As George Orwell often noted, some people are quite quick to call anything or anyone they don't like "fascist." All it really means is that they don't like the thing or person.
Just because someone on the internet calls you fascist doesn't mean you are fascist.
I've been called lots of horrible things (my favorite was "Literal spawn of Satan", yes they were dead serious). People like to use labels to find justification to hate something, don't put too much weight on it.
For a moment I was worried that this was about some user publicly accusing @dreamtraveler of being a fascist, which would be very much against the Site Rules.
@dreamtraveler: Being pro-borders or even anti-immigration, or even anti-legal immigration, does not make one a fascist, or stupid, or wrong. A fascist is somebody who supports an authoritarian or totalitarian government. And you certainly don't need an authoritarian or totalitarian government in order to define borders or limit legal or illegal immigration. A democracy can just vote that kind of policy into effect.
Hell, you can vote into power a government that wants to deport every immigrant in your entire country and still be a democracy. It might not be a full-blown liberal democracy like most of Europe or many of the other scattered democracies around the world, but a democracy is merely a government in which citizens directly vote for their representatives (or in the case of a pure democracy, vote for laws as a citizenry, without relying representatives to do it), and a liberal democracy is merely a democracy which also has a set of protections for individual rights and a set of limitations on government power.
As for me, immigration in my own country, the United States, is at a 20-year low, and I'm just fine with that. I see no need to decrease it further or increase it.
@semiticgod you dont understand i have no problem with immigrants but i am stupid and not in my right mind cause i want to have borders, borders in general
@dreamtraveler: Oh no, I did not assume that you were opposed to immigration. I'm sorry; I should have made that clear. My point was that even if you did, or even if you held an extreme viewpoint, it still wouldn't make you a fascist or stupid or crazy. Most people in general want borders, even if they are sympathetic to immigration like I am. Those lines on the map are important for all kinds of reasons: national jurisdiction, international trade, the military, and basically any interaction with the country on the other side.
If somebody thinks you're an idiot for holding a majority opinion, they are not worth taking seriously.
Generally, when your debating opponents resort to name-calling it's because they can't think of any legitimate arguments.
But anyway, here is how to tell if you are stupid or not: can you argue your opponent's position? An intelligent person looks at the issues on both sides of a debate before drawing thier own conclusion, a stupid person is only capable of seeing one side.
i looked up what a fascist is on google and this is the definition it gives:
A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.
so if this definition is 100% you, then you are a fascist, if it's not 100% you, then you are not
and if you are a fascist, that is your freedom of right to be one
i strongly believe in the freedom of others' rights and opinions, so if someone is a fascist or not, doesn't bother me one bit, be whatever you want to be people because the universe doesn't care, and neither do I
RL 'in person' conflict is not always easy. We have it everyday, with friends, partners, spouses, co-workers, even with ourselves. It takes more time to exchange ideas and getting the 'why we fill this way' across to others when the subject at hand is a hot topic.
I never like looking at these types of conflict as a debate. To me that seems to be looking for only one outcome, a win-lose situation. That can possible be detrimental to the situation, which is not the most beneficial. With relationships, esp friends and family, or even just a casual meeting, we need to strive for understanding. This means asking questions of the other as to why they feel the way they do about us. For us, it means describing in more detail about why we feel the way we do about an issue. I also suggest (if it comes up), not berating another persons point of view, but focus on getting them to say why. The same goes for 'us'. This means more than just telling another 'you don't understand', as that does not drive the conversation forward in any meaningful fashion. It might also help to try to keep the focus of the conversation on the problem and not going into the personal. Of course it takes another to be willing to do this. It is even helpful to try and find some common ground in other areas. The conversation can take 'time outs' and just talk about things in general other than the main issue. This can help with people opening up and calming down a little.
Basically really try to get the other to describe what they feel, and why they feel it. A person is not 'stupid' just because they can't debate the other persons side. As I said before, it is not a winner take all approach that will bring understanding, but a win-win or understanding me- understanding them approach that will help foster more positive communication and less negativity on both 'sides'. This is a skill set that can be learned over time. It does not come automatically for everyone as we all have varying personalities. That said, if things get too heated and too personal then there is a time to walk away as well. Just my 2 cents worth.
Fascism is also about the government being socialist and redistributing wealth. It's authoritarian socialism. Communism fits this too.
OP, people who get called fascists today usually have very different beliefs. They support lots of economic freedoms. They're more along the lines of libertarians than any authoritarian socialists.
Anarcho-capitalism as a very extreme form of libertarianism where there's no government. A famous philosopher from that branch said that he opposes immigration and supports borders simply because governments import people that want big government.
