@DirtbagLeft so basically, you are rejecting what we actually say, and putting things of your own imagination there instead? Where we want to discuss policies, and the logical and repeatedly observed outcomes of attempts to put certain ideologies into practice, you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "racism!" at us?
I don't reject what you are actually saying I am looking at what you are actually saying and your behavior (such as mischaracterizing my position or ascribing positions to me which I have not taken{ie your acting in bad faith}). I am also considering what I am saying, considering how my audience will take it, and considering possible responses to what I am saying.
I don't care if you're an octaroon. It's people on the Left who are preoccupied with things like that.
Yes because it is the left which advocates for ethnostates. Have you ever thought that the lefts focus on race might be a response to racism. Pretending racism doesn't exist doesn't mean racism doesn't exist.
But can they? It looks from here as if you'll go on calling everyone who disagrees with you names like that, regardless of what they actually think or believe.
Lets see. I observed that people are willfully ignorant (stupid), I have observed that people are retarded (mentally deficient), I have observed that people are degenerate (morally deficient). There is only one person that I have actually used name calling with and that is because she is an utter joke who is so stupid (willfully ignorant) that she is not even wrong in her mischaracterization of my position. There is being wrong about what my position is, and then there is being not even wrong.
Eco's list isn't even that - it's a list of traits which are so loosely and subjectively defined as to be applicable to any political movement. Even he in his essay describing it didn't even call it a definition of fascism, but a guide to "movements which may or may not become fascist in the future". Which is meaningless.
One might be tempted to think so if they had only read the list and not the surrounding material. That list while it is called Umberto's list is extracted from the article. It's not like he went "Here is a list". but considering I doubt any of you have bothered to read the source material...
Anybody can stop being a bad person if they prostrate themselves before him and submit themselves to his superior transcendent mind.
Anyone can stop being a bad person by not being a bad person (ie changing).
I'm not sure how productive it is for me to remain in this discussion. I think we all get the idea by this point. Hopefully Dirtbagleft has sufficiently revealed himself to us all to be a lesson as to how dangerous the far left can be. What happens when people with these sorts of beliefs get power? Well, we see it again and again don't we - in the Soviet Union, in Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, in the Killing Fields, in North Korea.
"I'm against violence, except against people with dangerous opinions. I get to decide what opinions they actually have regardless of what they say."
This can be used justify violence against anybody.
See there you go lying again. And then after I destroy your "argument" you turn around and claim victory. Well let me make it super simple for you.
Saying violence is justified is one position.
Saying violence should be used is another position.
My own position is yet a third. The violence was justified but should not have been used.
Stop being a lying. I don't think that is too much to ask.
No, you just say that your a libertarian socialist.
Pick a libertarian policy and try to get me to contradict a libertarian principle. Do not misrepresent what I am saying but look for a genuine contradiction. It's what I have done with you lot whenever one of you claims to be a free speech absolutist.
But socialists also almost universally lie about that as well so there's a very good chance of you doing that;
Then push me on it. It's what I do to you lot. Again pick a libertarian policy.
and it's just a case of doing the math. There has never been a Libertarian socialist state ever,
Agreed there hasn't been. Most attempts at a socialist state have been brought about in third world countries. I am of the belief that socialism can only arise from an established liberal democracy. Any attempt to bring about a libertarian socialist government without a foundation in liberal democracy is much like building a house without a foundation.
and socialist states always become authoritarian.
(I am not speaking of socialists specifically) Libertarians rarely become authoritarians though it does happen. (speaking specifically of socialism) The fact that the best known attempts at bringing about socialist governments are products of violent revolutions which are ripe for the rise of strongmen is what leads to those attempts always being authoritarian. If one steps back from the question of socialism to a more general historical analysis there appears to be a link between the conditions under which the government is formed and the necessity and amount of violence needed to establish legitimacy. This is actually one of the major differences between the US and the French revolution and also seems to explain the failure of the English revolution and Cromwell (yes I know he predates I am establishing a principle). The 13 colonies were already operating as more or less independent entities with their own forms of government. Additionally where the crown did have a stronger presences there was almost always a parallel government. The governments which existed at the time already had a strong tendency towards Liberalism.
