Considering this guy is an actual Nazi, I wonder if he wants his anti-antifa vigilantes to dress up in brown shirts.
soooooooo he admits that the people who hate him are antifa
does he really think that's going to work in his favor in the long run?
he thinks fascism is good, presumably. it's just that cultural marxists have biased people against the word with their propaganda campaigns. he'd love nothing more than to be able to call himself a fascist openly
Wait, wikileaks is really offering monies for Trump's returns?
At this point I don't think I would trust them with his returns. If I had them, I would just drop them in the mail anonymously to the major news outlets here in the US.
I'm not sure Wikileaks wouldn't try to find some way to make his taxes look fine or at least edit out serious connections with Russia.
All Spanish-language White House websites and social media accounts taken down.
Good! Coddling people who refuse to learn the language hurts instead of helping. If I lived in Poland or Egypt I wouldn't expect them to have an English-language version of their website.
-or just being a goose.
You must be new here.
+15
Options
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
Wait, wikileaks is really offering monies for Trump's returns?
At this point I don't think I would trust them with his returns. If I had them, I would just drop them in the mail anonymously to the major news outlets here in the US.
I'm not sure Wikileaks wouldn't try to find some way to make his taxes look fine or at least edit out serious connections with Russia.
It's hilarious that they couldn't even get through making that offer without swiping at Hillary Clinton.
I'm impressed at how fast I'm seeing "alt-facts" as a thing around the net and how it's perfectly understood.
+21
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
I really want to watch Conway and Spicer get rhetorically smashed in the face, but I still can't quite bring myself to sit there and listen to them. For any period of time.
Fascism is like a cancer. If you cut it out early, the state can survive.
If it's allowed to thrive, it dies a painful death
I think the American Empire will use enough overpriced healthcare to keep itself going, long after it should die, bankrupting the world around it and in the end not really buying any more time and certainly not making things less painful
So I wasn't able to really keep up with what was going on yesterday, but If I'm reading this thread correctly donald trump has already thrown his press secretary under the bus?
If true, then that's got to be some sort of record for the fastest that whitehouse staff members have been dressed down (less then 100 hours since he assumed office!).
Fascism is like a cancer. If you cut it out early, the state can survive.
If it's allowed to thrive, it dies a painful death
I think the American Empire will use enough overpriced healthcare to keep itself going, long after it should die, bankrupting the world around it and in the end not really buying any more time and certainly not making things less painful
We'll be the lung cancer patient who continues to smoke up 20 million barrels a day all while complaining that the oxygen mask makes us feel like it keeps getting hotter around here.
That MSNBC clip says "If there is a story they don't want you to cover, they basically go in spout something else and don't take questions" (paraphrasing obviously).
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
That MSNBC clip says "If there is a story they don't want you to cover, they basically go in spout something else and don't take questions" (paraphrasing obviously).
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
Considering how much reportage was made on the protests, that didn't work.
That MSNBC clip says "If there is a story they don't want you to cover, they basically go in spout something else and don't take questions" (paraphrasing obviously).
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
I still don't buy that the constant stream of scandals are intended to distract. I just think that his administration is that incompetent and corrupt.
All Spanish-language White House websites and social media accounts taken down.
Good! Coddling people who refuse to learn the language hurts instead of helping. If I lived in Poland or Egypt I wouldn't expect them to have an English-language version of their website.
No, it just prevents the efficient access to government services that citizens are entitled to by right. If you got rid of all the Polski forms in Chicago it would just mean more potholes in Jefferson Park.
Also, Puerto Rico exists.
Obviously they are not real Americans, didn't you hear they were illegally voting for Hillary in the election?
That MSNBC clip says "If there is a story they don't want you to cover, they basically go in spout something else and don't take questions" (paraphrasing obviously).
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
This has absolutely been their strategy all the way through the campaign, so I suspected that was the aim this time too.
Thankfully, it was ineffective. Hopefully the media takes this small victory and keeps resisting.
That MSNBC clip says "If there is a story they don't want you to cover, they basically go in spout something else and don't take questions" (paraphrasing obviously).
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
I still don't buy that the constant stream of scandals are intended to distract. I just think that his administration is that incompetent and corrupt.
