Skip Navigation
politics @lemmy.world
jeffw @lemmy.world

Trump flattened for talking about executing Biden before gun owners

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
121 comments

  • What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives?

    I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don't think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.

    You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn't agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won't though, because you haven't thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

    • inherent inequality,

      As dictated by whom? You?

      I don’t think that is a fascist view.

      You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?

      Fascist by definition

      Fascism doesn't have a definition, liberal. It isn't - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

      Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand...

      You might consider reading up on... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

      ...I'll take that as a yes.

      Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive

      What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?

      which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

      Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?

      • Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.

        inherent inequality,

        As dictated by whom? You?

        A system does not need someone to dictate inequality, there are plenty of naturally existing system that produce inequal results. I don't have to dictate shit to notice an inequitable system.

        I don’t think that is a fascist view.

        You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?

        Textbook strawman there. At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.

        Fascist by definition

        Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

        This may be news to you, but words have meaning, otherwise you can peanut butter your knuckle wolfsbane.

        Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…

        Please, source your definiton for Fascism. I cited an established repository of knowledge, so far your only basis for the meaning of the word exists in the vapor between your ears.

        Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive

        What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?

        This is a reiteration of an already refuted strawman, and supporting evidence for my assertion on the productivity of the "dialogue".

        which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

        Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?

        Didn't you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?

        Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform, please espouse your ideas on the last equitable social code that any segment of humanity has operated under in history. Otherwise, you'll have written a lot of pointless drivel, again, without actually adding anything to the conversation.

        • Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.

          Says the liberal after posting a reply that's wearing out my scroll button.

          A system does not need someone to dictate inequality,

          Yes. It actually does. Or do you think the US is fundamentally white supremacist by sheer coincidence?

          At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.

          Of course not, liberal! You were simply arguing for an entirely superficial change to a (so called) "justice system" that subjugate the many for the benefit of the few. Totally nothing suspicious about that at all!

          but words have meaning

          Again, liberal... fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

          We can play this game all night long - you can give me any "definition" of fascism you can find on the net, and I will easily use actual history to tear them into pieces with next-to-zero effort.

          Do you want to?

          Please, source your definiton for Fascism.

          Again, liberal... fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

          Please state how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself before something begins to gel for you - it will really lubricate this conversation.

          Didn’t you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?

          Tell me you didn't know that liberalism is a right-wing ideology without telling me that you didn't know liberalism is a right-wing ideology. Have you never wondered why you are so eager to make excuses for your fascist brethren?

          No? Perhaps it's time to start.

          Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform,

          No, liberal - I will not debate "justice system reform" with you. I have no interest in "reforming" your precious status quo so that you can feel better about the violence that maintains your position of privilege within it.

          • Another empty, meaningless reply.

            Go ahead, cite a history or source or example other than your own made up bullshit that backs up your claim that fascism is an undefinable ideology. You do understand that your claim is literally an oxymoron?

            While you're at it, find a political spectrum chart that puts liberal in the right wing. I checked about a dozen from different sources, and the closest I could find was a chart that set it dead center.

            You still haven't said what time in society you would go back to as a starting point for your equitable justice system. You were however offended that I said the last time we had a truly equitable existence was before society at large appeared. A reasonable person can conclude from this that...

            You have a time period in mind, but you don't want to state it because you know that I'll point out the holes in their justice system.

            Or...

            You haven't really thought about it, and you've made (4, I think?) long-winded posts dodging a simple point rather than admit that you can't think of such a time or society.

            Address the point, or tacitly admit you have no intent to debate in good faith and kindly fuck off.

            • Go ahead,

              I'm waiting for your "definitions" with baited breath, liberal. Go on.

              I hope this will not take you long.

              I checked about a dozen from different sources,

              Liberal... are you trying to tell me that you need to check sources to tell me that your ideology is left or right? You didn't actually know that before deciding that your canned feels should be taken seriously in a political argument?

              Yeah... that's peak liberalism, all right. The grandiose entitlement is characteristic.

              Do tell, liberal - what else don't you know but should be granted "honorary expertise" in?

              Did your sources explain to you that liberalism is pro-capitalist, liberal? Did your sources explain the complementary and close relationship between capitalism and fascism to you, liberal?

              No? I guess your only explanation for the reasons why capitalists funds fascism into power within liberal nation states is "for shits and giggles?"

              A reasonable person can conclude from this that…

              A "reasonable person" wouldn't be faking knowledge on subject matter that they barely have working knowledge about, liberal. I think that we've pretty much established that you don't conform to that description.

              Address the point, or tacitly admit you have no intent to debate in good faith and kindly fuck off.

              No, liberal - defend your ideology, and defend your ideology's proximity to fascism. You know... the ideology that you had to "check sources" for find out whether it was left or right?

              • Ah, so you've chosent the tacit admission that your argument is bullshit, you have't actually thought about what you reacted to, and you'd like to kindly fuck off, but you just lack the self control to behave like an adult in conversations.

