Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

275 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      112
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Johann said:

The fascist state's interest is simply consolidating and reinforcing power by any means. Economic regulation (or a lack thereof) under fascism resembles neoliberalism with an emphasis on targeting specific groups. Nationalizing the media or any industry isn't necessary when the government and the owners of those industries have shared interests.

Trump is a fascist, he's in it for the power, but much of his inner circle and appointees are neoliberals who are there for personal profit.

Fascism is also about state control over the economy, praising fascism and demonizing democracy, and suppressing the opposition forcefully.

You cannot say something is fascist if they are just nationalist and racist but other traits do not match. It is like saying the Eastern Bloc were communists when they clearly were not.

6 hours ago, Johann said:

The fascist state's interest is simply consolidating and reinforcing power by any means. Economic regulation (or a lack thereof) under fascism resembles neoliberalism with an emphasis on targeting specific groups. Nationalizing the media or any industry isn't necessary when the government and the owners of those industries have shared interests.

Trump is a fascist, he's in it for the power, but much of his inner circle and appointees are neoliberals who are there for personal profit.

The bottom line is always about maximizing profits. The things Shob listed like minimum wages, etc are opposed by the right because they are seen as having a cost, so they're against regulations that protect workers. Competition from the Chinese is primarily a threat to profits, so they're for regulation to reduce that threat. A claim for national security is just convenient packaging.

Nationalizing the media and controlling the flow of information is quite necessary to make it easier to control society. With over half the nation disapproving Trump, relying solely on the Electoral College is a poor way of preserving power. So no, Trump is not fascist. If he were a fascist, he would have caused a Constitutional crisis by now and we would be in a civil war.

Neoliberals in general oppose the trade war. In terms of short term profits, it is far easier to just work with China and get money that way. What neoliberals dislike about China is not competition, it is China's protectionist policies that give Chinese firms an unfair edge that skews competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, XRay said:

Fascism is also about state control over the economy, praising fascism and demonizing democracy, and suppressing the opposition forcefully.

You cannot say something is fascist if they are just nationalist and racist but other traits do not match. It is like saying the Eastern Bloc were communists when they clearly were not.

The thing is, fascism isn't defined by a coherent doctrine like communism is; it's more of a varied phenomenon than Mussolini's brand and is certainly not defined by a distinct economic policy. Consider--

  • Today's fascists are not going to praise fascism itself due to most people agreeing it's bad and have plenty of evidence to know so. Instead, the fascists will praise/support/not condemn people and acts inspired by fascism, like the "very fine people" who wave Nazi flags at a rally defending a Confederate statue.
  • Likewise, they aren't going to demonize democracy, which is largely seen as a good thing, but undermine it. This includes questioning the legitimacy of an election's numbers, engaging in activities that interfere with elections, and undermining the power of other elected officials.
  • In terms of suppressing the opposition forcefully, while Trump has not explicitly ordered any violent actions, his rhetoric has incited violence directed at various media entities & high-profile Democrats, and inspired alt-right (fascist) groups to engage in violence.
  • Some of the common qualities of fascism are emphasized harder than others, while some qualities barely at all. Sometimes these qualities are deliberately disguised, hidden, or downplayed in order to fool others. If you make a checklist for qualities and only agreeing that a person is a fascist when they hit all the boxes, then you might be giving a literal Nazi the benefit of the doubt.

Historian Robert Paxton writes the following in his 2004 book Anatomy of Fascism:

"Fascism may be defined as 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."
-
(pg. 218)

Trump's brand of fascism matches this loose definition. The ideology and praxis are more fluid than what you're claiming it to be, and you may want to read Paxton's words from the bottom of page 218 to 220  of the book for a more educated take than I can give without plagiarizing.

19 minutes ago, XRay said:

Nationalizing the media and controlling the flow of information is quite necessary to make it easier to control society. With over half the nation disapproving Trump, relying solely on the Electoral College is a poor way of preserving power. So no, Trump is not fascist. If he were a fascist, he would have caused a Constitutional crisis by now and we would be in a civil war.

