TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes

[Duh]

The thing is that this kind of speculation leads nowhere. Inequality and  political overrepresentation for the rich is a problem that many, if not all states face...

You're missing the big fact that bourgeois democracy is inherently biased towards the rich because real power is wielded by those who command the economy. It's not some marginal amount of political influence, it's literally control over the backbone of society. There can be no true democracy without socialization of the means of production.

What does that have to do with facism? Similarly, if you don't trust the sources I put forth (which are some of the most cited ones - especially Polity IV)... you can always share one you do find trustworthy.

 

[Eктωρ]

Everything, fascism is a tendency for corporate dominion to sprout from the weakened underbelly of bourgeois capitalism. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini would have had success without the sponsorship of wealthy people. Fascism is a symptom of the fundamental wrong in capitalist society, it's the culmination of corporate control over politics.

 

[Duh]

Everything, fascism is a tendency for corporate dominion to sprout from the weakened underbelly of bourgeois capitalism. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini would have had success without the sponsorship of wealthy people. Fascism is a symptom of the fundamental wrong in capitalist society, it's the culmination of corporate control over politics.

Sure, so would you say that the US government is primarily fascist and do you have any systemic source to back up that claim?

 

[Eктωρ]

Sure, so would you say that the US government is primarily fascist and do you have any systemic source to back up that claim?

Uh, no? Fascism arised historically in a period of profound crisis as a right-wing radical response. When the US was at its worse in 29 it didn't succumb to fascism like Germany did. Thing is, you can't deny that there's a trend of the government growing less democratic, a creeping increase in police brutality and unaccountability and general hostility to democracy. Is that fascism? I think not, but the elements are there, the point is the US CAN harbour fascism and does have a fascist movement that seems on the rise, but it isn't a fascist state.

 

[Vissy]

Firstly, avoid the flaming and insults. Secondly, if you have checked methodology and data and cross-referenced it with other sources and found no significant issues or deviations, you can use the source in good conscience - even if you reject the creator's ideology.

For someone who accuses others of speaking drivel you certainly like to write a lot of word salad.

like seriously. What Ektor said isn't wrong. Conflicts of interest are huge in peer review. If a think-tank you cite has clear conflicts of interest and you just gloss over them as if they meant nothing and then try to cover your tracks with a few stock rationalist talking points, you're just full of it and unwilling to recognize it.

And I would really suggest you drop your terribly angry sthick of trying to weaken an argument by personally attacking people you don't know anything about alongside trying to misrepresent their position. I made no demands, I simply argued against your position and - unlike you - provided some data to support my point.

So far you've been completely unwilling to grapple with the flaws in your own argument. Now you're falling back into some kind of a siege mentality. I've not attacked you personally a single time during this conversation. I guess that might be a comfortable thought for you, though?

You're starting to seem pretty transparent to me at this point. You talk in abstractions and try to create weird equations between antifascism and fascism - that somehow antifascism could become more dangerous. When pressed, you keep falling back to "but the USA isn't fascist!". Yeah, I guess it isn't. I already admitted that a few posts ago, and honestly I expected you to stop arguing at that point since that seemed to be the only thing you had in mind. But no, you kept going for some reason.

 

[Flin Flon]

Firstly, avoid the flaming and insults. Secondly, if you have checked methodology and data and cross-referenced it with other sources and found no significant issues or deviations, you can use the source in good conscience - even if you reject the creator's ideology.

For someone who accuses others of speaking drivel you certainly like to write a lot of word salad.

like seriously. What Ektor said isn't wrong. Conflicts of interest are huge in peer review. If a think-tank you cite has clear conflicts of interest and you just gloss over them as if they meant nothing and then try to cover your tracks with a few stock rationalist talking points, you're just full of it and unwilling to recognize it.

What Duh said: sources can be biased, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. Acknowledging that a source may be biased is the first step in determining the validity. Following steps include cross-checking with other sources. He did this by providing multiple sources, with authors of opposing ideologies. You disregarded his other sources. From what I can tell, Duh used academic methodology in assessing the data. This is how it's pretty much done and I don't know what alternative you require. You don't have to be 100% convinced of the substance, but you can hardly question the procedure.

 

[Duh]

Sure, so would you say that the US government is primarily fascist and do you have any systemic source to back up that claim?

