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.

Here come the semantics.

Fascist = authoritarian in this context and you all know it.

focusedfire:

Wait, you mean that "liberal fascist" really refers to fascists self-identifying as liberal?

youbedead wrote:THATS NOT FASCISM

Actually it is if it meets the criteria for the definition. If it advocates a government with a strong central authoritarian systems and themes while being a single party system that forcibly suppresses opposing political views that is enough to merit the label.

It is true that fascist systems are often nationalistic and lead by a dictator, but they are not mandatory prerequistes in determining whether a system or group is fascist.

Fateweaver wrote:
Liberal brainwashing of the US is funny? Umm, erm. That's scary.

We'll see who's laughing come midterms this fall and again in 2012. It sure as sure won't be the liberal side of the fence.

Unless they maintain control of both houses. I expect that would make liberals laugh a great deal.

fas·cism   [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.
( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

focusedfire wrote:
Actually it is if it meets the criteria for the definition. If it advocates a government with a strong central authoritarian systems and themes while being a single party system that forcibly suppresses opposing political views that is enough to merit the label.

It is true that fascist systems are often nationalistic and lead by a dictator, but they are not mandatory prerequistes in determining whether a system or group is fascist.

No, that is incorrect. Fascism is about the supremacy of the nation above the individual, not the supremacy of the state.

This is about ted as president cool when do we sign the petition
I am waiting for bobby Jindal to run I will vote for him.

It seems like everyone knows, but just to be clear: "liberal" doesn't actually mean liberal anymore in America. I'm not sure what it means in the rest of the first world, I think they are at least aware of the "real" definition.

The "real" definition of liberal is a lot like what Americans would call libertarian.

But in 2010 United States, "liberal" basically means "bad word for Democrat." When I was in High School, I recall that I thought that "liberal" literally meant "one who increases government size and control liberally." I actually thought that was the root of the definition. I think most Americans probably still view it that way.

Regardless, the modern American left is far more fascist in their outlook than the American right. They're not actually fascists, to apply that word to them is hyperbolic, but they have more generally fascistic tendencies than the right, which tends to be more of a free-market ideology.

Basically I'd give the American left a 5 on the 10 point Facist-o-meter, and the American right is more of a 3. Neither is particularly fascist, and the left isn't MUCH worse than the right.

Unless they maintain control of both houses. I expect that would make liberals laugh a great deal.

Realistically that's the expectation, right? I mean, a Republican majority is POSSIBLE, but is anybody suggesting it's likely?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I am waiting for bobby Jindal to run I will vote for him.

Racist! Er, wait... Yeah, let's go with it. RACIST!

Works every time.

Phryxis wrote:
Realistically that's the expectation, right? I mean, a Republican majority is POSSIBLE, but is anybody suggesting it's likely?

I'd guess that the Dems will lose 1 house, but I'm not the sort that prognosticates. I'm more the sort that looks at all possible outcomes, and then attempts to account for those outcomes.

Im thinking the dems will still hold a majority just not as large, im guessing 55-45 in the senate

Nurglitch wrote: focusedfire:

Wait, you mean that "liberal fascist" really refers to fascists self-identifying as liberal?

It can mean several things. Storm Rider had a very good description of the term with his Brave new world analogy. Then there is the other side where people will identify as one group for certain aspects that also connect to another group, but they would never admit publically as to supporting any form of this second group though their words and/or actions might indicate otherwise.

Nurglitch wrote:Just for the record, I'm equally against the Left-wing-political-correctness-or-die nanny state hippies and the right-wing-military-industrial-complex jesus-facists. I believe everybody should be free to do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, your deity of choice needs to mind its own fething business and nobody cares that your kid is an honor roll student. You're not smarter or cooler than anybody else just because you know the latest political propaganda buzzwords. I'm also more than a little irritated that Megadeth's latest record is so obviously political, because it's also their best work in almost twenty years. And by the way, Green Day are poseurs and everybody knows it!!!!!!!!

My joke was not meant as an insult and if you took it as one then I apologize. I was making a satyrical comment about how one sided the posts appeared to be when viewed side by side appeared.
That and every conservative redneck joke deserves a nanny state in reply. Ya know, to keep things fair.


@Youbedead
American Heritage dictionary
Fascist
NOUN: 1)often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2)A reactionary or dictatorial person.

