thor
Legend
Posts: 20,417
|
Post by thor on Apr 9, 2023 3:34:15 GMT
Thor man. Take ur meds. Ur losing it buddy. Guy who shits his pants over events on other continents sez wut?
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2023 3:50:10 GMT
Have you read his article? The quote I copied is just a snipet. I didn't read the article. Sorry, I thought the snippet you posted was what was relevant. I'll try to find it and give it a go some time in the next day or so. It's an amazing article written in 1944 by FDR's vp. It was easily accessible a couple of years ago, now it seems it is only in pdf that can't be copied. I would love to hear your opinion.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Apr 9, 2023 4:52:49 GMT
Imagine having had to fund this turd's education.... It was so easy for me. Did you try to get in lol? One of the most two faced beta males I knew in my high school did a half year at West Point.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 10, 2023 14:54:03 GMT
Yeah, once again, using “fascism” as a facile pejorative is easy, but not accurate. Can you define fascism? Henry Wallace fid a good job of defining fascism. It's too long for here, but here's a small bit of his nyt article. "The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection." ~quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 Henry A. Wallace K, I don't think he is defining fascism. I think this is an early example of leveraging the word to (at best) expose destructive practices "at home" and (at worst) demonize those with whom he disagrees. Easy to do, since at the end of WW2, "fascist" was an obvious "othering" term. In fact, you could argue he is actually doing what he is warning against: making those he disagrees with "the other" and demonizing them with a catch-all term. How could I make such and audacious claim? Because he is conflating the actual definition of the term with all the behaviours he doesn't like (and hey, I'm on his side about those behaviours). But Henry Wallace may have actually started the problem with using "fascist" as a generalizing, demonizing, "othering" insult, and actually degrading the actual definition in common parlance. Here is how fascism is defined on wikipedia (and I'm surprised that up to this point, nobody has actually offered a straight-up definition—but maybe it's because we're more enamoured with demonizing opponents than we are with clarity and precision in speech): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FascismSee, with the degradation of the term to become an increasingly meaningless catch-all, we lose the following characteristics: 1. Far-right. The "far-right" does exist in the United States, but it's hardly the central obvious threat that some people paint it to be. Although...it might be coming (there's a tendency to move farther right when facing threat—e.g., moral threats (a typical tactic of the right...well, right and left—they just pick different moral values), war (nothing like an external threat to build internal unity and identity), and disease (after the Spanish Influenza pandemic, German cities with the highest flu death rates exhibited the highest support for Hitler 10 years later)). 2. A dictatorial leader. No, even Trump doesn't qualify. If he did, he wouldn't have needed to constantly spout who "his good friends" were ("I know about teachers; nobody knows more about teachers than me; I have good friends that are teachers," ad nauseam). 3. Forcible suppression of opposition. Wallace shifts this to deceptive suppression of opposition. Right. Well that doesn't qualify as "fascism." So there is overlap between what Wallace is warning against and "fascism." But it's not fascism.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Apr 11, 2023 0:06:23 GMT
I think whoever wrote the Wiki article defining facism got it 100% right.
No pun intended.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 2, 2023 0:13:52 GMT
bump
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jun 2, 2023 2:13:57 GMT
I'm pretty happy with this definition. linkFreon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 2, 2023 2:17:02 GMT
I'm pretty happy with this definition. linkFreon Not sure about #14. It might be characteristic (I don't know). Not sure it is definitive. The rest of them seem like a legit description.
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jun 2, 2023 2:18:48 GMT
I'm pretty happy with this definition. linkFreon Not sure about #14. It might be characteristic (I don't know). Not sure it is definitive. The rest of them seem like a legit description. And most, if not all of them, happened under Donald. Truly terrifying to me, that he was/is so beloved. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 2, 2023 19:44:57 GMT
Not sure about #14. It might be characteristic (I don't know). Not sure it is definitive. The rest of them seem like a legit description. And most, if not all of them, happened under Donald. Truly terrifying to me, that he was/is so beloved. Freon Under Donald? Or by Donald? He certainly didn't control the mass media... I would argue that a few of those characteristics are typically "American," not "Trump."
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jun 2, 2023 19:51:14 GMT
Not sure about #14. It might be characteristic (I don't know). Not sure it is definitive. The rest of them seem like a legit description. And most, if not all of them, happened under Donald. Truly terrifying to me, that he was/is so beloved. Freon Most of those fourteen fit the folks calling themselves "liberals" today. If you are the honest man you say you are, let's see you post examples the "happened under Donald" that were actually directly connected to Trump.
