The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:29 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
No, it isn't. What they voted for was fascism. We can disagree about which party should run things and still remain amicable, but if you voted for despotism then we cannot be friends.
Despotism and fascism have real meanings. ProTip those words don't mean the complete set of people who don't vote for the Democrat candidate.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #202  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:36 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 25,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Mexican isn't even a so-called "race." It's a nationality.
This is a pretty weak defense of bigotry.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:39 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Mexican isn't even a so-called "race." It's a nationality.
I am still having trouble figuring out whether you are posting this sincerely, or whether you're making some subtle satirical point about American fuzzy thinking on ethnicity, nationality, and race. Clarify, please?
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:50 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Mexican isn't even a so-called "race." It's a nationality.
You know who else never apologizes for racist or factually incorrect remarks?
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 03-20-2017, 05:01 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is a pretty weak defense of bigotry.
It's nothing of the sort. Please, if you are going to insult people, at least be accurate. This isn't the pit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I am still having trouble figuring out whether you are posting this sincerely, or whether you're making some subtle satirical point about American fuzzy thinking on ethnicity, nationality, and race. Clarify, please?
Words have meanings. Reflexively shrieking "Nazi!", "RAcisT!!!11", "evil", "fascist" etc devalues the words. Therefore, I'm trying to convey that if you want your attack words to still have any value in the future try using them more accurately and appropriately in the present. Otherwise, no one will care when a real fascist comes along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You know who else never apologizes for racist or factually incorrect remarks?
Else? You are stating my remarks are either racist or factually incorrect. They are neither and since this isn't the pit, I'd like an apology for your attack. If you want language to be useful use it accurately. The irony is my post is more factually correct and less racist than those critiquing someone else joke.

Mexican is not a race. If Mexicans did eat cats it wouldn't be racist to comment on what is factual. It wouldn't even be racist if it weren't. Mexico is a nation. The citizens are Mexican. It's a nationality.

Those concepts are not hard.

Now, labeling someone or a group a racist or racists as an ad hominem attack to discredit an individual or a group instead of debating an issue on it's merits is a tactic that is thankfully being perceived as ridiculous and worthy of no more than an .

Trump is president, in part, due to factually inaccurate people being rightfully perceived as parodies and nags.

Last edited by octopus; 03-20-2017 at 05:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 03-20-2017, 05:12 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 25,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It's nothing of the sort. Please, if you are going to insult people, at least be accurate. This isn't the pit.
Who am I insulting? If you took that as an insult (and I don't honestly see how -- it was a criticism of your post, but not an insult in any way) then I apologize.

"Racist" in common parlance often just means "bigoted". That may not be the original use of the word, but current use = definition, and current use includes such a broader definition than the older sense of the world.

Not a huge deal, but still bigoted, IMO, to spread negative stereotypes even in a joking fashion, as did the joke by another poster about Mexican restaurants serving cat. And I thought your defense of this bigotry, which amounted to an incorrect semantic distinction, to be rather weak.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-20-2017 at 05:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 03-20-2017, 05:28 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Despotism and fascism have real meanings. ProTip those words don't mean the complete set of people who don't vote for the Democrat candidate.
Yes, they do have real meanings. And when scholars of history use them, it's probably a safe bet that they know the meanings and historical perspectives better than you do, and didn't just look them up in their handy Pocket Dictionary-O'-Insults.

ProTip: When cites are provided in these discussions, read them.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 03-20-2017, 05:58 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Yes, they do have real meanings. And when scholars of history use them, it's probably a safe bet that they know the meanings and historical perspectives better than you do, and didn't just look them up in their handy Pocket Dictionary-O'-Insults.

ProTip: When cites are provided in these discussions, read them.
Politically motivated "scholars of history?"
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:17 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Words have meanings. Reflexively shrieking "Nazi!", "RAcisT!!!11", "evil", "fascist" etc devalues the words. Therefore, I'm trying to convey that if you want your attack words to still have any value in the future try using them more accurately and appropriately in the present. Otherwise, no one will care when a real fascist comes along.
Holy Non sequitur, Batman.

