Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Others have come to the conclusion that I am a fascist

24

Comments

  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 1,739

    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.

    Do the people doing this fetishise Hitler?

    Are they not behaving like Fascists?
    Don't ask me to defend statements I didn't make.

  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 1,739
    edited February 2018

    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.

    Those are some seriously fashy talking points you've got there.

    Basically, you're using fascist dog whistles. Congratulations. If that's not your intention, you're doing it wrong. I'm not saying you're a fascist, I'm saying you're repeating a fascist argument.

    No one's going to send white heterosexual cisgender (no -ed) male christians to the gas chambers. It's just not going to happen. You know why? Because white heterosexual cisgender male christians have the power. Not coincidentally, some of them are the ones who are also promoting white nationalism, white supremacy, and outright fascism. They're the ones chanting Nazi slogans in the streets of Charlottesville, the ones promoting the 14 words, the ones who consider gay and trans people to be degenerate, and who hate people of color.

    They're doing this because of "white genocide." "White genocide" is a dog whistle that basically means nothing in the real world because there is no such thing as "white genocide." To the fashy set (those who complain about "cultural marxism" like you just did), immigration, interracial relationships, etc. are intended to make white people a minority (hint: this is not actual genocide, and is not an actual goal of immigration or interracial relationships).

    Skatanronaldo
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 1,739
    Ardanis said:

    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.
    Technically, Nazis are fascists. It is accurate. The Nazi party was a fascist party.

    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 6,029
    edited February 2018

    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.

    The example of this oppression is ALWAYS centered on college campuses. And I mean, I haven't been on one since 2003. So maybe they have gotten worse in this regard, I really have no idea. I do know that college professors don't make laws. I do know that these jerk-off arguments about safe-spaces and SJWs have no application in the real world once you leave campus. These arguments have taken over a major part of our political discourse, but they only exist on Youtube, internet comment sections and forums, and apparently the student union. Trust me, when you move past the age of 25, and start going to a job everyday, whether or not feminists have ruined the Ghostbusters franchise isn't going to seem like such a big concern. Beyond the political argument, this whole "PC vs. anti-PC" debate is the product of the fact that college kids have may too much goddamn time on their hands. And hey, believe me. I remember going to 3 1 hour classes a day and having to fill in 18 more hours of the day. Personally, I watched soap-operas in the afternoon and drank at night. And as horrible as that sounds, it seems like paradise compared to this vicious pissing match that apparently takes place now.

    Some people will argue "but college is where you prepare for life". In my experience, if everyone acted how they did in college for the rest of their lives, society would fall apart. In fact, I would argue there isn't a single 2-4 year period that is LESS like real-life than college. Freshman year is more akin to Kindergarden than anything else.

    BelleSorciereSkatanBalrog99ronaldo
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 11,284
    Since this topic is getting a little heated, I'll remind everybody that while you can criticize public figures and ideologies as much as you like on this forum, your fellow forumites are off-limits per the Site Rules.

    Just an advance reminder.

    BelleSorciereJuliusBorisov
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 1,739
    edited February 2018
    Just for clarity, the concept of "cultural marxism" comes down to us from Nazi Germany, where it was called Kulturbolschewismus, or "Cultural Bolshevism." The terms are not used identically, as each is a product of its time. Critiques of so-called "cultural marxism" are about social justice, so-called "political correctness," etc. However, it is not difficult to see how one inspired the other as a conspiracy theory.

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mnny/unwrapping-the-conspiracy-theory-that-drives-the-alt-right

    Skatan
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 6,029
    edited February 2018

    Just for clarity, the concept of "cultural marxism" comes down to us from Nazi Germany, where it was called Kulturbolschewismus, or "Cultural Bolshevism." The terms are not used identically, as each is a product of its time. Critiques of so-called "cultural marxism" are about social justice, so-called "political correctness," etc. However, it is not difficult to see how one inspired the other as a conspiracy theory.

    It is also thrown around like candy at a 4th of July parade. If I had to write down everything I've seen labeled as "cultural marxism" in the last two years, it would be a volume the size of "War and Peace".

    BelleSorcieresarevok57semiticgod
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 662
    Ardanis said:

    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.
    Well if you're a Nazi, then you are already by definition a fascist.

    A car (Nazi) is an automobile (fascist). But not all automobiles (fascists) are cars (Nazis). Some of them are trucks (I don't know in carrying the analogy, Mussolini's fascists?).

    BelleSorciereThacoBell
  • Ardanis said:

    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.
    Well if you're a Nazi, then you are already by definition a fascist.

    A car (Nazi) is an automobile (fascist). But not all automobiles (fascists) are cars (Nazis). Some of them are trucks (I don't know in carrying the analogy, Mussolini's fascists?).
    Not trucks. Trains. And they ran on time. :-)

    BelleSorciereBalrog99Ardanis
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,939
    If you understand history, you must ask: what kind of person would want governments to have more power over people?

    SkatanBalrog99ThacoBellRaduziel
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 11,284
    It depends on whether the government is elected or unelected.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,422
    tbone1 said:

    If you understand history, you must ask: what kind of person would want governments to have more power over people?