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jun 2, 2023 20:25:20 GMT
And most, if not all of them, happened under Donald. Truly terrifying to me, that he was/is so beloved. Freon Under Donald? Or by Donald? He certainly didn't control the mass media... I would argue that a few of those characteristics are typically "American," not "Trump." A few, certainly, like a giant military, but yes, BY Donald, as well as endorsed by him. If you can truly look at that list, and not see Donald and his follower's activity, then I see that as a choice to deny reality. When I see that list, I see Donald's entire presidency. It's almost a perfect fit. Freon
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jun 2, 2023 20:28:24 GMT
And most, if not all of them, happened under Donald. Truly terrifying to me, that he was/is so beloved. Freon Most of those fourteen fit the folks calling themselves "liberals" today. If you are the honest man you say you are, let's see you post examples the "happened under Donald" that were actually directly connected to Trump. Your position just says to me that you are a denier. I HAVE looked at that list, and I see only a very few things that liberals have done. Whereas every section has representation either BY Donald, or endorsed by him, and perpetrated by his followers. We came VERY close to fascism in this country. Thankfully, true patriots stood up to it, and we dodged that bullet. And now, those same fascist followers, want to give Donald a second chance at it. Crazy. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 2, 2023 20:31:13 GMT
Under Donald? Or by Donald? He certainly didn't control the mass media... I would argue that a few of those characteristics are typically "American," not "Trump." A few, certainly, like a giant military, but yes, BY Donald, as well as endorsed by him. If you can truly look at that list, and not see Donald and his follower's activity, then I see that as a choice to deny reality. When I see that list, I see Donald's entire presidency. It's almost a perfect fit. Freon Not my point. Similarities and dissimilarities. So: 1) In what ways was Trump's term "like fascism" or "fascist"? In what ways was it not "like fascism" or "fascist"? 2) In what ways was Trump's term distinct from the terms of other presidents when it comes to similarity/dissimilarity to fascism? Anything less than seriously answering all of those questions isn't really critically examining the issue.
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jun 2, 2023 20:38:12 GMT
A few, certainly, like a giant military, but yes, BY Donald, as well as endorsed by him. If you can truly look at that list, and not see Donald and his follower's activity, then I see that as a choice to deny reality. When I see that list, I see Donald's entire presidency. It's almost a perfect fit. Freon Not my point. Similarities and dissimilarities. So: 1) In what ways was Trump's term "like fascism" or "fascist"? In what ways was it not "like fascism" or "fascist"? 2) In what ways was Trump's term distinct from the terms of other presidents when it comes to similarity/dissimilarity to fascism? Anything less than seriously answering all of those questions isn't really critically examining the issue. I disagree with your entire post. You are setting up a bunch of rules, and I do not acknowledge them as valid, reasonable, or necessary. You asked what I thought fascism was. I told you. And as I said in the other thread, that once you knew, you wouldn't just be satisfied with the knowledge. And here you are, proving me correct. Which means you are not trying to get information, as I am in the thread where I ask DeSantis vs Donald. I have not argued with anyone's response, though I clearly can. I am there for information only, for my own purposes. So logically, since you are behaving exactly opposite of someone who is merely information gathering, I must ask why you ARE asking these questions. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 2, 2023 21:14:28 GMT
Not my point. Similarities and dissimilarities. So: 1) In what ways was Trump's term "like fascism" or "fascist"? In what ways was it not "like fascism" or "fascist"? 2) In what ways was Trump's term distinct from the terms of other presidents when it comes to similarity/dissimilarity to fascism? Anything less than seriously answering all of those questions isn't really critically examining the issue. I disagree with your entire post. You are setting up a bunch of rules, and I do not acknowledge them as valid, reasonable, or necessary. You asked what I thought fascism was. I told you. And as I said in the other thread, that once you knew, you wouldn't just be satisfied with the knowledge. And here you are, proving me correct. Which means you are not trying to get information, as I am in the thread where I ask DeSantis vs Donald. I have not argued with anyone's response, though I clearly can. I am there for information only, for my own purposes. So logically, since you are behaving exactly opposite of someone who is merely information gathering, I must ask why you ARE asking these questions. Freon Those "rules" are critical thinking. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. But what if A is a little like B in some ways, but not like in other ways? What if B is a little like C in some ways, but not in other ways? I agree with (most of) what you presented about fascism. I'm just not convinced that "A=C" in this case, vis à vis Donald Trump. Why ask for a definition of "fascism"? So we can at least agree to terms of what we're talking about. But the point of this forum isn't just "to gather information." It's to have discussion. Agreement of the meaning of terms is the beginning of effective discussion. Doesn't mean we should just "agree to terms" and then stop talking. It's a starting point. But without agreeing to terms, we can't even really have a profitable discussion. I asked for a definition of fascism...you followed that with a statement about Donald Trump. That's good. That's fine. That's where we could have a better discussion than if we just completely disagreed on what fascism even is.
