Tough times to be a fascist

[Akka]

Actually all I did was point out things other European nations had done that your stated moral stance on things Russia did indicates you would have disapproved of.

Nope, you happily make moral judgement on European countries in many posts, and not just in answer to mine. Want me to copy-paste a whole page of it ? Unlike you, I don't make gratuitous claim I can't back up.

They turned out to be just fine with you though, apparently because your moral platform only applies to Russia, not other European nations. That started out as revealing, progressed through annoying, and is now just hilarious.

You're welcome to show me where I defended factual bad actions from any nation - the most I can remember is me considering ridiculous your claim (as yet unproven, BTW, you never gave any actual evidence) that the EU was a colonialist venture. I don't see how this makes someone a nationalist, even less a rabid one.
In fact, I distinctly remember already asking you to show me where I was nationalistic quite a bit of time before, only for you to use your habit of suddendly skipping parts you can't answer to. Will you fare better this time, or will you yet again sidestep the issue and continue throwing insults without ever proving their validity ?

You're right on one point : there is a progressive revealing, annoying but hilarious process. Probably just not about the person you think.

 

[tetley]

Well anyway, I don't think these are tough times to be a fascist at all. Life in a police state is wonderful if you happen to be the police. If you are a Republican in Washington, your best opportunities for career advancement are when a Republican is in office.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well anyway, I don't think these are tough times to be a fascist at all. Life in a police state is wonderful if you happen to be the police. If you are a Republican in Washington, your best opportunities for career advancement are when a Republican is in office.

I like to think these are tough times to be a republican for much the same reasons.

For the foreseeable future the republicans are saddled with an irrefutable argument against...GW Bush. Gonna be a long time before they can stuff that carcass in a deep enough hole that he doesn't stink up their room.

 

[LoneRebel]

Hypocrisy doesn't necessarily invalidate a person's point though.
If a country with poor human rights record like China for example, were to criticize the abuse of human rights and genocide in Cambodia, then does the fact that China isn't much better invalidate the fact that what is going on is wrong?

It's called the tu quoque fallacy, or whataboutism. I recall making a post about it once on this forum. The Communist bloc countries were pretty infamous for this during the Cold War, and it looks like Russia and present-day communist-in-nothing-but-tyranny China still do it.

Of course, not that China would actually criticize Cambodia's human rights record. China follows a policy of "non-interference" in other countries (a nice way of saying that they don't care about your human rights record, they'll do business with anyone).

Unless of course those countries are China's enemies, then they criticize away. This is a good example.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's called the tu quoque fallacy, or whataboutism. I recall making a post about it once on this forum. The Communist bloc countries were pretty infamous for this during the Cold War, and it looks like Russia and present-day communist-in-nothing-but-tyranny China still do it.

Of course, not that China would actually criticize Cambodia's human rights record. China follows a policy of "non-interference" in other countries (a nice way of saying that they don't care about your human rights record, they'll do business with anyone).

Unless of course those countries are China's enemies, then they criticize away. This is a good example.

It's unfortunate that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch pretty much agree with the Chinese on that one.

 

[LoneRebel]

It's unfortunate that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch pretty much agree with the Chinese on that one.

Yeah. I didn't say they were wrong on the facts. Only that it's completely irrelevant. "Human Rights Record of the United States" is a Chinese attempt to retaliate for the US's constant criticism of China's human rights record. China releases that report to nullify American criticism, not out of any deep concern for all the oppressed people in the States. Now, the US could be a country where babies are eaten alive and the elderly are thrown from tall buildings, and it wouldn't make their criticism any less valid.

That's what the tu quoque fallacy is - the idea that someone else's criticism of you is invalid just because they do the same thing. It doesn't prove that the criticism is invalid, all it proves is that he's a hypocrite. Two different things, but often conflated in people's minds.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah. I didn't say they were wrong on the facts. Only that it's completely irrelevant. "Human Rights Record of the United States" is a Chinese attempt to retaliate for the US's constant criticism of China's human rights record. Now, the US could be a country where babies are eaten alive and the elderly are thrown from tall buildings, and it wouldn't make their criticism any less valid.

That's what the tu quoque fallacy is - the idea that someone else's criticism of you is invalid just because they do the same thing. It doesn't prove that the criticism is invalid, all it proves is that he's a hypocrite. Two different things, but often conflated in people's minds.

Fair enough. I just think it's important to mention that both countries publish 'look at them!' reports at each other and both have far more need to be looking inward than outward.

 

[Borachio]

It could be that the US's constant criticism of others is also an attempt to distract attention away from their own appalling record on human rights.

"Let's make those other guys look like hypocrites before they do the same to us."

A kind of meta or pre-emptive tu quoque.

 

[LoneRebel]

Fair enough. I just think it's important to mention that both countries publish 'look at them!' reports at each other and both have far more need to be looking inward than outward.

It could be that the US's constant criticism of others is also an attempt to distract attention away from their own appalling record on human rights.

"Let's make those other guys look like hypocrites before they do the same to us."

A kind of meta or pre-emptive tu quoque.

Heh heh. This is where the factor of degree comes in though. We've been talking about the US and China as if their human rights violations are of exactly the same severity. Now I'm not sure, but I have a sneaking suspicion that China's human rights record today is slightly worse than America's.