Uh, no? Fascism arised historically in a period of profound crisis as a right-wing radical response. When the US was at its worse in 29 it didn't succumb to fascism like Germany did. Thing is, you can't deny that there's a trend of the government growing less democratic, a creeping increase in police brutality and unaccountability and general hostility to democracy. Is that fascism? I think not, but the elements are there, the point is the US CAN harbour fascism and does have a fascist movement that seems on the rise, but it isn't a fascist state.

Then we are essentially in agreement and the sources you criticized support our standpoints

For someone who accuses others of speaking drivel you certainly like to write a lot of word salad.

If you don't understand my response to Ektor... maybe just stick to my response to you?

like seriously. (Okay enough sass from me now  ) Ektor is right in that Conflicts of interest and bias are important, yes (and so were you for that matter). But they do not disqualify the work outright -  they just require you to be careful and properly review it and compare it with other works. This is something I have said from the start. Rejecting work based purely on ideological concerns is blind adherence to doctrine. And it certainly seems like that's what you are doing. You don't care to discuss the sources in depth, nor do you care to provide systemic sources of your own. It just looks like you want to sidetrack the argument, because there is no support for the claim that the US or its actions are primarily fascist.

So far you've been completely unwilling to grapple with the flaws in your own argument. Now you're falling back into some kind of a siege mentality. I've not attacked you personally a single time during this conversation. I guess that might be a comfortable thought for you, though?

Right, you haven't attacked the person rather than the point. Except when you noted on me being american (), me not having experience with or knowledge of facism - without any elaboration, me being high and mighty, etc. It's the same thing you did the last time when you got mad and called me a pretentious hypocrite and lectured a migrant on migration.

You talk in abstractions and try to create weird equations between antifascism and fascism - that somehow antifascism could become more dangerous.

Is it so terribly difficult to understand that extremism of any sort can be dangerous and that there often is a dynamic between opposing forces?

When pressed, you keep falling back to "but the USA isn't fascist!". Yeah, I guess it isn't.

Pressed on what? The only "pressing" or engagement/exchange of ideas dealt withthe debate of "Is the US fascist in system or actions?", the discussion of source validity and...

I'm not sure what you think the alternative to doing nothing about fascism is, but it's not just a choice between total inaction and extreme violence. Nonviolent protests are a great example of antifascist action.

Which read to me as a question and which I tried to respond to genuinely. That (and your own replies) should clarify why things continued. But I'm happy to move on, if you have no further questions.

Ninjad.

 

[Eктωρ]

The only of those sources I previously know is the Heritage Foundation and it has laughable work like their economic freedom index that places interventionist governments above free market ones if they're more developed, to fit a narrative that Europe is a free-market haven whe it's anything but.

 

[Moose!]

Living in the US, I'd say all those descriptions of the US's relative freedom sound about right to me. We certainly aren't the most free, but it feels like we're pretty free. I'm confident that we're definitely not the least free. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd definitely be willing to vote to change things that would make us more free, though.

 

[Vissy]

I'd be fine with moving on, but you keep saying things like this...

Is it so terribly difficult to understand that extremism of any sort can be dangerous and that there often is a dynamic between opposing forces?

Antifascism = fascism?

This "violence on both sides" rhetoric is... honestly very problematic. This is why I say you have no idea what you're talking about. Antifascism, unlike fascism, is not an inherently genocidal ideology. Antifascism does not revolve around violence - the people who are part of these movements are often feminist, pro-LGBTQ, pro-community and pro-human rights. The people in the opposing movement are not. If a fascists just stops going to fascist events and gets on with their life normally, antifascists aren't going to come after you anymore. They might not go out on a drink with you... but that's that. There's no imminent threat of violence to anyone who might or might not be a fascist anymore - or otherwise. I still don't understand what exactly you're afraid of here - do you think it's so hard to recognize fascists that "moderates" - whatever you mean by that - would get lumped in with them? If you go bat for fascists, you're a fascist. That's a great way of identifying them.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Is it so terribly difficult to understand that extremism of any sort can be dangerous and that there often is a dynamic between opposing forces?

Antifascism = fascism?

that's a nice strawman you've got there, it's almost like that's not what he said

 

[Antonis]

Antifascism = fascism?

