Are we now in full blown fascist totalitarianism?

[Elixir]

Yeah leftists are so intolerant of things like *checks notes* demonizing people as "vermin" because they're immigrants. The horror. Truly an example of pathological extremism.

Demonizing people as vermin because they are immigrants is an extremist view. Extremist views from the left is also a thing. It's all a bit silly really.

Funny how you didn’t give an example to support your thinly veiled “both sides” bullshit.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Another day, another example of dangerous right wing extremism that gets ignored.

Teachers get death threats after Halloween costumes wrongly linked to Charlie Kirk killing

A group of teachers is facing backlash for wearing Halloween costumes that some have claimed make light of Charlie Kirk's assassination.

www.kktv.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The right-wing is out of their bloody minds! They might be perfectly normal for day-to-day stuff, their partisan minds are near a delusional state.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You can be intolerant without staging a violent revolution. There's plenty of ways to be a cunt before it gets violent.

I don't think the accusation of leftist intolerance is wrong.

Can you give some examples of leftist intolerance? And then compare them to right wing intolerance.

There's an obvious one. The trans debate. Leftists were treating this as something obvious and simple. But it wasn't. Libreral were both forceful and hysterical about allowing transwomen to compete in female sports.

The worst example of "leftist extremism" you can come up with is... allowing trans women to compete in female sports.

That's not what makes it extreme. What makes it extreme is how this was talked about. The fact that these views are both extreme, in the sense that they go way off what is considered the norm, as well as being pushed agressively without any space for nuanced discussion. Its the second part I have a problem with.

I'm super comfortable with free self expression. No matter how bizarre. As long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's free expression, I'm all for it.

I was in this forum in the period I am talking about. This forum was heavily woke extremist in the period I mentioned. I was called all manner of nasty things for questioning the behaviour

Meanwhile, Melissa Hortman and Mark Hortman are dead, and the other victims have to live with the fact that they were targeted for assassination by a right wing extremist. Something which you repeatedly ignore.

No, I haven't. I think its catastrophically bad.

Why do you think I am ignoring it?

I just want to point out that conservative extremism in no way cancels out leftist extremism. They're both bad. But I am not a conservative. I'm on the left. So that's the extremism I think is the most problematic for me.

 

[Swammerdami]

But there's plenty of fascistic tendencies in modern movements. That's what people mean.

Without examples of what you consider to be "fascist tendencies" your claims are fatuous (and almost tautologous).

I just took your question seriously. Sorry for that.

Which question? If you need to throw in a gratuitous insult, at least let me know what I'm insulted for.

Here's a list of things we associate with fascism.

In your dialect, do we need 14 hits out of 14 to deploy the F word?

Remember that a fascist demagogue is an opportunist. He might appeal to a particular religion without being religious. to a racist creed without being personally racist. Jingoistic pride may be a pretense to attract followers. Your list of "things" suggests you don't grasp that ideology is not the end, but rather a means to an end for the power-grabber.

Despite that, almost all your criteria fit the Orange Fascist. I've added notes to your list.

• Cult of the strong leader (charismatic daddy figure, zero accountability)
  "Charisma" is the only "leader-like" trait Trump has.
• Hyper-nationalism (glorified national myth, usually invented)
• Militarism & love of violence (war = purification, not politics)
  Think of the slapstick parade on T's birthday.
• Obsession with “purity” (racial, cultural, moral — pick your poison)
  White nationalism; he talks of deporting off-color U.S. citizens.
• Scapegoats & enemies (minorities, dissenters, intellectuals — easy targets)
  MUCH more so than under Nixon, "enemies" are taken VERY seriously by this oaf.
• Suppression of democracy (elections in name only; opposition crushed)
  Only the very ignorant are unaware of extreme vote suppression tactics practiced by the GOP. Voters queue for hours and are not allowed to take free water.
• Total control of media & propaganda saturation
  Trump snaps his fingers and is obeyed. Only the most right-wing reporters are now allowed into briefings.
• Corporate–state fusion (capital works for the regime, not the market)
  U.S. has bought a stake in Intel -- Unprecedented Tesla-Trump have a love affair. The Trump crime family is in league with crypto criminals, etc.
• Anti-individualism (collective identity over personal rights)
• Mythic past fetish (imaginary golden age to “return” to)
  What does the 2nd A in MAGA stand for? Don't know?
• Anti-intellectualism (thinking bad, loyalty good)
  "I love the ignorant people" -- DJT
• Glorification of masculinity & obedience (softness = sin)
• Police state surveillance & political violence
  Masked ICE agents now operate thuggishly without ID. Innocent citizens are manhandled.
• Cult of sacrifice (citizens exist to serve the state)

...
Was that clear enough?

