Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since G-bingo had some very interesting comments in the Bullying thread, but everyone there felt bullied by derailment, I thought I'd pull his comments over here for discussion:

Fascism is hard to define precisely, and no two fascist movements are ever exactly the same. But they have some common properties.

Fascism movements are always sexually repressive. They oppose rights for women. They condemn homosexuality. They are obsessively concerned with what people do in their bedrooms, even when they are hypocritically libertine. The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman. They seek to strip away women's right to control their own reproduction, making it the government's business to insure that every baby born of even rape and incest makes it into the world. Fascism movements are racist and nationalistic. This can be seen in the right's assault on immigrants and Muslims as dangerous, predatory threats to "real Americans," to white, Christian Americans.

Fascism movements are anti-democratic and opposed to parlimentary democracy. This can be seen in the increasing refusal of the GOP to play ball with the democratically elected majority, and in the threats of far-right candidates like Sharron Angle to seek out "second amendment remedies" should they not win at the ballot box.

Fascist movements are anti-labor. They attack the left as dangerously socialist or communist, they attack labor unions and worker's rights, they attack anything that goes against the will of their corporate overlords. Which brings us naturally to: Fascist movements are corporatist. Mussolini wrote that a better name for fascism would be corporatism. The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists, and it is the agenda of those industrialists that the movement is primarily interested in advancing (throwing women, gays, Muslims and immigrants under the bus is just a means to an end).

There is more, but those are the big points. The conservative movement is made up primarily of disillusioned and dissatisfied middle class workers who want someone to blame for their vague feeling that they've been screwed, and the leadership of the conservative movement is a bunch of corporate lackeys willing to feed them women, gays and minorities in order to secure their vote to advance a radical pro-corporate, oligarchic agenda. And that is fascism. That is what you call a political movement that uses fear of the powerless (gays, immigrants, muslims, women) to turn people who have lost power (the white middle class) into supporters of the very policies that have disempowered them (corporatism).

Discuss...

There is a fixation on Fascism here.

As a member of the fascist bully club here on Dakka, I approve of the Hitlerian antics of the Republican party.

After this election we'll finally be able to outlaw being gay and not white-middle-class and install Karl Rove as out Supreme Commander for Life.

I would just like to say:

Monster Rain wrote:As a member of the fascist bully club here on Dakka, I approve of the Hitlerian antics of the Republican party.

After this election we'll finally be able to outlaw being gay and not white-middle-class and install Karl Rove as out Supreme Commander for Life.

Leave my supreme plans out of this.

Fascism movements are always sexually repressive.

This is certainly not a traditional indicator of fascism, and it's not really even corellated by chance. For example, Mussolini gave women the vote in Italy.

The world was extremely sexist in 1940, as compared to the modern first world. Given that context, fascist governments end up being fairly "typical" when it comes to "accepted" sexual practices.

However, like all aggressive, militaristic ideologies, fascists have definitely supported the oppression of gays. No argument there.

The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman.

Watch the overuse of scare adjectives. They're just sloppy when you're trying to make a reasoned argument.

The conservative movement is homophobic. It's not "extremely" homophobic at all. The standard line is "do what you want in your own bedroom, but marriage is between a man and a woman." There's a big difference between thinking what somebody is doing is wrong, and thinking you have a duty to go out and stop it. If the American right was proposing that we STOP gays from having homosexual relationships, then I might buy the "extremely" label. In reality, they simply find it immoral.

The conservative movement is not "anti-woman" at all, certainly not "fiercely." Look at all the women running as Republicans this November. Look at the success of Sarah Palin. I mean, seriously, what appeal does she have BESIDES being a woman? None. It speaks to how frustrated the American right is with being mislabled as mysoginists, that they get excited about any woman they can get into office.

They seek to strip away women's right to control their own reproduction

This is a bad argument on so many levels...

Let me preface this by saying that I'm pro-choice...

But the "woman's right to choose" is one of the most bogus lines of propaganda ever. Women have no "right" to "choose." What we're talking about is killing a baby. It's not "her body." It's a baby's body. We, as a society, have decided that it's really better for all involved if we allow people to kill babies in certain situations. I agree, it is better for all involved. But it's still killing a baby.

On top of that, there's the simple fact that the Republicans are NOT trying to strip anybody's imaginary rights away. They had control of the White House, the Senate and the House. They will never have a better chance to overturn abortion than that, and they made no effort to do so.

Abortion is a done issue. Republicans talk about it to rile up their base, and Democrats use scare tactics about it going away to rile up theirs. Just like you're doing right now. It's not going away. Period.

P.S. Funny how Republicans are the ones "scaring" everyone, but Democrats promise an end to Roe every November, unless you vote for them. Everyone uses scare tactics. Get over it.

This can be seen in the increasing refusal of the GOP to play ball with the democratically elected majority

This is a symptom of the current American political climate. The Democrats played delaying tactics, the Republicans did it. Neither party has a clear conscience here. If this makes the Republicans fascists, it makes the Democrats fascists too.

Yes, I know, "the Republicans did it more!!!" So what? The Nazis were the Nazis because they burned 4 million Jews. It's not like everyone else only burned 3 million, so they were cool. In order to be "anti-Democratic" you have to actually be "anti-Democratic." Not just "marginally more anti-Democratic than the other guy, who I arbitarily decided is JUST democratic enough that he's NOT anti-Democratic!"

The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists

Like who, George Soros? Oh, right, he made his money in currency manipulation. But he does have a strange, scary accent...

Again, you're pretending that everything bad in American politics is "what Republicans do." Everyone in DC is tied up with corporate interests. Obama got more in donations from BP than any other President. We're a corporatized country. Since we've mostly been run by Democrats over the years, what's up with that?

