IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th March 2017, 08:41 AM   #1601
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Well, they are comparable, but dramatically different in motivation. Christianity and Islam are religions that are (at least in theory) about love and tolerance. Fascism is more along the lines of hate and intolerance, setting a de facto adversarial challenge to all comers that would likely be absent in a disagreement with a Priest or Imam.

The much larger issue is creating a breathalyzer controlled laptop. It's unnerving to see posts that one does not recall making, and there was evidently a comprehension issue on my part with caveman1917's query.

I'll just sit quietly over here...
No worries.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 08:42 AM   #1602
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Fascism by its nature is a naked threat to...well, everyone except fascists.
Islam by its nature is a naked threat to... well, everyone except muslims.

How is that different?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 08:52 AM   #1603
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Agreed on one main point: it's not an issue of free speech or dissenting opinion with these cats. They are against basic humanity, IMO. Their extreme position warrants extreme response.
If I decide that in my opinion, you are against basic humanity, does your reason then grant me license to physically assault you?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 07:28 PM   #1604
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Islam by its nature is a naked threat to... well, everyone except muslims.

How is that different?
Because Muslims threaten no one, and seek to live in Peace with God (extremists aside, as always). I get your point, but fascists directly threaten the rights and well being of large chunks of the population. Their philosophy is based on hate; there really are no kind fascists, as there are kind Muslims. A few Islamophobes may irrationally think Muslims are a universal threat, but a fascist can be empirically demonstrated to be.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 07:40 PM   #1605
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If I decide that in my opinion, you are against basic humanity, does your reason then grant me license to physically assault you?
That's a fair question, and has been raised many times in different ways. I think the universally abhorrent nature of a fascist puts them into a unique category, shared with maybe child-raping advocates. It's not really a question of what one personally thinks is right or wrong; fascists are wrongness personified and the declared enemy every principle America is based on.

Hopefully you cannot demonstrate that I am the enemy of free people everywhere who unabashedly advocates denying the human rights of others? I can do so (arguably) with a fascist.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 08:19 PM   #1606
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
That's a fair question, and has been raised many times in different ways. I think the universally abhorrent nature of a fascist puts them into a unique category, shared with maybe child-raping advocates. It's not really a question of what one personally thinks is right or wrong; fascists are wrongness personified and the declared enemy every principle America is based on.

Hopefully you cannot demonstrate that I am the enemy of free people everywhere who unabashedly advocates denying the human rights of others? I can do so (arguably) with a fascist.
Therein lies the problem. There are those in this country who think this way about people who work in abortion clinics, for instance.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 08:35 PM   #1607
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Therein lies the problem. There are those in this country who think this way about people who work in abortion clinics, for instance.
Or gay people, atheists, people of different religions, communists, capitalists... Basically anyone who has a worldview that is profoundly different from other peoples.

Cripes, just check out the political forums here. Just the Democrat/Republican divide generates a huge amount of animosity, each believing the other to be dishonest, corrupt and evil.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 10:43 AM   #1608
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
That's a fair question, and has been raised many times in different ways. I think the universally abhorrent nature of a fascist puts them into a unique category, shared with maybe child-raping advocates. It's not really a question of what one personally thinks is right or wrong; fascists are wrongness personified and the declared enemy every principle America is based on.

Hopefully you cannot demonstrate that I am the enemy of free people everywhere who unabashedly advocates denying the human rights of others? I can do so (arguably) with a fascist.
If you acted on your view and I was there, I would physically step in to stop you as I believe violence against speech is wrong.

I'm not a Nazi or a fascist, how would you react to me?

If you wouldn't attack me as well it seems you ate only willing to attack if you know you will win, cowardly.

If you would then your group of people you would attack extends beyond fascists and nazis.

Your philosophy seems to put you in quite the moral conundrum.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:02 AM   #1609
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Therein lies the problem. There are those in this country who think this way about people who work in abortion clinics, for instance.
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Or gay people, atheists, people of different religions, communists, capitalists... Basically anyone who has a worldview that is profoundly different from other peoples.