It's this knowledge which is why I and Libertarian Socialists are absolutely insistent that when it comes to establishing a socialist state violence must be used only as an absolute last and strictly in response to aggression. We are taking our lead from the Socialists who lead the Civil Rights Movement. The application of violence is almost always a bad idea even when justified. Even if it is justified it should be restricted to clearly defensive applications. Note that I have repeatedly said that the violence against the white nationalists at Charlottesville was justified, but I have repeatedly said I thought it was a bad idea. This is because violence even when justified can snowball out of control quickly.
So realistically you present a clear danger to everyone in your nation by spouting off about socialism because the system you advocate almost always kills hundreds of thousands to millions and then implodes.
Considering that you know absolutely nothing about the system I am advocating for and how it may or may not differ from authoritarian regimes. You have no idea what I am spouting off about. For starters you falsely believe that the system which I am advocating for is a centrally controlled system.
Why shouldn't you be put against the wall as a political danger same as a 'Nazi'? Or hell ahead of the Nazi! If you're adamant that the Nazis aren't socialist then all we have to fall back on is the SSR, China and the other socialist nations which were and are killing far more people and acting as global threats. If we're allowing political violence to 'protect' people then commies, socialists and other groups that result in anti freedom and loss of life should be the first to get the old short drop and sudden stop on account of producing inherently destructive systems regardless of what they say the intend. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Sorry mate.
Because as you yourself have said we haven't seen a Libertarian Socialist government. Because as is demonstrably true whenever such a government is attempted the US government goes in and intentionally destabilizes the region which means the reason we haven't seen a Libertarian Socialist government is because of sabotage. So on the one hand you want to blame me for the bloody atrocities of Authoritarians. And on the other hand you want to blame me because Libertarian Socialists are not able to resist the most well funded intelligence agency in the world, and the most well equipped military in the world, because we don't see the point in spilling tankers of blood futilely. Which is about the time the Libertarian Socialist gets shot in the head by an Authoritarian and the blood really starts to pour. Well that is a heads you win tails I loose if I have ever seen one.
Ironically the Nazis would have probably been okay with him. If half his grand parents were white then he would just eke being removed from a kill list.
Maybe, but I tend to think they would have eventually gotten around to the less pure as well. Authoritarian fascist regimes need an internal and external enemy in order to perpetuate themselves. Besides even if they would have let me live being a half breed the cock sucking would have been a deal breaker.
The only socialist art I've seen is smotheringly didactic literature plus portrayals of uber-manly heroic Workers(TM) doing uber-manly heroic things (v. similar to fascist art in that regard). I'm not impressed, to say the least.
So you haven't seen The Matrix, or V for Vendetta? Or heard Kurt Cobain? Or Star Trek? Or rage against the Machine? And this is without putting much thought into it. There are lots of very famous socialists who's work have made lots of money and who are very well known. I also think that your portrayal of Animal Farm and 1984 are rather shallow, after all I remind you George Orwell was a Libertarian Socialist.
I'm not sure how that works, since Eco's points are vague and subjectively defined to the point they can be used for any political movement.
Funny I hear the same criticism of the BITE Model from Mormons and JW's but it's used by the FBI and by professional sociologists and psychologists. And somehow they are able to figure make fine distinctions. Anything can be vague if you want it to be.
Just ten thousand more tries people!
More like as many tries as it takes. I often think it short sighted that the education system fails to even so much a mention the hundreds of bloody failed attempts at establishing liberal democracies before the first one took hold. There are some people who fail at a thing once and then give up. There are others who fail two or three times and then give up. Then there are those who fail hundreds of times understanding that the principles are sound it is only their application which is failing. Then at long last after learning all the ways not to build a light bulb they finally learn how to build one. Contrary to popular belief failure is more important than success. Learning what not to do and why it failed to work the way you wanted it to is key to growth and understanding. It is something which requires brutal honesty and self reflection.
I mean, even in a socialist takeover he loses. Because the tankies being better at organising and more prepared for violence will roll over his little bunch of communes out in the countryside just like they did in Russia and put all the anarkiddies up against the wall. Then over borscht and vodka they will gloat over how useful those idiots were to them.
Oh believe me we are well aware of the treacherous tankies (authoritarian socialists). Their actions in both Germany and Russia as well as sense has been a major planning concern. Setting aside CoIntelPro which was a targeted attack on Socialists by the FBI. We have tended to focus mostly on social issues rather than on economic issues while we learn and process. Besides the CIA and the US military there is a third reason why there haven't really been a major push to attempt to bringing about Libertarian Socialism. It's we are positioning ourselves to be part of the counter-revolutionary movement. There are a couple of plans that boil down to 1) Pull back and let the Nazi's and Fascists weaken themselves and then move in with the counter revolutionary forces to mop up. 2) Join the Counter-revolutionaries in an all out assault against the revolutionary forces.