That Trump wanted Sean Spicer, the press secretary, to go out with props in the White House briefing room — two large pictures of the crowd — was trademark, people who know him say. Trump loves props.
One person who frequently talks to Trump said aides have to push back privately against his worst impulses in the White House, like the news conference idea, and have to control information that may infuriate him. He gets bored and likes to watch TV, this person said, so it is important to minimize that.
This person said that a number of people close to him don't like saying no — but that it has to be done.
That MSNBC clip says "If there is a story they don't want you to cover, they basically go in spout something else and don't take questions" (paraphrasing obviously).
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
I still don't buy that the constant stream of scandals are intended to distract. I just think that his administration is that incompetent and corrupt.
That Trump wanted Sean Spicer, the press secretary, to go out with props in the White House briefing room — two large pictures of the crowd — was trademark, people who know him say. Trump loves props.
One person who frequently talks to Trump said aides have to push back privately against his worst impulses in the White House, like the news conference idea, and have to control information that may infuriate him. He gets bored and likes to watch TV, this person said, so it is important to minimize that.
This person said that a number of people close to him don't like saying no — but that it has to be done.
What he likes or does not like is irrelevant, he has a job to do and it's on his staff to make sure he damn well does it.
+7
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
That MSNBC clip says "If there is a story they don't want you to cover, they basically go in spout something else and don't take questions" (paraphrasing obviously).
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
I still don't buy that the constant stream of scandals are intended to distract. I just think that his administration is that incompetent and corrupt.
That Trump wanted Sean Spicer, the press secretary, to go out with props in the White House briefing room — two large pictures of the crowd — was trademark, people who know him say. Trump loves props.
One person who frequently talks to Trump said aides have to push back privately against his worst impulses in the White House, like the news conference idea, and have to control information that may infuriate him. He gets bored and likes to watch TV, this person said, so it is important to minimize that.
This person said that a number of people close to him don't like saying no — but that it has to be done.
I need to email Kate Beaton somehow and see if she's willing to politicize King Baby and make some goshdamned print signage
it's just that cultural marxists have biased people against the word with their propaganda campaigns. he'd love nothing more than to be able to call himself a fascist openly
It is something that confuses me a bit, actually. There is a broad consensus against "fascism", and "racism", and a bunch of other naughty words that are bad by themselves. They are used as insults by almost the whole political spectrum ("no, YOU are the real nazi"). How can this be, without a consensus on the meaning of these words ? Or, in a less self-answering phrasing, how come these concepts can maintain a bad rep without their components to be viewed badly ? How can people agree on "racism is bad" without agreeing on "culturalist determinism and essentialist reductionism are bad", how can people agree on "fascism is bad" without agreeing on "nationalism, personality cults, anti-intellectualism, power fetishism, action fetishism, are bad" ?
I tend to see the consensus against these words as a progressive victory. It's comforting to notice that even the worst creeps usually shy from fascism revendication. But how did these words split from their contents to the point of letting these contents pristine, and ready to be used under any different, brand clean label ? As if "racisms" or "fascisms" were bad by themselves, for no specific reason.
Is there a way to short-circuit that ? A terminology for these contents that short-circuits this misleading consensus on the old labels ? Or maybe a way to designate the intemporal ideologies without loaded references to historical wars and sides ?
Also yeah, just registered here. Not yet a very clear notion of the local boundaries of "on topic / off topic", so excuse me if you don't consider this line of questionning as relevant enough.
+8
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
If one of the memoirs out of this administration isn't Presidential Babysitter
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Gotta respect when someone actually uses the word "lie" correctly
+10
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Several people who are close to Trump were aghast by the briefing. "It's surreal. We finally have the White House, and it's this," one GOP strategist close to Trump's top aides said.
it's just that cultural marxists have biased people against the word with their propaganda campaigns. he'd love nothing more than to be able to call himself a fascist openly
It is something that confuses me a bit, actually. There is a broad consensus against "fascism", and "racism", and a bunch of other naughty words that are bad by themselves. They are used as insults by almost the whole political spectrum ("no, YOU are the real nazi"). How can this be, without a consensus on the meaning of these words ? Or, in a less self-answering phrasing, how come these concepts can maintain a bad rep without their components to be viewed badly ? How can people agree on "racism is bad" without agreeing on "culturalist determinism and essentialist reductionism are bad", how can people agree on "fascism is bad" without agreeing on "nationalism, personality cults, anti-intellectualism, power fetishism, action fetishism, are bad" ?