Best I can figure, you're genuinely confused. So here it is: no, Mexican isn't a race. I know that. Congratulations! Neither is "Kenyan," but if someone drew a picture of Obama's Kenyan grandfather with a bone through his nose and a pot full of missionaries, I'd call it racist. And neither is "Chinese," but if someone writes about a Chinese restaurant serving stray dogs, I'll recognize it as racist.

"Latino" may not match any specific racial category, but since race is a social construct anyway, and since many people treat Latinos as a racial category distinct from "white," I can recognize that posts like watchwolf's are racist posts.

This is not rocket science, and trying to pedantic your way out of recognizing the bleedin' obvious is not a good look for you.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:45 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
I for one applaud the restaurateur's novel marketing strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:48 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Politically motivated "scholars of history?"
"Politically motivated" "Them's that disagree with me".

Words have meanings.

There is no intrinsic reason that the world's arguably most respected magazine of literature, news, and investigative reporting should have political bias, although there's lots of reasons that they might reach well-substantiated analytical conclusions that differ from your own personal opinions. Conclusions, in this particular case, substantiated in one essay by a Pultizer-prize winning journalist and another by the recipient of three National Magazine Awards for Essay and Criticism, both of whom are respected journalists and social and political observers and neither of whom have any apparent political connections or insidious "political motivations". Words have meanings. You should use them more carefully.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:31 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 26,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
And neither is "Chinese," but if someone writes about a Chinese restaurant serving stray dogs, I'll recognize it as racist.
Why is that racist? It is a simple fact that dog and cat meat is commonly used in some Asian countries especially southern China. Horse meat is common in Europe. "Bush meat" including chimps and monkeys are used all over the world. Even cannibalism was practiced within living memory and can still be found in some areas.

I can see it being an insult if someone is talking about a strip-mall American Chinese restaurant but it may be perfectly accurate if they are actually in China. Not everyone has the same attitudes about animals and meat sources that Americans do.

It has nothing to do with race. It is about location, legality and culturally sanctioned meat sources which are fairly arbitrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

"Historically, human consumption of dog meat has been recorded in many parts of the world, including East and Southeast Asia, West Africa, Europe, Oceania and the Americas.[2] In the 21st century, dog meat is consumed in many parts of China,[3] Korea,[4] and Vietnam.[5]
Today, a number of cultures view the consumption of dog meat as part of their traditional and day-to-day cuisine, while others – such as Western culture – consider consumption of dog meat a taboo, although they have been consumed in times of war or other hardships.[6][7] It was estimated in 2014 that worldwide, 25 million dogs are eaten each year by humans.[8]

Last edited by Shagnasty; 03-20-2017 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:21 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shagnasty View Post
Why is that racist? It is a simple fact that dog and cat meat is commonly used in some Asian countries especially southern China.
Pro Tip: if you think that a bleedin' obvious fact is all it takes to prove me wrong ("Mexico is a country! Dog meat is eaten in China!") there's a giant chance that you're missing something.

Yes. Dog meat is eaten in China. You'll note a key phrase: IN CHINA. Not in the United States at Chinese restaurants. [edit: of course we're talking about Chinese restaurants outside of China--I thought the context of the conversation would have made that clear.]

The dogs eaten in China are raised for meat. They are not strays rounded up by unscrupulous cooks trying to save money.

The gyrations and contortions people will go through just to avoid admitting something is racist, good grief.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-20-2017 at 08:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:39 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Holy Non sequitur, Batman.

Best I can figure, you're genuinely confused. So here it is: no, Mexican isn't a race. I know that. Congratulations! Neither is "Kenyan," but if someone drew a picture of Obama's Kenyan grandfather with a bone through his nose and a pot full of missionaries, I'd call it racist. And neither is "Chinese," but if someone writes about a Chinese restaurant serving stray dogs, I'll recognize it as racist.