In either case we are in a better position at the negotiation table, and either way the plan is to stomp the fuck out of both ruthlessly and without mercy before they can get a hold. A lot of the planning has been centered on war gaming the after.
Exactly this. There's no question that transsexuality is objectively an illness, reconstructive sex-change operations wouldn't be the cure otherwise (and someone who wants that surgery without needing it is also, objectively, quite ill).
Dysphoria which is what I assume you are referring to is not necessarily a mental illness even when referring to gender reassignment surgery. In order to be considered a mental illness it needs to be debilitating and that is a pretty high threshold. Think of it like this. Someone who has cancer may not necessarily be ill. There are people who walk around with benign tumors. The tumor may cause discomfort but be utterly harmless. Doctors will still operate to remove the tumor however because even if they are not ill the tumor may become malignant in the future, or even just to remove the discomfort.
Speaking of: What is it with the rather bizarre "bottom surgery" that's become the newspeak of the day anyway? And these people accuse fascists of having a simplified newspeak vocabulary when they're literally inventing a new word, name or phrase for the same thing every couple of years.
You are using the term newspeak incorrectly. And the reason is actually rather simple. It's an old term and indicates which area of the body the surgery is taking place at. The majority of trans individuals usually only elect to have top surgery (breast augmentation or reduction). Top and bottom surgery cover both penoplasty and vaginoplasty. It is a good way to indicate both at the same time without having to always say both every time. It's just like someone may talk about the health of the plants in their garden without referring to each individual plant species. It's a general category which conveys the whole.
In a few cases some (I have only ever met 2) trans individuals use the term as a means of avoiding triggering their dysphoria. The two individuals I am aware of had the most extreme cases of dysphoria I had ever personally come across actually becoming physically ill at the thought of their own genitals. After the surgery they were fine and could refer to the surgeries by name but prior to it was a physical impossibility.
Incidentally, I only meet six of the fourteen characteristics of fascism, which is really quite funny actually.
Would you be interested in revealing which six?
While at least you're not hypocritical (on this one point), do you not see that advancing this position basically undermines the fundamental principles of western civilization, the principles that we fought the nazis in order to save? Legitimizing violence as a valid response to words, even terrible, terrible words, because otherwise those ideas will spread and the rise of fascism is inevitable, is a direct attack on the idea that people should be free to make their own choices and the the public at large can be trusted to exercise power responsibly.
There is a lot to unpack here. WWII was not fought to save liberalism. Just like the Axis used propaganda so did the Allies (even the two names are propaganda). While I do believe that some of the boots on the grounds fighters fought to save liberalism the reality is much different than the fantasy. WWII or as it should properly be called the continuation of the great war was about continuing the grudge match from WWI which had nothing to do with the death of Ferdinand.
Here is the thing because of the way some people have responded I have a hard time figuring out who is fucking with me and who is not. There are after all far more of you than me so I have to generalize linguistic patterns far more than I actually like (people who think the same tend to talk the same). That I have repeatedly stated my potion does not make it easier. So to make this simple let me ask this. And I really need you to answer this. Do you understand the difference between saying violence is justified and violence should be used?
As an addendum I do not think violence should have been used. I do however think it was justified. Given the way my own mind works it is important personally for me to understand when violence is justified and when it is not justified as well as when it should be used and when it should not be used. In large part this developed as a reaction to being a pacifist to the point of receiving savage and brutal beatings regularly until I was about 12 without so much as a protest. After getting beaten bad enough to nearly require hospitalization I had to work out when violence was and was not appropriate as a response. Initially my response was if violence is justified than it should be used. Thankfully that didn't last long and I returned to a near state of pacifism with the belief that violence ought only be used as an extreme measure and only if it will achieve the intended aim of reducing violence in the future. Something to understand is that my analysis is just that. It is a strategic analysis which is apart from either the question of justification or the ought question. I truly hope that provides light into my method of thinking and my position.
You are saying that instead the public are fools who cannot be trusted, and that instead it's up to some nebulous, ill defined group of better and wiser people to guide the national discussion by forcibly silencing ideas the public can't be trusted with.