I think it's important to remember a few things: one, Trump is not a smart person. Just because he's not a clever fascist doesn't mean he's not a fascist. Two, the political landscape and government of the US today are not like Italy or Germany 80 or 90 years ago, or other places & times where fascists and other dictators seize power. Our vulnerabilities are different, as is the extent of what political power can actually do. Media is nothing like what it was back then either, and yet Trump has been given as big a platform as one could hope for without having to completely control the media. Why (let alone how) would you nationalize the media when you have Fox News handling spin, Twitter to say whatever whenever, and every other news source giving you the spotlight (frequently without real criticism)?

19 minutes ago, XRay said:

Neoliberals in general oppose the trade war. In terms of short term profits, it is far easier to just work with China and get money that way. What neoliberals dislike about China is not competition, it is China's protectionist policies that give Chinese firms an unfair edge that skews competition.

The thing is, Trump's inner circle has a lot of in-fighting whenever he does something dumb like instigate a trade war, and it's precisely because many of them are neoliberals clashing with his fascist friends over their priorities.

Neoliberals have a lot of things they don't like about China, and the protectionist policies are pretty low on the bar. China, along with Russia, is USA's fiercest rival for not only trade, but global influence, and that's about as big a threat to profit as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Johann said:

The thing is, fascism isn't defined by a coherent doctrine like communism is

53 minutes ago, Johann said:
  • Some of the common qualities of fascism are emphasized harder than others, while some qualities barely at all. Sometimes these qualities are deliberately disguised, hidden, or downplayed in order to fool others. If you make a checklist for qualities and only agreeing that a person is a fascist when they hit all the boxes, then you might be giving a literal Nazi the benefit of the doubt.

The Eastern Bloc are not communists and Trump is not fascists.

The Eastern Bloc were socialists, but definitely not communists since they had no intention of dismantling the state.

Trump is not a fascist not because he does not check every criteria of a fascist, but he is not fascist because he does not even check enough boxes. Someone who is simply racist and nationalist is not fascist.

59 minutes ago, Johann said:

Historian Robert Paxton writes the following in his 2004 book Anatomy of Fascism:

"Fascism may be defined as 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."
-
(pg. 218)

Trump's brand of fascism matches this loose definition. The ideology and praxis are more fluid than what you're claiming it to be, and you may want to read Paxton's words from the bottom of page 218 to 220  of the book for a more educated take than I can give without plagiarizing.

The only thing Trump and his supporters are missing is just the pursuing part, but I do not think you need to check every box. Under that definition, Trump would no doubt be a fascist, but it feels like that definition boils fascism down to just racism and cult of personality, which I find it to be too broad, as Russia and definitely China would also be considered fascists.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

The thing is, Trump's inner circle has a lot of in-fighting whenever he does something dumb like instigate a trade war, and it's precisely because many of them are neoliberals clashing with his fascist friends over their priorities.

Neoliberals have a lot of things they don't like about China, and the protectionist policies are pretty low on the bar. China, along with Russia, is USA's fiercest rival for not only trade, but global influence, and that's about as big a threat to profit as it gets.

I think who you are describing are nationalists, not neoliberals. As a nationalist hawk myself, I would prioritize maintaining America's global lead in politics, the economy, the military, culture, and technology. The trade war with China is something that should be escalated or at least maintained, as I see trade with China for the past 30 years being detrimental to our lead in the economy and technology. I see neoliberals as people who are generally in favor of laissez faire capitalism; while Chinese firms have an unfair advantage, they would still rather have trade with China than have our government step in and reduce trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, XRay said:

The Eastern Bloc are not communists and Trump is not fascists.

The Eastern Bloc were socialists, but definitely not communists since they had no intention of dismantling the state.

I didn't say anything about the Eastern Bloc, so I'm not sure what you're trying to highlight. I'm not disputing your statement about them either, so we can probably leave it at that

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

Trump is not a fascist not because he does not check every criteria of a fascist, but he is not fascist because he does not even check enough boxes. Someone who is simply racist and nationalist is not fascist.

The only thing Trump and his supporters are missing is just the pursuing part, but I do not think you need to check every box. Under that definition, Trump would no doubt be a fascist, but it feels like that definition boils fascism down to just racism and cult of personality, which I find it to be too broad, as Russia and definitely China would also be considered fascists.