                Also, classic gish gallop. One, or maybe 2 addressable point at a time please.

                • Ah, so you’ve chosent the tacit admission

                  Not willing to put any of your copypasta "definitions" to the test, eh liberal?

                  Why am I not surprised?

                  One, or maybe 2 addressable point

                  You mean... apart from?

                  defend your ideology, and defend your ideology’s proximity to fascism.

                  At least fascists and tankies have the gumption to try and defend their beliefs - you liberals duck and dive out of an argument simply because you are too damn fragile to handle the fact that liberalism is, in fact, an ideology.

                  It would be comedic if it wasn't so damn real.

                  • defend your ideology, and defend your ideology’s proximity to fascism.

                    Let me open with this. I didn't claim to be a liberal, that is a label that you applied to me. I don't think it's an unfair assertion, but at the same time, I am not constrained to the ideological boundaries of that label.

                    Liberal, (at least where I'm from) means that you interpret the rules of society with some leeway. Language in laws or rules, no matter how specific, cannot encompass edge-case scenarios, so some human intuition and adjustment of a law or rule is required in order to for it to function with it's intended purpose. Briefly put, Liberals in my country beleive that laws should fit to society, rather than the opposing conservative construction, that society should be fit to the law.

                    Since you refuse to accept a definiton for fascism, and on multiple occasions, declaring that it is undefinable, it makes it a useless term to compare to. You might as well be asking me to compare liberal ideology to CPU architecture or the concept of cottage industry. If you won't accept a definiton for fascism, and are afraid to provide you own, then it is logically impossible for someone to use it as a comparative.

                    Now, I have addressed your silly roundabout 3rd grade logic. Please, with some decorum, address your point, that there is/was a time in human society post-cave-dwelling, where the social/justice system was fair and equitable. In case you forgot, that is the point that started you on this useless, indefensible and idiotic tirade. Or you can tacitly admit you don't have a point, and you can kindly fuck off.

                    • I didn’t claim to be a liberal

                      You don't have to. If you view the world through the lens of liberal ideology, you are a liberal - regardless of the labels you self-apply.

                      Liberal, (at least where I’m from) means that you interpret the rules of society with some leeway

                      Then you misunderstand your own ideology. Liberalism allows absolutely no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of private property, for instance. In complete contradiction, it allows no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of (so-called) "rule of law" - a contradiction, of course, that can only be solved by ensuring the law doesn't apply to those who own the largest share of all the private property.

                      So where is this "leeway" you speak of?

                      Since you refuse to accept a definiton for fascism,

                      Oh, I never said I'd refuse a definition of fascism - I've read far more of them than you have. None of them actually manages to "define" fascism. Look at my second paragraph - it's childishly easy to demonstrate the logical contradictions in your ideology - liberalism has so many inherent contradictions that it, too, is extremely difficult to define satisfactorily. Fascism comprises an ideological framing that contains absolutely nothing inside it that is coherent or consistent in any way whatsoever - are you starting to see the problem with "definitions" of fascism?

                      The worst of them, by far, are the ones written by liberals - no surprises there. Liberals are desperately anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very status quo (you know... "rule of law" and "private property" and associated schtick) liberals are invested in preserving. They are anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very violence that is used to enforce the liberal order.

                      The Marxist ones are quite a bit better - but still fail to hit the mark. I'm just going to go ahead and assume you didn't even know those existed before now.

                      Please, with some decorum, address your point,

                      Not my point at all, liberal. Your logical fallacy. Remember this?

                      Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.

                      I requested you provide any evidence to prop up this silly Hollywood trope that you knee-jerk conflated with reality faster than Ben Shapiro snorts copium.

                      You have provided... absolutely none.

                      • Oh, I never said I’d refuse a definition of fascism

                        No no, you're faaaaaar tooooo smaaaaart to commit to an actual definition, or even general framework of what fascism is. Despite this, you still expect other people to defend against your internally checked, rapidly shifting goalpost of what qualifies as "fascism". Put your money where your mouth is, you trollish coward, define, even in loose terms, what fascism is, so that we may actually discuss it. If you can't do that, then you're not actually making any points here, you're just swimming circles in a pool of your own bullshit.

                        Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.

                        My assertion here is that there has not been a perfect, equitable society in human history. This is why I'd rather work to fix the society we have, than throw out the everything and live without society, yah know, because I like the things society brings, like running water, electricity, flushing toilets, refrigeration, videogames... You'd get the idea of your head wasn't up your ass. The evidence I'll provide for this claim, is that there has not been a completely just society in human history. If you'd like to refute this claim, you can simply name one. But you can't, because you are wrong, so you won't, and instead you'll dilly-dally and dance around while hurling labels that you don't understand at people while implicitly arguing that words don't have a real meaning.

121 comments