Merriam Websters
Fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

Encyclopedia Britannica
Fascism
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.
(Note that it does not specify Dictator)



@Dogma- First, separate the terms Fascism and Fascist. Though they share a similar root they have differing meanings and connotations. An individual can show Fascist traits without advocating for a dictatorial leader. An individual can correctly use the term fascism for a comparison of how someone is showing behaviours or statements that are similar to espousing a fascist philosophy.
Second, Fascism works off of the principle that State and the Nation are one through a single united party. Yes there are many who would continue to resist such a system from within, but when the state/nation controls all of the media, such resistance is efficiently censored.>

Fateweaver wrote:Really?

Yes, really. It'd be almost impossible for someone to honestly form as goofy an opinion of politcs as you have.

Most liberals I know are SOOOO convinced that Muslims have no interest in being the dominant religion in America; that terrorists of ANY nation deserve to be treated as US citizens; that illegal immigrants are actually GOOD for this country and it's economy; that capitalism is evil and that they are helping out minorities by taking all incentive away from them to work hard because "big daddy" will take care of them via the multitude of social programs that encourage, not discourage, minorities to blame whitey and leech off the system.

When I wonder why you're making even sillier talking points than FOX news, I'm left with two options - you actually believe things that are that stupid, or you just post them to get a rise out of the more left leaning people of this board. I'm giving you the credit and assuming you're just jerking us around.

I apparently have no world view because I'm an uneducated, redneck conservative.

Yeah, part of identity politics is pretend how your side is so hard done by and ignored. It's old and boring.

I guess the news channels lie about how bad the problem with illegals in AZ really is so AZ must be wrong and that we should just keep allowing illegals to come into this country.

No, the debate is on how to solve the problem. The point made by the liberals is that the proposed immigration reforms there will be ineffective and negatively impact a lot of people with latino ethnicity.

I guess the "Muslim extremists" that blow up buildings and kill thousands are bastardizing the Quran for their own ends and means but Christians who blow up abortion clinics are following the Bible as Jesus preached it so that apparently Christians are worst than Muslims and more violent?

No. Why would you think something so ridiculous? Honestly, if you're not joking what is going on?

People argue that the extremists of both sides are not reflective of the whole of the faith. They point out that people are much happier to accept that argument following a Christian terrorist action that following an Islamic one. How did you manage to get so confused on such a basic thing? You must be trolling.

Progression via allowing gay marriage is right and that conservatives or anyone else wanting it to be banned are uneducated, homophobic hate-mongers.

It isn't always bigotry. Much of it just reflexive opposition to the liberal view.

You go on thinking your world view is the right view. In 2012 that view will be shown to be the "wrong" view and hopefully some people will open their eyes to the truth (and the truth is not what Pelosi or Obama or Reid declare it to be).

So election results are the ultimate arbiter of truth? Was that the case in 2008?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Here come the semantics.

Fascist = authoritarian in this context and you all know it.

So say 'authoritarian'. It would really help produce a more sensible discussion instead of, well, what we actually have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:Actually it is if it meets the criteria for the definition. If it advocates a government with a strong central authoritarian systems and themes while being a single party system that forcibly suppresses opposing political views that is enough to merit the label.

It is true that fascist systems are often nationalistic and lead by a dictator, but they are not mandatory prerequistes in determining whether a system or group is fascist.

No. Fascism is complex thing with many different definitions, and quite varied definitions can be useful in different circumstances, even contradictory definitions can be valid in the right circumstances.

But your definition is bad. It is far too inclusive, and fails to distinguish fascism from totalitarianism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:It seems like everyone knows, but just to be clear: "liberal" doesn't actually mean liberal anymore in America. I'm not sure what it means in the rest of the first world, I think they are at least aware of the "real" definition.

The "real" definition of liberal is a lot like what Americans would call libertarian.

Sort of. The US understanding of the word has always been a little different to it's use in the rest of the word, but the underlying philosophy has always been the same. Basically the idea is to promote trade and economic growth, expecting that growth to provide a decent living for most people, while using government taxes to moderate the extremes of the economy - to make sure everyone has an opportunity to take part in the economy, and to lesson the extremes of the business cycles.

Obama and Clinton would both be classic liberals. Here in Australia we have the Liberal Party, our mainstream rightwing party, and they're pretty classical liberal. Ironically, Obama and Clinton would sit in the right wing of our liberal party.

It's what makes it so funny to the rest of us when Americans freak out over the liberalism of the Democrats.