Hmmm... I think you might want to read the section I suggested. He specifically points out that, for one, that definition "encompasses its subject no better than a snapshot encompasses a person", so if you're leaving it at that, then of course it won't seem like enough.

Paxton describes fascism existing in five stages (also discussed briefly on page 174 of the pdf I linked earlier), and this is something of his I'll get into a bit here (descriptions shamelessly borrowed from Wikipedia because I'm lazy):

  1. Initial creation of fascist movement, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
  2. Political rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite fascists to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy

Trump's fascism exists arguably in stage 3 or 4 right now, depending on how much power you think he and his circle have. The world has only ever seen stage 5 in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

I think who you are describing are nationalists, not neoliberals. As a nationalist hawk myself, I would prioritize maintaining America's global lead in politics, the economy, the military, culture, and technology. The trade war with China is something that should be escalated or at least maintained, as I see trade with China for the past 30 years being detrimental to our lead in the economy and technology. I see neoliberals as people who are generally in favor of laissez faire capitalism; while Chinese firms have an unfair advantage, they would still rather have trade with China than have our government step in and reduce trade.

Well, there's a considerable amount of overlap between nationalists and neoliberals, and I'd agree that those same Trump guys are also nationalists. Allow me to clarify, however, that, yes, there is a general favoring of lassez faire capitalism, but it's on a spectrum of how much regulation they benefit from. Neoliberals aren't ideologues, they're pragmatists, and what guides their decision making, ultimately, is profit and growth. They want trade with China because it's beneficial; cheap labor for manufacturing, for instance. Provoking them into conflict is bad for profits/growth since it jeopardizes every industry with a supply chain or market connected to China, which is most industries, really. The only industry that could possibly stand to gain in direct conflict would be the military industry, but war with China would basically kick off WWIII, and arms manufacturers are content with minor skirmishes in the Middle East since those countries are vilified enough for the US to get away with it.

Similarly, when Trump threatened to close the Mexican border a little while ago, the neoliberals within his circle likely convinced him it was a bad idea (which is something anybody who isn't an extreme xenophobe would agree with). From a market perspective, closing the border would have put a complete halt to many automotive factory operations, since many parts are made or assembled in Mexico. The costs of a variety of produce would have shot up as well. There very well could have been billions lost between those two markets alone, on both sides of the border.

The thing about trade between the US and any other nation is that, generally speaking, it's mutually beneficial, or at least in the capitalist context it is (there certainly are externalities like pollution, or issues like exploitation of smaller nations and the average worker). If China wasn't undergoing considerable growth these past few decades and instead somehow stayed fixed as a trade partner and manufacturer of cheap goods, then neoliberals wouldn't have a problem with it. Their beef is that China is investing abroad (see the Belt and Road Initiative), expanding its military and resources (see the South China Sea), and shifting away from depending on exports. These factors show that it's becoming less of a necessary partner (or subordinate, depending on your view of what trade with the US has meant for the average Chinese citizen) and more of a highly competitive rival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Johann said:

I didn't say anything about the Eastern Bloc, so I'm not sure what you're trying to highlight. I'm not disputing your statement about them either, so we can probably leave it at that

I am drawing a parallel between people who label the other side as communist or fascist even if the other side is not.

12 minutes ago, Johann said:

Hmmm... I think you might want to read the section I suggested. He specifically points out that, for one, that definition "encompasses its subject no better than a snapshot encompasses a person", so if you're leaving it at that, then of course it won't seem like enough.

Paxton describes fascism existing in five stages (also discussed briefly on page 174 of the pdf I linked earlier), and this is something of his I'll get into a bit here (descriptions shamelessly borrowed from Wikipedia because I'm lazy):

  1. Initial creation of fascist movement, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
  2. Political rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite fascists to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy

Trump's fascism exists arguably in stage 3 or 4 right now, depending on how much power you think he and his circle have. The world has only ever seen stage 5 in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

While including the process as part of the definition makes it more specific, I am still hesitant in calling Trump a fascist, since that process can be used to describe any ideology with a bit of tweaking.