If you're familiar with dungeons and dragons alignment, they'd claim that because they're similar, fascism and communism would be the best of alies and they'd see libertarians as their main enemies.
Well it started like that. When Mussolini first started Fascism in Italy, Lenin congratulated him and viewed him as a fellow revolutionary. Hitler also originally allied with Stalin.
But then the two saw each other as competitors and they've been feuding ever since.
When communist groups hate someone they call them "fascists", not libertarian.
It proves the D&D alignment theories all wrong. Of course there's religious sects that feud over minor differences too.
The original fascists in Italy were anti-communist (they were anti- a lot of things but not really pro-anything). Hitler also criticized communism in Mein Kampf. Also, the Russo-German alliance was strictly for practical purposes and Hitler gleefully broke it the moment it suited him--they were never friends. It's simply not true that fascism and communism are part of the same coin. During the Cold War, Soviet propaganda constantly painted American democracy and Nazism as two sides of the same coin, and during World War 2, the fascist Axis powers fought against both the United States and the Soviet Union.
All three groups, the communists, the fascists, and the liberals (the "international" type of liberal, which just means pro-democracy folks; no relation to U.S. liberals and conservatives), thought the other two groups were two sides of the same coin, but in reality, all three were mutually exclusive ideologies.
Redistributing wealth was a key value of the socialists and the communists, not the fascists. Hitler and his ilk did not break up big corporations or give out welfare checks like the U.S. did, nor did he abolish private property or execute the wealthy like Kim Il-sung or Mao Zedong did.
The fascists did impose an authoritarian one-party state like the Leninists did, along with a whole bunch of other oppressive crap, but the fascists were not opposed to corporations or free markets.
While it's true that fascist and communists ended at war after 1939 that doesn't mean those political movements don't share important similarities. They do. They are both: a) revolutionary political ideologies; b) they consider themselves to be modern or progressive in comparison to traditional left vs right conflict; c) statolatry (I know that anarcho-communists don't agree with that but still); d) collectivist character and connection to working class. When it comes to actual nazism you have additional similarities: e) claim that they are supported by science; f) "hegelian" purpose to fullfil some kind of natural law - dialectical development of history for communism and biological racial war for nazism. Frankly, it quite bothers me when people use term "fascist", when they apparently want to say "racist". Those two things don't always go together. Arthur de Gobineau, creator of so-called scientific racism died in 1882, so before birth of fascism.
So there are genuine actual fascists active in the world today, and calling them such is not strictly motivated by disagreeing with them, but rather pointing out their racism, their desire for a white ethno-state, their desire for ethnic cleansing (peaceful or otherwise), their use of Nazi slogans, their use of Nazi salutes, their fetishization of Hitler and the Nazi party, their hatred of Jewish people.
And like anyone can pick this apart to claim they're not really fascists, but most of these people literally say they're fascists so there's no need for that.
And anyone who thinks communists and fascists are natural allies should google "cultural marxism." Fascists hate communists, to the point that they basically call their boogeyman such.
Similar movements sometimes end up as the most bitter enemies, as they compete for basically the same "target audience". In real world the most hated foe of Helmites would be church of Tyr.
So there are genuine actual fascists active in the world today, and calling them such is not strictly motivated by disagreeing with them, but rather pointing out their racism, their desire for a white ethno-state, their desire for ethnic cleansing (peaceful or otherwise), their use of Nazi slogans, their use of Nazi salutes, their fetishization of Hitler and the Nazi party, their hatred of Jewish people.
And like anyone can pick this apart to claim they're not really fascists, but most of these people literally say they're fascists so there's no need for that.
Technically those would be Nazi, not fascists. But yeah, the line between the two has become so blurred in the collective consciousness, that they're often used interchangeably, even though it is not precisely accurate.
Despise being pro gay-marriage, abortion laws, and pretty much everything that is about individual freedom I'm often called fascist because I don't want the government expending the taxpayer's money on useless sh*t (and here in Brazil we have a lot of stupid expending).
The left-wing is getting way too sensitive about everything and likes to use all kind of fallacies due to their lack of data to support their argument.
Long story short: it will get worse, you'll get used, and eventually will find it funny.
"Fun" fact: due to the left-wing extremism here in Brazil an authoritarian politician have a real chance of getting the presidency. The "funniest" part is that they are blaming the right-wing liberals (like myself) for turning the people away from what supposed is good to them.
So there are genuine actual fascists active in the world today, and calling them such is not strictly motivated by disagreeing with them, but rather pointing out their racism, their desire for a white ethno-state, their desire for ethnic cleansing (peaceful or otherwise), their use of Nazi slogans, their use of Nazi salutes, their fetishization of Hitler and the Nazi party, their hatred of Jewish people.