VERY clear. Trump fits your criteria for Fascist VERY well. I cannot imagine where you get your "news" that leads you not to know even this much.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Mutual respect is the only way forward

You want us to have respect for the people that say "Fuck your feelings."?

Congratulations on dehumanizing your political opponents

Of course conservatives also have feelings. They have different values, so have their feelings triggered by other things

Its not like this should be news to you, there's books and shit on this

Right-wingers are dehumanizing themselves. For instance, Charlie Kirk's remarks about empathy:
"I can't stand empathy. I think empathy is a made-up, New Age term that - it does a lot of damage, but it is very effective when it comes to politics".
This is a sentiment shared by Republican politicians and millions of their followers. That is different values alright.

But you know the context. The woke narrative is that everyone should be protected from feeling bad and hearing hurty words. Wokes often use "empathy" as a weapon against anyone doing anything. If Charlie Kirk really said that, I suspect that's what he meant. Obviously he's for empathy. Everybody is. What sets us apart is what we do with it.

Having empathy doesn't mean we always need to rush to the aid of whoever cries the loudest. Wokes often have an absurd relation to empathy. People suffer. We can't protect everyone from everything.

You have a strange view of what 'woke' means. Here is a googled definition:
"Woke" originally meant being aware of social injustices, particularly racial discrimination, and originated in African-American English. Over time, its meaning has broadened to include awareness of other social inequalities, but it has also become a politically charged term used as both a compliment for progressive awareness and a derogatory slur for those perceived as excessively liberal or politically correct. The modern, politicized usage is often defined by the user's own political stance."
Nowhere is this definition is there any mention of feelings or being hurt - those are things right-wingers and people pretending to be leftists complain not having themselves respected for. Everybody is not for empathy. Having empathy covers many things, and one of those is helping others if we can, not deliberately harming them. Yeah people suffer, but that doesn't mean that governments and fascist groups should be allowed to go for maximum sadistic behaviour.

The meaning of woke has changed over time. Today, I'd argue, it only means liberal intolerance. I don't think it even means "excessively liberal and politically correct", anymore. That used to be what it means. Now I think it means to demand everyone has liberal values.

Who ever claimed that we must protect everyone from everything? That is nonsense.

I don't think it's nonsense. It's even more. I think woke is that we must protect everyone from ever feeling bad. The fact that someone feels bad is enough to warrant action to protect them. Which is at odds with free speech.

Or are you upset I didn't start with a trigger warning?

You can't see a connection between the concept of empathy and the shooting of children, hence showing you yourself have no empathy, and then have the gall to repeat the false claim that everyone has empathy.
Typical right-wing tactic when someone has a different view to you to call them 'woke' with an intentional derogatory meaning attached to that word. Hating woke is also right-wing ideology.

ha ha. I caught you with your pants down. What a pathetic attempt at defending yourself. You're going to have to do better than this.

Why don't you start by explaining why you brought up the dead children?

As to your stance is on gun control, why don't you tell us, because based on your usual zeitgeist it is strong support for the current American interpretation of their Second Amendment.

I don't give a fuck about the second amendment. I'm European. I don't think constitutions are sacred objects. If a constitution isn't working we can just change it, to something that is. I find Americans obsession with their immutable constitution strange. And it's not even immutable. That's what the amendments are about. You have changed it in the past. Why not do it again?

Humpty Dumpty believed that he could give personal meanings to words, in contradiction to their generally accepted meanings; you are doing the same thing. There are two sets of meanings for "woke", the meaning generally accepted by society (in common with the practice with most words), and the special meaning that extreme right-wingers think that they can apply to the word, and then use it to insult others in a childlish fashion. It never meant the things that you claimed it means ("excessively liberal and politically correct"), nor what you think it currently means - that everyone have liberal values. Ironically you have claimed to be liberal, so you should like liberal values.