  1. Initial creation of X movement, where disillusionment with status quo manifests itself in discussions X's talking points.
  2. Political rooting, where X movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where a political party seeking to control rising opposition invite X to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state becomes increasingly radical/authoritarian/progressive/normalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd be hard pressed to place fascism in the left wing definitively. It would probably be closer to center than anything else, and even then, actual Nazis got their ideology from Italian fascists, who were definitely more right wing and wrote in the fascist manifesto that fascism was the negation of socialism. The defining traits of them aren't any economic policies they claim to hold, it's an ultranationalist nature (often ethnic) and authoritarianism.

And this is not 'anything bad is not on the left'. We can talk about communism all day.

There is more than one aspect to political ideologies.

State capitalism is in direct opposition with socialism (and laissez-faire capitalism) even if it includes government-controlled businesses. China today is an example of state capitalism or corporatism. But from my understanding, fascism had privatization of many key industries in the mid to late 30's when military spending became higher, so I'm not even sure about the claims about their economic policies is really correct.

https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bel-2010-nazi-privatizations1.pdf

Someone may look at anarchism not supporting government and place them on the right wing because the right libertarian types are generally for smaller government, but this is generally incorrect outside of anarcho-capitalists.

Nationalism may be generally right-wing, but there is instances of nationalism slanting more towards individualism - and more commonly separatists or independence supporters. Most people have an idea of nationalism and what they perceive as the opposite, "globalism" as vague concepts that aren't very helpful. The nationalists in my country are most accurately closer to social democrat or center left, and support independence. When ethno-nationalism is involved however, like it is often with fascism, it is almost certainly jingoistic in nature.

That all said, I do believe calling Trump an actual fascist is just detrimental to actually advancing ideas and makes him look like a victim and I wish people would stop doing it.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to place fascism in the left wing definitively. It would probably be closer to center than anything else, and even then, actual Nazis got their ideology from Italian fascists, who were definitely more right wing and wrote in the fascist manifesto that fascism was the negation of socialism. The defining traits of them aren't any economic policies they claim to hold, it's an ultranationalist nature (often ethnic) and authoritarianism.

And this is not 'anything bad is not on the left'. We can talk about communism all day.

I always thought fascism being left wing was prettily widely known as a meme hinging on mister Hitler calling the Nazi's ''National Socialists' in order to con the dumber part of the German electorate. Its the same as North Korea being a ''people's republic'' despite being an obvious dictatorship.

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XRay said:

While including the process as part of the definition makes it more specific, I am still hesitant in calling Trump a fascist, since that process can be used to describe any ideology with a bit of tweaking.

  1. Initial creation of X movement, where disillusionment with status quo manifests itself in discussions X's talking points.
  2. Political rooting, where X movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where a political party seeking to control rising opposition invite X to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state becomes increasingly radical/authoritarian/progressive/normalized.

Certainly any ideology can follow a similar pattern, another example being how socialist ideas are beginning to take root in the Democratic party. That doesn't make it any less true when using it with Paxton's fascism definition above to examine Trump, though.

7 hours ago, Tryhard said:

That all said, I do believe calling Trump an actual fascist is just detrimental to actually advancing ideas and makes him look like a victim and I wish people would stop doing it.

Whether or not he's labeled or publicly called a fascist is less important than anticipating his behavior and preparing/reacting accordingly. It's also important for understanding some of his supporters and influences. Dude will play victim no matter what anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

The defining traits of them aren't any economic policies they claim to hold, it's an ultranationalist nature

Exactly. Throwing around the term "liberal fascism" is like throwing around the term "conservative communism."

No such thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Johann said:

Whether or not he's labeled or publicly called a fascist is less important than anticipating his behavior and preparing/reacting accordingly. It's also important for understanding some of his supporters and influences. Dude will play victim no matter what anyway.

I think it's important to separate Trump the person from Trump the president.  IMO his personality traits are leaking into his policies, but democracy is still somewhat alive (though the fact that the judicial branch couldn't reign in the executive branch regarding that immigrant situation is worrying).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eclipse said:

I think it's important to separate Trump the person from Trump the president.  IMO his personality traits are leaking into his policies, but democracy is still somewhat alive (though the fact that the judicial branch couldn't reign in the executive branch regarding that immigrant situation is worrying).