    People are stupid.

    The trouble is, governments are made of people, who are stupid.

    If you could, hypothetically, generate a government of the most intelligent, moral people, then it would make sense to give them more power.

    Balrog99sarevok57
  • ArctodusArctodus Member Posts: 996
    edited February 2018
    tbone1 said:

    If you understand history, you must ask: what kind of person would want governments to have more power over people?

    It all depends on what kind of government. I know that Americans have a general hatred toward government, but to me, the problem is not the government per se, it's how it ends up distorting the democratic process. And I think that lobbying and free market ideology has a lot to do with that.

    I personally also have a big problem with over centralization of the decision making, but I also recognize that the State can have a real prophylactic value. I live in Montreal, Canada (where plenty of americans would probably go crazy, since we're considered very much of the lefty-side of politics) and it's pretty nice that everyone have access to universal health care, free school up to College (even though there's been a real push toward tuition hike in College in the last decade) and some level of social welfare. Less poverty means less criminality and an healthier social tissue.

    Heck, we even have a social day-care center for children (we call it CPE) where it costs half of what you have to pay for private day-care center, but nonetheless have access to MORE educational resources in general. Go figures. My 3 years old girl goes into one of those center and I'm very happy about it. My 1 year old boy will transfer there this summer and I can't wait.

    It's not a perfect world though, far from it. There's plenty of corruption in our actual government. @deltago said a while ago that the Liberal Party is the most corrupt in Canada. Pretty much this. Over centralization of decision making also leads to massive problems "on the field". I'd say that this is pretty much the problem with our health care system, which is massively bureaucratic. However, saying that State is entirely bad per se is a flawed and ideological conception. I enjoy very concrete advantage in my every day life because of State generated structures.

    I mean, the only thing more free market ends up doing is to give more power to those who already have a crapload of it. Tell me that's not what happened during the early 90's when Thatcher and Reagan were throwing Keynesian economy in the garbage.

    Are States and Government perfect ? Oh god no, because the centralization of the decision process is very dangerous. In a perfect world, I'd say that I would be an anarcho-socialist, where the State disseminate the decision making process (in that sense, I'm kinda close to a lot of libertarian tendencies). However, I can recognize that States can have benefits for the social tissue, because I concretly enjoy some in my life.

    Edit : Sorry if that derails the thread. :p

    Post edited by Arctodus on
    semiticgodSkatan
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 2,558
    Fardragon said:

    If you could, hypothetically, generate a government of the most intelligent, moral people, then it would make sense to give them more power.

    On the one hand, intelligent and moral people do not *want* power over others--they are too smart and moral to fall for that trap.

    On the other hand, even intelligent and moral people are flawed and susceptible to failure. Giving them more power would only increase the likelihood of them failing.

    The idea of an enlightened Philosopher King who wields absolute power wisely and justly is a fantasy; such a person will never exist. Even if there are a group of such people so that the power is not concentrated into the hands of only one person, a group of such people will never exist (at least, not all at the same time and in the same place).

    @Arctodus Two things. 1) Reagan was gone in 1988 so...perhaps you meant Bush 41? 2) I don't think this thread can be more derailed than it already is.

    ArctodusThacoBell
  • ArctodusArctodus Member Posts: 996
    @Mathsorcerer Yeah, I was thinking about the Reagan/Bush continuation. A little mistake on my part, sorry !

    Mathsorcerer
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,422
    Skatan said:

    Fardragon said:

    tbone1 said:

    If you understand history, you must ask: what kind of person would want governments to have more power over people?

    People are stupid.

    The trouble is, governments are made of people, who are stupid.

    If you could, hypothetically, generate a government of the most intelligent, moral people, then it would make sense to give them more power.
    This argument is the same as for communism, hypothetically it would be the perfect society but in real life people are ignorant, egoistic and power-hungry douche-bags who cannot remain in control for ANY length of time without being corrupted and tainted.
    And conversely, anarchy would be a great idea if humans where intelligent and rational.

    Pretty much every -ism and political ideology ever invented is based on some kind of fundamental false generalisation.

    Skatansarevok57ArctodusGrammarsalad
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,939

    It depends on whether the government is elected or unelected.

    I don't think that matters to the residents of Flint, Michigan.

    ThacoBellMathsorcererGrammarsalad
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,939
    Fardragon said:

    tbone1 said:

    If you understand history, you must ask: what kind of person would want governments to have more power over people?

    People are stupid.

    The trouble is, governments are made of people, who are stupid.

    If you could, hypothetically, generate a government of the most intelligent, moral people, then it would make sense to give them more power.
    And the power would soon attract the corrupt, the greedy, the lazy, etc.

  • ArdanisArdanis Member, Developer Posts: 1,303
    edited February 2018


    The example of this oppression is ALWAYS centered on college campuses. And I mean, I haven't been on one since 2003. So maybe they have gotten worse in this regard, I really have no idea.

    Neither do I, and I'm not even from First World country to begin with, but I've read an interesting (if a little long) article a couple years ago about the subject https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
    I guess social media has its share of blame too.

    semiticgod
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 11,284
    @Ardanis: I thought you were from Russia. Russia would not be a third-world country; the "third world" originally just referred to countries who weren't involved in the Cold War.