This "violence on both sides" rhetoric is... honestly very problematic. This is why I say you have no idea what you're talking about. Antifascism, unlike fascism, is not an inherently genocidal ideology. Antifascism does not revolve around violence - the people who are part of these movements are often feminist, pro-LGBTQ, pro-community and pro-human rights. The people in the opposing movement are not. If a fascists just stops going to fascist events and gets on with their life normally, antifascists aren't going to come after you anymore. They might not go out on a drink with you... but that's that. There's no imminent threat of violence to anyone who might or might not be a fascist anymore - or otherwise. I still don't understand what exactly you're afraid of here - do you think it's so hard to recognize fascists that "moderates" - whatever you mean by that - would get lumped in with them? If you go bat for fascists, you're a fascist. That's a great way of identifying them.

Spoiler: Dude...

 

[Vissy]

Is it so terribly difficult to understand that extremism of any sort can be dangerous and that there often is a dynamic between opposing forces?

Antifascism = fascism?

that's a nice strawman you've got there, it's almost like that's not what he said

He makes an equation between antifascism and fascism by calling both extremist movements (I don't know what criteria he uses to call antifascism an extremist movement). Once again, I think that that's a very problematic stance to take. I attempted to show why. Can you at least see where I'm coming from with that?

 

[Duh]

Is it so terribly difficult to understand that extremism of any sort can be dangerous and that there often is a dynamic between opposing forces?

Antifascism = fascism?

that's a nice strawman you've got there, it's almost like that's not what he said

He makes an equation between antifascism and fascism by calling both extremist movements (I don't know what criteria he uses to call antifascism an extremist movement). Once again, I think that that's a very problematic stance to take.

That is not the stance I'm taking. I have called neither fascism nor antifascism extremist movements and such a classification wouldn't even be relevant to my argument. I am commenting on extremist elements that can be present in any movement or political spectrum and my concern is with language and behaviorial dynamics that may strengthen these elements in specific groups or even society at large. I tried to elaborate on that and showcase how it's not an issue limited to facism vs anti-fascism here:

There are no easy answers to this. In an ideal world, everyone would be mature, capable, informed, tolerant and moderate in his actions (imo). Conflicts would be resolved through discussions and votes unsullied by lies and deception. But we don't live in an ideal world. So maybe what I'm asking for is mostly appropriate language and action (which may range from peaceful protest to revolutionary rhetoric and action depending on the context. But to answer your question - In the current situation peaceful protest and even calling Trump an authoritarian seem appropriate enough to me. But I would hold off from calling the entire US government or the majority of its actions fascist). And if one feels that it is absolutely necessary to warp the facts and exxagerate the imminent danger in order to mobilize the masses in opposition to a terrible foe, I would at the very least hope that that person doesn't fall for his own illussions and remains well aware of what he is doing and the risks inherent to such actions.

The "fascist" label may not be the best basis for this discussion, because it seems to concern matters dear to you, so I will try to describe my thoughts from different perspectives. If we take actual full-blown fascists like Mussolini and Hitler as an example - it should be quite clear why the inflationary use of political denunciation is dangerous. Anybody who opposed them would quickly be declared an enemy of the state (jew, communist, socialist, etc being popular synonyms) to be dealt with. A similar fate awaited many in Stalin's Russia. Another more current example is the way in which states mislabel political opposition as terrorism and terrorists across the globe - and how violent radicals lump together civilians with military targets as they are part of group X. The same mechanism of sectarianism and othering is alive and gaining momentum in the US society of today (and other regions of the world). The right will demonize the pc sjw libcucks and the left will hit right back with its deplorables. Both sides lose the capability to talk to each other, lost in all the rage that they are being dripfed by their respective media. No room for compromise is left as either side will only accept total capitulation - since any deviation from their own cause is treason (just look at the way the right dealt with Gowdy in light of his defense of the Russia Probe) and any support for the other side must mean a total endorsement of all that it does. It's not totally unrealistic anymore that elections may lead to significant violence.

That's why I fear the inaccurate use of labels like "fascist/facism". It may achieve quite the opposite of its stated intentions. Enabling real fascists by lumping moderates in with them, increasing hostility and serving to justify violence on all sides. Indeed, if someone takes the claim at face value... that would turn his context into one that justifies revolution (same goes for Trumps repeated claims of deep state and election fraud).

