All three co-hosts of MSNBC's "The Weekend," along with former Donald Trump White House aide Sarah Matthews, pounced on Donald Trump for telling a raucous NRA crowd on Saturday that President Joe Biden deserves to be executed.During his speech before the gun owners in Texas, the former president tol...
Ah, so you’ve chosent the tacit admission that your argument is bullshit, you have’t actually thought about what you reacted to, and you’d like to kindly fuck off, but you just lack the self control to behave like an adult in conversations.
Also, classic gish gallop. One, or maybe 2 addressable point at a time please.
Not willing to put any of your copypasta “definitions” to the test, eh liberal?
Why am I not surprised?
You mean… apart from?
At least fascists and tankies have the gumption to try and defend their beliefs - you liberals duck and dive out of an argument simply because you are too damn fragile to handle the fact that liberalism is, in fact, an ideology.
It would be comedic if it wasn’t so damn real.
Let me open with this. I didn’t claim to be a liberal, that is a label that you applied to me. I don’t think it’s an unfair assertion, but at the same time, I am not constrained to the ideological boundaries of that label.
Liberal, (at least where I’m from) means that you interpret the rules of society with some leeway. Language in laws or rules, no matter how specific, cannot encompass edge-case scenarios, so some human intuition and adjustment of a law or rule is required in order to for it to function with it’s intended purpose. Briefly put, Liberals in my country beleive that laws should fit to society, rather than the opposing conservative construction, that society should be fit to the law.
Since you refuse to accept a definiton for fascism, and on multiple occasions, declaring that it is undefinable, it makes it a useless term to compare to. You might as well be asking me to compare liberal ideology to CPU architecture or the concept of cottage industry. If you won’t accept a definiton for fascism, and are afraid to provide you own, then it is logically impossible for someone to use it as a comparative.
Now, I have addressed your silly roundabout 3rd grade logic. Please, with some decorum, address your point, that there is/was a time in human society post-cave-dwelling, where the social/justice system was fair and equitable. In case you forgot, that is the point that started you on this useless, indefensible and idiotic tirade. Or you can tacitly admit you don’t have a point, and you can kindly fuck off.
You don’t have to. If you view the world through the lens of liberal ideology, you are a liberal - regardless of the labels you self-apply.
Then you misunderstand your own ideology. Liberalism allows absolutely no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of private property, for instance. In complete contradiction, it allows no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of (so-called) “rule of law” - a contradiction, of course, that can only be solved by ensuring the law doesn’t apply to those who own the largest share of all the private property.
So where is this “leeway” you speak of?
Oh, I never said I’d refuse a definition of fascism - I’ve read far more of them than you have. None of them actually manages to “define” fascism. Look at my second paragraph - it’s childishly easy to demonstrate the logical contradictions in your ideology - liberalism has so many inherent contradictions that it, too, is extremely difficult to define satisfactorily. Fascism comprises an ideological framing that contains absolutely nothing inside it that is coherent or consistent in any way whatsoever - are you starting to see the problem with “definitions” of fascism?
The worst of them, by far, are the ones written by liberals - no surprises there. Liberals are desperately anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very status quo (you know… “rule of law” and “private property” and associated schtick) liberals are invested in preserving. They are anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very violence that is used to enforce the liberal order.
The Marxist ones are quite a bit better - but still fail to hit the mark. I’m just going to go ahead and assume you didn’t even know those existed before now.
Not my point at all, liberal. Your logical fallacy. Remember this?
I requested you provide any evidence to prop up this silly Hollywood trope that you knee-jerk conflated with reality faster than Ben Shapiro snorts copium.
You have provided… absolutely none.
No no, you’re faaaaaar tooooo smaaaaart to commit to an actual definition, or even general framework of what fascism is. Despite this, you still expect other people to defend against your internally checked, rapidly shifting goalpost of what qualifies as “fascism”. Put your money where your mouth is, you trollish coward, define, even in loose terms, what fascism is, so that we may actually discuss it. If you can’t do that, then you’re not actually making any points here, you’re just swimming circles in a pool of your own bullshit.
My assertion here is that there has not been a perfect, equitable society in human history. This is why I’d rather work to fix the society we have, than throw out the everything and live without society, yah know, because I like the things society brings, like running water, electricity, flushing toilets, refrigeration, videogames… You’d get the idea of your head wasn’t up your ass. The evidence I’ll provide for this claim, is that there has not been a completely just society in human history. If you’d like to refute this claim, you can simply name one. But you can’t, because you are wrong, so you won’t, and instead you’ll dilly-dally and dance around while hurling labels that you don’t understand at people while implicitly arguing that words don’t have a real meaning.
Oh… now we’re no longer talking about “definitions,” are we? We have now shifted to “general frameworks?”
And you accuse me of shifting goalposts?
Yes, liberal - I still expect you to defend your ideology and your ideology’s proximity to fascism.
We are discussing it, liberal - which part of this…
…are you having a hard time understanding? We are discussing the very roots of fascism - which happens to be the very same roots of your precious liberal status quo.
Are you anxious to ignore that too, liberal? For someone that claims to not be “constrained to the ideological boundaries” of liberalism, you sure seem to be acting no different than a bog-standard liberal pearl-clutcher when it comes to confronting the fascism that violently enforces your precious status quo for you.
Do tell, liberal… where were you when antifascists were actually fighting neo-nazis, klan-boys and their pig-friends in the streets a few years ago? Let me guess… heckling the antifascists from the sidelines? Like a good liberal is supposed to?
Will you be doing the same come November?
Why are you peddling the same pretexts and justifications for fascism that the alt-right peddles?
The ideological gap between you and fascism seems to be shrinking with every exchange.
Soooo… as you have provided zero evidence to prove that your zombie-fiction tropes will come to pass as soon as fascist violence doesn’t enforce your precious liberal order for you, I must assume that you are simply too squeamish to admit your endorsement of said fascist violence (as long as it isn’t aimed at you, of course)
I’d say we’ve come to the point where there is only one thing left to be discerned… why do you even bother hiding it?
Yes, because you have refused in any way to communicate a meaning of the word. That’s on you, not me. Literally your doing, and it’s the core premise of 90% of your statements, but you can’t even tell us what means.
Do tell… just how far down the liberal-to-fascist pipeline are you?
Can’t really tell you. Since you have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of what either of those words mean.