I tend to see the consensus against these words as a progressive victory. It's comforting to notice that even the worst creeps usually shy from fascism revendication. But how did these words split from their contents to the point of letting these contents pristine, and ready to be used under any different, brand clean label ? As if "racisms" or "fascisms" were bad by themselves, for no specific reason.
Is there a way to short-circuit that ? A terminology for these contents that short-circuits this misleading consensus on the old labels ? Or maybe a way to designate the intemporal ideologies without loaded references to historical wars and sides ?
Also yeah, just registered here. Not yet a very clear notion of the local boundaries of "on topic / off topic", so excuse me if you don't consider this line of questionning as relevant enough.
It's on topic if you can tie it to what the current administration is doing. But just musing about meaning and language would be off-topic.
The right and this administration in particular have never been shy about ignoring the definition of words and just forcing new meaning upon them. The Socialism smear that was all the rage around 08 was a nice example of this. This administration in particular seems to be trying to shift this kind of strategy onto facts and experiences instead of just language. I'm sure somebody has pin-pointed the exact moment that Republicans realized that facts are subjective, but they've been getting a ton of mileage out of it since I've been politically aware (~2000).
It used to be we'd hear arguments about how global warming wasn't real because the scientists were all lying, or this exxon commissioned study said so, or it's a Chinese hoax... but it's much cleaner to simply assert your preferred conclusion. Global Warming isn't real. Why isn't it real? Fuck you, that's why. Donald Trump did have the most people ever at his inauguration despite all evidence to the contrary and fuck you if you think otherwise. Donald Trump did resign his ownership stakes in his companies fuck you very much. Jared Kushner doesn't trigger anti-nepotism laws because I said so.
The press is beginning to wake up to this strategy, but only because it puts the administration and the press into direct conflict. I fear the press will just adjust to this new reality because it's scary to be on the White House's shit list and it's hard to write smart critical stories.
it's just that cultural marxists have biased people against the word with their propaganda campaigns. he'd love nothing more than to be able to call himself a fascist openly
It is something that confuses me a bit, actually. There is a broad consensus against "fascism", and "racism", and a bunch of other naughty words that are bad by themselves. They are used as insults by almost the whole political spectrum ("no, YOU are the real nazi"). How can this be, without a consensus on the meaning of these words ? Or, in a less self-answering phrasing, how come these concepts can maintain a bad rep without their components to be viewed badly ? How can people agree on "racism is bad" without agreeing on "culturalist determinism and essentialist reductionism are bad", how can people agree on "fascism is bad" without agreeing on "nationalism, personality cults, anti-intellectualism, power fetishism, action fetishism, are bad" ?
I tend to see the consensus against these words as a progressive victory. It's comforting to notice that even the worst creeps usually shy from fascism revendication. But how did these words split from their contents to the point of letting these contents pristine, and ready to be used under any different, brand clean label ? As if "racisms" or "fascisms" were bad by themselves, for no specific reason.
Is there a way to short-circuit that ? A terminology for these contents that short-circuits this misleading consensus on the old labels ? Or maybe a way to designate the intemporal ideologies without loaded references to historical wars and sides ?
Also yeah, just registered here. Not yet a very clear notion of the local boundaries of "on topic / off topic", so excuse me if you don't consider this line of questionning as relevant enough.
Not to be glib about this, but welcome to the social sciences. Let them confound your tech-nerd brain and its attempts to find order and logic in the world with all their vague amorphism.
The science geek in me treats this stuff as probabilistic. Things get called fascism if they're similar enough, by some undetermined metrics, to previous instances of fascism. There's quibbling over the margins, but it's important not to let the marginal quibbling obfuscate the broader conclusion. That is, for example, I think there are absolutely points at which racism is not "bad", or at least not not the worst of available options; what is key, however, is that 1) those aren't the forms of racism people typically angry about ... typically, and 2) we're not at the point where those forms of racism are at the forefront. There is absolutely a point at which shit is close enough that I'd be willing to throw in the towel: if women get paid 99 cents on the dollar compared to men, good enough, let's all go home and eat some celebratory reward cookies. But we're not there yet, so no cookies for us. So when someone talks about "equal pay for equal work", it's just a matter of interpreting that loosely and spending less time trying to suss out what they would like as an endpoint, and rather understanding that they're trying to move society in a particular direction.