For some that is supposedly ethically opposed to authoritarians, you seem to be comfortable with a lot of authoritarian ideas.
Which ideas? The problem which seems to keep arising is that people keep conflating the use of violence with authoritarianism. It's understandable but frustrating. Authoritarianism has a specific meaning. You have also inverted what I have said. The public is made up of individuals and it is up to each individual to decide what action they should take in any given circumstance. I also believe in consequences for actions. I am personally less concerned with legal consequences than I am with ethical consequences. While understandable the choice of the counter-protesters to turn violent was emotional, ill thought out, risky, and stupid. I am however quarterbacking after the game having been a spectator in the bleachers. It is also something I stepped in to correct. It did not happen all at once but the organizers did come around to my way of thinking.
I do not know if you have been to protests but it is easy for things to get overcharged emotionally and even the best organized events can be sent into a spiral by rogue agents. That the counter-protest was not well organized and that they did not have a policy in place was a major moral failing on the part of the organizers.
Everyone shouldn't have thier own unique list, you should just get a better one. Eco's 14 points are a bunch of vague BS that apply about equally to fascist and anti-fascist regimes alike
Please demonstrate this. Having read both fascist and anti-fascist literature and having known both kinds in real life I find this rather interesting as a statement.
Anti-fascists don't have a particular obsession with tradition. Action should only be taken if it will bring about the desired results. Anti-fascists will ally with anyone except fascists. Anti-fascists seek to build alliances through intersectional alliances. Anti-fascists are usually though not always socialists so they don't fear the lower classes or seek to appeal to the fears of the middle class. Anti-fascists don't care about plots nor do they draw on xenophobia. They do not cast fascists as too strong and to weak at the same time, but rather seek to exacerbate their fall. Anti-fascists do not believe life is permanent warfare or that pacifism is trafficking with the enemy, rather they exist to deal with fascists and then fade and rely heavily on pacifist tactics. They don't express contempt for the weak. They are not particularly interested in martyrdom or eager to kill or to die. They don't tend to focus on Machismo. You might get them on selective populism but that is more a technicality than anything else as anti-fascists organize specifically around anti-fascism and no other principle. It's why they don't tend to remain after. And they do not employ newspeak.
So at best you can give them a 1 out of 14.
, which is not surprising since Eco was an infant when hitler rose to power, and later a toddler living in an isolated mountain village when WW2 actually broke out. I have a hard time trusting the opinions of a guy who has absolutely no experience with the subject matter he's discussing as the one definitive example of fascism,
No one says he is the one definitive authority on what fascism is or is not. However what you have just done is a genetic fallacy in particular an ad hominem. You are impugning the argument based not on the argument but on the source. Additionally your argument seems to be that because he was not living in a major population center it does not matter if he read their literature or was aware of what was going on because he didn't have first hand experience. That is bunk. If anything that made his analysis more objective than it otherwise would have been. Reading the literature (both the official literature as well as the newspapers produced by them) and comparing them to other sources of information is how one builds an analysis.
and if it wasn't so handy to be able to go "hey look, here's a smart guy who wrote this list that says your thing is fascist", no one else would either.
There is an assumption to an appeal to authority that does not exist. I do not use the list because it was written by a smart guy. I use it because it encapsulates and summarizes fascism. I will fully admit that there are those who use the list that way. And they are wrong for doing so. The way I found it was because I was attempting to compile a list for my own notes from what I read of fascist literature at the time and a professor pointed me to it.
The BITE model is likewise less than applicable, since it's (in addition to being based on, amoung other things, Maoist China), about cults, not politics, and can also be applied to every movement under the sun. How many of those checkboxes does, say, the sterotypical left wing tumblr SJW check off?
[/quote] Less than you might think and for the same reason that the Alt-Right doesn't check many of those boxes. Something that is also taken into account is severity. It is not just a way to say such and such is a destructive cult but you can even rank various cults by destructiveness.
As for the term fascist become useless, that ship has sailed a long, long, long time ago.
And its coming back especially with the rise of serious fascist movements. I do not mean calling someone a fascist but the number of self identified fascists and attempts they are making to organize themselves.
This from the guy constantly talking about "JQ Nazis", a phrase that, as far as google goes, does not exist within the wider political discourse and is instead being used just by you.
Yes there are non Jewish Question Nazi's. There are even Jewish Nazi's. The NSDAP was a Nazi Party based in Nazi philosophy which was a variant of Fascism with a racial bent.