It's also worth noting that you keep referring to corporate power, you quote Mussolini as saying that a better name for his movement would be "corporatism," and yet you persist in referring to it as "fascism." It's clear that you're more interested in the propaganda value of the word, than in the actual accuracy of its application.

Since it hasn't been touched on yet, let's get into corporatism. All modern states are corporatist to some degree. Hell, Sweden, one of the most socialist states in the world, is also probably the most corporatist one; unions (used euphemistically, Swedish unions are very little like American ones) are literally given legislative power with respect to trade wages. Even Spain, the birthplace of Mondragon, is highly corporatist.; after all, that's what all those proffered cooperative tax breaks are based on.

While corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism, it is not something that fascism has a monopoly on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:

The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists

Like who, George Soros? Oh, right, he made his money in currency manipulation. But he does have a strange, scary accent...

While we're at it, what movement has ever been supported primarily by the populace? Poor people are the least revolutionary group in the world. They only tend to rebel when their social structure is independent of the dominant one; note the American Civil Rights movement, and just about every indigenous conflict in South America.

In almost every case revolution is a matter of elites against slightly lesser elites. The poor, huddled masses simply get caught up and swept along for the ride.

dogma wrote:Since it hasn't been touched on yet, let's get into corporatism. All modern states are corporatist to some degree. Hell, Sweden, one of the most socialist states in the world, is also probably the most corporatist one; unions (used euphemistically, Swedish unions are very little like American ones) are literally given legislative power with respect to trade wages. Even Spain, the birthplace of Mondragon, is highly corporatist.; after all, that's what all those proffered cooperative tax breaks are based on.

While corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism, it is not something that fascism has a monopoly on.

Other defining characteristics of Fascism are nationalism, militarism and its authoritarianism. Rarely do ideologies have one distinct characteristic.

Yes, I'm aware. I was merely addressing the fact that corporatism isn't an exclusively fascist concept.

dogma wrote:Yes, I'm aware. I was merely addressing the fact that corporatism isn't an exclusively fascist concept.

Sorry I 'm not trying to insult your intelligence, if I came across that way I apologize.

Phryxis wrote:

Fascism movements are always sexually repressive.

This is certainly not a traditional indicator of fascism, and it's not really even corellated by chance. For example, Mussolini gave women the vote in Italy.

Really? Are you sure about that? Was that before or after 1925, when democracy in Italy officially ended? That was three years after he came to power, so even if it did happen (and I can't find any evidence of it) it didn't last very long. Or matter much, since its widely acknowledge the fascists rigged all the elections between 1922 and 1925.

What Mussolini did do though was pass a series of laws that at first appeared to grant new rights to working women, such as maternity leave, but at the same time stripped them of other rights (the same bill that introduced maternity leave also barred women from holding any political office or management position). Eventually women were denied any right to work at all, as the doctrine of the Italian fascists declared motherhood the biological destiny of women, and asserted their only proper role was that of mother and homemaker.

But he did let them join the Fascist Party. Which meant they got to wear a button! No power within the party, no right to hold office in the party, but they could declare themselves officially Fascists. So clearly, that entirely makes up for having your right to work stripped from you, and being reduced in law to a baby-factory.

The world was extremely sexist in 1940, as compared to the modern first world. Given that context, fascist governments end up being fairly "typical" when it comes to "accepted" sexual practices.

Read the work of Wilhelm Reich, Psychology of Fascism, and he goes into the connection between fascism and sexual repression quite a bit. His work was part of what set of the sexual revolution, and he was a major proponent of a sexual revolution as a defense against fascism. At any rate, you can see this same weird obsession with weird sex (and sex in general) coming from the right. From Rick Santorum talking about gay marriage will lead to men fething turtles to Christine O'Donnell asking what possible use a man could have for her if he knows how to pleasure himself, the right wing is just a giant bucket of sexual repression and weirdness.

The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman.

The conservative movement is homophobic. It's not "extremely" homophobic at all. The standard line is "do what you want in your own bedroom, but marriage is between a man and a woman." There's a big difference between thinking what somebody is doing is wrong, and thinking you have a duty to go out and stop it. If the American right was proposing that we STOP gays from having homosexual relationships, then I might buy the "extremely" label. In reality, they simply find it immoral.

Here's the party platform of the Texas GOP:

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

And heck, here is Montana's:

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

So, extremely homophobic it is then.

Of course, this is just where it starts. See, you don't run on "We must arrest all the gays and put them to death." You don't get votes that way. You don't even start out with that as a goal. You -- you being the fascist politician, not you Phyrxis -- say "There is a radical gay agenda that wants to destroy the family, and we must protect the family by denying rights to homosexuals. We must not allow homosexuality to be normalized." And you don't even have to believe it (and really, why would you, it's complete nonsense), you just have to be willing to say it to get elected.

But what happens when you get into power? Now you have to actually do something on some of these agenda items. You have to stop the gays from getting married. But then what? Now you've lost fear of gay marriage to get votes, so you can't go back to that well. But you've also legitimized the treatment of gays as second-class citizens, so it becomes easier to find new ways to present gay rights as a threat to "the family." And so you get calls for legalized discrimination.

And the real danger is that at the same time this is happening, the economy is collapsing, and rights are being shredded, and people are getting angrier and angrier -- all because they allow themselves to be convinced that it is the weak (gays, minorities, women) that are at fault for the "failures" of society to reward them for their privileged position, instead of recognizing that the people scapegoating the weak work for the very powerful, and that the system is working perfectly: concentrating wealth and power into the hands of an oligarchy.