Leaking into? His personality traits define his policies, or at least the ones he's super vocal about, which are likely the only ones that are actually his own ideas. I'd argue that the difference between Trump the person and Trump the president is infinitesimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Johann said:

Leaking into? His personality traits define his policies, or at least the ones he's super vocal about, which are likely the only ones that are actually his own ideas. I'd argue that the difference between Trump the person and Trump the president is infinitesimal.

Or the current Republican party happens to align with his personality traits.  But just because he tries, doesn't mean he gets his way all the time, and that's something that must be acknowledged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, eclipse said:

I think it's important to separate Trump the person from Trump the president.  IMO his personality traits are leaking into his policies, but democracy is still somewhat alive (though the fact that the judicial branch couldn't reign in the executive branch regarding that immigrant situation is worrying).

Update on that btw:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/02/border-family-separations-trump-administration-border-patrol/3563990002/

"Laura Belous, advocacy director for the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, the only legal services provider for detained migrants in Arizona, said the number of separated families dropped significantly after the injunction in June – but her office noticed a steep rise in cases again this year."  

"The official government count is at 389 separated families since last summer's injunction, according to data received by the American Civil Liberties Union in court filings. One-fifth of the newly separated children are younger than 5 years old, according to the figures." 

9934b0d4-fcc3-449a-ae70-01f03d858398-050219-v3discharged_children_from_ORR_care_Online_copy_4.png

"Border Patrol agents can separate a family if they decide the adult and child are not really related or if the parent is deemed a danger to the child. The agents use everything from years-old DUIs on an immigrant's record to old theft charges as reasons to separate – not typically offenses that merit a family separation, said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU."
 
"After being separated, adults are transferred to detention centers, often run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and children are transferred to 'shelters' operated by HHS."
__________

So yeah....this is still happening...

If you came from one of the "Shithole Countries" and you don't have your papers, Trump will take your kids and put them in illegal prison camps "shelters" to make sure you really understand its not okay to come from a shithole country without your papers.

Can't call the guy a fascist though.  Thats mean and doesn't help you win elections  
:dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't understand the logic behind why it's bad to blindly label people, then you're not allowed to blindly label people, no matter how well-deserved you think it is.  Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I will be damned if the word "fascist" gets watered-down and misused because of the narcissist in chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, eclipse said:

Or the current Republican party happens to align with his personality traits.  But just because he tries, doesn't mean he gets his way all the time, and that's something that must be acknowledged.

Don't misunderstand, Shob and I aren't saying the entire US government is full-blown fascist, nor are we saying that his efforts are as success as he wants. Even if his own people don't carry out his plans, it doesn't make him less of a fascist, just a less powerful one.

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

If you can't understand the logic behind why it's bad to blindly label people, then you're not allowed to blindly label people, no matter how well-deserved you think it is.  Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I will be damned if the word "fascist" gets watered-down and misused because of the narcissist in chief.

This label is not being given blindly. There are fascist actions being carried out with fascist results. This is history being repeated, from the migrants in camps to the citizens giving a fascist the benefit of the doubt. What would it take for you to label him a fascist if he isn't one already? How much damage does he have to do for it to be ok to call him that? How does the harm in labeling him as such outweigh the benefits of educating people to be resistant against him and his supporters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Johann said:

Don't misunderstand, Shob and I aren't saying the entire US government is full-blown fascist, nor are we saying that his efforts are as success as he wants. Even if his own people don't carry out his plans, it doesn't make him less of a fascist, just a less powerful one.

This label is not being given blindly. There are fascist actions being carried out with fascist results. This is history being repeated, from the migrants in camps to the citizens giving a fascist the benefit of the doubt. What would it take for you to label him a fascist if he isn't one already? How much damage does he have to do for it to be ok to call him that? How does the harm in labeling him as such outweigh the benefits of educating people to be resistant against him and his supporters?

I'll accept that label when I have to second-guess whether or not calling Trump a toddler will result in negative consequences from the government.

Right now, we have the option of voting Trump out of office, we're free to criticize the government without repercussions, and for the most part due process is still a thing.  While I have my own issues with the press, they're not forced to broadcast government propaganda.

Could things be better?  Definitely.  But I think fights like these must be picked with care.  I think Trump has done more harm than good, but I don't think he's condemned America to fascism (though I'd rather not leave him in office for four more years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I'll accept that label when I have to second-guess whether or not calling Trump a toddler will result in negative consequences from the government.