And like anyone can pick this apart to claim they're not really fascists, but most of these people literally say they're fascists so there's no need for that.
At this moment in time Myanmar is ethnically cleansing people out of the country.
@Raduziel: Why not post more in detail in the politics thread? We don't hear much stuff about Brazil over there.
Because I believe that when it comes to politics there are three kinds of people:
1) Those that do not understand politics
2) Those that think that understand politics
3) Those that really understand politics.
Working close to some politicians and studying a lot about the subject, both as a civilian and as a military, I can say that I find myself in the third group. So I learned that it is useless to discuss politics as it is a dirty and rigged game.
And anyone who thinks communists and fascists are natural allies should google "cultural marxism." Fascists hate communists, to the point that they basically call their boogeyman such.
Cultural Marxism is a nickname for what all Western universities officially teach and call Critical Theory. You can go to a university and take a class on it. It's either called Critical Theory or Intersectional [this or that].
Critical Theory started as an outgrowing of Communism by early thinkers such as György Lukács, then developed in Germany's Frankfurt School after WWI and then when Hitler came to power they fled to the USA because they were the main ethnic group Hitler didn't like. And then Western universities now all preach it.
Critical Theory is different from original Marxism.
Original Marxism = Class baiting. Divide and Conquer based on rich vs. poor. Critical Theory = Identity politics. Race baiting, gender baiting, sexual orientation baiting, religion baiting, disability baiting. It is everything in Western countries today where you have to be very careful of offending the privileged groups and then at the same time the groups you're allowed to offend are the ones called privileged.
Critical Theory/Intersectionality is basically if you take everything Hitler and Goebbels said about Jews and replace it with white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians.
That's how they're similar. Take any speech by Hitler or Goebbels and replace Jews with white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians and you get Western mainstream media.
Take any speech by a college professor about white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians and replace that with Jews and you get Mein Kampf.
In real world the most hated foe of Helmites would be church of Tyr.
Worshippers of Cyric and Shar wouldn't switch to Helm or Tyr, but followers of Helm and Tyr would easily switch.
But in game, Viconia switched from Lloth to Shar. And LLoth became really pissed.
I think it might have something to do with the nature of the movement. The USSR and Hitler's Germany both had forced labor camps and killed civilians with poison gas. So that's a violent thing.
But libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism aren't violently opposed.
For religions even though some similar religions violently fight, Buddhism and Taoism are close friends and started sharing things between the religions. People in East Asia may share beliefs between the two religions and with bits of other things such as Shintoism.
And anyone who thinks communists and fascists are natural allies should google "cultural marxism." Fascists hate communists, to the point that they basically call their boogeyman such.
Cultural Marxism is a nickname for what all Western universities officially teach and call Critical Theory. You can go to a university and take a class on it. It's either called Critical Theory or Intersectional [this or that].
Critical Theory started as an outgrowing of Communism by early thinkers such as György Lukács, then developed in Germany's Frankfurt School after WWI and then when Hitler came to power they fled to the USA because they were the main ethnic group Hitler didn't like. And then Western universities now all preach it.
Critical Theory is different from original Marxism.
Original Marxism = Class baiting. Divide and Conquer based on rich vs. poor. Critical Theory = Identity politics. Race baiting, gender baiting, sexual orientation baiting, religion baiting, disability baiting. It is everything in Western countries today where you have to be very careful of offending the privileged groups and then at the same time the groups you're allowed to offend are the ones called privileged.
Critical Theory/Intersectionality is basically if you take everything Hitler and Goebbels said about Jews and replace it with white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians.
That's how they're similar. Take any speech by Hitler or Goebbels and replace Jews with white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians and you get Western mainstream media.
Take any speech by a college professor about white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians and replace that with Jews and you get Mein Kampf.
Yeah, minus even a scintilla of actual oppression. God knows being a straight, white male has made my life exceedingly difficult. So much so that I can't even name ONE single instance in my entire life where it has tangibly effected my situation in a negative way. The idea that Christians are oppressed, at least in the US, is a laughable argument. The religion dominates the culture in almost every conceivable way. Most of our major holidays are tied to it. There are still laws in the state I live in that don't allow a business to open before noon on Sunday because of Christian worship services. Here is a whole plethora of them:
Thank god for that. I would not enjoy being persecuted very much.