It's when people start to realize they've been had, that it was never about freedom and liberty, that it was never about smaller government, that it was never about "restoring honor" or "preserving traditions," but always about the power and wealth of a tiny few, that's when the gays become a threat to the fabric of society. That's when the government starts monitoring us to find out who the gays are, builds the camps to hold them, and finally finds a solution to the problem -- the problem of how to terrify a hoodwinked populace into accepting your eternal rule -- in genocide.

That's my real fear. That by the time it becomes inarguable that this conservative movement is fascist at its core, and that it will only get worse, it will be too late. Because too many people won't believe it until after the war, when we've been conquered by a world terrified of our power, and the leaders are being hung at trials, and the bodies are exhumed, and then it will be too fething late, won't it?

The conservative movement is not "anti-woman" at all, certainly not "fiercely." Look at all the women running as Republicans this November. Look at the success of Sarah Palin. I mean, seriously, what appeal does she have BESIDES being a woman? None. It speaks to how frustrated the American right is with being mislabled as mysoginists, that they get excited about any woman they can get into office.

Look at what you've just said. That is completely cynical. Are you sure that the right is being mislabeled as misogynists? Because I think it can be argued that a bunch of patriarchs using a telegenic airhead with no qualifications and a meager talent for demagoguery to shield themselves from accusations of misogyny is, in itself, misogynist.

But the "woman's right to choose" is one of the most bogus lines of propaganda ever. Women have no "right" to "choose." What we're talking about is killing a baby. It's not "her body." It's a baby's body. We, as a society, have decided that it's really better for all involved if we allow people to kill babies in certain situations. I agree, it is better for all involved. But it's still killing a baby.

No, what we're talking about is aborting a fetus. Calling it "killing a baby" is sensationalizing it. And being pro-choice means recognizing that the decision as to when it stops being aborting a fetus and becomes killing a baby is a choice we leave to the mother, as we recognize that no one can be certain when a cell becomes a person.

On top of that, there's the simple fact that the Republicans are NOT trying to strip anybody's imaginary rights away. They had control of the White House, the Senate and the House. They will never have a better chance to overturn abortion than that, and they made no effort to do so.

Abortion is a done issue. Republicans talk about it to rile up their base, and Democrats use scare tactics about it going away to rile up theirs. Just like you're doing right now. It's not going away. Period.

No, the old Republicans did that. That's not what the Sharron Angles, the Joe Millers, the Christine McDonnels, etc. want. The base has clued in (finally) to the game being played on them, and they want results.

I think what Gailbraithe means by calling republicans fascists is that he doesnt like them. he really really really doesnt like them. Its a caracture. Fascism is a historically localized phenomena, roughly 1920s-40s. Here's a few things republicans do not have in common with fascists:

1. fascists were for extensive state intervention in the market place. partially thats what dogma brought up: corporatism, or the attempt to use the state as a mediator between competing economic interests. Partially also its economic planning. Franco and Mussolini had long running programs in this area, Hitler less so but he did experiment with it. Republicans are virulently opposed to state intervention in the market place - thats whats driving this whole tea party business.

2. authoritarianism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all advocated authoritarian, top down despotisms based on the traditional props of all despotic power: the urban poor and the military. The republicans, by contrast, are in favor of democracy. They dont always like the results of elections, but they are not involved in an extensive attack on the core premise of the government, which is democratic elections.

3. militarism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all came to power with the help of paramilitary (Hitler, Mussolini) or actual military (Franco) organizations. While republicans do occasionally join militias and they do occasionally talk about overthrowing the government, no prominent republican that I'm aware of has so far advocated using such militias to overthrow the state. There are always people on the fringe, but if it is not the party platform or even a large minority view its unfair to apply this label to republicans.

Gailbraithe's position is nothing more than a caracture based on what are, doubtless, his own extreme political positions. Conservatives have some things in common with fascists its true - they're both on the right it is to be expected, just as liberals have some things in common with communists. But thats as far as it goes. liberals are not communists, and conservatives are not fascists.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Of course, this is just where it starts. See, you don't run on "We must arrest all the gays and put them to death." You don't get votes that way. You don't even start out with that as a goal. You -- you being the fascist politician, not you Phyrxis -- say "There is a radical gay agenda that wants to destroy the family, and we must protect the family by denying rights to homosexuals. We must not allow homosexuality to be normalized." And you don't even have to believe it (and really, why would you, it's complete nonsense), you just have to be willing to say it to get elected.

But what happens when you get into power? Now you have to actually do something on some of these agenda items. You have to stop the gays from getting married. But then what? Now you've lost fear of gay marriage to get votes, so you can't go back to that well. But you've also legitimized the treatment of gays as second-class citizens, so it becomes easier to find new ways to present gay rights as a threat to "the family." And so you get calls for legalized discrimination.

And the real danger is that at the same time this is happening, the economy is collapsing, and rights are being shredded, and people are getting angrier and angrier -- all because they allow themselves to be convinced that it is the weak (gays, minorities, women) that are at fault for the "failures" of society to reward them for their privileged position, instead of recognizing that the people scapegoating the weak work for the very powerful, and that the system is working perfectly: concentrating wealth and power into the hands of an oligarchy.

Honestly.

The Republican Party is ushering in a Gay Holocaust? This is a link to the only LGBT Organization with an active challenge of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oh wow, they're Republicans.

sulla1080 wrote:1. fascists were for extensive state intervention in the market place. partially thats what dogma brought up: corporatism, or the attempt to use the state as a mediator between competing economic interests. Partially also its economic planning. Franco and Mussolini had long running programs in this area, Hitler less so but he did experiment with it. Republicans are virulently opposed to state intervention in the market place - thats whats driving this whole tea party business.