Searching for an analogy, it's a bit like the Allies and the Axis in WW2. We all know now that the Allies committed atrocities of their own. Only the most uninformed conservatives/right-wingers/US or UK nationalists (I don't know what you'd call them) still believe otherwise. But I think we can all agree that Axis atrocities were a bit worse, and that the Allies were still the "good guys" in the fight, even if only by comparison. If anyone doubts that, I have a simple question for them. Would you rather live in a world where the Axis won, or the world we have today?

 

[Borachio]

If the Axis powers had won, I rather think you'd be saying exactly the same. (just the other way round, if you see what I mean)

Not that I disagree with you. But I feel my agreement is inevitable, either way. This is the compulsory narrative we live with: we have to believe it.

To believe otherwise is to be totally ostracized. Very few people risk this (I'm certainly not going to, because I really do believe it!). And it costs them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

While the WWII business is absolutely accurate, I'm not sure it makes your point. Looking at neutral assessments China is certainly worse...but also slowly and surely improving. The US, while having the clearly better record, is going the wrong way...and in some respects not even being slow about it...so projecting into the future as far as WWII is in the past I don't know that China wouldn't be the better place to be. Of course there's no saying that either one will maintain their current direction or pace for that long.

 

[LoneRebel]

If the Axis powers had won, I rather think you'd be saying exactly the same. (just the other way round, if you see what I mean)

Not that I disagree with you. But I feel my agreement is inevitable, either way. This is the compulsory narrative we live with: we have to believe it.

To believe otherwise is to be totally ostracized. Very few people risk this (I'm certainly not going to, because I really do believe it!). And it costs them.

Yeah, I saw what you meant. I might also be dead in a world where the Axis had won...

I don't think the ostracism is as bad as you say, there're plenty of skinhead groups around, aren't there?

I'm a big fan of althist, and one of the favorite points of divergence is of course "What if the Axis won World War Two?" I think the only possible way a world with an Axis victory could be anywhere near as pleasant as ours is if the German and Japanese governments, after their victory, ended up becoming more moderate on their own, over time. The chances of that happening? I say "possible, but I wouldn't bet on it."

But I digress.

While the WWII business is absolutely accurate, I'm not sure it makes your point. Looking at neutral assessments China is certainly worse...but also slowly and surely improving. The US, while having the clearly better record, is going the wrong way...and in some respects not even being slow about it...so projecting into the future as far as WWII is in the past I don't know that China wouldn't be the better place to be. Of course there's no saying that either one will maintain their current direction or pace for that long.

Of course. Anything can happen in the future. I'm still hoping for a democratic China. I'm just not too optimistic about it happening anytime soon. That government is very good at staying in power.

Thinking about it now, a really bad scenario would be a democratic China that's still as aggressively nationalistic as this one is. Keep in mind that for all intents and purposes, the ROC's territorial claims are almost exactly the same as the PRC's. In fact they're even more extensive, since the KMT claimed (probably still claims) the entirety of Mongolia.

Although...hmm. After doing a little reading just now, there's a theory that the reason Taiwan keeps up those claims is not because they really believe in them, but because they have to do it in order to continue claiming to be China's legitimate government. If they ever gave up those claims, then they would cease being a claimant to China's rightful government and become just a separatist group. Which would lead to the PRC immediately invading them. The whole thing is pretty weird.

Anyhow, right now we can say things like "It's not the fault of the Chinese people, they're being duped by their government!" If a democratic China continued to act in the same manner, that excuse wouldn't work. That China might be something like the US (the popular perception of the US) only with five times the population. Consider how much trouble the US has caused for everyone else with only 300 million people. There wouldn't be enough room on the planet to satisfy the ambitions of a country like that that had 1.5 billion people.

 

[kochman]

Even as it starts to be revealed in some 'peace through strength' sloganeering and an occasional question about just how much of a threat was that that we just stomped out it seems to do okay for itself.

Ah yes, the subtle Reagan was a fascist point is made.
What's the word I'm not supposed to use again? How about... STOP putting it on display.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah yes, the subtle Reagan was a fascist point is made.
What's the word I'm not supposed to use again? How about... STOP putting it on display.

Wow, that was out of left field...what was that about Reagan?

 

[kochman]

Just his direct quote "peace through strength"... that's all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just his direct quote "peace through strength"... that's all.

I'm going to take a wild guess that he was neither the first nor the last to say that...and the context in which he said it may well be why it didn't cross my mind when I mentioned it as a favorite of fascists. Of course it does explain why so many fascists try to pull Reagan out of context as if they are just following in his footsteps.

I often picture Reagan in heaven looking down on today's GOP saying, "How could they try to twist something like that out of what I said?"

With Jesus patting him on the shoulder saying, "Don't feel bad, they do the same thing to me."

 

[kochman]

Fair enough, I retract and apologize for the misconception.
Carry on!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No problem...I just didn't get it at first because I really didn't associate that as a Reagan quote...though once you pointed it out he did certainly say it famously enough that I probably should have.

 

[Borachio]

That well known fascist Hadrian said it, apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_through_strength

 

[kochman]

No problem...I just didn't get it at first because I really didn't associate that as a Reagan quote...though once you pointed it out he did certainly say it famously enough that I probably should have.

That exact phrase was the backbone of his military build-up strategy... I assumed (incorrectly).