Cripes, just check out the political forums here. Just the Democrat/Republican divide generates a huge amount of animosity, each believing the other to be dishonest, corrupt and evil.
Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category. Gays, Republicans etc may be seen as 'bad', but none present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others; I think that makes a difference.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:09 AM   #1610
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category. Gays, Republicans etc may be seen as 'bad', but none present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others; I think that makes a difference.
If fascism were universally abhorred, then it would have no supporters and there would be no need to debate how to best oppose it.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:21 AM   #1611
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category.
Not as universal as you think:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Apparently fascism (like communism) was originally seen as a natural evolution of--and improvement over--liberal democracy. This was before the NSDAP ruined it for everybody with their racism and violent expansionism, of course.

So maybe it's time to reclaim fascism? Nationalizing of all major industry. Overcoming class differences by celebrating national unity. Encouraging assimilation of immigrants. Thanks to Hitler, fascism was never really given a chance. We know how communism turned out, but we should consider giving fascism another try.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not at all. You asked whether we could come up with a better system. I think it's an interesting question, and I think the European experiments with fascism in the 1920s and early 1930s are a good starting point for discussing it. Especially considering that fascism really was seen at the time as a potential solution to the problems of democracy.

Today we think of it as a throwback, but then they saw it as a potential evolution in human affairs.

I think the experience of the Nazis has prevented several generations from actually looking at fascism with a critical eye, as a system of government that just like democracy tries to find the best combination of trade offs for the greatest good.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:27 AM   #1612
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
If you acted on your view and I was there, I would physically step in to stop you as I believe violence against speech is wrong.

I'm not a Nazi or a fascist, how would you react to me?
Hold up- what do you think my view is? Did you read a little and fill in the blanks to suit your narrative? I don't advocate attacking anyone. And situationally, I would need more info to answer anyway.

Quote:
If you wouldn't attack me as well it seems you ate only willing to attack if you know you will win, cowardly.
Ridiculous. One could attack someone (I don't) but hold off others who interfere. For instance, I step into/break up any fight I come across, and sometimes the friends of the fighters will try to hold me back ('It's not your business'), but without attacking me directly. Does this need more explanation?

Quote:
If you would then your group of people you would attack extends beyond fascists and nazis.
Again, ridiculous. If your attack was as threatening, or more so, than whoever was doing the fighting, I would fully be within my rights to defend myself against you. If the situation was like Berkeley, which I see as more of a free-for-all, anyone not trying to get away was in it consensually.

Quote:
Your philosophy seems to put you in quite the moral conundrum.
It does not. You create a simplistic false dichotomy; there are a dozen situational variables that would alter responses (and you wrongly base it on a view that I do not hold).

ETA: you asked in a recent post if I realize that I 'ate Orman and outgunned', could you clarify that?

Last edited by Thermal; 14th March 2017 at 11:33 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:31 AM   #1613
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
If fascism were universally abhorred, then it would have no supporters and there would be no need to debate how to best oppose it.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not as universal as you think:
Yes, but I had said a few posts ago fascism is abhorrent to anyone but other fascists. Prob should have included that in the comment.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:40 AM   #1614
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Yes, but I had said a few posts ago fascism is abhorrent to anyone but other fascists. Prob should have included that in the comment.
Gays are abhorrent to all homophobes. Fascism doesn't seem to be special in that regard.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:47 AM   #1615
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Gays are abhorrent to all homophobes. Fascism doesn't seem to be special in that regard.
True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 11:57 AM   #1616
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.
First, I don't acknowledge the "special" here at all. But ignoring that for a moment, you think it's okay to violently suppress the speech of Group X if they're universally abhorred?