"Latino" may not match any specific racial category, but since race is a social construct anyway, and since many people treat Latinos as a racial category distinct from "white," I can recognize that posts like watchwolf's are racist posts.

This is not rocket science, and trying to pedantic your way out of recognizing the bleedin' obvious is not a good look for you.
It's not racist if Chinese eat cats or if Kenyans eat missionaries. Those would be facts if they are indeed factual. Do you know that racism doesn't mean a comment or a joke that LHoD or some other random person doesn't like?
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:40 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
"Politically motivated" "Them's that disagree with me".

Words have meanings.

There is no intrinsic reason that the world's arguably most respected magazine of literature, news, and investigative reporting should have political bias, although there's lots of reasons that they might reach well-substantiated analytical conclusions that differ from your own personal opinions. Conclusions, in this particular case, substantiated in one essay by a Pultizer-prize winning journalist and another by the recipient of three National Magazine Awards for Essay and Criticism, both of whom are respected journalists and social and political observers and neither of whom have any apparent political connections or insidious "political motivations". Words have meanings. You should use them more carefully.
Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize for economics. That doesn't mean he's not politically motivated.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:49 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 26,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
The gyrations and contortions people will go through just to avoid admitting something is racist, good grief.
There are no gyrations. It is just a joke based on reality. I am a Louisianan living in the North. People sometimes make jokes to me about eating alligators, squirrels and even road kill. My response is to say "Oh, hell yeah!" (especially to the alligator). It is awesome and I am not happy that I can't get it easily anymore. It is no more racist than saying that people in Maine eat moose because many of them do.

You are letting your own bias show. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating a deer versus a cat. It is just the former is perfectly acceptable in U.S. culture while the latter is not.

Double-dog pro-tip (no pun intended) - people don't literally think that Asian people in the U.S. serve Fido and Fluffy in mainstream Chinese restaurants. It is just a cultural joke that isn't meant to be taken seriously.

Last edited by Shagnasty; 03-20-2017 at 08:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:12 PM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 37,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Mexican is not a race.
Says who?

They're a race if they are treated as such and perceived as such. Dunno where you got your definition of racism; mine is consistent with both the dictionary (Oxford: "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
‘we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then’") and an obvious examination of the sociological nature of race as a concept.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:31 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It's not racist if Chinese eat cats or if Kenyans eat missionaries. Those would be facts if they are indeed factual.
"Those would be facts if they are indeed factual."

Jesus.

I think this speaks more eloquently to the contortions people will go through to avoid calling something racist than anything else I could say on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shagnasty View Post
You are letting your own bias show. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating a deer versus a cat. It is just the former is perfectly acceptable in U.S. culture while the latter is not.
Oh yes. I'm the REAL racist for pointing out the racist jokes!

This thread is really delivering.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:38 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 26,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
"Those would be facts if they are indeed factual."

Jesus.

I think this speaks more eloquently to the contortions people will go through to avoid calling something racist than anything else I could say on the subject.
The better question is can you say anything intelligent on the subject? There is nothing racist about any of it. It is cultural if anything. Black Americans really do love fried chicken and watermelon. Do you know why?

SPOILER:
Because they are awesome.


Likewise, different cultural groups around the world have different ideas of acceptable foods than typical Americans. Asians in particular are not very big on animal rights. That isn't racist, it is just a simple fact.

I find it helpful to translate your posts into a Gomer Pyle voice because they make more sense that way.