QUOTE: "Or are you upset I didn't start with a trigger warning?" Certainly not. It is right-wingers like yourself who are easily triggered.
Why did I bring up the dead children? In a discussion about empathy, you don't understand why I mentioned them? To most people (those with empathy) it would be obvious.
QUOTE: "That's what the amendments are about. You have changed it in the past. Why not do it again?" I am NOT an American; if you paid attention you would have realized that.

Finally, I repeat my previously raised point for you to answer, if you dare. Why are you claiming to be a leftist (&/or liberal), when the talking points that you bring up as your views, and your whole attitude, mirrors that of right-wingers?

 

[ZiprHead]

There's an obvious one. The trans debate. Leftists were treating this as something obvious and simple. But it wasn't. Libreral were both forceful and hysterical about allowing transwomen to compete in female sports.

Can you give an example of a "forceful and hysterical" leftist talking about about allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports?

 

[ZiprHead]

That's not what makes it extreme. What makes it extreme is how this was talked about. The fact that these views are both extreme, in the sense that they go way off what is considered the norm, as well as being pushed agressively without any space for nuanced discussion. Its the second part I have a problem with.

You talk a lot about leftist extremists but you almost never give examples. You need to start doing so if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's an obvious one. The trans debate. Leftists were treating this as something obvious and simple. But it wasn't. Libreral were both forceful and hysterical about allowing transwomen to compete in female sports.

Can you give an example of a "forceful and hysterical" leftist talking about about allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports?

He probably can. You can find an example of most unlikely or stupid situations fairly easily, given time.

You can find a story about a man biting a dog.

You can find a story about a hysterical leftist whinging the belief that a statement sudden and immediately makes someone a fit for some sports league that they are NOT a fit for.

You CAN find that. It would take you a week and you might find only one, but it's out there somewhere.

But any day of the week, you can find a hysterical conservative whinging about it, about people who ARE physically "peers", because "eek! A penis!"

Hell, DrZ is right here volunteering to yell "Eek! A penis!"

The left already polices this.

The right polices it not-at-all

 

[ZiprHead]

There's an obvious one. The trans debate. Leftists were treating this as something obvious and simple. But it wasn't. Libreral were both forceful and hysterical about allowing transwomen to compete in female sports.

Can you give an example of a "forceful and hysterical" leftist talking about about allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports?

He probably can. You can find an example of most unlikely or stupid situations fairly easily, given time.

You can find a story about a man biting a dog.

You can find a story about a hysterical leftist whinging the belief that a statement sudden and immediately makes someone a fit for some sports league that they are NOT a fit for.

You CAN find that. It would take you a week and you might find only one, but it's out there somewhere.

But any day of the week, you can find a hysterical conservative whinging about it, about people who ARE physically "peers", because "eek! A penis!"

Hell, DrZ is right here volunteering to yell "Eek! A penis!"

The left already polices this.

The right polices it not-at-all

True.

But if it is so rare as to be extremely difficult to find, what makes DrZ think it is so common?

 

[DrZoidberg]

But there's plenty of fascistic tendencies in modern movements. That's what people mean.

Without examples of what you consider to be "fascist tendencies" your claims are fatuous (and almost tautologous).

I just took your question seriously. Sorry for that.

Which question? If you need to throw in a gratuitous insult, at least let me know what I'm insulted for.

Here's a list of things we associate with fascism.

In your dialect, do we need 14 hits out of 14 to deploy the F word?

Remember that a fascist demagogue is an opportunist. He might appeal to a particular religion without being religious. to a racist creed without being personally racist. Jingoistic pride may be a pretense to attract followers. Your list of "things" suggests you don't grasp that ideology is not the end, but rather a means to an end for the power-grabber.

Despite that, almost all your criteria fit the Orange Fascist. I've added notes to your list.