If so, it seems that such suppression (if successful) would imply that nobody would be allowed to defend Group X's ideology, so it should be pretty easy to get near-universal abhorrence of them. For pretty much any Group X.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:06 PM   #1617
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
First, I don't acknowledge the "special" here at all. But ignoring that for a moment, you think it's okay to violently suppress the speech of Group X if they're universally abhorred?

If so, it seems that such suppression (if successful) would imply that nobody would be allowed to defend Group X's ideology, so it should be pretty easy to get near-universal abhorrence of them. For pretty much any Group X.
I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:16 PM   #1618
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.
I don't understand your distinction here. Are you saying that violent suppression of a fascist's speech is unacceptable but forgivable?
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:33 PM   #1619
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Because Muslims threaten no one, and seek to live in Peace with God (extremists aside, as always). I get your point, but fascists directly threaten the rights and well being of large chunks of the population. Their philosophy is based on hate; there really are no kind fascists, as there are kind Muslims. A few Islamophobes may irrationally think Muslims are a universal threat, but a fascist can be empirically demonstrated to be.
Christianity: Suffer not a witch to live, crusades, heretics... etc. No religion is free of its own bigotry.

It's not islamaphobia to recognize that the quran includes the concepts of jihaad against infidels, nor to recognize the risk to our way of life presented by adherents to sharia law. It's just as valid a presumption as claiming that all fascists are a threat. Or more to the point, just as *invalid*.

Why don't you back up your claim? Please empirically demonstrate that fascism is a universal threat. Once you've accomplished that, please provide us with a perfect method for identifying a fascist, without the risk of any false positives.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:33 PM   #1620
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.
But some believe it does, so when out yardstick is belief how do you differentiate? Other than " I'm right because you are wrong" which is nothing more than a school yard squabble.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:34 PM   #1621
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
If fascism were universally abhorred, then it would have no supporters and there would be no need to debate how to best oppose it.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:34 PM   #1622
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
I don't understand your distinction here. Are you saying that violent suppression of a fascist's speech is unacceptable but forgivable?
I don't say anything about unacceptable per se, nor anything about speech (I do not consider the OP to have anything to do with free speech). Assault is usually illegal (barring self-defense etc) and an assailant would have to face the music if charged. But I think that fighting a fascist is an extenuating circumstance, as opposed to fighting for other reasons, so to answer your question: no, as 'suppression', 'acceptable', 'speech' and 'forgivable' are not any part of what I said.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:38 PM   #1623
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.
You just want to have your cake and eat it too.

If you take any action you wouldn't if the person wasn't a "fascist" you are providing support for the attack. You don't get to just let others do your dirty work for you then claim because it wasn't your knuckles hitting the face that you don't support the attack.

Wait a second, elitist cowards who let uneducated thugs do their violence for them. ...sounds like a certain group that was known for some pretty nasty things a while back.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:39 PM   #1624
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.
Jewish people were cast as universally abhorred by a pretty solid chunk of german citizens. How well did that turn out?

FFS, throughout history, all kinds of people have been classified as "universally" abhorred. Heathens and infidels, gay people, black people, jewish people (repeatedly), Japanese and Korean (depending on which side of the sea you're on). Communists. Socialists. Colonialists. The list goes on and on.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:46 PM   #1625
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Maybe the living memory of what it was like to live under a Fascist/Nazi regime dies off, a revival of Fascism becomes more likely. Maybe we have a new generation,that did not grow up with family members who could tell them how bad it was,who are more likely to fall for fascism.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:48 PM   #1626
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Jewish people were cast as universally abhorred by a pretty solid chunk of german citizens. How well did that turn out?

FFS, throughout history, all kinds of people have been classified as "universally" abhorred. Heathens and infidels, gay people, black people, jewish people (repeatedly), Japanese and Korean (depending on which side of the sea you're on). Communists. Socialists. Colonialists. The list goes on and on.
Uh, can someone else see the fallacy here?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:48 PM   #1627
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.
Not so much anymore, but a few decades ago? Even today there are still people who think it's okay to beat the crap out of someone of the wrong gender who makes a pass at you.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 12:57 PM   #1628
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category. Gays, Republicans etc may be seen as 'bad', but none present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others; I think that makes a difference.
People who use violence to suppress speech present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others.