Last edited by Shagnasty; 03-20-2017 at 09:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:42 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shagnasty View Post
The better question is can you say anything intelligent on the subject?
...
I find it helpful to translate your posts into a Gomer Pyle voice because they make more sense that way.
Charming.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:14 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 26,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Charming.
It is supposed to be. Love you as always and forever
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:22 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,323
Moderating

1. Everyone - Please drop the hijack about what cultures consume which foods and the associated racism or lack thereof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shagnasty View Post
I find it helpful to translate your posts into a Gomer Pyle voice because they make more sense that way.
2. No. This is tenuously close to insult/jerk territory. Do not personalize arguments in this fashion.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 03-20-2017 at 10:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:48 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This thread is really delivering.
You got that straight. I'm linking to this to anyone I know who thinks one side is better than the other.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:55 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 26,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
1. Everyone - Please drop the hijack about what cultures consume which foods and the associated racism or lack thereof.

2. No. This is tenuously close to insult/jerk territory. Do not personalize arguments in this fashion.

[/moderating]
OK, I apologize. I just get a little tired of the general lefty arguments that I don't think make much sense. I only meant to insult ideas and not specific posters. We will live to argue about issues another day.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:05 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 26,482
I have a reason to make statements against "Racist!' and "Sexist!" rhetoric. My own young daughters are doing it now even though they have no idea what those words actually mean. I have to constantly explain that recognizing any cultural difference isn't sexist or racist. It just means that someone grew up somewhere that isn't Massachusetts including me. They can sort of understand it but not completely.

Last edited by Shagnasty; 03-20-2017 at 11:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:19 AM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Again I draw your attention to the comment I made to BobLibDem concerning how Bush was called a fascist and a racist and a would-be dictator. Do you recall those accusations during the Bush presidency?
Actually, I don't, although I don't dispute that it probably happened. Interestingly, I do recall precisely those allegations being hurled at Obama, along with fear-stoking from the right that he would appoint himself dictator for life, set up detainment camps for conservatives, and that references to the senior heads of his various program initiatives as "czars" was proof that he was plotting a Soviet-style totalitarian regime.

This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the serious use of a serious political label like "fascism" is justified in this particular extraordinary circumstance. I've cited ample evidence that it is. Are you really prepared to contradict your earlier statements and now claim that Trump's behaviors, utterances, and policies, and some of his senior appointments, are just business as usual and in the same political milieu as Bush II or Obama? If not, then you should be prepared to examine them critically and call them out for what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize for economics. That doesn't mean he's not politically motivated.
No, it means he knows more about economics than you do. Furthermore, I don't think you understand what "politically motivated" means. It doesn't mean the same thing as "having an informed opinion about a political matter".

As you may recall, this bit of sidetrack began with Bricker chiding someone for applying the word "fascist" to Trump policies, which led to a separate discussion. You, however, tried to characterize the use of the word as just a meaningless insult bandied about by illiterates. I supplied you with an example of an award-winning journalist who described precisely why the word applies perfectly well, and another one eloquently pointing out the threats such ideology poses to American democracy, both writing for a premier publication renowned for the quality of its journalism.

You chose to decry those articles as "politically motivated" based on no evidence whatsoever, but merely the fact that these writers were saying mean things about Trump, about whom I gather you feel mean things should not be said. That I think is a fair summary of where we have arrived and where I think I'll leave this discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:32 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebreather1 View Post
a) Correct.

b) Of course Mrs. Clinton has an insatiable appetite for war. Why do you think so many neoconservatives in the GOP vociferously supported her campaign, among them David Frum, Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Richard Armitage, and others? Because they shared her penchant for extreme hawkishness in attacking foreign governments.
So your belief = certainty. But others whose beliefs oppose yours are automatically wrong.

Would those be the same neocons who were part of the NeverTrump movement?

Just because you make a claim that you call self-evident doesn't mean it is. So please give concrete, cited examples supporting your assertion. So far there are none.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 03-21-2017, 05:59 AM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace
a) You're not sorry.
b) Others "don't know these people's minds" but you know that "Hillary Clinton has an insatiable appetite for war" and that "she knew the case for war was bullshit." Moral myopia? Arrogance? Projection?
(a) You're right. I'm not sorry. I am constitutionally incapable of being less sorry than I am at this moment.

