Berzerker
Deity
if the Republicans are fascists and the Democrats are not, what has Joe Biden done with Trump's policies to warrant the distinction?
Motivations for being a fascist
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
AmtrakQuebec
King
Only the far right Republicans are fascists... they're the American Taliban. They want no rights for women, vigilante justice, a gun in every holster, etc., etc.
Some random religious nut who is a Republican congresswoman.
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
She doesn't represent all republicans. Stop being so nonsensical.
She represents enough to be a Congresswoman.
Really reads like you're playing down exactly how many people that is.
Narz
keeping it real
Repressing violent groups is a good idea. Repression people who identity as conservative... Stop fishing for whataboutism.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Again, it's still a good illustration of the process. Maybe you'll get down the path far enough to ge to communism-like dictatorship at which point the difference with fascism will be mostly just about doctrine details. Maybe you'll just stay at this wishful-thinking-authoritarian tendencies. Maybe you'll actually climb back from it toward a more moderate mindset. I'm not a seer, people change and we're not (usually) binary in our thinking.
But yet again, the question was about "how can people support fascism", and you just showed how someone can drift toward wanting to crush opposition with state violence, which is a significant step toward authoritarianism in general which is a prerequisite for fascism. I didn't say more than that, and I still don't see how it's wrong in an way.
Understandable, and I also wouldn't want the world Republicans want to make (heck, I actively despise the influence they had in creating the world we got today). But I doubt you'd produce a much better world if the tool used to get it were, as you say, "state terror" to crush them. Hell paved with good intentions and all that, I've never seen "good values" survive the crash-test of absolute power.
Which ones ? I mean, you're the one who saw an open support to crush dissent with state terror and thought "that warrants to listen more and get more details before drawing conclusion" but then saw "this look a lot like the mindset that lead to fascism" and immediately considered it was "thought extremism". Looks like factual and objective very noticeable double standards. Where did I displayed the same sort here ?
Your first message was just some sort of weird fly-by that I still don't really get but definitely felt like a gratuitous barb.
Your second was to display the described above double standards by accusing me of "thought extremism" due to... basically reading what the person was saying ?
You don't really get the right to complain that I've some doubt about your good faith after that.
She represents enough Republican voters to get elected. Shes not the only extremist voted in on a republican ticket.
A large proportion of the Republican base is prepared to vote for such extremists.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
who is he?
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
I think we're just grasping at straws here. There are plenty of wacko extremists that democrats vote for.
Uh-huh.
Not that I'm suggesting the Democrats are anywhere remotely near perfect. I'm not.
Posts do not exist in a vacuum. Like I said, my bias was that I trust Lexicus to have reasoning to support their arguments. Ergo, I wanted to know more about what they meant. I don't have to agree with them.
When it comes to you calling people fascist-adjacent, that's just flat-out funny. Moreso given that you can't see the hypocrisy. Both Lexicus and I have pointed out authoritarianism isn't fascism, and here you are, sticking to labelling Lexicus with "fascism" (or a mindset that leads to it) when in any other thread if either of us were doing that to someone else, you'd be scoffing at us.
It's not double standards, because Lex's arguments and your arguments do not have equal merit. I'm treating them differently because they are different. Maybe I would've changed my mind if you hadn't doubled down with accusations of "bad faith" and stuff, but that's what you chose to do, so my initial impressions were only reinforced.
So did yours. So what's the problem, exactly? That you can post throwaway comments but nobody else can?
No, you added your own inference by running straight to fascism from connotations of authoritarianism. The exact same thing you moan at other people for doing - for overusing the word fascist. You were doing it here. The only difference is you consider it justified. But then again, so do the people you criticise.
Last edited:
Whole different argument and just a distraction so you don't have to admit the lunatics have taken over the GOP and are actively driving out "moderates"/"centrists".
Akka
Moody old mage.
Yes. You do realize that it applies equally to both of us, and as such my reaction of seeing bad faith might be due to a long story of you having this sort of "smells of bad faith" moments that lead me to be less patient with it than I could be with some others ?
For someone giving lesson about jumping to conclusion, you certainly aren't shy about assumptions. Oh, sorry, is it again a case where you are allowed to because "posts don't exist in a vacuum" but if I do it it's because "I don't recognize my bias" ?
You apply enormous leeway of interpretation to one, and spent huge amount of pointless nitpicking at technicalities on the other. You can claim it's not double standards, doesn't make it so. Apply more your own lessons about bias, maybe.
And vice versa, which is why I tried to talk things through. Unfortunately, you opted to ignore most of those paragraphs in favour of selecting specific sentences that you can nitpick (but it's okay when you do, of course). I tried, right? But for whatever reason, my arguments were ultimately ignored.
So keep relying on your stereotypes. One day you might realise it actually prevents constructive discussion, but that day ain't today
Nevermind, hah. The assumption(s) could be anything. It's on you for not stating it ( / them). All the things in that quote are factual things that have happened, if not in this thread then elsewhere.
For a man dedicated to nitpicking my posts apart, this is just funny all over again.
Don't you get it? I gave no real leeway to Lexicus. I never even got to discuss the tangent I wanted to with him because the threat moved on (until you decided to take it upon yourself to expose my alleged "bad faith"). All I did was not pass (premature) judgement on his comment (that you passed judgement upon).
I haven't really nitpicked anything you've said. I haven't selectively quoted you. I haven't accused you of anything more than basic hypocrisy. I've given long, comprehensive answers to all the points you're trying to make. Really, it doesn't seem like you know what "nitpick" means. My entire point is simply that you don't understand how your bias colours your judgement of other posters, and that's funny because it leads you to act similarly to the actions you spend time calling out.
I get it. "Bullcrap". You don't want to accept it. That's fine, I've wasted enough words on this as it is.
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Funny, because that's exactly what I see you doing. We're back to trading "you do what you say I do". I agree it prevents constructive discussion, and that's actually the real reason why I don't like to answer each and every sentence, but rather overarching arguments.So keep relying on your stereotypes. One day you might realise it actually prevents constructive discussion, but that day ain't today
That's actually exactly what I'm doing here, BTW. Most of the parts I've not explicitely quoted just fall square in the exchange of "you accuse me of what I see you doing", so instead of making a wall of text I sum it up.
Maybe you'll see it as a way of weaseling out. I'm just seeing it as a way to be concise.
Wasn't the entire reason of your first jab to make a, in context rather pointless, distinction between authoritarianism and fascism, and that you've kept doing even after I explained it was more about an illustration ?
You can still ask Lex for detailing his viewpoint BTW. All this bickering is still based on his initial affirmation, it's not like the discussion has really gone "past" that.
Last edited:
All this bickering is based on a comment you chose to make. And my own contributions of course. So let's not point this at Lexicus, however vaguely.
At this point I'd rather say: PM me if you in good faith want to take this further, so we can talk about what's going on. I have zero expectations, but I'll put it out there regardless.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The last 10 American presidents have all been war criminals. Yet people have been conditioned to cheer for "their guy", so nobody cares when the status quo sticks around
Lexicus
Deity
Does the serpent have brown eyes?
..yes!
Is the serpent wearing glasses?
...YES!
The serpent...is you
Similar threads