As for whether these are progressive victories? Naw. Just natural byproducts of how language is used, regardless of affiliated political ideology. (Wtf is "cultural marxism," for example, and how the fuck does anybody think that university professors all want to spur a peasant revolution that ends with us all living in farming communes?) Fascism is bad cuz of the Nazis. Communism and socialism are bad cuz of the Soviets. There wasn't any grand political scheme here; it isn't a phenomenon of one side of the political spectrum or the other. And yes, people will tar each other with those pejorative labels to dodge meaningful debate and confluence of ideas, but just try not to let that push you around (rhetorically).
"Ev'ry heart beats true
Under Red, White and Blue,
Where there's never a boast or brag;
But should auld acquaintance be forgot,
Keep your eye on the grand old flag."
Leaving aside the irony of boasting that there's never any boasting, it's also a complete lie.
"I'm, like, a smart person."
Really, just do a Google search for "Trump boasts" and watch the hits roll in.
Two things are sustaining me right now. One is that photo comparison of the inauguration turnout and the turnout for the protests the next day. The other is, perversely, how Fanta Fuckface is being so immediately and furiously awful. Bush jr. proved you can survive as President by keeping the shittiness at an even simmer, but Donny's got all the burners on and is pouring oil on the stove with both hands while he shouts for a box of fireworks, the best fireworks, they've gotta be the best. That his lunacy will tip that remorseless calculus of self interest the Republicans call an ethos against him is a long way from a guarantee, but it's the strongest chance we've got.
it's just that cultural marxists have biased people against the word with their propaganda campaigns. he'd love nothing more than to be able to call himself a fascist openly
It is something that confuses me a bit, actually. There is a broad consensus against "fascism", and "racism", and a bunch of other naughty words that are bad by themselves. They are used as insults by almost the whole political spectrum ("no, YOU are the real nazi"). How can this be, without a consensus on the meaning of these words ? Or, in a less self-answering phrasing, how come these concepts can maintain a bad rep without their components to be viewed badly ? How can people agree on "racism is bad" without agreeing on "culturalist determinism and essentialist reductionism are bad", how can people agree on "fascism is bad" without agreeing on "nationalism, personality cults, anti-intellectualism, power fetishism, action fetishism, are bad" ?
I tend to see the consensus against these words as a progressive victory. It's comforting to notice that even the worst creeps usually shy from fascism revendication. But how did these words split from their contents to the point of letting these contents pristine, and ready to be used under any different, brand clean label ? As if "racisms" or "fascisms" were bad by themselves, for no specific reason.
Is there a way to short-circuit that ? A terminology for these contents that short-circuits this misleading consensus on the old labels ? Or maybe a way to designate the intemporal ideologies without loaded references to historical wars and sides ?
Also yeah, just registered here. Not yet a very clear notion of the local boundaries of "on topic / off topic", so excuse me if you don't consider this line of questionning as relevant enough.
It's worth noting that "nationalism is bad," while an opinion I share, isn't a unanimously held viewpoint here. In past discussions others have argued that it's not nationalism itself that's the problem, just especially toxic variants of nationalism, such as those based on ethnicity or religion. I think part of it comes down to whether you view nationalism as accentuating an "us vs. them" situation or ameliorating the problems of lower-level tribalisms, but there are probably various aspects to the disagreement.
A discussion of the merits of nationalism would probably warrant a separate thread, though. I agree with your overall point; the divergence in people's reactions to the words "racist" or "fascist" and their reactions to beliefs/actions that are racist or fascist is interesting (and unfortunate). The racists say they're not racists and most of the fascists say they're not fascist.
Fascism in particular is a word that, while perhaps not poorly defined, is poorly understood by the vast majority of people. Many stop at "totalitarian government" (true, but too vague) or just associate it with Nazism (a specific example of fascism). I've seen people argue that [x movement] is not fascist because it is not anti-semitic, even though anti-semitism and fascism are not the same thing or even necessary for/inherently related to each other, presumably because the most infamous instances of both overlapped in Nazi Germany.