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jun 2, 2023 21:21:13 GMT
I disagree with your entire post. You are setting up a bunch of rules, and I do not acknowledge them as valid, reasonable, or necessary. You asked what I thought fascism was. I told you. And as I said in the other thread, that once you knew, you wouldn't just be satisfied with the knowledge. And here you are, proving me correct. Which means you are not trying to get information, as I am in the thread where I ask DeSantis vs Donald. I have not argued with anyone's response, though I clearly can. I am there for information only, for my own purposes. So logically, since you are behaving exactly opposite of someone who is merely information gathering, I must ask why you ARE asking these questions. Freon Those "rules" are critical thinking. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. But what if A is a little like B in some ways, but not like in other ways? What if B is a little like C in some ways, but not in other ways? I agree with (most of) what you presented about fascism. I'm just not convinced that "A=C" in this case, vis à vis Donald Trump. Why ask for a definition of "fascism"? So we can at least agree to terms of what we're talking about. But the point of this forum isn't just "to gather information." It's to have discussion. Agreement of the meaning of terms is the beginning of effective discussion. Doesn't mean we should just "agree to terms" and then stop talking. It's a starting point. But without agreeing to terms, we can't even really have a profitable discussion. I asked for a definition of fascism...you followed that with a statement about Donald Trump. That's good. That's fine. That's where we could have a better discussion than if we just completely disagreed on what fascism even is. No. Those rules are dogmatic thinking. You can try to put a veneer of math on top of it, to make it look like a scientific perspective, but your entire argument is illogical, and I will not engage with you on it. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 2, 2023 21:31:08 GMT
Those "rules" are critical thinking. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. But what if A is a little like B in some ways, but not like in other ways? What if B is a little like C in some ways, but not in other ways? I agree with (most of) what you presented about fascism. I'm just not convinced that "A=C" in this case, vis à vis Donald Trump. Why ask for a definition of "fascism"? So we can at least agree to terms of what we're talking about. But the point of this forum isn't just "to gather information." It's to have discussion. Agreement of the meaning of terms is the beginning of effective discussion. Doesn't mean we should just "agree to terms" and then stop talking. It's a starting point. But without agreeing to terms, we can't even really have a profitable discussion. I asked for a definition of fascism...you followed that with a statement about Donald Trump. That's good. That's fine. That's where we could have a better discussion than if we just completely disagreed on what fascism even is. No. Those rules are dogmatic thinking. You can try to put a veneer of math on top of it, to make it look like a scientific perspective, but your entire argument is illogical, and I will not engage with you on it. Freon Okay. It would be interesting to know what you mean when you say "critical thinking" or "scientific approach." Because that "similarity and dissimilarity" seems to be intrinsic to critical thinking. Otherwise people tend to slide towards confirmation bias, etc.
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jun 2, 2023 22:00:47 GMT
No. Those rules are dogmatic thinking. You can try to put a veneer of math on top of it, to make it look like a scientific perspective, but your entire argument is illogical, and I will not engage with you on it. Freon Okay. It would be interesting to know what you mean when you say "critical thinking" or "scientific approach." Because that "similarity and dissimilarity" seems to be intrinsic to critical thinking. Otherwise people tend to slide towards confirmation bias, etc. Critical Thinking means looking at an entire problem, not just pieces of it, factoring in all the data, not just the ones that are easy to gather or seem obvious, and approaching analysis with the most precision possible before coming to any conclusions or judgements. It means not factoring in anecdotal information, opinion, or emotion. It means doing everything possible to learn the truth through accurate data gathering and rigorous experimentation, regardless of what that truth is. It means trying to DISPROVE your own theory, as a means of testing its rigor. The 'scientific approach' has no meaning, not sure where you heard it. Do you mean the Scientific Method? That is very well defined. It is iterating through the cycle of hypothesis-->experimentation-->conclusion, repeatedly, until enough data is gathered to either accept the hypothesis as a theory, or reject it in favor of a new hypothesis. Your conclusion that people tend to slide toward confirmation bias, etc, if they do not adhere to your view that 'similarity and dissimilarity' is a basis of Critical Thinking is oversimplistic, and I would consider, mistaken. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 4, 2023 19:37:39 GMT
Okay. It would be interesting to know what you mean when you say "critical thinking" or "scientific approach." Because that "similarity and dissimilarity" seems to be intrinsic to critical thinking. Otherwise people tend to slide towards confirmation bias, etc. Critical Thinking means looking at an entire problem, not just pieces of it, factoring in all the data, not just the ones that are easy to gather or seem obvious, and approaching analysis with the most precision possible before coming to any conclusions or judgements. It means not factoring in anecdotal information, opinion, or emotion. It means doing everything possible to learn the truth through accurate data gathering and rigorous experimentation, regardless of what that truth is. It means trying to DISPROVE your own theory, as a means of testing its rigor. The 'scientific approach' has no meaning, not sure where you heard it. Do you mean the Scientific Method? That is very well defined. It is iterating through the cycle of hypothesis-->experimentation-->conclusion, repeatedly, until enough data is gathered to either accept the hypothesis as a theory, or reject it in favor of a new hypothesis. Your conclusion that people tend to slide toward confirmation bias, etc, if they do not adhere to your view that 'similarity and dissimilarity' is a basis of Critical Thinking is oversimplistic, and I would consider, mistaken. Freon Critical thinking certainly requires isolating factors. The criterion of "similarity and dissimilarity" comes from the methodological study of history. I applies. If you "factor in all the data," then how do determine what matters? The reality is that it is impossible to factor in all the data. You can only factor in as much as you can handle, and at some point you have to scale the data on some kind of hierarchy of importance. And it seems to me that simplistically labeling or characterizing Trump's term as "fascist" is picking and choosing what data you want.
|
|