Also, appeal to popularity? Really?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 01:35 PM   #1629
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Yes, but I had said a few posts ago fascism is abhorrent to anyone but other fascists. Prob should have included that in the comment.
Including that wouldn't have saved your error; I'm not a fascist.

Last edited by theprestige; 14th March 2017 at 01:37 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 02:32 PM   #1630
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Uh, can someone else see the fallacy here?
I'm not seeing it, but given that I made the argument, I'm probably inclined to be blind to it. Please clue me in on what fallacy you believe I've fallen prey to?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 06:44 PM   #1631
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Christianity: Suffer not a witch to live, crusades, heretics... etc. No religion is free of its own bigotry.
Agreed. Sidebar- are we down to talking about the rights of...witches...now?

Quote:
It's not islamaphobia to recognize that the quran includes the concepts of jihaad against infidels, nor to recognize the risk to our way of life presented by adherents to sharia law. It's just as valid a presumption as claiming that all fascists are a threat. Or more to the point, just as *invalid*.
Ok. Then the Nation of Islam, with one voice, has declared jihad against us infidels? I hadn't noticed that (small percentage of extremists excluded). Fascists, by definition (see below) are all against democracy, and by extension American ideals and principles of freedom and equality. By analogizing them, you suggest that all Muslims, by definition, are against American ideals? You sure about that?

Quote:
Why don't you back up your claim? Please empirically demonstrate that fascism is a universal threat. Once you've accomplished that, please provide us with a perfect method for identifying a fascist, without the risk of any false positives.
I don't think the definition of a fascist is in dispute, but for clarity:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete...and having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
Fascism: 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
Every ideal and principle the U.S. is founded on is antithetical to fascism, so in context a universal threat to an American. Regarding providing a 'perfect method': if you are looking for perfection in anything, you're on the wrong planet or just not arguing seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascis...ism_of_fascism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 06:46 PM   #1632
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
But some believe it does, so when out yardstick is belief how do you differentiate? Other than " I'm right because you are wrong" which is nothing more than a school yard squabble.
I...uh...hm...
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 06:51 PM   #1633
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Jewish people were cast as universally abhorred by a pretty solid chunk of german citizens. How well did that turn out?

FFS, throughout history, all kinds of people have been classified as "universally" abhorred. Heathens and infidels, gay people, black people, jewish people (repeatedly), Japanese and Korean (depending on which side of the sea you're on). Communists. Socialists. Colonialists. The list goes on and on.
Not people...philosophies. In this case, one which seeks to obliterate our Nation's bedrock principles. If a philosophy threatens to eradicate this, it can be called universally abhorrent. Unless ya don't care much for freedom and all in the first place, I guess.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 06:54 PM   #1634
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Not so much anymore, but a few decades ago? Even today there are still people who think it's okay to beat the crap out of someone of the wrong gender who makes a pass at you.
Sure, some people will always hate others. No argument here.
Did the gays openly pledge to undermine and eradicate the very principles your country was founded on? Maybe not so comparable as it first seems?
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 07:14 PM   #1635
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
People who use violence to suppress speech present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others.
Agreed, but AFAIK we are not talking about using violence to suppress speech.

