For what it's worth, the American left doesn't contain Stalinists. That's not really a thing in this country. We have no Stalinists or any other kind of communist running for office. I've never heard of any liberal politicians who have ties to the Communist Party.
As I've said before, this country has ZERO chance of ever falling into communism. It stands a fair chance (possibly very soon) of going the fascist route. If people don't believe it, look into the history and beliefs of "American heroes" Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford. This country can't even wrap it's head around the idea that everyone deserves basic healthcare, much less frickin' communism.
The American right doesn't contain fascists. It's completely silly to bash the idea of the communist left and then peddle the idea of the fascist right.
That depends on how technical you want to get. Fascism has a historical context that some believe somehow distinguishes it from other authoritarian corporate and strong man merger regimes with violent suppression of dissidents, such as Chile, Indonesia, Honduras, Spain, etc etc etc. Please do note that Trump, in word and action and ambition definitely 100% aims to be a strong man whose will is merged with the corporate world and have no regard for the rule of law and encourage violent suppression of dissidents. If you do not want to label him a fascist due to the lack of historical context and defined ideology, that is your prerogative I suppose, but you cannot deny that he aims to be a strong man the likes of for instance Erdogan and you also cannot deny that US democracy is currently tested and that it may not survive this test.
Libertarians can say whatever they want, but choose not to.
I can personally attest to the veracity of this one. Note, also, that this will be my only response in this thread--I am surprised that is has managed to get to page 7.
For what it's worth, the American left doesn't contain Stalinists. That's not really a thing in this country. We have no Stalinists or any other kind of communist running for office. I've never heard of any liberal politicians who have ties to the Communist Party.
As I've said before, this country has ZERO chance of ever falling into communism. It stands a fair chance (possibly very soon) of going the fascist route. If people don't believe it, look into the history and beliefs of "American heroes" Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford. This country can't even wrap it's head around the idea that everyone deserves basic healthcare, much less frickin' communism.
The American right doesn't contain fascists. It's completely silly to bash the idea of the communist left and then peddle the idea of the fascist right.
That depends on how technical you want to get. Fascism has a historical context that some believe somehow distinguishes it from other authoritarian corporate and strong man merger regimes with violent suppression of dissidents, such as Chile, Indonesia, Honduras, Spain, etc etc etc. Please do note that Trump, in word and action and ambition definitely 100% aims to be a strong man whose will is merged with the corporate world and have no regard for the rule of law and encourage violent suppression of dissidents. If you do not want to label him a fascist due to the lack of historical context and defined ideology, that is your prerogative I suppose, but you cannot deny that he aims to be a strong man the likes of for instance Erdogan and you also cannot deny that US democracy is currently tested and that it may not survive this test.
I absolutely deny that democracy is being "currently tested", doubly so that it "may not survive", this is simply rhetoric with no basis in fact. Far as I can tell, the system works no differently today than it worked yesterday or any other day and I suspect when Trump leaves office we will still be able to vote for the next candidate.
When Trump starts violently throwing you in jail for speaking out against him on here or anywhere else, i'll agree that he is violently supressing dissidents and there is indeed a threat of authoritarian facism.
For what it's worth, the American left doesn't contain Stalinists. That's not really a thing in this country. We have no Stalinists or any other kind of communist running for office. I've never heard of any liberal politicians who have ties to the Communist Party.
As I've said before, this country has ZERO chance of ever falling into communism. It stands a fair chance (possibly very soon) of going the fascist route. If people don't believe it, look into the history and beliefs of "American heroes" Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford. This country can't even wrap it's head around the idea that everyone deserves basic healthcare, much less frickin' communism.
The American right doesn't contain fascists. It's completely silly to bash the idea of the communist left and then peddle the idea of the fascist right.