It's worth pointing out that the most nefarious thing coming from academia today is just mildly abrasive rhetoric. I've only come across one professor that was truly an extreme leftist, and even she didn't treat the white or male students any different from the others. I've complained at length about mainstream academic theory and criticism before, but it's not like it's ever been raised above the level of unfriendly words. Even then, those unfriendly words come from a fringe minority.
In fact, all the professors I've ever had in the past seven years, including the liberal ones, never said a single negative word about white people, straight people, men, Christians, or cisgendered people.
The only people who want to persecute white folks or men are some obnoxious trolls hiding on the Internet. I might not like the things they say, but as a white man, I'm not really afraid of them.
dreamtraveler
Member Posts: 377
Comments
As George Orwell often noted, some people are quite quick to call anything or anyone they don't like "fascist." All it really means is that they don't like the thing or person.
Just because someone on the internet calls you fascist doesn't mean you are fascist.
actually it wasnt from the internet
my favorite was "what are you looking asshole i ll put your glasses in your butt"
@OlvynChuru
@semiticgod
Apparently i am also stupid and not in my right mind cause i want to have a country with fixed borders...
Hell, you can vote into power a government that wants to deport every immigrant in your entire country and still be a democracy. It might not be a full-blown liberal democracy like most of Europe or many of the other scattered democracies around the world, but a democracy is merely a government in which citizens directly vote for their representatives (or in the case of a pure democracy, vote for laws as a citizenry, without relying representatives to do it), and a liberal democracy is merely a democracy which also has a set of protections for individual rights and a set of limitations on government power.
As for me, immigration in my own country, the United States, is at a 20-year low, and I'm just fine with that. I see no need to decrease it further or increase it.
you dont understand i have no problem with immigrants but i am stupid and not in my right mind cause i want to have borders, borders in general
If somebody thinks you're an idiot for holding a majority opinion, they are not worth taking seriously.
The use of words "majority opinion" is not comforting but i understand what you want to say
But anyway, here is how to tell if you are stupid or not: can you argue your opponent's position? An intelligent person looks at the issues on both sides of a debate before drawing thier own conclusion, a stupid person is only capable of seeing one side.
It would bother me. I would want to know why.
This said: I love Finneous even harder for his cool, underhanded a-oukei now! ;-)
A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.
so if this definition is 100% you, then you are a fascist, if it's not 100% you, then you are not
and if you are a fascist, that is your freedom of right to be one
i strongly believe in the freedom of others' rights and opinions, so if someone is a fascist or not, doesn't bother me one bit, be whatever you want to be people because the universe doesn't care, and neither do I
I never like looking at these types of conflict as a debate. To me that seems to be looking for only one outcome, a win-lose situation. That can possible be detrimental to the situation, which is not the most beneficial. With relationships, esp friends and family, or even just a casual meeting, we need to strive for understanding. This means asking questions of the other as to why they feel the way they do about us. For us, it means describing in more detail about why we feel the way we do about an issue.
I also suggest (if it comes up), not berating another persons point of view, but focus on getting them to say why. The same goes for 'us'. This means more than just telling another 'you don't understand', as that does not drive the conversation forward in any meaningful fashion.
It might also help to try to keep the focus of the conversation on the problem and not going into the personal. Of course it takes another to be willing to do this.
It is even helpful to try and find some common ground in other areas. The conversation can take 'time outs' and just talk about things in general other than the main issue. This can help with people opening up and calming down a little.
Basically really try to get the other to describe what they feel, and why they feel it.
A person is not 'stupid' just because they can't debate the other persons side. As I said before, it is not a winner take all approach that will bring understanding, but a win-win or understanding me- understanding them approach that will help foster more positive communication and less negativity on both 'sides'.
This is a skill set that can be learned over time. It does not come automatically for everyone as we all have varying personalities.
That said, if things get too heated and too personal then there is a time to walk away as well.
Just my 2 cents worth.
OP, people who get called fascists today usually have very different beliefs. They support lots of economic freedoms. They're more along the lines of libertarians than any authoritarian socialists.
Anarcho-capitalism as a very extreme form of libertarianism where there's no government. A famous philosopher from that branch said that he opposes immigration and supports borders simply because governments import people that want big government.
If you're familiar with dungeons and dragons alignment, they'd claim that because they're similar, fascism and communism would be the best of alies and they'd see libertarians as their main enemies.
Well it started like that. When Mussolini first started Fascism in Italy, Lenin congratulated him and viewed him as a fellow revolutionary. Hitler also originally allied with Stalin.
But then the two saw each other as competitors and they've been feuding ever since.
When communist groups hate someone they call them "fascists", not libertarian.
It proves the D&D alignment theories all wrong. Of course there's religious sects that feud over minor differences too.
