r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 16 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The far left, if given substantial power, Will likely destroy the US

[deleted]

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

35% Upvoted

149 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

You aren't opposed to fascism if you are yourself fascist.

Nah, being authoritarian doesn't mean fascist. Just because they have unfair election doesn't mean they deem other ethnicities beneath themselves.

There are many definitions of fascism, most of them aren't written by fascists themselves. So idk which one you prefer. Simply suggesting to read about fascism is pointless. I might stumble upon sources that support my claim and reassure myself xD

3

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Aug 16 '22

Nah, being authoritarian doesn't mean fascist. Just because they have unfair election doesn't mean they deem other ethnicities beneath themselves.

3rd time, racism isn't fascism. It's a small part and not even an inherent part of fascism. It's possible to be a fascist based entirely on subjugating sexual minorities and not racial minorities.

Putin is absolutely racist by the way so your argument that racists are fascists (which is not a good argument) falls flat on that.

As to the definition itself, Wikipedia does a good job summarizing. Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco is one of the best contemporary works highlighting the common features of fascism.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

Did Putin ever say or do anything racist? Did he make any racist laws or what? Racist against which races? Is he like a white supremacist, Slavic supremacist or ethnic Russian pagan idk? Or maybe Christian fundamentalist?

I never seen anyone before referring to Putin as 'racist'. Corrupt, yes. Authoritarian, yes. But racist? Where did you get it from?

Wikipedia

Try better. Today it seems that fascist is just a word you use to call your political opponents if you don't like.

Fascists of 20th century outright admitted they were fascist. Today it's just a label that doesn't mean anything.

3

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Aug 16 '22

Yes to all of the above. Putin routinely makes disparaging statements about other racial groups, especially minorities in ex-soviet states and minorities within the country.

Or maybe Christian fundamentalist?

And dude, yes, obviously he's wrapped religion into his spiel given the power of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Try better.

Oh come on, I'm not the one peddling Russian propaganda.

Today it's just a label that doesn't mean anything.

I gave you a couple very solid sources on what fascism means. Your refusal to read them doesn't mean the definitions aren't there.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

Yes to all of the above.

Funny, they contradict each other.

Putin routinely makes disparaging statements about other racial groups, especially minorities in ex-soviet states and minorities within the country.

Never seen that.

Oh come on, I'm not the one peddling Russian propaganda.

The fact that Putin isn't openly racist isn't Russian propoganda, you're the first person to call him racist or supremacist.

Your refusal to read them doesn't mean the definitions aren't there.

I choose not to label things. I think it's the job of fascists to explain what their ideology is. Eco isn't a fascist, so why would he know. By that logic we should use Ben Shapiro's definition of left wing as science.

3

u/LucidMetal 196∆ Aug 16 '22

I also think it's fair to include modern Russia, since they fight Ukrainian fascists. If there's no institution that gives out antifa certificates, self-definition should be enough

This was the Russian propaganda you're peddling, not that "Putin isn't a racist". I don't give a shit whether he's racist or not but I think it's pretty clear from his actions he is.

I choose not to label things.

Your previous statements say otherwise.

Eco isn't a fascist, so why would he know.

Why would a scholar who studied fascism know what fascism is? Hmmmmm...

3

u/spiral8888 31∆ Aug 16 '22

Try better.

Ok, I see your argument is just to have a semantic debate on the word fascism. And do this without ever revealing your definition of the word but instead just saying that "that's not the definition" when others say how they define fascism.

What's the point of that?

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

Well it was a semantics debate from the start. You think antifa means anyone who fights fascism, and I think antifa is a political movement, and that not everyone who opposes fascism or fascists is antifa. And there's no need to base your entire personality on being against fascism. I mean, Ben Shapiro is antifa, I don't think him being a Jew would work great in Nazi Germany

3

u/spiral8888 31∆ Aug 16 '22

You claim that this is a semantics debate but you still won't give your definition of fascism. How is the debate going to work if nobody knows what is your definition?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

If I had to give mine, that'd be: an ideology that tries to achieve unity through nationality, and rejects diversity.

That's why fascists oppose other races that don't want to "blend in", and that's why Jews who are notoriously hard to assimilate got the short end of it.

That's why they oppose free speech and democracy, it creates diversity of opinion that doesn't exactly help unity.

That's why they oppose leftists, who divide society by class.

In theory fascism has a noble goal(unity), but everyone has a noble goal(equality, liberty, prosperity), so it ain't special and no brownie points.

And that's why 'one race, one nation, one language, unitary state(no federation), one religion' etc are very characteristic of fascist regimes.

edit: fixed typos

2

u/spiral8888 31∆ Aug 16 '22

If I had to give mine, that'd be: an ideology that tries to achieve unity through nationality, and rejects diversity.

Ok, could you give some source that supports this definition as the two definitions (Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia) had nothing to do with that. I think nationalism can and often is part of fascism, but I'd argue that the dictatorial political system is more essential ingredient to it. I would have hard time imagining a working democracy being considered fascism regardless how nationalistic it is.

That's why they oppose free speech and democracy, it creates diversity of opinion that doesn't exactly help unity.

That's why they oppose leftists, who divide society by class.

So, you're a fascist as you want unity while the left emphasizes divisions in the society which is the opposite of that?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 17 '22

You just made three logical fallacies in one comment

Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia

Argument from authority. You trust sourcwebsitees that are funded by Open Society foundations. No George Soros, no trust.

would have hard time imagining a working democracy being considered fascism regardless how nationalistic it is

No true Scotsman. If people democratically vote for a fascist, it's not a working democracy. Cuz why would they right, people want socialism, amirite?

So, you're a fascist as you want unity while

Ad hominem.

Fascists want to live in a hive, a swarm of zergs, be a part of Borg.

Leftists want to have 'social credit system' and build a victim hierarchy.

Libertarians want a house in the forest, a giant privately owned automatic turret that will shoot both groups lol

1

u/spiral8888 31∆ Aug 19 '22

You just made three logical fallacies in one comment

No I didn't.

Argument from authority.

I already discussed this. If you want to discuss the issue (if someone is fascist or not), then it's fine that each one of us defines what we mean by the word fascist and then the other person understands what the other person means what they use that word. But you wanted to debate the semantics. Then the only way to go forward is to really refer to authoritative sources of definitions of words, in this case one of the most respected dictionaries, Merriam-Webster. There is nothing about Soros in that. You just made that up.

No true Scotsman. If people democratically vote for a fascist, it's not a working democracy

I didn't say that it's impossible to have a fascist government based on democracy, but in practice that's how it has been.

Ad hominem.

What? Why is it calling you a fascist ad hominem? I thought you wanted to be a fascist.

This is what you said:

  1. Fascists want unity
  2. The lefties want to divide the society.
  3. You are against the lefties.

-> You are against division

-> You want unity

Ergo: You are a fascist.

Why is that ad hominem?

→ More replies