Maybe the best way of getting past this disconnect is the Socratic method. If someone expresses fascist/racist sentiments but believes or at least outwardly argues that they are not fascist/racist, ask them "what is fascism/racism?"
it's just that cultural marxists have biased people against the word with their propaganda campaigns. he'd love nothing more than to be able to call himself a fascist openly
It is something that confuses me a bit, actually. There is a broad consensus against "fascism", and "racism", and a bunch of other naughty words that are bad by themselves. They are used as insults by almost the whole political spectrum ("no, YOU are the real nazi"). How can this be, without a consensus on the meaning of these words ? Or, in a less self-answering phrasing, how come these concepts can maintain a bad rep without their components to be viewed badly ? How can people agree on "racism is bad" without agreeing on "culturalist determinism and essentialist reductionism are bad", how can people agree on "fascism is bad" without agreeing on "nationalism, personality cults, anti-intellectualism, power fetishism, action fetishism, are bad" ?
I tend to see the consensus against these words as a progressive victory. It's comforting to notice that even the worst creeps usually shy from fascism revendication. But how did these words split from their contents to the point of letting these contents pristine, and ready to be used under any different, brand clean label ? As if "racisms" or "fascisms" were bad by themselves, for no specific reason.
Is there a way to short-circuit that ? A terminology for these contents that short-circuits this misleading consensus on the old labels ? Or maybe a way to designate the intemporal ideologies without loaded references to historical wars and sides ?
Also yeah, just registered here. Not yet a very clear notion of the local boundaries of "on topic / off topic", so excuse me if you don't consider this line of questionning as relevant enough.
(Wtf is "cultural marxism," for example,
It means cultural equality movements, like feminism and civil rights.
Wait, wikileaks is really offering monies for Trump's returns?
It wouldn't surprise me. They're a Russian puppet, so they're only pro trump as far as it forwards their main goal of destabilizing the us. Now that trump is in, discrediting him as much as possible might be my move too
I think it's also a thing that people have identified certain trappings of racism or facism, for example Swastikas and Klan Hoods, and not the deeper beliefs and assumptions of them. "I don't use the Nazi salute, therefore I'm not facist"
Not that there aren't people who aren't actively facist and racist as well
I think it's also a thing that people have identified certain trappings of racism or facism, for example Swastikas and Klan Hoods, and not the deeper beliefs and assumptions of them. "I don't use the Nazi salute, therefore I'm not facist"
It puzzles me about how much the alt-right actually *use* the Nazi-fetish trappings. You can hate the Jews without heiling Hitler and doing a Nazi salute. It makes it a little too ... obvious. Most alt-righters I've met online actually don't do that and generally like to pose as pro-Israeli in order to hate the Muslims all the more.
It's worth noting that "nationalism is bad," while an opinion I share, isn't a unanimously held viewpoint here. In past discussions others have argued that it's not nationalism itself that's the problem, just especially toxic variants of nationalism, such as those based on ethnicity or religion. I think part of it comes down to whether you view nationalism as accentuating an "us vs. them" situation or ameliorating the problems of lower-level tribalisms, but there are probably various aspects to the disagreement.
A discussion of the merits of nationalism would probably warrant a separate thread, though. I agree with your overall point; the divergence in people's reactions to the words "racist" or "fascist" and their reactions to beliefs/actions that are racist or fascist is interesting (and unfortunate). The racists say they're not racists and most of the fascists say they're not fascist.
I think the really big disconnect with nationalism with "John/Jane Doe" is that they confuse it with national pride, or even run of the mill patriotism.
So when many hear someone say "Nationalism is bad", they hear "loving or having pride in your country is bad", or even "I hate [insert country in question]".
Which is a misconception that many use to their advantage.
Trump is 'talking' (rambling a lot) with business people and the main takeaway so far is that taxes and regulations will be cut "massively" and "we don't have free trade now". "I don't know about free trade, I want fair trade."
Edit: I'm expecting markets to dip from this meeting.