 

[Vissy]

That is not the stance I'm taking. I have called neither fascism nor antifascism extremist movements and such a classification wouldn't even be relevant to my argument. I am commenting on extremist elements that can be present in any movement or political spectrum and my concern is with language and behaviorial dynamics that may strengthen these elements in specific groups or even society at large. I tried to elaborate on that and showcase how it's not an issue limited to facism vs anti-fascism here:

... what the **** do you have to fear from antifascists? This is so overgeneralized that it falls outside of what we were talking about in the first place. You keep making excuses for fascist movements in the vein of "they all have their extremists" and in this manner trying to make them seem equal to antifascist movements. "Both sides had bad actors", does that sound familiar? Why don't you just make the rather obvious statement that fascism is obviously worse, and a threat clearly on the rise, and move on? Why make these long-winded arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm asking you?

 

[Captured Joe]

There are also some very fine people on both sides

 

[Duh]

That is not the stance I'm taking. I have called neither fascism nor antifascism extremist movements and such a classification wouldn't even be relevant to my argument. I am commenting on extremist elements that can be present in any movement or political spectrum and my concern is with language and behaviorial dynamics that may strengthen these elements in specific groups or even society at large. I tried to elaborate on that and showcase how it's not an issue limited to facism vs anti-fascism here:

... what the **** do you have to fear from antifascists?

I have explained at length how extremism and sectarianism is dangerous regardless of ideology. Indeed, the very post you are responding to does so - I can only refer you back to it at this point. And on a sidenote - the actual argument still isn't about anti-fascism.

This is so overgeneralized that it falls outside of what we were talking about in the first place.

Nope. The original matter I talked about - and which you engaged me on - was inflationary use of language and the effects it may have on radicalization, sectarianism and the acceptance of violence.

The inflationary use for political benefit ultimately risks a totalitarian worldview that rejects all opposition to "the cause" (or even just the lack of active support) as an endorsement of the very worst possible alternative. This is not only dangerous in regards to the violence it justifies, but also furthers polarization and radicalization on all sides.

The original claim that the US government is fascist somewhat examplifies this. You will notice how only isolated events and individuals were used to support the claim - because systemic information delegitimizes it:
[etc]

This is what I have talked about from the beginning and hasn't really changed since - despite your attempts to misrepresent me and my argument.

You keep making excuses for fascist movements in the vein of "they all have their extremists" and in this manner trying to make them seem equal to antifascist movements. "Both sides had bad actors", does that sound familiar?

Just more lies. I have excused no behavior or actor throughout the entire discussion.

Why don't you just make the rather obvious statement that fascism is obviously worse, and a threat clearly on the rise, and move on?

Because you are not fascist and the dangers of fascism were not being contested by anyone. Not to mention that I have repeatedly applied my argument to fascism and other examples and continue to stress that sectarianism, radicalization and justification of violence are not limited to the fascism vs. anti-fascism context. They just also apply to it.

Why make these long-winded arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm asking you?

It's long-winded because you are either misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting my argument.

 

[Flin Flon]

In more plain terms; politics are over-saturated with populist one-liners and remarks. The left has their white privileged white man and FASCIST!!!!, and the right has their immigrants and globalists. This trend and reliance of antagonism and dealing in absolutes is detrimental for any social discourse and is ineffective in addressing concrete problems genuinely.

It's a bit of a downer that Duh tries everything to maintain a nuance and that all you can deduce is that he's excusing fascism. It just displays how you're part of the problem. For the record, I'm not assuming the middle of the fence and smugly calling both parties out for their ****. I'm more left than anything, but criticism starts with the self.
edit: words

 

[Vissy]

Nope. The original matter I talked about - and which you engaged me on - was inflationary use of language and the effects it may have on radicalization, sectarianism and the acceptance of violence.

Okay, so looks like you completely misunderstood. I never engaged you on that. I engaged you on your continuous gaslighting for fascism.

In more plain terms; politics are over-saturated with populist one-liners and remarks. The left has their white privileged white man and FASCIST!!!!, and the right has their immigrants and globalists. This trend and reliance of antagonism and dealing in absolutes is detrimental for any social discourse and is ineffective in addressing concrete problems genuinely.

It's a bit of a downer that Duh tries everything to maintain a nuance and that all you can deduce is that he's excusing fascism. It just displays how you're part of the problem. For the record, I'm not assuming the middle of the fence and smugly calling both parties out for their ****. I'm more left than anything, but criticism starts with the self.
edit: words

Often a lack of understanding can masquerade as nuance as long as the one displaying it presents themselves calmly.

 

[Flin Flon]

I doubt that was the case, but either way they're not mutually exclusive. You can have a lack of understanding of something and still argue with a sense of nuance to your best ability, as long as it's not intentionally or maliciously masquerading.