    Balrog99
  • ArdanisArdanis Member, Developer Posts: 1,303

    @Ardanis: I thought you were from Russia. Russia would not be a third-world country; the "third world" originally just referred to countries who weren't involved in the Cold War.

    I thought that Second World was still a thing.

    semiticgodArtona
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 3,942

    @Ardanis: I thought you were from Russia. Russia would not be a third-world country; the "third world" originally just referred to countries who weren't involved in the Cold War.

    i thought the "first world/second world" thing was based on the countries that contributed to WW2 where the american allies were first world, the "enemies?" were second world, and anyone who didnt get involved was third world

    so because this is such an outdated term they use the terms "developed and undeveloped countries" instead

    semiticgodSkatan
  • ZaghoulZaghoul Member, Moderator Posts: 3,442
    Have I misinterpreted the OP's original issue? The thread seems to have turned to more of a debate on politics as opposed to an issue of interpersonal conflict, which seemed to be the case from reading more than just the OP mentioning being called a fascist.
    Nothing wrong with that, just seems like it does not address the problem of how the OP can deal with the problem at hand, which was already heated in RL. It's hard to discern if this helps or not. Maybe it is.
    @dreamtraveler What are your thoughts on this? How is the issue of dealing with the others you mentioned going? I'm just curious as it seemed be one of personal attacks and threats.
    (As to the side issue, I like the Human Development Index (HDI) better than old school 1st,2nd, or 3rd world classifications.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)
    If I am off, sorry, just the ISTJ / stabilizer personality in me I guess. :)

    semiticgodArctodus
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 11,284
    Ardanis said:

    @Ardanis: I thought you were from Russia. Russia would not be a third-world country; the "third world" originally just referred to countries who weren't involved in the Cold War.

    I thought that Second World was still a thing.
    That phrase only showed up after people started using "third world" as a synonym for a poor, underdeveloped country and "first world" became a synonym for a rich and developed country. The words took on a new meaning, and then people drew the conclusion that if a First World country was rich and a Third World country was poor, a Second World country was in between.

    sarevok57
  • Just for clarity, the concept of "cultural marxism" comes down to us from Nazi Germany, where it was called Kulturbolschewismus, or "Cultural Bolshevism." The terms are not used identically, as each is a product of its time. Critiques of so-called "cultural marxism" are about social justice, so-called "political correctness," etc. However, it is not difficult to see how one inspired the other as a conspiracy theory.

    Colleges refer to it as Critical Theory and Intersectionality. They teach classes with that in the very name. As for Germany, the first think-tank for it was The Frankfurt School in Germany.

    Critical Theory/Intersectionality are much closer to Hitler's own philosophies. Both blame a certain group of people for all the problems of the world.

    Why is there X problem in the world?
    The mainstream media blame one group. Nazis blame another. They're very similar in this respect.

    I do know that college professors don't make laws. I do know that these jerk-off arguments about safe-spaces and SJWs have no application in the real world once you leave campus.

    A lot of powerful people in government end up teaching at colleges after they retire. It was even worse during the cold war when people who were fired from the US government for being USSR spies (but the government couldn't overtly state that as they didn't want to give away their sources) all ended up working at universities. Even crazy terrorists like The Weather Underground group ended up teaching at universities.

    Even if they didn't previously work at the government, their ideas inspire people and end up as law. There's more and more laws about political correctness. In Europe, Canada, and Australia the police raid and imprison people for just saying something politically incorrect anonymously.


  • Skatan said:

    In my country I see the rise of fascism/nazism/extreme communism, each advocating diminishing the freedom of everyone else

    China recently banned rap music and hip hop culture. It's for the whole reason fascists don't like it. They view it as degenerate and destroying their society. China though is semi-communist.

    When a country goes hardcore communist, they ban the same leftist stuff that fascists also don't like.

  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,939
    Hardcore anything. Left, right, religious, monarchist, whatever; hardcore bans everything.

    Except maybe libertarians.

    ArdanisThacoBell
  • dreamtravelerdreamtraveler Member Posts: 376
    Zaghoul said:

    Have I misinterpreted the OP's original issue? The thread seems to have turned to more of a debate on politics as opposed to an issue of interpersonal conflict, which seemed to be the case from reading more than just the OP mentioning being called a fascist.
    Nothing wrong with that, just seems like it does not address the problem of how the OP can deal with the problem at hand, which was already heated in RL. It's hard to discern if this helps or not. Maybe it is.
    @dreamtraveler What are your thoughts on this? How is the issue of dealing with the others you mentioned going? I'm just curious as it seemed be one of personal attacks and threats.
    (As to the side issue, I like the Human Development Index (HDI) better than old school 1st,2nd, or 3rd world classifications.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)
    If I am off, sorry, just the ISTJ / stabilizer personality in me I guess. :)

    @Zaghoul
    oh it was personal... my brother still thinks i am a fascist but i dont care anymore...

    Raduziel
Sign In or Register to comment.