(b) We have much greater insight into Hillary Clinton's mind than we do into the mind of the average Trump voter because Hillary has been in the public eye for about 3 decades. In that time I, for one, have learned that, for all her faults, she is undeniably a very smart and well-informed lady. Far too smart and well informed to buy into Bush's obviously bullshit case for invading Iraq. Since she voted to authorise the use of force anyway, I can only conclude that her vote was motivated by political expediency rather than an honest appraisal of the facts.

Beside that, we also have her voting record, which clearly shows that she was one of the most reliable war hawks in the entire Senate. So yeah. I stand by my previous remarks.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:11 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the serious use of a serious political label like "fascism" is justified in this particular extraordinary circumstance. I've cited ample evidence that it is.
No, you haven't.

Quote:
Are you really prepared to contradict your earlier statements and now claim that Trump's behaviors, utterances, and policies, and some of his senior appointments, are just business as usual and in the same political milieu as Bush II or Obama? If not, then you should be prepared to examine them critically and call them out for what they are.
I'm instead prepared to identify the flaw in your argument.

I certainly agree, as I have for some time, that Trump routinely breaches established political norms, and I regard that as disturbing.

But that's not fascism.

You have not, in fact, justified the use of the term fascism except as hyperbole.

Quote:
As you may recall, this bit of sidetrack began with Bricker chiding someone for applying the word "fascist" to Trump policies, which led to a separate discussion. You, however, tried to characterize the use of the word as just a meaningless insult bandied about by illiterates. I supplied you with an example of an award-winning journalist who described precisely why the word applies perfectly well, and another one eloquently pointing out the threats such ideology poses to American democracy, both writing for a premier publication renowned for the quality of its journalism.

You chose to decry those articles as "politically motivated" based on no evidence whatsoever, but merely the fact that these writers were saying mean things about Trump, about whom I gather you feel mean things should not be said. That I think is a fair summary of where we have arrived and where I think I'll leave this discussion.
I'm perfectly in favor of mean things being said about Trump, but this argument is an appeal to authority. The journalists you cite are not economic experts; they are writers for a liberal publication with a strong interest in creating and sustaining an anti-Trump narrative. Their analyses are in no way sober and objective attempts to define fascism; indeed, the description used in one article -- that fascism changes to fit the country -- develops such a wide view of the term as to make it meaningless. In any event, I do not concede to that writer the license to redefine the word to fit his current narrative.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:42 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Yes, you hold that in reserve for Republican lawyers who redefine the word "torture" in order to give the Bush Administration cover for its treatment of prisoners.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:56 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I supplied you with an example of an award-winning journalist who described precisely why the word applies perfectly well, and another one eloquently pointing out the threats such ideology poses to American democracy, both writing for a premier publication renowned for the quality of its journalism.
I took the two articles to be more parody than anything else. From the first paragraph of the 2nd linked article:
Quote:
It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety.
It's "impossible"? That's a definitional failure right there. Not to besmirch the New Yorker or the author, but I hope these articles aren't representative of the publication's quality.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:19 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I took the two articles to be more parody than anything else. From the first paragraph of the 2nd linked article:

It's "impossible"? That's a definitional failure right there. Not to besmirch the New Yorker or the author, but I hope these articles aren't representative of the publication's quality.
Seems to me, it's predicated on the assumption that the reader agrees with the opening premise of the article, which clearly states:

Quote:
THE election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism. Trump’s shocking victory, his ascension to the Presidency, is a sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy.
If the reader disagrees with the premise, he/she will likely disagree with the limited range of possible reactions offered.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 03-21-2017 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:33 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Seems to me, it's predicated on the assumption that the reader agrees with the opening premise of the article, which clearly states:
Seems to me that it is predicated on the assumption that there is no distinction between "Trump is likely to be a bad President" and "TRUMP IS A FASCIST!!!!"