TARP was a Republican plan. The Republicans have extensively interfered in the market, from privatizing government functions to create new profit sectors for corporate allies (from military support roles to prisons), to creating a prescription drug program that was blatant welfare for big pharma, to aggressively protecting and defending the agenda of the wealthiest elites.

2. authoritarianism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all advocated authoritarian, top down despotisms based on the traditional props of all despotic power: the urban poor and the military. The republicans, by contrast, are in favor of democracy. They dont always like the results of elections, but they are not involved in an extensive attack on the core premise of the government, which is democratic elections.

Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout). It's also why we saw the massive expansion of executive power under Bush. Because the GOP is totally anti-authoritarian. Sure.

3. militarism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all came to power with the help of paramilitary (Hitler, Mussolini) or actual military (Franco) organizations. While republicans do occasionally join militias and they do occasionally talk about overthrowing the government, no prominent republican that I'm aware of has so far advocated using such militias to overthrow the state. There are always people on the fringe, but if it is not the party platform or even a large minority view its unfair to apply this label to republicans.

"I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." - Sharron Angle, Republican/Tea Party candidate for US Senate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Honestly.

The Republican Party is ushering in a Gay Holocaust?

Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences. It is a tactic that always, inevitabely, leads to a very bad place. Because it has to lead there. The road will never go anywhere else except that very bad place. The only way to not end up in that very bad place is to not go down that road. To refuse to engage in that kind of demagoguery.

Because the more you beat that drum, the more you inflame people with fear and hatred, the more you convince them that there is a threat from within, from their own fellow citizens, the more people demand relief. The more they need something to happen so they can stop being afraid.

Really? Are you sure about that?

No. Unlike you, I'm not sure of very many things. But I am sure that Wikipedia says so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Culture.2C_gender_and_sexuality

Mussolini: "Fascists do not belong to the crowd of the vain and skeptical who undervalue women's social and political importance. Who cares about voting? You will vote!"

The fascists gave women the right to vote before they abolished voting altogether.

So clearly, that entirely makes up for having your right to work stripped from you, and being reduced in law to a baby-factory.

You're confusing an authoritarian state with a state that hates women. Men were expected to be macho warriors. Women were expected to be homemakers. This isn't pro-men, anti-women. This is just authoritarianism. Honestly, is it better to be pressed into the military than it is to being a homemaker? Forcing EVERYONE into gender roles isn't anti-woman. It's anti-freedom.

The only reason you can't see that EVERYONE is imposed upon by such a system is that you're a modern American liberal, who is only capable of seeing victimization when it's the victimization of one of the protected classes that you're taught to revere.

Also, AGAIN, this is 1940, where the perspective of woman as homemaker is not at all unusual. I'm not trying to tell you that fascists were progressive when it came it gender issues, I'm showing you that they were not especially concerned with gender issues in any noteworthy fashion. In some cases they were progressive, in others they were retroactive.

On the whole a lack of gender equality is not really a key identifier of fascism.

the right wing is just a giant bucket of sexual repression and weirdness.

That's very helpful. Try to go ten minutes without spouting something hateful and petty about "the right." Just as a thought experiment. Push your limits.

But, whatever the right is sexually confused now. A bunch of closet degenerates. It's amazing how this massive group of people manage to all exhibit such a large and uniform assortment of negative traits. At least we have you here to list them for us.

Seriously dude THINK about what you're saying. You've got this group of people. "The right." They're subhuman. They're evil. They're confused. They're a THREAT! You're doing EXACTLY what you claim "the right" is going to do to gays. Only you're ACTUALLY doing it, and you're doing it RIGHT NOW. Not in some hypothetical (imaginary) future.

You have literally BECOME the thug that tormeting you in highscool. You're an artist in dehumanizing and demonizing people categorically, refusing to understand them except as a carricature.

Why become the thing you hate?

It's actually a common trend in psychology that people most hate in others what they hate in themselves. They could write a book about this with you as the primary subject.

See, you don't run on "We must arrest all the gays and put them to death." You don't get votes that way.

Why not? The right is "extremely homophobic," won't they vote for that? No, they won't, because they're NOT. They're mildly homophobic.

why would you, it's complete nonsense

Except that it's not. There is absolutely an agenda to change the conception of the family to include "alternative" structures. Two daddies, two mommies, etc. etc. The only questionable part of your hypothetical politician's comment is the obvious negativity he attaches to it. He's saying its BAD. Whether it is BAD or not, it's a fact. There is a movement to "normalize homosexuality." There's no question that this is the case.

Again, dude, learn to speak the truth, instead of just being loudly disgusted with anything you don't like.

You're a lot more credible when you admit things that don't support your argument. I freely admit that the right is homophobic. You said they're homophobic, and they are. As usual you hyperobolize and exaggerate, but in general, you're correct. You're, let's say, half correct. You can't let anybody that disagrees with you be even FRACTIONALLY right. Everything the right says is "complete nonsense." It's not, dude. What it is is their perspective on reality.

It's when people start to realize they've been had, that it was never about freedom and liberty, that it was never about smaller government, that it was never about "restoring honor" or "preserving traditions," but always about the power and wealth of a tiny few, that's when the gays become a threat to the fabric of society.

This is one of the cuter tactics that you employ. When you can find a way that "the right" is vaguely like fascism, then, DUH, they're like fascism. And when they're NOT like fascism... Well, that's because they're just hiding it until they have the power to the OPPOSITE of what they're doing now, because they're fascists! Circular logic RULES!

When they're a puppy, they're a WOLF! And when they're a sheep, they're a WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING! MAGIC THINKING! BUT ALWAYS A WOLF!

At some point you're going to need to be honest with yourself and admit that you decided that the right is fascists FIRST, and then you started coming up with a set of rationalizations why it's true.

