Damn, who knew a rating could get you so riled up? I hate to break it to you but i'm not a Trump supporter, or a Republican for that matter. I would be fine if he was impeached and replaced. Just because I don't go around spouting how much I hate Trump like you do doesn't make me a Trumpling.
You rate a video "Baby" that is of a dude explaining how Trump is creating a form of fascism and the dude goes into detail and brings up factual information of previous fascist states and compares it to what Trump does, and points out how there is parallels as well.
This is like going up to a black man and screaming NIGGER and getting surprised that he dropped your ass.
Cut the bullshit, we know what the fuck you were doing when you rated it as that.
So you're having a tantrum because I rated it baby? I simply don't agree that Trump is a fascist or that America is turning into Nazi Germany. That might be your view, but in my opinion, when you're the president of a country that is a democracy, it's pretty much impossible to be a dictator witch is essential for fascism. I don't see Trump taking over business and forcing you to show your papers at random outposts and making you salute him.
Is he a rich old businessman who is an asshole and can't use Twitter without looking like a 11 year old? Absolutely. Is he the next Hitler or Mussolini? I don't think so.
I also am not in the mood for arguing back and forth and geting nowhere like the last 5 threads of politics. Don't bother trying to argue with me. I disagree and think it's an over exaggeration which is why I rated it baby and not write a responce. I don't care if you think i'm a retarded stupid twat for saying that.
Then if you're not going to give discussion in a political thread and basically do what is akin to a drive-by shitpost. Then kindly Fuck off.
WTF? You literally @ me so I gave you a response to why I rated it baby. I simply don't want to get into a futile argument. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
Huh I think the baby rating might invite hurt feelings
Your response was nothing but "I dont agree". And that was it. Nothing else.
You guys better start putting some goddamn effort into these political threads instead of just going "I dont agree" or "Well i think". Cause that dont mean jackshit when there is facts that prove otherwise.
You already just proved you didn't actually watch the video with the second half of this quote.
E-Fucking-xactly.
Like the video went into full on detail on how Trump's "Fascism" was more in line with Mussolini brand of Fascism, not specifically the Nazis or Hitler. Like he flat out said in the beginning of the vid. "TRUMP IS NOT HITLER OR A NAZI"
@Programmer
So did you actually watch it or where you trying to get a rise out of people with the baby rating?
It was actually a pretty interesting video, it kind made me think about some things. I've always hated how people used the word fascist and thought it was a bit over dramatic, but this video kinda made me think.
He may not be an outright fascist in the sense (if that makes sense..) but he holds some serious mentalities in regards to it.
And I still think you like to stir shit and follow up with a big-eyed, "I'm sorry, I reeaally didn't mean to. "
Who the fuck says "trumpism" with a straight face and out loud.
Say it with me. Fascism.
I did watch the video. I know in the video he said that but, I am referencing to the overall opinion of anti-Trump people like I do in most of my posts. The immigration thread had a lot of "literally Hitler" posts for example.
I still don't understand what your deal is. You're trying to fight with me because I gave a baby rating. I am on your side, I don't think Trump should be president. Do I think he is a fascist or "literally HItler"? No. You're making yourself look like an ass by calling me a "fucking twat" just because I disagree with one discrepancy.
My intentions are not trying to get a rise out of people. Besides, you shouldn't even care this much about a rating. You are acting like a baby when you do that.
You're so blind with rage that you don't even see that fact that I am not a Trump supporter. I don't have to agree with you 100% to be on your side. Now calm down, I didn't want to get involved in this thread anyways and that is why I rated it. If I wanted to debate you, I would have made it very clear.
That's cool and all but you were specifically talking about the video when you made that post.
You should take a nap and come back to this thread later. Let your blood cool down, might be less inclined to reply to bait
nah this is frustration hitting critical mass.
Listen, you can argue semantics all day and choose to believe me or not. I honestly did watch the video and I think it's an exaggeration to call Trump a fascist and that is why I rated it the way I did. The end.
Ok! Believe whatever you want to believe but have a nice day!
"It's just a rating, why do you care?"
Ratings are a form of response. Of showing your opinion without adding another post. That's... kind of their entire point?