• Cult of the strong leader (charismatic daddy figure, zero accountability)
  "Charisma" is the only "leader-like" trait Trump has.
• Hyper-nationalism (glorified national myth, usually invented)
• Militarism & love of violence (war = purification, not politics)
  Think of the slapstick parade on T's birthday.
• Obsession with “purity” (racial, cultural, moral — pick your poison)
  White nationalism; he talks of deporting off-color U.S. citizens.
• Scapegoats & enemies (minorities, dissenters, intellectuals — easy targets)
  MUCH more so than under Nixon, "enemies" are taken VERY seriously by this oaf.
• Suppression of democracy (elections in name only; opposition crushed)
  Only the very ignorant are unaware of extreme vote suppression tactics practiced by the GOP. Voters queue for hours and are not allowed to take free water.
• Total control of media & propaganda saturation
  Trump snaps his fingers and is obeyed. Only the most right-wing reporters are now allowed into briefings.
• Corporate–state fusion (capital works for the regime, not the market)
  U.S. has bought a stake in Intel -- Unprecedented Tesla-Trump have a love affair. The Trump crime family is in league with crypto criminals, etc.
• Anti-individualism (collective identity over personal rights)
• Mythic past fetish (imaginary golden age to “return” to)
  What does the 2nd A in MAGA stand for? Don't know?
• Anti-intellectualism (thinking bad, loyalty good)
  "I love the ignorant people" -- DJT
• Glorification of masculinity & obedience (softness = sin)
• Police state surveillance & political violence
  Masked ICE agents now operate thuggishly without ID. Innocent citizens are manhandled.
• Cult of sacrifice (citizens exist to serve the state)

...
Was that clear enough?

VERY clear. Trump fits your criteria for Fascist VERY well. I cannot imagine where you get your "news" that leads you not to know even this much.

Please remind me of what death squads he has been using to crush all public discourse and make Americans on this forum avoid talking here for fear of those death squads?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Calling Trump a fascist I think is a good example of leftist extremist rhetoric. United States is nowhere near a totalitarian regime. Its hysterical hyperbole

 

[Swammerdami]

Please remind me of what death squads he has been using to crush all public discourse and make Americans on this forum avoid talking here for fear of those death squads?

Republican Congressmen have confessed that they vote for Trumpist agenda they disapprove of, because they fear for their family's safety if they oppose Trump.

Paul Pelosi was bludgeoned nearly to death by a deranged MAGGOT. Fox newscasters and top Republicans cracked jokes about Pelosi's near-encounter with death.

Many peaceful protestors have been beaten and arrested.

Immigrants in the country legally have been deported to dungeons in El Salvador despite having no connection to El Salvador.

I'm honestly not sure whether
(A) to label a political movement "fascist" you need some precise criteria ("The fascist forces did A [adverb] [adverb] to at least N people with [adjective][adjective] [noun] AND [verb phrase] [verb phrase]" -- IOW you're looking for any excuse like "Trump fails to meet criterion 31(a) so cannot fit the definition of fascist."
Or
(B) your information feeds are so biased you are simply unaware of the behavior of the present Trump Administration.

Help me settle this. Are you even aware of Trump's behavior? It sounds like you think Trump fits only 10 or so of your 14 criteria for fascism. Demonstrate your knowledge of the present U.S.A. by listing examples of the things Trump HAS done which DO partially satisfy the criteria.

 

[Elixir]

Why do you think I am ignoring it?

Because you seem to equate it with “trans women in sports” trope.
(TWISDS: Trans Women In Sports Derangement Syndrome).

 

[Elixir]

The woke narrative is that everyone should be protected from feeling bad and hearing hurty words.

True only to the extent that this is what the right tries to pin on those they vilify.
THE RIGHT DEFINES “WOKE”, not those who are or claim to be woke. So save your Pearl clutching. Do you find the libs moderating this site to be too woke? Who do you know who fits YOUR definition of woke?
I suspect you are simply regurgitating Faux Nooz tropes, and have never been harmed by woke, wokeness, wokesters or any kind of nefarious wokery. Prove me wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

The woke narrative is that everyone should be protected from feeling bad and hearing hurty words.

True only to the extent that this is what the right tries to pin on those they vilify.

