781–790 of 799 posts
[flagged]
I know this was intended to be a snarky remark but I'm going to reply anyways. Despite US politics being the way it is, the world isn't binary. Just because 2 bad people are fighting each other, it doesn't make one of them good. The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend. Sometimes it's just another enemy.
So this is a unique case, let's not pretend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you never heard the expression that the friends of your enemies are your enemies? Strange. Anyway I've despised that guy since the Thai cave episode. Don't know if I'm "the left" tho.
Despising Elon is acceptable. He's cringy . but is he a fascist? that's the absurd part.
Yes, I realize there are degrees.
No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most useful because it captures the essence of why fascism is bad: it's an instability of the system.
According to this definition all the usual suspects are fascists (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao), but also characters like Trump and his enablers, and Musk and his fanboys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despising Elon is acceptable. He's cringy . but is he a fascist? that's the absurd part.
My definition of fascist is a person that is ok with, or perhaps takes active steps towards, a society where powerful people can manipulate/pick/write the rules in order to further increase their power. By this definition it's not "absurd" at all to call him a fascist. Yes, I realize there are degrees. No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despising Elon is acceptable. He's cringy . but is he a fascist? that's the absurd part.
My definition of fascist is a person that is ok with, or perhaps takes active steps towards, a society where powerful people can manipulate/pick/write the rules in order to further increase their power. By this definition it's not "absurd" at all to call him a fascist. Yes, I realize there are degrees. No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most use…
The Bolsheviks had almost exclusive influence and control, but they weren't fascist.
Most liberal democracies have elites and lobbyists who have more influence than the common man. they aren't fascist.
I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike.
Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My definition of fascist is a person that is ok with, or perhaps takes active steps towards, a society where powerful people can manipulate/pick/write the rules in order to further increase their power. By this definition it's not "absurd" at all to call him a fascist. Yes, I realize there are degrees. No point telling me that the Wikipedia definition is different. This is the definition which I think is the most use…
I ask because your definition is very broad. Generally, every political system has business owners / elites / lords who have more influence. The Bolsheviks had almost exclusive influence and control, but they weren't fascist. Most liberal democracies have elites and lobbyists who have more influence than the common man. they aren't fascist. I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can…
Who is "the Bolsheviks"? Most supporters of the party did not have as explicit goal to accumulate power for themselves. If you're referring to Lenin and Stalin, they certainly where fascists by the useful definition.
> Among the american elite, at least 1/5 of congress, most of the senate, most of the fortune 500, a good chunk of hollywood would qualify as fascist according to this definition.
No, I disagree. Most of those people have only enough power to effect miniscule tweaks to the system. Those don't qualify. Like I said, it is in part a matter of degree.
> I think your definition is convenient because it's so broad and then you can apply it to who you dislike.
Aaaaand I'm done talking to you.
> Trump said that Isaacman was a Democrat, although Isaacman has donated to both Republican and Democratic candidates and organizations over the year. Beside the polemic over two toddler arguing in public, what grab my attention is the fact that someone who is considered to be appointed to NASA leadership use to give money to both opposite political side during election. That’s messed up, someone like that has obviou…
Why do you think that people have to be loyal to a single political party?
This is proof that someone pretending to support both does in fact support none and more importantly can’t be trusted.
It’s about being trustworthy and loyal to your country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That the opposite of how laws work..
Opposite of common law, but exactly how the Constitution works.
On the other hand it does grant the members of congress immunity under certain circumstances so it’s unlikely they just forgot about the president when writing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be a trident theory.
If you don't mind, could you expand on this a bit?
When this theory is used in discourse, it is always a matter of suggesting that the left fringe and the right fringe are equally to be rejected. Stalin and Hitler, communism and fascism, class struggle and racial theory, Das Kapital and Hitler's Mein Kampf, dictatorship of the proletariat and Nazi dictatorship: the righteous liberal democrat must keep his distance from both extremes in equal measure. The golden path lies in the balanced middle. I am tired of criticizing this nonsense. It is an ideological lie.
The trident means that there is just as much ideology, corruption, political dysfunctionality and all kinds of drivers of suffering, misery and resentment in the supposed political center. But it is very well hidden because it wears a kind of ideological cloak: the horseshoe theory.
So to respond to your sentence I quoted above: the horseshoe theory IS the political compass that should be ridiculed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Using government money to win ideological arguments is S.O.P. for the Trump II admin. This is literally also what the dems were doing with USAID discrediting gamergate and funding bias news networks, neither party is above it.
I remember when Obama threatened Fox Sports mergers due to how Fox News covered his first term in office, and trued to get the Saudis to sign a pro-choice vendor agreement with the embassy. Biden also threatened law firms that represented Trump and threatened to ban them from government buildings and revoke security clearance. It was the standard thing for dems to do when dealing with political opponents. Both sides…
I did a few quick searches for more information about this claim of yours. I also asked Claude and ChatGPT to research it. I can not find any sources to back up this claim of yours. Can you source it for me?
For example:
https://claude.ai/share/d36c7a89-adff-4625-9cd6-89e60b254ea1
https://chatgpt.com/share/684972cb-0140-8006-9f0f-9075537bf2...