That depends on how technical you want to get. Fascism has a historical context that some believe somehow distinguishes it from other authoritarian corporate and strong man merger regimes with violent suppression of dissidents, such as Chile, Indonesia, Honduras, Spain, etc etc etc. Please do note that Trump, in word and action and ambition definitely 100% aims to be a strong man whose will is merged with the corporate world and have no regard for the rule of law and encourage violent suppression of dissidents. If you do not want to label him a fascist due to the lack of historical context and defined ideology, that is your prerogative I suppose, but you cannot deny that he aims to be a strong man the likes of for instance Erdogan and you also cannot deny that US democracy is currently tested and that it may not survive this test.
I absolutely deny that democracy is being "currently tested", doubly so that it "may not survive", this is simply rhetoric with no basis in fact. Far as I can tell, the system works no differently today than it worked yesterday or any other day and I suspect when Trump leaves office we will still be able to vote for the next candidate.
When Trump starts violently throwing you in jail for speaking out against him on here or anywhere else, i'll agree that he is violently supressing dissidents and there is indeed a threat of authoritarian facism.
Of course, by that time, it is already here and too late. There are a lot of parallels between how Trump operates and the state of Nazi Germany just before it became Nazi Germany.
I absolutely deny that democracy is being "currently tested", doubly so that it "may not survive", this is simply rhetoric with no basis in fact. Far as I can tell, the system works no differently today than it worked yesterday or any other day and I suspect when Trump leaves office we will still be able to vote for the next candidate.
When Trump starts violently throwing you in jail for speaking out against him on here or anywhere else, i'll agree that he is violently supressing dissidents and there is indeed a threat of authoritarian facism.
Or it could mean we "passed" the test, although it'll be impossible to know which is true.
To the larger point in @DrakeICN 's post, and conflating with @jjstraka34 's post - they're not exactly wrong. The United States, as a Democracy, is considerably more conservative than most democracies in Europe. The Democratic party would be center-right in most of the western world.
To that end, being already ideologically more conservative than we are liberal, we are necessarily also much closer to the side of the spectrum that embraces National Socialism. Ere go, it stands to reason that there are more "literal Nazis" in America than "Stalinists". Communism as a political platform is sufficiently far off the spectrum that it's essentially untenable. That being the case, the political right tries to make Socialism an equivalent evil to Communism
For what it's worth, the American left doesn't contain Stalinists. That's not really a thing in this country. We have no Stalinists or any other kind of communist running for office. I've never heard of any liberal politicians who have ties to the Communist Party.
As I've said before, this country has ZERO chance of ever falling into communism. It stands a fair chance (possibly very soon) of going the fascist route. If people don't believe it, look into the history and beliefs of "American heroes" Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford. This country can't even wrap it's head around the idea that everyone deserves basic healthcare, much less frickin' communism.
The American right doesn't contain fascists. It's completely silly to bash the idea of the communist left and then peddle the idea of the fascist right.
That depends on how technical you want to get. Fascism has a historical context that some believe somehow distinguishes it from other authoritarian corporate and strong man merger regimes with violent suppression of dissidents, such as Chile, Indonesia, Honduras, Spain, etc etc etc. Please do note that Trump, in word and action and ambition definitely 100% aims to be a strong man whose will is merged with the corporate world and have no regard for the rule of law and encourage violent suppression of dissidents. If you do not want to label him a fascist due to the lack of historical context and defined ideology, that is your prerogative I suppose, but you cannot deny that he aims to be a strong man the likes of for instance Erdogan and you also cannot deny that US democracy is currently tested and that it may not survive this test.
I absolutely deny that democracy is being "currently tested", doubly so that it "may not survive", this is simply rhetoric with no basis in fact. Far as I can tell, the system works no differently today than it worked yesterday or any other day and I suspect when Trump leaves office we will still be able to vote for the next candidate.
When Trump starts violently throwing you in jail for speaking out against him on here or anywhere else, i'll agree that he is violently supressing dissidents and there is indeed a threat of authoritarian facism.