Well, that's the thing: the left says "people should be protected from the consequences of others saying untrue things and making specious claims, and the right hears the statement DrZ says he hears.

Clearly, there is FAR more going on when people feel bad over specious claims and untrue statements. The defense against such claims ("that is not true") does not have the weight and the effect of the specious claims, and so we have a natural urge to respond much more seriously over it so as to prevent such asymmetric attacks from being attempted.

We do have some obligation to respond to bullying and asymmetric attacks.

The thing the left will NOT defend you against is when someone says something "hurty" to you and it hurts specifically because it is true and valid.

As much as I will defend some woman from Dr Zoidberg or anyone else rudely calling her a man in public (slandering her with whatever intents he colors behind the word 'man'), but I will NOT defend Dr Z or Anyone else from her, or acknowledge any right for defense, when she publicly calls him a bigot for slandering her with the intent he puts behind his utterance.

This is because ONE is a specious claim and not actually true (in some senses because of the lack of absolute truth or meaning even behind the words 'man' and 'woman'), and the other is absolutely true (that DrZ or whoever else might act that way is being bigoted: making broad statements about someone based on narrow qualities).

The right does not like this, because they wish a right, for specious reasons, to bully people without those people having recourse.

To that I say "just try bullying me."

 

[ZiprHead]

The woke narrative is that everyone should be protected from feeling bad and hearing hurty words.

It's the right that made that an issue. That's why they want to limit things taught in school such as the reasoning behind the civil war or the civil rights movement. They don't want their little snowflake kids to be exposed to that and feel guilty.

Damn! How can you be so wrong about so much and still be so sure you're right?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Please remind me of what death squads he has been using to crush all public discourse and make Americans on this forum avoid talking here for fear of those death squads?

Republican Congressmen have confessed that they vote for Trumpist agenda they disapprove of, because they fear for their family's safety if they oppose Trump.

What about you? Are you personally afraid to speak up against Trump? Obviously not, since you are posting this.

He also doesn't give his own paramilitary private army extrajuducial abilities to murder people without repercussions.

If those politicians would get attacked, the attackers would be dealt with by the law

Paul Pelosi was bludgeoned nearly to death by a deranged MAGGOT. Fox newscasters and top Republicans cracked jokes about Pelosi's near-encounter with death.

There's no indication this is systematic. Wasn't this by crazed Qanon loonies?

Many peaceful protestors have been beaten and arrested.

well... peaceful according to who? I have doubts

Immigrants in the country legally have been deported to dungeons in El Salvador despite having no connection to El Salvador.

Its not a good look. Its still not fascism. There's no scale to this.

I'm honestly not sure whether
(A) to label a political movement "fascist" you need some precise criteria ("The fascist forces did A [adverb] [adverb] to at least N people with [adjective][adjective] [noun] AND [verb phrase] [verb phrase]" -- IOW you're looking for any excuse like "Trump fails to meet criterion 31(a) so cannot fit the definition of fascist."
Or
(B) your information feeds are so biased you are simply unaware of the behavior of the present Trump Administration.

Help me settle this. Are you even aware of Trump's behavior? It sounds like you think Trump fits only 10 or so of your 14 criteria for fascism. Demonstrate your knowledge of the present U.S.A. by listing examples of the things Trump HAS done which DO partially satisfy the criteria.

Trump is nowhere near as bad as any of the fascist dictators of Europe. Its laughable that you think this is fascism.

But most importantly, Trump doesn't have a fascist political agenda and doesn't argue for fascist policies. That should be enough to convince you imho.

Trying to argue that Trump is fascist is a joke.

 

[laughing dog]

But there's plenty of fascistic tendencies in modern movements. That's what people mean.

Without examples of what you consider to be "fascist tendencies" your claims are fatuous (and almost tautologous).

I just took your question seriously. Sorry for that.

Which question? If you need to throw in a gratuitous insult, at least let me know what I'm insulted for.

Here's a list of things we associate with fascism.

In your dialect, do we need 14 hits out of 14 to deploy the F word?

Remember that a fascist demagogue is an opportunist. He might appeal to a particular religion without being religious. to a racist creed without being personally racist. Jingoistic pride may be a pretense to attract followers. Your list of "things" suggests you don't grasp that ideology is not the end, but rather a means to an end for the power-grabber.