Right now, we have the option of voting Trump out of office, we're free to criticize the government without repercussions, and for the most part due process is still a thing.  While I have my own issues with the press, they're not forced to broadcast government propaganda.

Could things be better?  Definitely.  But I think fights like these must be picked with care.  I think Trump has done more harm than good, but I don't think he's condemned America to fascism (though I'd rather not leave him in office for four more years).

The point Shob and I are making is that he doesn't need that degree of control to be a fascist. A kid waving a Nazi flag and shouting racist bullshit is a fascist even if he has no power or influence. The more people give him the benefit of the doubt, the more often he can get away with monstrous decisions.

It's not that he's condemned America to full-blown fascism rule, it's that he's already made a number of groups of people the victims of fascist actions. Several political institutions are also being eroded by his actions (or in the case of not appointing people to run certain departments, inaction), which can have long-term impacts on our democracy and the balance/efficacy of government power beyond the Oval Office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Johann said:

The point Shob and I are making is that he doesn't need that degree of control to be a fascist. A kid waving a Nazi flag and shouting racist bullshit is a fascist even if he has no power or influence. The more people give him the benefit of the doubt, the more often he can get away with monstrous decisions.

It's not that he's condemned America to full-blown fascism rule, it's that he's already made a number of groups of people the victims of fascist actions. Several political institutions are also being eroded by his actions (or in the case of not appointing people to run certain departments, inaction), which can have long-term impacts on our democracy and the balance/efficacy of government power beyond the Oval Office.

Said kid is a nuisance, probably racist, and needs to grow up.  In that order.

The issue I have with throwing labels around is that it cheapens the label.  I'm not saying this because I'm excusing Trump's actions, I'm saying this because over-labeling is harmful, both to discussion and to future actions.  The last thing I want is an oppressive leader in the US government, said leader being called a fascist, and the result being "so, like Trump?".

I think the history books will refer to Trump as a moron and a madman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Said kid is a nuisance, probably racist, and needs to grow up.  In that order.

Given how racist and anti-Semitic acts are growing more frequent and dangerous across the country, you should be taking them more seriously.

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

The issue I have with throwing labels around is that it cheapens the label.  I'm not saying this because I'm excusing Trump's actions, I'm saying this because over-labeling is harmful, both to discussion and to future actions.  The last thing I want is an oppressive leader in the US government, said leader being called a fascist, and the result being "so, like Trump?".

I think the history books will refer to Trump as a moron and a madman.

We already have an oppressive leader in the US government. If you wait until that oppression reaches you personally before you acknowledge it as such, then the history books won't have very nice things to say about you either.

I think you might wanna elaborate more on why it's supposed to be bad if people are labeling him as a fascist. Do you mean people being desensitized to the word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Johann said:

Given how racist and anti-Semitic acts are growing more frequent and dangerous across the country, you should be taking them more seriously.

No, and you are in no position to tell me what I (or anyone else in this world that isn't you) should take seriously.

5 minutes ago, Johann said:

We already have an oppressive leader in the US government. If you wait until that oppression reaches you personally before you acknowledge it as such, then the history books won't have very nice things to say about you either.

I think you might wanna elaborate more on why it's supposed to be bad if people are labeling him as a fascist. Do you mean people being desensitized to the word?

I think it's a gross overreaction.  The world didn't end when both Bush presidents took office, and I'm positive that democracy as we know it isn't ending now.  The only thing that actually worries me is the fact that the Supreme Court wasn't able to hold the executive branch accountable - but that apparently isn't as important, since I don't remember that lapse being shouted from the rooftops.

But this could be my age talking.  I don't take well to ill-timed drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

No, and you are in no position to tell me what I (or anyone else in this world that isn't you) should take seriously.

I'm talking about hate crimes here, not kids saying the N word when they play games online (though I take that seriously too). A 20 year old kid killed a girl in Charlottesville with his car. A 21 year old set fire to three historic black churches in Louisiana. How can anyone not take that seriously?