Of course, by that time, it is already here and too late. There are a lot of parallels between how Trump operates and the state of Nazi Germany just before it became Nazi Germany.
Which parallels are those? Historically bad economy? - nope. Hyperinflation? - nope. Losing a war and having multiple nations actively trying to keep us from getting stronger? - nope. Resentment about deprivation and starvation brought on by aforementioned nations irresponsible and short-sighted policies? - nope. Unpopular, inefficient and inept government? - maybe, but not nearly as bad as the Weimar Republic. Without half of those reasons, Hitler never happens...
Edit: Forgot one of the most important reasons for Hitler's rise. Having your country carved up and having large chunks of land given away to other countries - nope!
@Balrog99: I think the parallels related to scapegoating, nationalism, fear and loathing of minorities, belief in secret cabals, and the promise that a strongman leader would be able to fix everything, supported by a large minority of the population. I don't think that amounts to a "rise of a new Hitler" scenario--not even close--but those are some pretty bad things to have in common with Germany in the years before the Nazis took over.
I'm not worried about a new Holocaust. But I am worried about other things. Corruption, political violence, and extremism are problems even if they aren't as bad as the absolute worst event in the past 100 years.
This thread is bizarre. It started out as an off-topic tangent about the word SJW in a completely unrelated thread, and now it's randomly hopped to a bunch of other vaguely political topics. After seven pages, I don't even know what the subject of this thread really is anymore.
@Balrog99 I'm referring to the method's used to get to the point where it became facism. @semiticgod covered what I was going to say. As he said, I'm not worried about another Holocaust, so much as I'm worried about rampant corruption (we already see some of this). With the "us vs, them" rhetoric flying around, I'm also worried we aren't that far off from outright suppression of dissenters. Not in this term, but if Trump gets another turn (I don't personally see it) or if the next president is enough like him, I can see us getting to both points within this decade.
This thread is bizarre. It started out as an off-topic tangent about the word SJW in a completely unrelated thread, and now it's randomly hopped to a bunch of other vaguely political topics. After seven pages, I don't even know what the subject of this thread really is anymore.
Predictive History with a side of Doomsday Prophecy?
@Balrog99 I'm referring to the method's used to get to the point where it became facism. @semiticgod covered what I was going to say. As he said, I'm not worried about another Holocaust, so much as I'm worried about rampant corruption (we already see some of this). With the "us vs, them" rhetoric flying around, I'm also worried we aren't that far off from outright suppression of dissenters. Not in this term, but if Trump gets another turn (I don't personally see it) or if the next president is enough like him, I can see us getting to both points within this decade.
One of the reasons fascism came about was that the militant left was rising at the same time and fascism was the lesser of two evils in the minds of much of the upper and middle classes (with good reason if the USSR is any indication of what would have happened to the upper and middle-class if the communists had taken power). There is where you might find a parallel. The polarization in this country is what's breeding this. Trump is a symptom, he's not the disease. You may find Clinton, Pelosi, or Warren to be reasonable, pleasant and intelligent people that you would love to vote for. There are quite a few people who disagree, however. I find them to be angry, unpleasant and not that bright myself.
Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, I find Trump to be angry, unpleasant and not that bright too. I sure wish we had a third (or 4th or 5th) option...
Let your heart be not troubled. I say that because I believe that you're a caring person. Don't believe everything that you read. I certainly don't. In a nation of almost 400 million people there will always be assholes on both sides. That doesn't mean that the majority of people on either side are (or even a large minority). I say the same thing to my family who are on the opposite end of the spectrum from you.
To be honest, I think that humanity is a trending towards gender equality on its' own. It's inefficient to have over 50% of your population suppressed. The problem is that males have an advantage in physique and general confidence. It's going to take a little while to overcome that completely.