Here's a secret: It's very, very easy to reach a conclusion if you start by assuming it's true, and then refuse to acknowledge anything that isn't confirming data, plus lie a lot. That's how the 9-11 Truthers get started.

That's my real fear. That by the time it becomes inarguable that this conservative movement is fascist at its core, and that it will only get worse, it will be too late.

That's your fear, but I promise, it's not real.

Seriously dude, I'M SORRY that some people beat you up in high school. It sounds like it was a seriously bad deal. But now you've made yourself a world where fascists are going to take over your country and murder everyone, and you're SERIOUSLY worrying about it. Seriously. How happy is that making you?

I'll give you a hint: NOT AT ALL HAPPY.

Look, I don't like Obama. I don't like his ideas, I don't like what he stands for, I don't like where he's taking the country. But, at the end of the day, he's basically just trying to make us into England. You'll notice that there are a lot of people from England in these forums, and in general they seem pretty cheerful (drunk). I don't want America to be England. AT ALL. But if it turned into England, I could still play 40K, program computers, hug my kids. England is not so bad.

Settle down. Seriously. Just give it a try.

Because I think it can be argued that a bunch of patriarchs using a telegenic airhead with no qualifications and a meager talent for demagoguery to shield themselves from accusations of misogyny is, in itself, misogynist.

Right, I know. As we already established, when the right is "acting fascist" it's because they are. And when they're not, it's because they're hiding the fact that they are. All roads lead to Rome. Mussolini's Rome.

Calling it "killing a baby" is sensationalizing it.

No, it's being honest. I've seen two 20 week ultrasounds. What it looks like in there is... A F-ING BABY. It's a baby. It has fingers, toes, a heart with valves that you can see beating, and a face that looks, not coincidentally, like the baby it's going to be when it's born. If you want to kill it, cowboy up and admit you're killing it.

Now, I'm not trying to extreme here. A morning after pill is not "killing a baby." I certainly don't know when it's officially "a human life" but it's a LONG time before 20 weeks. Current science can pretty consistently save a baby that's 25 weeks old. We allow abortions up 28 weeks. That's a baby.

Man up. Accept the gravity of what's being done. If you're going to kill a baby, then know you're doing it, and do it. Being ignorant doesn't make you moral. Teaching people to be ignorant doesn't make you moral.

No, the old Republicans did that.

Wonderful. Yet again, if they're not doing it now, then the obvious answer is that they soon will.

By your standards, I would like to suggest that the Democrats are baby eating Communists. Oh, I know, they're not doing it YET, but they're vaguely like Communists, and they're going to do it all the way tomorrow.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Honestly.

The Republican Party is ushering in a Gay Holocaust?

Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences. It is a tactic that always, inevitabely, leads to a very bad place. Because it has to lead there. The road will never go anywhere else except that very bad place. The only way to not end up in that very bad place is to not go down that road. To refuse to engage in that kind of demagoguery.

Because the more you beat that drum, the more you inflame people with fear and hatred, the more you convince them that there is a threat from within, from their own fellow citizens, the more people demand relief. The more they need something to happen so they can stop being afraid.

I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.

I accept your apology.

Feth even Fascism has some good ideas behind it but obviously it has a lot of bad ones too.

Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout).

That's not so much of a "right-wing" idea as a "fact."

The United States is a Republic. That's what it was founded as. And, because of the way it functions, that's what it IS. We don't directly vote on issues. We instead vote for people who (ostensibly) represent our views on those issues.

That's called a "Republic."

Words don't care if you know what they mean. They still mean what they mean.

Because the GOP is totally anti-authoritarian.

There's no question that the Republican party is not living up to its promises of anti-authoritarianism. However, the Democrats are even more authoritarian. They want to control what you're allowed to eat, what kind of lightbulbs you're allowed to own, what sort of car you're allowed to drive, what people are allowed to say on the radio, etc. etc. etc.

That's why there's a Tea Party. They're a bunch of people who are confusedly rejecting the authoritarianism of both parties.

And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

I'd love for you to try (and fail) to explain how what she's saying is any different than the apocalyptic musings you just blurted about the Republican sponsored gay purge followed by worldwide fascist takeover?

Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences.

Again, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?

You're using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred. Why is it ok for you to do it?

Gailbraithe wrote:

sulla1080 wrote:1. fascists were for extensive state intervention in the market place. partially thats what dogma brought up: corporatism, or the attempt to use the state as a mediator between competing economic interests. Partially also its economic planning. Franco and Mussolini had long running programs in this area, Hitler less so but he did experiment with it. Republicans are virulently opposed to state intervention in the market place - thats whats driving this whole tea party business.

TARP was a Republican plan. The Republicans have extensively interfered in the market, from privatizing government functions to create new profit sectors for corporate allies (from military support roles to prisons), to creating a prescription drug program that was blatant welfare for big pharma, to aggressively protecting and defending the agenda of the wealthiest elites.

yes.... and the republicans are paying for those policies right now, within their own party moderates like Charlie Christ and Mike Castle are being forced out by tea partiers like Rubio and Odonnell. There is broad support for those policies within the American electorate, but the republican party is deeply divided over them. Even moderate republicans viewed the TARP and similar programs as distasteful but necessary. That's not the same thing as extensive state intervention. That is limited, targetted intervention. Traditionally it is the democrats, through programs like OSHA, through minimum wage laws, and through advocacy for labor unions, who have been most in favor of state intervention in the market place. Republicans opposed these programs when they were introduced and continue to advocate for their limitation if not outright appeal. On the balance it is democrats, not republicans, who are the party of state intervention in the market place.

gailbraithe wrote:

sulla1080 wrote:2. authoritarianism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all advocated authoritarian, top down despotisms based on the traditional props of all despotic power: the urban poor and the military. The republicans, by contrast, are in favor of democracy. They dont always like the results of elections, but they are not involved in an extensive attack on the core premise of the government, which is democratic elections.

Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout). It's also why we saw the massive expansion of executive power under Bush. Because the GOP is totally anti-authoritarian. Sure.

Authoritarianism would be abolishing congress and other representative bodies, appointing governors to the states, and ruling by executive decree. What president bush, and presidents generally do, is not authoritarianism - it is expansion of the executive power. The difference is one of degree, you might argue, but so is the difference between a mountain and a mole hill.

gailbraithe wrote:

sulla1080 wrote:3. militarism. Franco Mussolini and Hitler all came to power with the help of paramilitary (Hitler, Mussolini) or actual military (Franco) organizations. While republicans do occasionally join militias and they do occasionally talk about overthrowing the government, no prominent republican that I'm aware of has so far advocated using such militias to overthrow the state. There are always people on the fringe, but if it is not the party platform or even a large minority view its unfair to apply this label to republicans.

"I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." - Sharron Angle, Republican/Tea Party candidate for US Senate.

I looked into Mrs. Angle.
1. she's not a prominent republican. she's a former state representative who is running for office. If she was a sitting or x senator, representative, governor, president, etc., a cabinet member, a senior political strategist, etc. - that would be a prominent republican. sarah angle is just someone who'se running for office.
2. she's an extremist who does not represent the majority view of the party or even a prominent minority view. You need to be able to quote more than 1 person to argue that a party as a whole supports a certain proposition.

Monster Rain wrote:I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.

I accept your apology.

The Log Cabin Republicans are a minority group within the GOP with no power or influence. I had taken your constant flogging of the LCR in lieu of actually addressing the homophobia of the Republican party as an admission you had no actual counterargument. At any rate, pointing out a tiny outlier group while ignoring the actual policies and rhetoric of the majority of the GOP hardly destroys my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:

Right, that's why right-wingers are always so quick to correct me when I make the outrageous claim that America is a democracy (no, it's a republic they shout).

That's not so much of a "right-wing" idea as a "fact."

The United States is a Republic. That's what it was founded as. And, because of the way it functions, that's what it IS. We don't directly vote on issues. We instead vote for people who (ostensibly) represent our views on those issues.

It's a democratic republic. It is entirely appropriate to call America a democracy. Only someone deeply afraid of the potential of democracy feels a need to "correct" people and pretend that democracy always and only means direct democracy.

There's no question that the Republican party is not living up to its promises of anti-authoritarianism. However, the Democrats are even more authoritarian. They want to control what you're allowed to eat, what kind of lightbulbs you're allowed to own, what sort of car you're allowed to drive, what people are allowed to say on the radio, etc. etc. etc.

The Democrats want to regulate the market in the common interest. For example, the Democrats do not want to "control what you're allowed to eat," they want to protect consumers from agricorps that don't care how crappy the food they sell is by limiting the ability of those business to stuff food full of unhealthy additives that are killing this country. You should go to eastern europe and find one of the old soviet era restaurants, with the government approved menu that proscribed exactly what could be served. That's controlling what you eat.

And at the end of the day, these things are not essential liberties. Your life is not any less free if corporations can't fill junk food with trans-fats. Your life is not any less free if government regulation makes the incandescent bulb non-viable compared to energy saving fluorescents. However, when the government says you can't marry the person you love, or have custody of your children, or that you have to bear your rapists baby, those are attacks on essential liberties.

Light bulb regulation = not life changing
denying marriage rights = life changing

Get it?

I'd love for you to try (and fail) to explain how what she's saying is any different than the apocalyptic musings you just blurted about the Republican sponsored gay purge followed by worldwide fascist takeover?

Actually, I'd really like you to explain how there is any similarity between the comments.

Using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred against a relatively powerless minority group has consequences.

Again, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?

You're using demagoguery to stir up fear and hatred. Why is it ok for you to do it?

George Bernard Shaw put it best: "But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."

I notice that you quietly dropped the "against a relatively powerless minority group" part. Which is an important caveat. Because there is a huge difference between railing against the king and railing against the pauper.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.

I accept your apology.

The Log Cabin Republicans are a minority group within the GOP with no power or influence. I had taken your constant flogging of the LCR in lieu of actually addressing the homophobia of the Republican party as an admission you had no actual counterargument. At any rate, pointing out a tiny outlier group while ignoring the actual policies and rhetoric of the majority of the GOP hardly destroys my argument.

Riiiight. Don't try to wiggle out of this one, G. Power and influence aren't even relevant, though you saying that they have none is certainly debatable. http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-gop-chooses-log-cabin-member-in-senate-race,0,6756387.story

You said that the Republicans are setting up the Homosexuals to be the scapegoat for America's problems. Here are a faction of Gay Republicans. So they're just not hip to the impending Gay Genocide then?

Monster Rain wrote:You said that the Republicans are setting up the Homosexuals to be the scapegoat for America's problems.

Wait I thought the Libs were the cause of all our problems? The Democrates? Obama... Lucifer...

I blame the Eldar. Yeah... Eldar.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'll take the fact that you've dodged my link to the Log Cabin Republicans twice as your admission that it completely destroys your argument.

I accept your apology.

The Log Cabin Republicans are a minority group within the GOP with no power or influence. I had taken your constant flogging of the LCR in lieu of actually addressing the homophobia of the Republican party as an admission you had no actual counterargument. At any rate, pointing out a tiny outlier group while ignoring the actual policies and rhetoric of the majority of the GOP hardly destroys my argument.