Posts
I wonder how many Trump loyalists willing to sign on to this know their history...
he thinks fascism is good, presumably. it's just that cultural marxists have biased people against the word with their propaganda campaigns. he'd love nothing more than to be able to call himself a fascist openly
If it's allowed to thrive, it dies a painful death
If you are interested in getting engaged politically, this is a very good place to start.
At this point I don't think I would trust them with his returns. If I had them, I would just drop them in the mail anonymously to the major news outlets here in the US.
I'm not sure Wikileaks wouldn't try to find some way to make his taxes look fine or at least edit out serious connections with Russia.
You must be new here.
It's hilarious that they couldn't even get through making that offer without swiping at Hillary Clinton.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
(That one's my favorite so far.)
A couple more below, spoilered to not jack up the thread too much.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They are so disgusting.
I think the American Empire will use enough overpriced healthcare to keep itself going, long after it should die, bankrupting the world around it and in the end not really buying any more time and certainly not making things less painful
If true, then that's got to be some sort of record for the fastest that whitehouse staff members have been dressed down (less then 100 hours since he assumed office!).
We'll be the lung cancer patient who continues to smoke up 20 million barrels a day all while complaining that the oxygen mask makes us feel like it keeps getting hotter around here.
Was that maybe less about Trumps ego and the crowd size and more about them not wanting the press to report too much on all the protests going on? Or am I giving them too much credit here?
Considering how much reportage was made on the protests, that didn't work.
I still don't buy that the constant stream of scandals are intended to distract. I just think that his administration is that incompetent and corrupt.
Obviously they are not real Americans, didn't you hear they were illegally voting for Hillary in the election?
This has absolutely been their strategy all the way through the campaign, so I suspected that was the aim this time too.
Thankfully, it was ineffective. Hopefully the media takes this small victory and keeps resisting.
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/donald-trump-campaign-habits-234014
What he likes or does not like is irrelevant, he has a job to do and it's on his staff to make sure he damn well does it.
I need to email Kate Beaton somehow and see if she's willing to politicize King Baby and make some goshdamned print signage
NNID: Hakkekage
It is something that confuses me a bit, actually. There is a broad consensus against "fascism", and "racism", and a bunch of other naughty words that are bad by themselves. They are used as insults by almost the whole political spectrum ("no, YOU are the real nazi"). How can this be, without a consensus on the meaning of these words ? Or, in a less self-answering phrasing, how come these concepts can maintain a bad rep without their components to be viewed badly ? How can people agree on "racism is bad" without agreeing on "culturalist determinism and essentialist reductionism are bad", how can people agree on "fascism is bad" without agreeing on "nationalism, personality cults, anti-intellectualism, power fetishism, action fetishism, are bad" ?
I tend to see the consensus against these words as a progressive victory. It's comforting to notice that even the worst creeps usually shy from fascism revendication. But how did these words split from their contents to the point of letting these contents pristine, and ready to be used under any different, brand clean label ? As if "racisms" or "fascisms" were bad by themselves, for no specific reason.
Is there a way to short-circuit that ? A terminology for these contents that short-circuits this misleading consensus on the old labels ? Or maybe a way to designate the intemporal ideologies without loaded references to historical wars and sides ?
Also yeah, just registered here. Not yet a very clear notion of the local boundaries of "on topic / off topic", so excuse me if you don't consider this line of questionning as relevant enough.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Gotta respect when someone actually uses the word "lie" correctly
"Assignation" is acceptable though, yes?
:winky:
It's on topic if you can tie it to what the current administration is doing. But just musing about meaning and language would be off-topic.
The right and this administration in particular have never been shy about ignoring the definition of words and just forcing new meaning upon them. The Socialism smear that was all the rage around 08 was a nice example of this. This administration in particular seems to be trying to shift this kind of strategy onto facts and experiences instead of just language. I'm sure somebody has pin-pointed the exact moment that Republicans realized that facts are subjective, but they've been getting a ton of mileage out of it since I've been politically aware (~2000).
It used to be we'd hear arguments about how global warming wasn't real because the scientists were all lying, or this exxon commissioned study said so, or it's a Chinese hoax... but it's much cleaner to simply assert your preferred conclusion. Global Warming isn't real. Why isn't it real? Fuck you, that's why. Donald Trump did have the most people ever at his inauguration despite all evidence to the contrary and fuck you if you think otherwise. Donald Trump did resign his ownership stakes in his companies fuck you very much. Jared Kushner doesn't trigger anti-nepotism laws because I said so.