Another @Balrog99 insight. I've worked for almost 20 years under a female feminist boss. For most of those years she thought I was a complete misogynist asshole because I would argue about things she wanted me to do that made no logical sense. Since then, we've had to add younger people into our department and she suddenly realized that I'm actually damned good at what I do and maybe that's why I argue with her. I've gotten two promotions in the last two years as a result. I'm telling you all, there's more than meets the eye when it comes to people. Don't assume you know somebody's motivations because of their politics, sex or religion...
To be honest, I think that humanity is a trending towards gender equality on its' own. It's inefficient to have over 50% of your population suppressed. The problem is that males have an advantage in physique and general confidence. It's going to take a little while to overcome that completely.
I'd say we're stumbling towards gender equality, but there is a strong undercurrent of "I've got mine, now root, hog, or die!" Some people are satisfied with the status quo (those at the top) and look down on anyone, male to female, who is less than their own "exalted" position. Thus, the whole"men looking down on other men who can't get the girl/a well-paying job/fill in the blank here".
Masculinity is not only toxic to women, but to everyone in it. The ones at the top always have to worry about losing what they have, so they lash out at anything and anyone who threatens the status quo. Just look at Trump, a man who has to live in a feedback booth where all the feedback is positive, or he lashes out at anyone who naysays him, calls him out on his BS or points out that what he's saying isn't true.
He demonizes reporters and journalists who report the truth (fake news and those are 'enemies of the people', calls for hurting of those who harsh on his adulation (Throw him out, but don't hurt him- and if you do, I'll defend you in court.) He acts like a narcissistic man-child who has never had to grow up or be accountable for his actions, his whole life insulated from the effects of reality by money. He may actually be one, but I wouldn't want to be around him for long enough to find out either way.
And mind you, that's someone at the top of the top. If he can't be secure in his own wealth and power, how much worse is it for others who don't have a fraction of what he's had?
It's a bad system all around. For everyone. Even for those at the top, there can't be enough. There is never enough. Even if you're the Alpha Wolf, the others are always circling, looking to take over what you have. That's why it's very often described as 'Toxic Masculinity'.
What @LadyRhian says above is a large part of why I almost exclusively prefer the company of women (well, besides the more obvious ones). Aside from family members and friends from high school, I sometimes feel I would be perfectly happy never having another conversation with another male in person in my life. I truly couldn't name 5 men who aren't relatives or people I have known for 20 years I would want to spend any extended amount of time with. I can watch sports on my own and bitch about it on the internet in anonymity. The amount of nonsensical, macho bullshit most guys talk about drives me up a wall. I can't deal with it. Clearly I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I'm dead serious. I haven't made a single new male friend since high school.
To be honest, I think that humanity is a trending towards gender equality on its' own. It's inefficient to have over 50% of your population suppressed. The problem is that males have an advantage in physique and general confidence. It's going to take a little while to overcome that completely.
I'd say we're stumbling towards gender equality, but there is a strong undercurrent of "I've got mine, now root, hog, or die!" Some people are satisfied with the status quo (those at the top) and look down on anyone, male to female, who is less than their own "exalted" position. Thus, the whole"men looking down on other men who can't get the girl/a well-paying job/fill in the blank here".
Masculinity is not only toxic to women, but to everyone in it. The ones at the top always have to worry about losing what they have, so they lash out at anything and anyone who threatens the status quo. Just look at Trump, a man who has to live in a feedback booth where all the feedback is positive, or he lashes out at anyone who naysays him, calls him out on his BS or points out that what he's saying isn't true.
He demonizes reporters and journalists who report the truth (fake news and those are 'enemies of the people', calls for hurting of those who harsh on his adulation (Throw him out, but don't hurt him- and if you do, I'll defend you in court.) He acts like a narcissistic man-child who has never had to grow up or be accountable for his actions, his whole life insulated from the effects of reality by money. He may actually be one, but I wouldn't want to be around him for long enough to find out either way.
And mind you, that's someone at the top of the top. If he can't be secure in his own wealth and power, how much worse is it for others who don't have a fraction of what he's had?