Riiiight. Don't try to wiggle out of this one, G. Power and influence aren't even relevant, though you saying that they have none is certainly debatable.

Why exactly aren't power and influence relevant?

You said that the Republicans are setting up the Homosexuals to be the scapegoat for America's problems. Here are a faction of Gay Republicans. So they're just not hip to the impending Gay Genocide then?

Republicans aren't setting up gaysto be the scapegoat for America's problems, they are currently using gays as a scapegoat, blaming gays for the "destruction" of the American family (when it's actually a combination of the right's anti-labor policies and the expanded opportunities for women that are destroying the family).

Now would be a bad time to bring up the Jewish 'capos' in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, right?

Only someone deeply afraid of the potential of democracy feels a need to "correct" people and pretend that democracy always and only means direct democracy.

That, or somebody who knows what words mean.

Seriously, LISTEN TO YOURSELF. You hear mundane statements of fact, and you conclude that the ONLY reason that somebody could make such a statement is because they're an oppression minded enemy of freedom.

SERIOUSLY. You make such huge, terrifying, illogical leaps. You're not living in reality.

Get it?

Right, got it. You're an apologist for authoritarianism you like, and prone to massive freakouts over authoritarianism you don't.

Actually, I'd really like you to explain how there is any similarity between the comments.

You're both describing ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios in which violence and madness rule the land.

Honestly, her version is more realistic than yours. The US is not going to turn into a world spanning fascist aggressor on the backs of an anti-gay holocaust.

On the other hand, the government shows a disquieting level of willingness to run up the debt and break our financial system, which could lead to a level of social unrest wherein shooting looters might become a very real proposition.

George Bernard Shaw put it best

I'll take that as an answer to the question I posed (and you ignored) in the "Republican" thread. You're lying, you know it, and you feel it's justifiable.

Honestly, dude, if you REALLY cared about the issues, you REALLY wanted to spread the word, you'd find a way to stop being so vitriolic and insane, and start being measured and logical.

But you don't. You don't REALLY care about the issues. What you care about is a fight. You're still looking for revenge for injustices of the past. The football players are now "the right." You just want to fight. The issues are just the excuse.

Dude, seriously, go talk to somebody. Go get some help. This is not me trying to insult you. This is me telling you, SERIOUSLY, with all honesty and with your best interests in mind, you NEED HELP. The world is just NOT as bad as you think it is.

Stop fighting with people. Stop fighting with people who don't actually exist.

Nurglitch wrote:Now would be a bad time to bring up the Jewish 'capos' in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, right?

And now they're Nazis.

That didn't take long.

Gailbraithe wrote:The Democrats want to regulate the market in the common interest. For example, the Democrats do not want to "control what you're allowed to eat," they want to protect consumers from agricorps that don't care how crappy the food they sell is by limiting the ability of those business to stuff food full of unhealthy additives that are killing this country.

This amounts to a desire to control what you're allowed to eat, if done through prohibition (outright or in a roundabout manner, such as through increased taxation) rather than through, say, the mandatory disclosure of information. You rob consumers of choice; that you think they may make the wrong the choice if allowed doesn't enter into it.

You should go to eastern europe and find one of the old soviet era restaurants, with the government approved menu that proscribed exactly what could be served. That's controlling what you eat.

It is, to an even greater extent. However, things can always be worse, that doesn't make for much of a justification.

And at the end of the day, these things are not essential liberties. Your life is not any less free if corporations can't fill junk food with trans-fats. Your life is not any less free if government regulation makes the incandescent bulb non-viable compared to energy saving fluorescents.

Yes it is. To have the government rescind your choices takes away freedom to some degree, even if these choices are trivial. That's what freedom and choice are all about.

However, when the government says you can't marry the person you love, or have custody of your children, or that you have to bear your rapists baby, those are attacks on essential liberties.

The first is a bit of an odd example, since all that the government can deny concerning marriage are the legal rights associated with it. Insofar as the denial of these rights is an imposition solely on the will of the couple (hospital visitation or inheritance rights, for example) I would agree that it's a denial of liberty (possibly essential liberty, as the ability to make legal arrangements with another is pretty important). Insofar as the denial brings the rights of third parties into the mix, it can't necessarily be an infringement upon their liberty (tax breaks, for example, redirect costs towards everyone else who supports the government). Of course, the denial of the later rights may still be arbitrary, and hence unjust. The second and third examples seem pretty clear-cut cases of essential liberty, although I would contend that the left is about as bad at handling custody cases as the right is.

All in all though, I have to admit I find your tendency to apologize for the Democratic party's impositions to be strange for a self-identified libertarian, much less an anarchist. Then again, if the Republicans are attempting to exterminate millions of people I suppose nearly any action the Democrats take may be excused...

Phryxis wrote:

Only someone deeply afraid of the potential of democracy feels a need to "correct" people and pretend that democracy always and only means direct democracy.

That, or somebody who knows what words mean.

Seriously, LISTEN TO YOURSELF. You hear mundane statements of fact, and you conclude that the ONLY reason that somebody could make such a statement is because they're an oppression minded enemy of freedom.

SERIOUSLY. You make such huge, terrifying, illogical leaps. You're not living in reality.

Correcting someone who says America is a democracy is demonstrating a failure to understand what words mean. America is a democracy. Do you deny it? Go grab a couple of dictionaries. I'll bet you a dollar that more than half of them will cite America as an example of a democracy under the entry for democracy. So why do right wingers, and only right wingers, constantly "correct" me and deny that America is a democracy? Is it because they wish it weren't? I think so.

Get it?

Right, got it. You're an apologist for authoritarianism you like, and prone to massive freakouts over authoritarianism you don't.