The press is beginning to wake up to this strategy, but only because it puts the administration and the press into direct conflict. I fear the press will just adjust to this new reality because it's scary to be on the White House's shit list and it's hard to write smart critical stories.
Not to be glib about this, but welcome to the social sciences. Let them confound your tech-nerd brain and its attempts to find order and logic in the world with all their vague amorphism.
The science geek in me treats this stuff as probabilistic. Things get called fascism if they're similar enough, by some undetermined metrics, to previous instances of fascism. There's quibbling over the margins, but it's important not to let the marginal quibbling obfuscate the broader conclusion. That is, for example, I think there are absolutely points at which racism is not "bad", or at least not not the worst of available options; what is key, however, is that 1) those aren't the forms of racism people typically angry about ... typically, and 2) we're not at the point where those forms of racism are at the forefront. There is absolutely a point at which shit is close enough that I'd be willing to throw in the towel: if women get paid 99 cents on the dollar compared to men, good enough, let's all go home and eat some celebratory reward cookies. But we're not there yet, so no cookies for us. So when someone talks about "equal pay for equal work", it's just a matter of interpreting that loosely and spending less time trying to suss out what they would like as an endpoint, and rather understanding that they're trying to move society in a particular direction.
As for whether these are progressive victories? Naw. Just natural byproducts of how language is used, regardless of affiliated political ideology. (Wtf is "cultural marxism," for example, and how the fuck does anybody think that university professors all want to spur a peasant revolution that ends with us all living in farming communes?) Fascism is bad cuz of the Nazis. Communism and socialism are bad cuz of the Soviets. There wasn't any grand political scheme here; it isn't a phenomenon of one side of the political spectrum or the other. And yes, people will tar each other with those pejorative labels to dodge meaningful debate and confluence of ideas, but just try not to let that push you around (rhetorically).
Under Red, White and Blue,
Where there's never a boast or brag;
But should auld acquaintance be forgot,
Keep your eye on the grand old flag."
Leaving aside the irony of boasting that there's never any boasting, it's also a complete lie.
"I'm, like, a smart person."
Really, just do a Google search for "Trump boasts" and watch the hits roll in.
A discussion of the merits of nationalism would probably warrant a separate thread, though. I agree with your overall point; the divergence in people's reactions to the words "racist" or "fascist" and their reactions to beliefs/actions that are racist or fascist is interesting (and unfortunate). The racists say they're not racists and most of the fascists say they're not fascist.
Fascism in particular is a word that, while perhaps not poorly defined, is poorly understood by the vast majority of people. Many stop at "totalitarian government" (true, but too vague) or just associate it with Nazism (a specific example of fascism). I've seen people argue that [x movement] is not fascist because it is not anti-semitic, even though anti-semitism and fascism are not the same thing or even necessary for/inherently related to each other, presumably because the most infamous instances of both overlapped in Nazi Germany.
Maybe the best way of getting past this disconnect is the Socratic method. If someone expresses fascist/racist sentiments but believes or at least outwardly argues that they are not fascist/racist, ask them "what is fascism/racism?"
It means cultural equality movements, like feminism and civil rights.
It wouldn't surprise me. They're a Russian puppet, so they're only pro trump as far as it forwards their main goal of destabilizing the us. Now that trump is in, discrediting him as much as possible might be my move too
Not that there aren't people who aren't actively facist and racist as well
It puzzles me about how much the alt-right actually *use* the Nazi-fetish trappings. You can hate the Jews without heiling Hitler and doing a Nazi salute. It makes it a little too ... obvious. Most alt-righters I've met online actually don't do that and generally like to pose as pro-Israeli in order to hate the Muslims all the more.
tldw: Forrest's old conspiracy theory about jews using black people to destroy America.
I think the really big disconnect with nationalism with "John/Jane Doe" is that they confuse it with national pride, or even run of the mill patriotism.
So when many hear someone say "Nationalism is bad", they hear "loving or having pride in your country is bad", or even "I hate [insert country in question]".
Which is a misconception that many use to their advantage.
Edit: I'm expecting markets to dip from this meeting.