Regardless, the modern American left is far more fascist in their outlook than the American right. They're not actually fascists, to apply that word to them is hyperbolic, but they have more generally fascistic tendencies than the right, which tends to be more of a free-market ideology.

Basically I'd give the American left a 5 on the 10 point Facist-o-meter, and the American right is more of a 3. Neither is particularly fascist, and the left isn't MUCH worse than the right.

They're just isn't any fascism in the majority beliefs of either party. There just isn't. Both have elements of authoritarianism, but it's pretty mild. There really are lots of problems in US politics, that isn't one of the things you guys need to be solving.

Hey come on, guys. You need to lay off Fateweaver.

He's not a racist, some of his best shirts are black.





Just kidding, Fatesy! Love you really!

sebster wrote:No. Fascism is complex thing with many different definitions, and quite varied definitions can be useful in different circumstances, even contradictory definitions can be valid in the right circumstances.

But your definition is bad. It is far too inclusive, and fails to distinguish fascism from totalitarianism.

1)Fascism having a wide and varied use does not contradict what I was saying, instead your first sentence here supports my stance and use of the word.

2)Check the following link to see that Your dictionary.com (which I believe uses Roget's as its source) considers Fascism and Totalitarianism to be synonyms:http://www.yourdictionary.com/synonyms/fascism
For the purpose and context of use, It was pretty good.

Now, We have been through this debate or at least a very close relative before. It was the one where I proved that Nazism and Socialism were indeed closely related. I remember the debate ended with you claiming that the standard definition of socialism was too narrow and couldn't be used. With that in mind, what should be my motivation in debating you when you discard the definitions when they don't fit your world view.


Oh BTW, Last thread got locked before I could reply to your accusation about my not knowing what socialism is.

My reply is:
On several occassions we have come down to a argument over the definition of socialism and its related political ideologies. When the definitions are referenced it turns out that I am following the definition while you want discard these definitions in favor of some idealistic view of what you feel socialism should mean. Your casual dismissal of the fundamental definitions makes what could be interesting debates, where each side acknowledges when the other has made a point, into something that I do not find very interesting. This why I no longer fully engage in these debates.

focusedfire wrote:
@Dogma- First, seperate the terms Fascism and Fascist.

Alright, I'm sure those Muslims that I know will be happy to be out of Islam.

focusedfire wrote:
Though they share a similar root they have differing meanings and connotations. An individual can show Fascist traits without advocating for a dictatorial leader. An individual can correctly use the term fascism for a comparison of how someone is showing what behaviours or statements are similar to espousing a fascist philosophy.

Yes, and it is pejorative; which is to say that it is not possessed of logical weight.

Even by discussing dictatorship you are begging the question.

focusedfire wrote:
Second, Fascism works off of the principle that State and the Nation are one through a single united party. Yes there are many who would continue to resist such a system from within, but when the state/nation controls all of the media, such resistance is efficiently censored.>

And that is irrelevant when the party (in general) in question has no concern for a unified, national party.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Though they share a similar root they have differing meanings and connotations. An individual can show Fascist traits without advocating for a dictatorial leader. An individual can correctly use the term fascism for a comparison of how someone is showing behaviours or statements that are similar to espousing a fascist philosophy.

Yes, and it is pejorative; which is to say that it is not possessed of logical weight.

Even by discussing dictatorship you are begging the question.

1)Pejorative means disparaging or belittling. There is no connection to possession, merit or even value by "logical weight".

2)Now if you are attempting to state that the mere use of the word has no merit because you "feel" it is disparaging or belittling, then I would suggest that you have some personal issue with these words that has nothing to do with this discussion. The term Fascist has a definition that never describes it use as a belittling comment or slur. Any negative connotations are imposed from the outside.

3)The use of the word dictatorial and its variants were brought into the discussion by the sub-discussion of the definition/meaning of the term fascist, as such they have a logical place in the discussion.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Second, Fascism works off of the principle that State and the Nation are one through a single united party. Yes there are many who would continue to resist such a system from within, but when the state/nation controls all of the media, such resistance is efficiently censored.>

And that is irrelevant when the party (in general) in question has no concern for a unified, national party.

How is this Irrelevant? If the party has no concern about a unified national party they would not actively seek to suppress rivals. Just because a state/nation becomes fascist does not mean that it will abandon the basic principles of simplicity and efficiency of government. It is easier to rule over those who ask for such rule than to be a minority struggling to maintain control. Keeping the hearts and minds of the People is absolutely necessary for the survival of a Fascist syrtem on a national level.

focusedfire wrote:
1)Pejorative means disparaging or belittling. There is no connection to possession, merit or even value by "logical weight".