It's a bad system all around. For everyone. Even for those at the top, there can't be enough. There is never enough. Even if you're the Alpha Wolf, the others are always circling, looking to take over what you have. That's why it's very often described as 'Toxic Masculinity'.
Toxic anti-masculinity only contributes to the problem though. Are you going to ban testosterone? Testosterone exists to drive human propagation. Are you going to legislate it out? Good luck with that. What's your alternative plan? My plan would be to educate everybody to the point where propagation is a choice, rather than a biological necessity. How would I legislate that? Do you make it a requirement to get a license to have a baby? So do you force abortions on those who don't get a license then? What do you propose?
Masculinity is absolutely not toxic. Being a man or being masculine does not make you a worse person, or less pleasant to be around, or more selfish, or anything like that.
Toxic personalities are not related to one's sex, nor are they related to masculinity or femininity. The entire "toxic masculinity" concept is based on an extremely narrow and highly specific stereotype of men--the stereotype that selfishness and aggression are inherently and exclusively masculine things. They are not.
The men of my family by and large have unusually high levels of testosterone, and it doesn't make them any less sweet and kind and gentle. My cousin Joshua is a burly, bearded he-man woodsman, and he's one of the sweetest people I know.
Unless we redefine masculinity so that only toxic elements are deemed masculine, this is just a sexist stereotype. The fact that the phrase shows up in academia does not make it any less of a stereotype.
Masculinity is absolutely not toxic. Being a man or being masculine does not make you a worse person, or less pleasant to be around, or more selfish, or anything like that.
Toxic personalities are not related to one's sex, nor are they related to masculinity or femininity. The entire "toxic masculinity" concept is based on an extremely narrow and highly specific stereotype of men--the stereotype that selfishness and aggression are inherently and exclusively masculine things. They are not.
The men of my family by and large have unusually high levels of testosterone, and it doesn't make them any less sweet and kind and gentle. My cousin Joshua is a burly, bearded he-man woodsman, and he's one of the sweetest people I know.
Unless we redefine masculinity so that only toxic elements are deemed masculine, this is just a sexist stereotype. The fact that the phrase shows up in academia does not make it any less of a stereotype.
Maybe......but these numbers are pretty damning to that argument. Males commit:
98.9% of forcible rape 89.5% of homicides 87.9% of robberies 85% of burglaries 83% of arsons 81.7% of vandalism 81.5% of auto-theft 79.7% of crimes against their own family/children 77.8% of aggravated assault 58.7% of fraud 57.3% of larceny 51.3% of embezzlement
Out of ALL those categories of major crimes, only a SINGLE one is even remotely close to being even between the sexes. Most of them are well over 80-20. Seems like a problem to me.
Masculinity is absolutely not toxic. Being a man or being masculine does not make you a worse person, or less pleasant to be around, or more selfish, or anything like that.
Toxic personalities are not related to one's sex, nor are they related to masculinity or femininity. The entire "toxic masculinity" concept is based on an extremely narrow and highly specific stereotype of men--the stereotype that selfishness and aggression are inherently and exclusively masculine things. They are not.
The men of my family by and large have unusually high levels of testosterone, and it doesn't make them any less sweet and kind and gentle. My cousin Joshua is a burly, bearded he-man woodsman, and he's one of the sweetest people I know.
Unless we redefine masculinity so that only toxic elements are deemed masculine, this is just a sexist stereotype. The fact that the phrase shows up in academia does not make it any less of a stereotype.
Maybe......but these numbers are pretty damning to that argument. Males commit:
98.9% of forcible rape 89.5% of homicides 87.9% of robberies 85% of burglaries 83% of arsons 81.7% of vandalism 81.5% of auto-theft 79.7% of crimes against their own family/children 77.8% of aggravated assault 58.7% of fraud 57.3% of larceny 51.3% of embezzlement
Out of ALL those categories of major crimes, only a SINGLE one is even remotely close to being even between the sexes. Most of them are well over 80-20. Seems like a problem to me.