I don't see how Godwinizing the political debate in America helps any more than it usually does on the Internet.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:47 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Seems to me that it is predicated on the assumption that there is no distinction between "Trump is likely to be a bad President" and "TRUMP IS A FASCIST!!!!"

I don't see how Godwinizing the political debate in America helps any more than it usually does on the Internet.
Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist. Now they want to call Trump a fascist, and say, in effect, "OK, we were just kidding around with Bush, but this time, we're serious. Trump is for reals fascist."

But then how would they describe a future political figure who literally proposed a totalitarian one-party state as the best way for America could resist armed attacks and survive economically?

"OK, super serious this time. THIS GUY is a fascist. 100% swear this time."
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:59 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
(a) You're right. I'm not sorry. I am constitutionally incapable of being less sorry than I am at this moment.

(b) We have much greater insight into Hillary Clinton's mind than we do into the mind of the average Trump voter because Hillary has been in the public eye for about 3 decades. In that time I, for one, have learned that, for all her faults, she is undeniably a very smart and well-informed lady. Far too smart and well informed to buy into Bush's obviously bullshit case for invading Iraq. Since she voted to authorise the use of force anyway, I can only conclude that her vote was motivated by political expediency rather than an honest appraisal of the facts.

Beside that, we also have her voting record, which clearly shows that she was one of the most reliable war hawks in the entire Senate. So yeah. I stand by my previous remarks.
Really? I love how conservatives always seem either to miss or gloss over the fact that all but seven Republicans in both houses voted for the war. So, by your rationale, they're either all war hawks or they're all too stupid to serve. And how exactly do you call one vote a 'record?'

For everyone else, notice that he's still right and everyone else is wrong.

Give me a break.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:00 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 9,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist. Now they want to call Trump a fascist, and say, in effect, "OK, we were just kidding around with Bush, but this time, we're serious. Trump is for reals fascist."

But then how would they describe a future political figure who literally proposed a totalitarian one-party state as the best way for America could resist armed attacks and survive economically?

"OK, super serious this time. THIS GUY is a fascist. 100% swear this time."
I'm not sure what the "problem" is. Some people (I assume) called GWB a fascist. Perhaps some of the same people are calling Trump a fascist. Maybe we'll get a "true fascist" some time in the future. Each will be judged by the merits at the time. If the next guy is a fascist, I don't think we'll forgive that because someone cried wolf about Trump.

BTW, I don't think Trump is an actual fascist. That's probably the nicest thing I can say about him.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:08 PM
levdrakon levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Why can't they all be fascists? It's not like you have to personally start a world war and successfully kill millions of people to keep your fascist membership card. Those are just the rock stars of fascism.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:13 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I'm not sure what the "problem" is. Some people (I assume) called GWB a fascist. Perhaps some of the same people are calling Trump a fascist. Maybe we'll get a "true fascist" some time in the future. Each will be judged by the merits at the time. If the next guy is a fascist, I don't think we'll forgive that because someone cried wolf about Trump.
The idea is that when terms get watered down they lose meaning and impact. If there is a consistent accusation of fascism based on flimsy evidence, it dulls other accusations of fascism and makes them easier to dismiss - like I do with the New Yorker article. If the goal is like a rally to hype up the base of folks who are already inclined to agree with you, then great. If the goal is something more than that, then it's ineffective.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:16 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
Why can't they all be fascists? It's not like you have to personally start a world war and successfully kill millions of people to keep your fascist membership card. Those are just the rock stars of fascism.
No, but you have to advocate and advance a totalitarian one-party state. If you create one, you get to be a rock star.
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:19 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist. Now they want to call Trump a fascist, and say, in effect, "OK, we were just kidding around with Bush, but this time, we're serious. Trump is for reals fascist."

But then how would they describe a future political figure who literally proposed a totalitarian one-party state as the best way for America could resist armed attacks and survive economically?

"OK, super serious this time. THIS GUY is a fascist. 100% swear this time."
Who is they?