Shockingly I alluded to a concept which is not self-evident.

focusedfire wrote:
2)Now if you are attempting to state that the mere use of the word has no merit because you "feel" it is disparaging or belittling, then I would suggest that you have some personal issue with these words that has nothing to do with this discussion. The term Fascist has a definition that never describes it use as a belittling comment or slur. Any negative connotations are imposed from the outside.

No, connotation is a 'hard' concept which affects all words.

Moreover, the term fascist does not have a single definition. Leaning on a single definition indicates a lack of intellectual ability.

focusedfire wrote:
3)The use of the word dictatorial and its variants were brought into the discussion by the sub-discussion of the definition/meaning of the term fascist, as such they have a logical place in the discussion.

Not if the definition of 'Fascist' is poorly constructed.

focusedfire wrote:
How is this Irrelevant? If the party has no concern about a unified national party they would not actively seek to suppress rivals. Just because a state/nation becomes fascist does not mean that it will abandon the basic principles of simplicity and efficiency of government. It is easier to rule over those who ask for such rule than to be a minority struggling to maintain control. Keeping the hearts and minds of the People is absolutely necessary for the survival of a Fascist syrtem on a national level.

So all states are fascist ad the term fascist is meaningless. Bravo, sir.

focusedfire wrote:1)Fascism having a wide and varied use does not contradict what I was saying, instead your first sentence here supports my stance and use of the word.

No, you need to read more and argue less. Really. I'm trying to be honest with you and explain things, and you keep going for cheap replies. It's poor and it's makes any conversation we have pointless.

Now, what I said was the fascism has a lot of possible definitions, because it is a varied thing and in different circumstances different things may, and may not be considered fascism (it is reasonable in many circumstances to not include Nazism, for instance). Even given the many possible definitions fascism can have, your definition still fails to work.

2)Check the following link to see that Your dictionary.com (which I believe uses Roget's as its source) considers Fascism and Totalitarianism to be synonyms:http://www.yourdictionary.com/synonyms/fascism
For the purpose and context of use, It was pretty good.

Assuming that an on-line thesaurus can capture the complexity of politics is very silly.

Now, We have been through this debate or at least a very close relative before. It was the one where I proved that Nazism and Socialism were indeed closely related.

You didn't. That's a ridiculous claim. If you really want to spend your time spouting nonsense and declaring yourself a winner then you're welcome to, but it's really a waste of time. I mean, I could go back and explain to you (again) about early Bavarian politics, Strasserism and the Night of the Long Knives, but is there any chance you'd bother to learn about it this time?

I remember the debate ended with you claiming that the standard definition of socialism was too narrow and couldn't be used. With that in mind, what should be my motivation in debating you when you discard the definitions when they don't fit your world view.

No, my argument about socialism is that it is an extremely complex thing, and in different contexts it can have very different meanings. What socialism means when discussing Russia before WWII is entirely different to what socialism means when discussing the fringe politics of modern France.

I've explained that to you before, but you didn't get it because you didn't want to get it because it means that you have to realise your nazism is socialism argument is superficial and poor. If you were honest you would get it, but you don't want to accept that things are a lot more complicated than you first assumed.

On several occassions we have come down to a argument over the definition of socialism and its related political ideologies. When the definitions are referenced it turns out that I am following the definition while you want discard these definitions in favor of some idealistic view of what you feel socialism should mean.

Do you think a dictionary definition is sufficient to apply to terms as complex as fascism and socialism, in any and all debates in which those terms might be used?

Your casual dismissal of the fundamental definitions makes what could be interesting debates, where each side acknowledges when the other has made a point, into something that I do not find very interesting. This why I no longer fully engage in these debates.

Your belief that concepts as complex and varied and socialism and fascism can have fundamental, and constantly applicable definitions is the problem. They simply don't.

You don't fully engage in these debates because you aren't interested in learning. You'd rather be self-satisfied than well reasoned, and unfortunately you're not alone in that.

Wait, focusedfire lacks knowledge and ability? Who would have though?

This thread is closed for flaming other posters. If I weren't pressured at work I'd go through them and suspend a few people. I've grown tired of the personal attacks in the OT and will be bringing up the need to moderate it to the standard of the other sections on the board.