascist organization."

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

No, I don't. And I don't see what Hillary Clinton, JFK, or Lincoln have to do with this. Fascism was far-right in the '30s and it's far-right now. Your views bear far more resemblance to fascism than any of the things you listed in that post.

That you would bring in Paxton, and claim that his definition of fascism supports the assertions you made in posts 43 and 49 is almost surreal.

Fascism by his definition was compensatory..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Compensatory

..militant..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant

...cults...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cult

...working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

...to bring their idealism to the forefront via abandonment of democratic liberties (as I described) and damaging/violent political action.

 

[Lexicus]

The fact that you evidently think that post constitutes an argument is...amusing.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Heck, what's "left" in Europe today is more akin to the USA "right".

Right, because we all know how much Republicans and the Swedish Social Democrats are alike.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Right, because we all know how much Republicans and the Swedish Social Democrats are alike.

I didn't know anything about the Swedish Social Democrats, so I checked it out.

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

Uh... hmm...

were you trolling?

Please say your sarcasm was reverse psychology.

 

[Lexicus]

Uh... hmm...

were you trolling?

Just FYI, this is the party that @Broken_Erika was actually talking about

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

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Just FYI, this is the party that @Broken_Erika was actually talking about

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

Hmm, well it's not very applicable. We don't have a measurable communist party, unless you want to count the fringe "socialist-y-ish" parts of the Democrats. Bit of a non sequitur.

It was interesting "Swedish Democrats" practically mirror many aspect of American Republicans, though? Do I get points now?

It doesn't really matter, the points. You're going to argue if I call the sky blue.

I'm catching on, slowly but surely.

 

[Lexicus]

It was interesting "Swedish Democrats" practically mirror many aspect of American Republicans, though? Do I get points now?

You get points for honesty, but you're actually demolishing your own argument and supporting mine. As you point out, the Swedish Democrats are similar to the American Republican Party - so it's very unsurprising that

the party had its roots in Swedish fascism[16] and was a part of the white supremacy movement in the late-1980s;[17] initially, it was characterized by right-wing extremism and activism.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

You get points for honesty, but you're actually demolishing your own argument and supporting mine. As you point out, the Swedish Democrats are similar to the American Republican Party - so it's very unsurprising that

Oh ffs. I know as well as anyone we have these spooky, frightened bald people clinging to our coat tails. Just as any anything has its reprobates. Please.

Are you going to say Republicans are guilty by association because of these guys? Democrats have a bunch of hardcore Latino Catholics. How do you like them now?

 

[Lohrenswald]

What was leftist in 1880 was not leftist in 1915, and what was leftist in 1940 was not leftist in 1965.

I'd say it was

 

[civvver]

The ACA allowed them to charge employees 50 percent more for health insurance if they declined to participate in the “voluntary” programs, which typically include cholesterol and other screenings; health questionnaires that ask about personal habits including plans to get pregnant; and sometimes weight loss and smoking cessation classes. And in rules that Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued last year, a workplace wellness program counts as “voluntary” even if workers have to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums and deductibles if they don’t participate.



Rigorous studies by researchers not tied to the $8 billion wellness industry have shown that the programs improve employee health little if at all. An industry group recently concluded that they save so little on medical costs that, on average, the programs lose money. But employers continue to embrace them, partly as a way to shift more health care costs to workers, including by penalizing them financially.

I mean that all makes sense, but other countries do charge for health care based on risk factors. My company is international and one of our workers in Japan has to get weighed and his waist measured every year for insurance. It costs more if he's over certain levels.

I'm telling you it's coming. It's already commonplace to charge a surcharge for smoking or using tobacco products. My insurance charges people an extra $100 a month which on a single person plan is over a 50% increase. It's only a matter of time til we get charged more for bmi over 24 or whatever. They'll try to back it up with statistics about how fat people are way more at risk for expensive stuff, but in the end it'll just be to charge everyone as a whole more money and not really to do with fairness in pricing at all (ie skinny people will pay the same not less, and fat people will pay more, no one wins). Just like how cable companies put arbitrary caps on data limits and try to call it fair.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I just picked a random left-wing european party. Of course come to think of it the Democrats are kinda right wing while the republicans are far-right....