Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Colonel Sanders]

Fortunately, Trump will pass, too, I expect sooner rather than later. He is a demented, doddering old idiot and I don’t think he will serve out his term.

But when?

I remember in the early 200s thinking Dick Cheney was going to croak any day now, but it took another two decades. Evil = life sustainment. Trump is a combination of evil and stupid, so I'm wondering if stupid is like an octane boost for an old knocking engine. I've been waiting for him to die for a decade now, but he just keeps going and going.

 

[pood]

Fortunately, Trump will pass, too, I expect sooner rather than later. He is a demented, doddering old idiot and I don’t think he will serve out his term.

But when?

I remember in the early 200s thinking Dick Cheney was going to croak any day now, but it took another two decades. Evil = life sustainment. Trump is a combination of evil and stupid, so I'm wondering if stupid is like an octane boost for an old knocking engine. I've been waiting for him to die for a decade now, but he just keeps going and going.

If you and Cheney were alive in the early 200s you really are doughty survivors!

 

[TSwizzle]

A point that still seems to have missed you.

I haven't missed your point, I just disagree with it. If you don't want to talk about an important issue, don't bring it up. If someone asks a follow up question and you don't want to answer it, ignore them. But you're not a "persecuted citizen" because you brought up slavery and then people talked about slavery for a bit. Slavery is, and should be, a serious issue, very likely to spur conversation.

lol, your slavery derail is just silly, you silly goose.

 

[laughing dog]

A point that still seems to have missed you.

I haven't missed your point, I just disagree with it. If you don't want to talk about an important issue, don't bring it up. If someone asks a follow up question and you don't want to answer it, ignore them. But you're not a "persecuted citizen" because you brought up slavery and then people talked about slavery for a bit. Slavery is, and should be, a serious issue, very likely to spur conversation.

lol, your slavery derail is just silly, you silly goose.

Quiet piggy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fortunately, Trump will pass, too, I expect sooner rather than later. He is a demented, doddering old idiot and I don’t think he will serve out his term.

But when?

I remember in the early 200s thinking Dick Cheney was going to croak any day now, but it took another two decades. Evil = life sustainment. Trump is a combination of evil and stupid, so I'm wondering if stupid is like an octane boost for an old knocking engine. I've been waiting for him to die for a decade now, but he just keeps going and going.

Doesn't Peter Thiel take stem cell treatments? Or get "young blood" transfusions? I mean it sounds literally ripped from a PizzaGate conspiracy theory, though...

Maybe the lie was told to discredit the truth...

 

[TSwizzle]

Odds are it was some further right nutter. Those people are always trying to out batcrap each other.
Maybe they’ll get in a war with themselves.

That didn’t age well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Odds are it was some further right nutter. Those people are always trying to out batcrap each other.
Maybe they’ll get in a war with themselves.

That didn’t age well.

There's a war raging for power between Groypers and non-groypers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Odds are it was some further right nutter. Those people are always trying to out batcrap each other.
Maybe they’ll get in a war with themselves.

That didn’t age well.

Well, it wasn't a whacko commie leftist that wanted redistribute your wealth either.

 

[TSwizzle]

Odds are it was some further right nutter. Those people are always trying to out batcrap each other.
Maybe they’ll get in a war with themselves.

That didn’t age well.

Well, it wasn't a whacko commie leftist that wanted redistribute your wealth either.

I knew that, silly goose. Can you bring yourself to say what it actually was?

 

[Elixir]

Odds are it was some further right nutter. Those people are always trying to out batcrap each other.
Maybe they’ll get in a war with themselves.

That didn’t age well.

No?
Isn’t the shooter a Fuentes fan or something? I dunno.
I see extremists with very personal agendas going after each other. At some degree of extremism, L/R dichotomy no longer even applies.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Odds are it was some further right nutter. Those people are always trying to out batcrap each other.
Maybe they’ll get in a war with themselves.

That didn’t age well.

Well, it wasn't a whacko commie leftist that wanted redistribute your wealth either.

I knew that, silly goose. Can you bring yourself to say what it actually was?

A politically unaffiliated Mormon guy?

 

[TSwizzle]

Odds are it was some further right nutter. Those people are always trying to out batcrap each other.
Maybe they’ll get in a war with themselves.

That didn’t age well.

Well, it wasn't a whacko commie leftist that wanted redistribute your wealth either.

I knew that, silly goose. Can you bring yourself to say what it actually was?

A politically unaffiliated Mormon guy?

Close, but no cigar.

 

[Bomb#20]

For "actual fascists" to mean anything objective it would have to mean embracing Mussolini's ideology and policies

Is that what you actually think "fascism" means in modern usage, or are you just trying to be a pill? Obviously the common usage of "fascism" has changed since 1945. It annoys me when smart people pretend to be stupid or illiterate in order to make a point.

Then why doesn't it annoy you when you do it yourself? Aren't you a smart person? You artfully snipped my post to make it look like your challenge is reasonable; I don't believe for a second that you actually stopped reading where you cut me off. Here's context:

-- hence my examples upthread of foreign conquest and extreme business regulation. The point is, nobody actually uses "fascism" to mean actual fascism. People universally use the word metaphorically -- they encounter some practice or opinion that they intuitively associate with Mussolini (or with Franco or Voldemort or whoever) so the "fascist" pattern-matching neurons in their brains wake up and make them call somebody a fascist.