Regulating light bulbs is not authoritarianism. You accuse me of huge, terrifying, illogical leaps and not living in reality, yet you're the one who apparently believes the encouraging energy savings in the midst of a global energy crises is a curtailing of personal liberties no different in scale or type than forcing a teenage girl to bear the child of a man who raped her, or denying a loving couple the right to marriage for no reason.

Actually, I'd really like you to explain how there is any similarity between the comments.

You're both describing ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios in which violence and madness rule the land.

No, I'm describing the inevitable end result of pursuing the demonization of a minority group as a means to political ends. She was threatening violence if free elections didn't get her into power.

Honestly, her version is more realistic than yours. The US is not going to turn into a world spanning fascist aggressor on the backs of an anti-gay holocaust.

That's probably true, but that is where conservative tactics will lead if not checked.

On the other hand, the government shows a disquieting level of willingness to run up the debt and break our financial system, which could lead to a level of social unrest wherein shooting looters might become a very real proposition.

Meh. Debt doesn't matter that much, really, and it can be made up easily. Debt wouldn't even be a problem if we didn't keep our taxes so ridiculously low. They are way below where they need to be.

I'll take that as an answer to the question I posed (and you ignored) in the "Republican" thread. You're lying, you know it, and you feel it's justifiable.

What?

Honestly, dude, if you REALLY cared about the issues, you REALLY wanted to spread the word, you'd find a way to stop being so vitriolic and insane, and start being measured and logical.

But you don't. You don't REALLY care about the issues. What you care about is a fight. You're still looking for revenge for injustices of the past. The football players are now "the right." You just want to fight. The issues are just the excuse.

Dude, seriously, go talk to somebody. Go get some help. This is not me trying to insult you. This is me telling you, SERIOUSLY, with all honesty and with your best interests in mind, you NEED HELP. The world is just NOT as bad as you think it is.

Stop fighting with people. Stop fighting with people who don't actually exist.

Screw you.

No, seriously. That was a fething cheap shot, and you're a scuzzbucket for going there. Don't you dare pretend like you give a gak about my well-being, because you don't. You're just taking cheap, sleazy shots at what you hope are weak points. You're a bully of the worst sort, Phyrxis, the kind that smiles and pretends to not be a gak-eating creepazoid. You want to compare this to my experience in high school? You're the donkey-cave who pretended to be friendly and got me into that car. That's you. All fake concern and smiles, hiding a vicious and nasty blackguard. Screw you to hell.

You're right, I do want a fight. The time for being reasonable is long past. The conservative movement can't be reasoned with. People like you can't be reasoned with. You're a vile, nasty, gak-stain on humanity, and there is no point in trying to reason with filthy creeps like you. All that can be done is to expose you for the vile thing you are.

To reveal you as the kind of sleazey piece of crap who would say this kind of gak.

Screw you so much.

Correcting someone who says America is a democracy is demonstrating a failure to understand what words mean.

Luckily for you, wikipedia is free to edit! So go ahead and correct it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

It says: "Government: Federal constitutional presidential republic"

Seriously, you're calling me a "right winger" for agreeing with Wikipedia. That's mental.

Regulating light bulbs is not authoritarianism.

Yes. It is. As has already been explained to you, it's a very low grade form of authoritarianism, but it's still authoritarianism.

No, I'm describing the inevitable end result of pursuing the demonization of a minority group as a means to political ends.

So, if we persecute gay people, the INEVITABLE end result is a fascist state that dominates the world assassinating all opposition?

Dude, NO. WRONG ANSWER. Come on.

No, seriously. That was a fething cheap shot, and you're a scuzzbucket for going there.

I should have known that was how you'd respond, and I'm a bit irritated with myself for not seeing it coming.

I'm not taking cheap shots at you, dude. I LITERALLY think you have trust issues, conflict issues, a need to right injustices in your past that simply can't be righted.

I'm not saying that to hurt your feelings. I'm saying it because, based on the facts presented to me, it seems like the most helpful thing I can tell you.

I'm not omniscient, I don't know what's REALLY going on in your mind, but it sure seems to add up. You described a scenario in which you were repeatedly physically assaulted, in some cases severely, and were punished in place of the actual offenders. That's how you described it, so that's how you perceive it. That sort of thing will have a SERIOUS impact on somebody, particularly somebody young. It's certainly possible that that experience isn't a major contributor to your worldview, but from where I'm sitting, it really looks like it is.

You've specifically SAID IT YOURSELF. You said that the football players that abused you are who grow up to be "right wingers." You've made the connection explicitly yourself. I don't even need to imagine that you're making it, you, yourself, said it's made.

You're finding a place for me in the climax of your bad experience. I'm the false friend. You're STILL drawing parallels, making everything orient back to that experience.

Can you not see yourself doing it? It's not even a question, you ARE doing it. And this isn't then. I'm not driving you in a car anywhere. I'm suggesting that you go talk to a professional about your feelings, and see if you can't find a way to live a happier life. How the HELL am I going to use that to hurt you? I'm not in contact with every counsellor in the Seattle area. Find somebody YOU trust, and see if they can help.

You're saying very angry things at me. That's fine. I'm not what you think I am. I don't think the place you are, and the way you think is good for you. Go downstairs and ask your roomate if he thinks you're a happy person. Go ask him if he thinks you have a hard time trusting people. Ask him if he thinks you're projecting your own past onto today's politics, and if it's poisoning you and making you unhappy.

I don't know, I could be totally wrong, he might disagree with me. Since you'll be presenting me as a jerk who's trying to hurt you, I'm sure he'll probably disagree with me. But seriously, ask the guy if he thinks you should go talk to somebody, see if they can help you improve your outlook.

Don't take my word for it, talk to somebody you trust.