We're not reacting to the mere presence of a small icon. The issue is what that icon represents.
If someone made a post saying "All races are equal", there's no meaningful difference between replying "no they aren't" and rating dumb, disagree, snowflake, or whatever.
Whatever happened for being banned for caring about ratings?
Literally getting to the point of breaking down because a handful of people rated your post baby is where I would draw the line.
Seriously, don't take this shit personally and if it does cause you personal harm, just turn off your computer, phone, tablet or internet browsing device and just take a break.
Once Trump is convicted, supporting him should be a permabannable offense tbh.
you missed the point of me going "My patience is gone"
I recommend people in this thread to read the book on fascism namedropped by the guy in the video, it is actually strange to me that he did so in the same video that bases itself almost entirely on Eco's 'Ur-Fascism' concept when that book very early on regards the concept as useless in defining fascism:
Stirring as Umberto Eco’s words are to defenders of freedom, they
won’t do as a means of understanding fascism in the contemporary
world. If it were possible for fascism to dress ‘in plainclothes’, how
could we tell which of the myriad political movements around us
was fascist? Should we look at those which most resemble our idea
of fascism, or those which least resemble it?
Eco breaks one of the fundamental rules of academic enquiry (and
indeed of any fruitful exchange between people). To be useful to
scholars a proposition must be falsifiable – there must be
something which could in theory refute the statement. No evidence
could contradict Eco’s view that a movement was fascist. If one said
that such and such essential characteristic was missing from the
movement in question, the rejoinder would always be ‘Ah! They’re
keeping their intentions secret!’ This kind of logic lies behind all
conspiracy theories, with their infuriating imperviousness to
counter-argument.
Having said that, Eco does put his finger on a difficulty regarding
the analysis of the contemporary extreme right. With the exception
of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), none of the parties that
explicitly seek to restore Fascist or Nazi states (as they believe them
to have existed) has ever been electorally significant.
That being said, take the words of a semiotician (not a historian or political scientist) lightly when it comes to a workable definition of an ideology, even if he has grown under such a regime.
(Not to disparage Umberto Eco's work both in the realms of literature and academics, the man is great as are his works, he just isn't a good source for this sort of thing.)
It is for this reason I repeat as I have in the previous thread, I do not believe Trump is a fascist, but he very clearly enables such people and paves the way for them both in the current administration and in the potential next ones. Trump doesn't have to be a fascist for him to be opposed and his rhetorical tactics (which indeed are identical to those used by fascists) be denounced.
There is more to fascism than rhetoric, but rhetoric in the realm of politics is that which enables certain people to grab and hold power, so take that as you will.
It's fucking disappointing to reach page 4 of a thread and still see replies from people who never even watched the video.
"All of it" then follows it up with a handful of really bad sources, completely passing up ones like Reuters, Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, The Economist, Foreign Policy etc.
Where did you hear this counterpoint? Who is they? Which article?
Fascism actually doesn’t take state control of business.
Learn your definitions
I don't see the problem. If people want to act like clowns and show why no one should take anything they say as worth anything then let them.
Unrelated list of replies follows.
While he absolutely does call for the centralization of political authority (as long as he is in power!) and going closer to merging the branches of government with him as the head, he still has not to my knowledge publicly called for the removal of democracy or centralization of the economy, or the incorporation of interest group political organizations officially into the state.
Eco's definition of fascism (or more correctly ur-fascism, the "source" of what was commonly called and manifested as european fascism) is one that uses the label to merely describe the rhetoric of such forms of thought which yield a potential to evolve into a fully fledged ideology and political movement similar to fascism.
The book I've mentioned actually has entire chapters dedicated to the differences between the modern far right, and old and new forms of fascism and how while sharing a lot of features there was a kind of rebranding in which they figured out an exclusionary democracy works better for their xenophobic populist goals than any kind of dictatorship - a naked break with fascism that befits a new label that "fascist" as a label simply doesn't convey properly without muddying the waters of discussion.
While it is true that the book was written before the ascent of the alt-right as a movement, it does touch upon very interesting subjects that were evident even at the time of writing and are doubly relevant now, so I recommend again that people here read it.
Hey look, gary, there I am!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