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think it's a gross overreaction.  The world didn't end when both Bush presidents took office, and I'm positive that democracy as we know it isn't ending now.  The only thing that actually worries me is the fact that the Supreme Court wasn't able to hold the executive branch accountable - but that apparently isn't as important, since I don't remember that lapse being shouted from the rooftops.

But this could be my age talking.  I don't take well to ill-timed drama.

I'll grant that there are plenty of people who don't understand political situations and mischaracterize them using words they don't understand, and there are surely plenty of people making the same mistake now, but Shob and I have both thoroughly explained why we're calling him a fascist and what that means. It does sound to me that you've heard it misused so much that you just can't take any use of it seriously unless the situation has literally reached peak Nazi Germany levels of danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Johann said:

I'm talking about hate crimes here, not kids saying the N word when they play games online (though I take that seriously too). A 20 year old kid killed a girl in Charlottesville with his car. A 21 year old set fire to three historic black churches in Louisiana. How can anyone not take that seriously?

Ask yourself how people deny the Holocaust.  Or the Armenian genocide.  Or many of the other atrocities throughout history.

These things?  In the grand scheme of everything, they're literally no more than blips.  It's unfortunate (especially for the family of the dead girl), but such is life.

14 hours ago, Johann said:

I'll grant that there are plenty of people who don't understand political situations and mischaracterize them using words they don't understand, and there are surely plenty of people making the same mistake now, but Shob and I have both thoroughly explained why we're calling him a fascist and what that means. It does sound to me that you've heard it misused so much that you just can't take any use of it seriously unless the situation has literally reached peak Nazi Germany levels of danger.

Call for the end of the world when the end of the world happens.  I don't know if you remember the hysteria around Bush Jr,, but it reads similarly to the calls of fascism I'm reading now.  Hence why I can't take this situation seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eclipse said:

Ask yourself how people deny the Holocaust.  Or the Armenian genocide.  Or many of the other atrocities throughout history.

These things?  In the grand scheme of everything, they're literally no more than blips.  It's unfortunate (especially for the family of the dead girl), but such is life.

It was a rhetorical question. The point is that things like Charlottesville and the church arsons could have been prevented if people didn't ignore the culture that inspired them.

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

Call for the end of the world when the end of the world happens.  I don't know if you remember the hysteria around Bush Jr,, but it reads similarly to the calls of fascism I'm reading now.  Hence why I can't take this situation seriously.

So, don't try to prevent anything horrible or dangerous because it's not a big deal until it's a major catastrophe or affects you personally, got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Johann said:

It was a rhetorical question. The point is that things like Charlottesville and the church arsons could have been prevented if people didn't ignore the culture that inspired them.

I seriously doubt this.  Demented people are going to find excuses to hurt/kill others, whether it be in the name of religion, race, politics, or something else.  IMO if you want to combat this, support better mental health care/research.  I doubt a good health care system will catch every single unbalanced individual, but it's better than what we have now.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

So, don't try to prevent anything horrible or dangerous because it's not a big deal until it's a major catastrophe or affects you personally, got it.

Going on a site that already leans left and calling Trump a fascist?  That's about as helpful as passing on a chain letter.  There's one too many people in the White House who gets off on labeling others for his own benefit.  Don't make the same mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, eclipse said:

I don't know if you remember the hysteria around Bush Jr,, but it reads similarly to the calls of fascism I'm reading now.  Hence why I can't take this situation seriously.

I don't know about fascist, but his actions lead to the deaths of American soldiers and foreign citizens for no real good reason. Dick Cheney may have been whispering in his ear but it isn't hard to conclude that it was straight up evil.

No one action Trump has done so far has really come close to the colossal fuckery that was that period of neoconservativism in my opinion.

Just hope John Bolton, who was too extreme even for the Bush administration, doesn't have significant influence for Trump.

12 hours ago, eclipse said:

Going on a site that already leans left and calling Trump a fascist?  That's about as helpful as passing on a chain letter.  There's one too many people in the White House who gets off on labeling others for his own benefit.  Don't make the same mistake.

Going on most places is not going to get you a very good response for Trump. The internet is used primarily by younger people, they don't like Trump generally, and most people outside the US regardless of age don't like Trump either.

The GOP and Trump will call whoever is up against him in the next election a socialist or communist so it's just going to be terrible on all fronts most likely.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...