Comments
https://www.themarysue.com/peril-sensitive-shades/
"How dare Liberals disagree with what I said, that violates free speech!"
Hmmmm, something doesn't track here...
Communists can say whatever they want. Once...
Politicians can say whatever they want you to hear.
When Trump starts violently throwing you in jail for speaking out against him on here or anywhere else, i'll agree that he is violently supressing dissidents and there is indeed a threat of authoritarian facism.
Or it could mean we "passed" the test, although it'll be impossible to know which is true.
To the larger point in @DrakeICN 's post, and conflating with @jjstraka34 's post - they're not exactly wrong. The United States, as a Democracy, is considerably more conservative than most democracies in Europe. The Democratic party would be center-right in most of the western world.
To that end, being already ideologically more conservative than we are liberal, we are necessarily also much closer to the side of the spectrum that embraces National Socialism. Ere go, it stands to reason that there are more "literal Nazis" in America than "Stalinists". Communism as a political platform is sufficiently far off the spectrum that it's essentially untenable. That being the case, the political right tries to make Socialism an equivalent evil to Communism
Edit: Forgot one of the most important reasons for Hitler's rise. Having your country carved up and having large chunks of land given away to other countries - nope!
I'm not worried about a new Holocaust. But I am worried about other things. Corruption, political violence, and extremism are problems even if they aren't as bad as the absolute worst event in the past 100 years.
This thread is bizarre. It started out as an off-topic tangent about the word SJW in a completely unrelated thread, and now it's randomly hopped to a bunch of other vaguely political topics. After seven pages, I don't even know what the subject of this thread really is anymore.
Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, I find Trump to be angry, unpleasant and not that bright too. I sure wish we had a third (or 4th or 5th) option...
Masculinity is not only toxic to women, but to everyone in it. The ones at the top always have to worry about losing what they have, so they lash out at anything and anyone who threatens the status quo. Just look at Trump, a man who has to live in a feedback booth where all the feedback is positive, or he lashes out at anyone who naysays him, calls him out on his BS or points out that what he's saying isn't true.
He demonizes reporters and journalists who report the truth (fake news and those are 'enemies of the people', calls for hurting of those who harsh on his adulation (Throw him out, but don't hurt him- and if you do, I'll defend you in court.) He acts like a narcissistic man-child who has never had to grow up or be accountable for his actions, his whole life insulated from the effects of reality by money. He may actually be one, but I wouldn't want to be around him for long enough to find out either way.
And mind you, that's someone at the top of the top. If he can't be secure in his own wealth and power, how much worse is it for others who don't have a fraction of what he's had?
It's a bad system all around. For everyone. Even for those at the top, there can't be enough. There is never enough. Even if you're the Alpha Wolf, the others are always circling, looking to take over what you have. That's why it's very often described as 'Toxic Masculinity'.
Toxic personalities are not related to one's sex, nor are they related to masculinity or femininity. The entire "toxic masculinity" concept is based on an extremely narrow and highly specific stereotype of men--the stereotype that selfishness and aggression are inherently and exclusively masculine things. They are not.
The men of my family by and large have unusually high levels of testosterone, and it doesn't make them any less sweet and kind and gentle. My cousin Joshua is a burly, bearded he-man woodsman, and he's one of the sweetest people I know.
Unless we redefine masculinity so that only toxic elements are deemed masculine, this is just a sexist stereotype. The fact that the phrase shows up in academia does not make it any less of a stereotype.
98.9% of forcible rape
89.5% of homicides
87.9% of robberies
85% of burglaries
83% of arsons
81.7% of vandalism
81.5% of auto-theft
79.7% of crimes against their own family/children
77.8% of aggravated assault
58.7% of fraud
57.3% of larceny
51.3% of embezzlement
Out of ALL those categories of major crimes, only a SINGLE one is even remotely close to being even between the sexes. Most of them are well over 80-20. Seems like a problem to me.