Quote:
Also, appeal to popularity? Really?
An appeal to popularity is that idea is true because it is widely held. That is not at all what I am saying. And I think you know that.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Including that wouldn't have saved your error; I'm not a fascist.
That was not about you, I was referencing my earlier comment. Didn't mean to suggest you were a fascist, apologies if it came across that way.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 08:33 PM   #1636
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Agreed. Sidebar- are we down to talking about the rights of...witches...now?
Yes. Something like 40,000 of them have been killed. I (and hopefully others) feel that their killing was not justified, despite the abhorrent practices of which they were accused.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 08:37 PM   #1637
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
Fascism: 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
Every ideal and principle the U.S. is founded on is antithetical to fascism, so in context a universal threat to an American.
You support forcible suppression of fascism by a democracy because forcible suppression is antithetical to democracy?
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 09:03 PM   #1638
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Yes. Something like 40,000 of them have been killed. I (and hopefully others) feel that their killing was not justified, despite the abhorrent practices of which they were accused.
Agreed. But...wait for it...we are in the 21st century. Are you suggesting that a 16th century mindset is comparable to this discussion? Perhaps we could compare the political musings of cavemen while we're at it?

Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
You support forcible suppression of fascism by a democracy because forcible suppression is antithetical to democracy?
I don't recall supporting forcible suppression of anyone by anyone else. Or suppressing speech. Or any other words put in my mouth.

ETA: witches- I would opine that that was a different issue altogether, what with the accused not actually having done what they were being accused of. You know, witches not actually existing and all. Do you mean to analogize fascists with fictitious creatures here? Or are you saying fascists don't exist and are victims of...witch hunts?

ETA again: You assert more than once that I support forcible suppression of speech and/or people. May I ask what you are talking about? In context of the OP, I see the events as more of a mutual fight between natural enemies, and the anarchists jumping in because it's kind of their thing to bust **** up. I don't actually think anyone was suppressing Milo or his speech.

Last edited by Thermal; 14th March 2017 at 09:16 PM. Reason: sp
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 08:33 AM   #1639
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Not people...philosophies. In this case, one which seeks to obliterate our Nation's bedrock principles. If a philosophy threatens to eradicate this, it can be called universally abhorrent. Unless ya don't care much for freedom and all in the first place, I guess.
I don't think your argument holds any water. It's special pleading. You've decided that "fascism" is such a threat to what you view as the US way of life, that you feel preemptive violence against US citizens is justifiable and excusable. Then all you have to do is proclaim that a person is a "fascist" and you feel that attacking them with violence is A-Okay.

No matter how you church it up, you've taken a stance that *some* US citizens should be denied their rights as US citizens, and that violence should be enacted against them because of their beliefs.

YOU are a threat to the US way of life.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 08:36 AM   #1640
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I don't recall supporting forcible suppression of anyone by anyone else. Or suppressing speech. Or any other words put in my mouth.
You've supported the use of preemptive violence against people that you've decided are fascists. Not based on what they've done, but on what they've said. You have supported and lauded aggression and assault as an appropriate response to speech in order to stop "those people" from engaging in "that sort of" speech.

What do you think your stance is? Please clarify.


ETA: I'm basing my responses on these posts of yours:
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
But being a card-carrying Fascist versus a being a casual neo-nazi is an almost academic point. Their precise point on the fascist scale is not that interesting when that entire end of the scale is beyond the pale.

+++++

Agreed. But my experience and observation of these types is that they aren't moved by decency. Their base ideals are about as far removed from decency as you can politically get. They do not want to be decent. And I have no objection to taking a step or so outside of decency with them.

+++

Returning Godwinesque flippancy: they were the bad guys. I am the good guys, so comparing Auschwitz and oranges .
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Agreed on one main point: it's not an issue of free speech or dissenting opinion with these cats. They are against basic humanity, IMO. Their extreme position warrants extreme response.
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I don't say anything about unacceptable per se, nor anything about speech (I do not consider the OP to have anything to do with free speech). Assault is usually illegal (barring self-defense etc) and an assailant would have to face the music if charged. But I think that fighting a fascist is an extenuating circumstance, as opposed to fighting for other reasons, so to answer your question: no, as 'suppression', 'acceptable', 'speech' and 'forgivable' are not any part of what I said.
All of these boil down to "Attacking people is wrong, unless you're attacking a 'fascist', then it's ok".
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 15th March 2017 at 08:44 AM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.