Most Americans, no matter their political affiliation, do not believe that violence is a solution to domestic political divisions, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll.
Perhaps you could define some terms for me, starting with “violence”, but also “fascist” and “brigade”, because it’s almost like you think violence is any policy or speech you don’t like, and a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your politics. It’s hard to have a discussion when the terms are so subjective, and the condition for civil discourse is that I agree with you.
A classic radical fascist tactic is to claim that the other thinks fascism is “anything you don’t agree with”. Wrong. It has specific meanings demonstrated by specific policy positions.
“Violence” is anything that violates the rights of others. “States’ rights” is an excuse to allow violence through the tyranny of the minority, and us used to violate the rights of others. If the Constitution federallt protects the rights of an individual, “states’ rights” seeks to overrule those protections
Glad we can agree that there is an actual definition for fascism, even if you aren’t bothering to refer to it before leveling accusations.
Anyway the premise of states rights as opposed to Federal is that Federal laws should be very limited, aimed at protecting basic human rights, interstate infrastructure, and the military to protect the country as a whole. Then individual states can create laws that are highly applicable to their own issues, environment, culture, demographic, tax structure and so on. If a state gets virtually no tourism, but provides tons of food for the rest of the nation, then it is best served by a set of laws that are different from a state that relies upon tourism or business or manufacturing or retirees or whatever. The Federal government can’t possibly govern as well as the people in the state can govern themselves. Here you are preaching about fascism and in the same breath advocating for a strong central government. Are you just messing with me? Or are you about the other kind of authoritarian government? Answer this: are you ok with forcing other people to do and think as you do?
No, I’m not, which is why I brought up States’ Rights which is doing exactly that while the conservative federal government is abandoning it’s role to protect individual liberty. The States Rights issue stopped being economic long ago.
I read through the 14 tenets and kept thinking it was stupid, vague, biased, and perfect for applying to whatever you don’t like. Not only that but it could be easily applied to any authoritarian regime, Communist, fascist, or whatever. And then I looked into it a little more and it turns out that he isn’t a doctor at all, just some magazine contributor for a leftist magazine. I assume you looked it up just now, but you may want to look into it a little more carefully before you base too much on that. There is actually a lot of discussion and criticism around the validity of those points.
Perhaps you could define some terms for me, starting with “violence”, but also “fascist” and “brigade”, because it’s almost like you think violence is any policy or speech you don’t like, and a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your politics. It’s hard to have a discussion when the terms are so subjective, and the condition for civil discourse is that I agree with you.
A classic radical fascist tactic is to claim that the other thinks fascism is “anything you don’t agree with”. Wrong. It has specific meanings demonstrated by specific policy positions.
“Violence” is anything that violates the rights of others. “States’ rights” is an excuse to allow violence through the tyranny of the minority, and us used to violate the rights of others. If the Constitution federallt protects the rights of an individual, “states’ rights” seeks to overrule those protections
Glad we can agree that there is an actual definition for fascism, even if you aren’t bothering to refer to it before leveling accusations.
Anyway the premise of states rights as opposed to Federal is that Federal laws should be very limited, aimed at protecting basic human rights, interstate infrastructure, and the military to protect the country as a whole. Then individual states can create laws that are highly applicable to their own issues, environment, culture, demographic, tax structure and so on. If a state gets virtually no tourism, but provides tons of food for the rest of the nation, then it is best served by a set of laws that are different from a state that relies upon tourism or business or manufacturing or retirees or whatever. The Federal government can’t possibly govern as well as the people in the state can govern themselves. Here you are preaching about fascism and in the same breath advocating for a strong central government. Are you just messing with me? Or are you about the other kind of authoritarian government? Answer this: are you ok with forcing other people to do and think as you do?
No, I’m not, which is why I brought up States’ Rights which is doing exactly that while the conservative federal government is abandoning it’s role to protect individual liberty. The States Rights issue stopped being economic long ago.
You can’t weaken the federal government and be a fascist at the same time.
Sure you can. What you’re doing is removing federal protections of individuals so that states can fasciststially abuse them without consequence.
Wanna explain why Louisiana is planning to criminalize librarians and how that isnt fascism at all?
Sounds like you are working from a different definition of fascism.
I’m going by the 14 tenets outlined by Dr. Lawrence Britt
I read through the 14 tenets and kept thinking it was stupid, vague, biased, and perfect for applying to whatever you don’t like. Not only that but it could be easily applied to any authoritarian regime, Communist, fascist, or whatever. And then I looked into it a little more and it turns out that he isn’t a doctor at all, just some magazine contributor for a leftist magazine. I assume you looked it up just now, but you may want to look into it a little more carefully before you base too much on that. There is actually a lot of discussion and criticism around the validity of those points.