Despite that, almost all your criteria fit the Orange Fascist. I've added notes to your list.

• Cult of the strong leader (charismatic daddy figure, zero accountability)
  "Charisma" is the only "leader-like" trait Trump has.
• Hyper-nationalism (glorified national myth, usually invented)
• Militarism & love of violence (war = purification, not politics)
  Think of the slapstick parade on T's birthday.
• Obsession with “purity” (racial, cultural, moral — pick your poison)
  White nationalism; he talks of deporting off-color U.S. citizens.
• Scapegoats & enemies (minorities, dissenters, intellectuals — easy targets)
  MUCH more so than under Nixon, "enemies" are taken VERY seriously by this oaf.
• Suppression of democracy (elections in name only; opposition crushed)
  Only the very ignorant are unaware of extreme vote suppression tactics practiced by the GOP. Voters queue for hours and are not allowed to take free water.
• Total control of media & propaganda saturation
  Trump snaps his fingers and is obeyed. Only the most right-wing reporters are now allowed into briefings.
• Corporate–state fusion (capital works for the regime, not the market)
  U.S. has bought a stake in Intel -- Unprecedented Tesla-Trump have a love affair. The Trump crime family is in league with crypto criminals, etc.
• Anti-individualism (collective identity over personal rights)
• Mythic past fetish (imaginary golden age to “return” to)
  What does the 2nd A in MAGA stand for? Don't know?
• Anti-intellectualism (thinking bad, loyalty good)
  "I love the ignorant people" -- DJT
• Glorification of masculinity & obedience (softness = sin)
• Police state surveillance & political violence
  Masked ICE agents now operate thuggishly without ID. Innocent citizens are manhandled.
• Cult of sacrifice (citizens exist to serve the state)

...
Was that clear enough?

VERY clear. Trump fits your criteria for Fascist VERY well. I cannot imagine where you get your "news" that leads you not to know even this much.

Please remind me of what death squads he has been using to crush all public discourse and make Americans on this forum avoid talking here for fear of those death squads?

Babbling nonsense is unhelpful if you are trying to convince an audience that you know what you are taking about.

 

[Jarhyn]

The woke narrative is that everyone should be protected from feeling bad and hearing hurty words.

True only to the extent that this is what the right tries to pin on those they vilify.
THE RIGHT DEFINES “WOKE”, not those who are or claim to be woke. So save your Pearl clutching. Do you find the libs moderating this site to be too woke? Who do you know who fits YOUR definition of woke?
I suspect you are simply regurgitating Faux Nooz tropes, and have never been harmed by woke, wokeness, wokesters or any kind of nefarious wokery. Prove me wrong.

I would assert that DrZ has been made to feel some way he does not like due to "wokeness".

In fact, maybe it's my narcissistic pride talking, but I would hazard to say I've made him feel some things over the years, at least a little bit, assuming he's not a straight up sociopath.

I would even assume that he might claim that whatever nutty definition of Woke he has, my own hypothetical picture must appear next to the entry (or perhaps Laughing Dog or ZiprHead).

The issue is in characterizing the results of this as "harm". Locally, it might seem like that, sure, for some situation taken out of context. He hurts, he feels pain for being told he is wrong and that he should feel a "wrongness" that he denies as his due.

This "harms" all sorts of conservatives all over with the bad fee-fees that conservatives claim that the leftists want to inappropriately prevent.

Do you see me saying that trans people should not suffer and hurt? No. I don't think you will ever see me claim that.

Rather, I think they don't need to and should not be made to (or even asked to) suffer the belief that they are something they are not, and especially not so after hormonal interventions (or prevented from accessing those interventions because of some mistaken belief about biology).

I cannot and will not characterize being made to feel bad, however, as a "harm". Being made to feel bad about something that isn't there so as to react in a way that does not help them either now or in the future IS a harm. But being made to feel bad about something that IS demonstrably real and harmful is not itself a harm, necessarily, especially if that bad-feeling-ness is exactly the reinforcement mechanism at work that reduces the likelihood of the behavior.