You snipped out the part that specifically answers your rhetorical question. I don't think that's what "fascism" means in modern usage, and I'm not trying to be a pill, and you goddamn well know it. You did not have an honorable reason to make those accusations. What I am trying to do, obviously, is argue that the modern usage of "fascism" is metaphorical, not objective. It's even right there in the sentence fragment you quoted. Since that is not what "fascism" means in modern usage, the phrase "actual fascists" does not have an objective meaning.

You're dropping Mussolini's name hoping that it will make everyone shut up,

Stop making false damaging claims about me with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

not to invite a conversation about how obviously similar Charlie Kirk was to contemporary clerical fascists like José Antonio Urquino who really did support Mussolini when given the chance.

Converse away -- and TSwizzle equally well gets to converse about how obviously similar the "protesting" thugs who beat up Kirk fans are to Mussolini's Blackshirts. "Obviously similar" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Politesse]

Since that is not what "fascism" means in modern usage, the phrase "actual fascists" does not have an objective meaning.

That doesn't follow in the slightest. Just because a word is being used metaphorically does not mean that it has no consistent definition. I would agree that it hss no objective definition, as you say, but that is true of every word ever devised, hence why and how there are 6200 human mutually unintelligible human languages. Objectivity is not on the table, only communication or miscommunication.

 

[Politesse]

Stop making false damaging claims about me with malice and reckless disregard for the truth

Stop overidentifying with your opinions. I'm not misrepresenting you as a person, just because I disagree with a claim you made.

You disagree about seemingly everything I say, for non-obvious reasons. Do you actually mean all of those disagreements as personal attacks? If so, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have never interpreted them that way, nor would it have occurred to me to do so. How is anyone's definition of fascism a "false damaging claim" about someone else, that's fucking bonkers. What "damage" have I done to you? Do I owe you money? Therapy bills?

 

[Politesse]

Converse away -- and TSwizzle equally well gets to converse about how obviously similar the "protesting" thugs who beat up Kirk fans are to Mussolini's Blackshirts. "Obviously similar" is in the eye of the beholder.

No one has attempted to stop him from doing so. Welcome to adulthood in a democratic society, not everyone agrees on stuff.

 

[Elixir]

the modern usage of "fascism" is metaphorical, not objective.

I agree. The term is only useful insofar as there is a shared understanding of what is meant by it.
Since the meaning, in that sense, has changed so much, its use needs a shared context - which today often means political stance.

Speaking as an historian, there is no such thing as a fascist any more. There are only greedy bastards.
Speaking as a political pundit, the Republican Party has sold itself out to fascist means and tactics, though its individual power brokers lack the vision and discipline to adhere to fascist (or any other) ideology where it conflicts with gaining personal wealth.

YMMV of course.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Converse away -- and TSwizzle equally well gets to converse about how obviously similar the "protesting" thugs who beat up Kirk fans are to Mussolini's Blackshirts. "Obviously similar" is in the eye of the beholder.

No one has attempted to stop him from doing so. Welcome to adulthood in a democratic society, not everyone agrees on stuff.

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

 

[Toni]

2) the fuck are you talking about

That which you are apparently ignorant about, but about which Ip've gone to the capitol itself and certainly logged in the phone hours campaigning to end: the exception clause. With some success, I might add. I was involved one way or another with the campaigns in Utah, Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont, and I'm proud of that.

It's astonishing that you are so unaware of your own country's laws as to not know what I am referring to.

Alternatively, perhaps you could consider attempting to be just a teensy bit less egotistical? Slavery isn't legal in the US to the best of my knowledge.

I think that very much depends on what you consider slavery and legal. Certainly illegal slavery happens in this country, and it’s not just limited to sex slavery. Legally, prisons sometimes compel labor from inmates and compensate them so poorly that to call it anything less than slavery is ….I’m trying to come up with a word less insulting than delusional but I really cannot. Apologies.

Compelling pregnant girls and women to carry undesired pregnancies against their will, despite the risks to their health and well-being seems vey much like slavery, especially when so called pro-lifers want the mothers to give up their babies to nice Christian families…

Undocumented Ted withers sometimes work in conditions that are very much like slavery. So, sometimes are withers who travel here legally with the promise of a good job and education only to have their employers confiscate their passports and provide little or no compensation for long hours of work that bears nothing like what was promised. That, of course is not legal but it certainly happens a lot more than people think it does.

Those are just off the top of my head.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Converse away -- and TSwizzle equally well gets to converse about how obviously similar the "protesting" thugs who beat up Kirk fans are to Mussolini's Blackshirts. "Obviously similar" is in the eye of the beholder.

No one has attempted to stop him from doing so. Welcome to adulthood in a democratic society, not everyone agrees on stuff.

I have refreshed my memory by reading a report of the event, and there is no mention of protesting thugs beating up "Kirk fans". The police were there for the entire event, and there were some clashes between both sides (not one side beating up the other), and the only arrests were for vandalism. So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again, and Bomb#20 mistakenly appears to believe him.

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side, and they only have selective skepticism. They don't actually care about skepticism. Before anyone makes the "nuh uh, you do this toooo" claim about me, I'm also skeptical of bullshit from my side: for example, anti-GMO and anti-nuclear power nonsense, and the idea that not voting is somehow an effective response, to name some examples. Plus, I think Obama is highly overrated, and I'm not into blindly praising him as a president just because he spoke well. Of course won't stop the disingenuous right wingers from still claiming I'm selectively skeptical too.