All three groups, the communists, the fascists, and the liberals (the "international" type of liberal, which just means pro-democracy folks; no relation to U.S. liberals and conservatives), thought the other two groups were two sides of the same coin, but in reality, all three were mutually exclusive ideologies.
Redistributing wealth was a key value of the socialists and the communists, not the fascists. Hitler and his ilk did not break up big corporations or give out welfare checks like the U.S. did, nor did he abolish private property or execute the wealthy like Kim Il-sung or Mao Zedong did.
The fascists did impose an authoritarian one-party state like the Leninists did, along with a whole bunch of other oppressive crap, but the fascists were not opposed to corporations or free markets.
a) revolutionary political ideologies;
b) they consider themselves to be modern or progressive in comparison to traditional left vs right conflict;
c) statolatry (I know that anarcho-communists don't agree with that but still);
d) collectivist character and connection to working class.
When it comes to actual nazism you have additional similarities:
e) claim that they are supported by science;
f) "hegelian" purpose to fullfil some kind of natural law - dialectical development of history for communism and biological racial war for nazism.
Frankly, it quite bothers me when people use term "fascist", when they apparently want to say "racist". Those two things don't always go together. Arthur de Gobineau, creator of so-called scientific racism died in 1882, so before birth of fascism.
And like anyone can pick this apart to claim they're not really fascists, but most of these people literally say they're fascists so there's no need for that.
In real world the most hated foe of Helmites would be church of Tyr.
Despise being pro gay-marriage, abortion laws, and pretty much everything that is about individual freedom I'm often called fascist because I don't want the government expending the taxpayer's money on useless sh*t (and here in Brazil we have a lot of stupid expending).
The left-wing is getting way too sensitive about everything and likes to use all kind of fallacies due to their lack of data to support their argument.
Long story short: it will get worse, you'll get used, and eventually will find it funny.
"Fun" fact: due to the left-wing extremism here in Brazil an authoritarian politician have a real chance of getting the presidency. The "funniest" part is that they are blaming the right-wing liberals (like myself) for turning the people away from what supposed is good to them.
Do the people doing this fetishise Hitler?
Are they not behaving like Fascists?
1) Those that do not understand politics
2) Those that think that understand politics
3) Those that really understand politics.
Working close to some politicians and studying a lot about the subject, both as a civilian and as a military, I can say that I find myself in the third group. So I learned that it is useless to discuss politics as it is a dirty and rigged game.
Critical Theory started as an outgrowing of Communism by early thinkers such as György Lukács, then developed in Germany's Frankfurt School after WWI and then when Hitler came to power they fled to the USA because they were the main ethnic group Hitler didn't like. And then Western universities now all preach it.
Critical Theory is different from original Marxism.
Original Marxism = Class baiting. Divide and Conquer based on rich vs. poor.
Critical Theory = Identity politics. Race baiting, gender baiting, sexual orientation baiting, religion baiting, disability baiting. It is everything in Western countries today where you have to be very careful of offending the privileged groups and then at the same time the groups you're allowed to offend are the ones called privileged.
Critical Theory/Intersectionality is basically if you take everything Hitler and Goebbels said about Jews and replace it with white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians.
That's how they're similar. Take any speech by Hitler or Goebbels and replace Jews with white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians and you get Western mainstream media.
Take any speech by a college professor about white heterosexual cisgendered male Christians and replace that with Jews and you get Mein Kampf.
But in game, Viconia switched from Lloth to Shar. And LLoth became really pissed.
I think it might have something to do with the nature of the movement. The USSR and Hitler's Germany both had forced labor camps and killed civilians with poison gas. So that's a violent thing.
But libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism aren't violently opposed.
For religions even though some similar religions violently fight, Buddhism and Taoism are close friends and started sharing things between the religions. People in East Asia may share beliefs between the two religions and with bits of other things such as Shintoism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States
Mind you, those are actual LAWS, not perceived social slights.
It's worth pointing out that the most nefarious thing coming from academia today is just mildly abrasive rhetoric. I've only come across one professor that was truly an extreme leftist, and even she didn't treat the white or male students any different from the others. I've complained at length about mainstream academic theory and criticism before, but it's not like it's ever been raised above the level of unfriendly words. Even then, those unfriendly words come from a fringe minority.
In fact, all the professors I've ever had in the past seven years, including the liberal ones, never said a single negative word about white people, straight people, men, Christians, or cisgendered people.
The only people who want to persecute white folks or men are some obnoxious trolls hiding on the Internet. I might not like the things they say, but as a white man, I'm not really afraid of them.