If some subgroup of left wing liberals called Bush a Fascist during the 2000's, does that mean that the rest of those on the left side of the ideological split are not allowed to have an opinion?

I though bush was an incompetent asshole who allowed others to essentially run his administration for him, and he certainly pointed the country in the direction of Fascism, but I would not call him a fascist.

Does the fact that some on your side called Obama a communist fascist nazi muslim from kenya mean that you are not allowed to disapprove of the actions of a democratic administration? If bernie had won the primary and the general, would the fact that some republicans called obama a socialist mean that you cannot call Bernie a socialist. This following your logic there.

Now, I would not not just out and out call Trump a facist, but when reading the definition of a fascist, and watching his actions, there are some similarities. Authoritarianism and nationalism are big flags for fascism, and he certainly has those. Intolerant views, extreme right wing, those fit too.


Now, back to the point of the thread...

Really, conservatives are getting this worked up about a sign? A sign that was hand written and posted in the window of a tiny diner? A tiny diner in a state that is about as far as you can get from the continental US as you can possibly get and be in the US? A sign that was taken down 3 months ago? Did any of you have to cancel your trip? Just curious, about how that works, anyway. If liberals get offended that a state tells people that they cannot use public bathrooms that correspond to their gender, they get called snowflakes and other such insults. What do we call conservatives that get this worked up about some sign on the other side of the planet? A sign they never ever would have even known about, had it not been for conservatives making a big deal out of it.

Now, me personally, I would not put up such a sign. It would be bad for business. Many, if not most of my clients are Trump supporters, but even still, I try my best to not be political in my business. If I was in a solid blue area like hawaii though, I might think differently. Do you really think he's going to lose any business for the sign?
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:19 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 9,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The idea is that when terms get watered down they lose meaning and impact. If there is a consistent accusation of fascism based on flimsy evidence, it dulls other accusations of fascism and makes them easier to dismiss - like I do with the New Yorker article. If the goal is like a rally to hype up the base of folks who are already inclined to agree with you, then great. If the goal is something more than that, then it's ineffective.
I just don't see a collective shrug if we get a real honest to goodness fascist in office one day. "Well, they said the same thing about Bush and Trump" isn't going to assuage many fears.

I guess I generally agree that there are many things to call Trump besides "fascist" that would be more accurate. I won't list them all here, but they include ignorant, offensive, bigoted, slimy, untruthful, and disgusting.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:35 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

If some subgroup of left wing liberals called Bush a Fascist during the 2000's, does that mean that the rest of those on the left side of the ideological split are not allowed to have an opinion?
If the opinion in question is that Trump is a fascist, that opinion is refuted by merely reminding them of the actual definition of the word. I raised the spectre of earlier claims that Bush was a fascist to illustrate the willingness of commentators to blur definitions in service of rhetoric.

Quote:
Does the fact that some on your side called Obama a communist fascist nazi muslim from kenya mean that you are not allowed to disapprove of the actions of a democratic administration? If bernie had won the primary and the general, would the fact that some republicans called obama a socialist mean that you cannot call Bernie a socialist. This following your logic there.
Same answer -- Bernie identifies as a socialist. My calling him one is not at odds with the actual definition of the word.

I agree, of course, that Obama was not a socialist.

Quote:
Now, I would not not just out and out call Trump a facist, but when reading the definition of a fascist, and watching his actions, there are some similarities. Authoritarianism and nationalism are big flags for fascism, and he certainly has those. Intolerant views, extreme right wing, those fit too.
Sure. There are more similarities between Trump and a genuine fascist than any president in my living memory.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:53 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Seems to me that it is predicated on the assumption that there is no distinction between "Trump is likely to be a bad President" and "TRUMP IS A FASCIST!!!!"

I don't see how Godwinizing the political debate in America helps any more than it usually does on the Internet.

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist. Now they want to call Trump a fascist, and say, in effect, "OK, we were just kidding around with Bush, but this time, we're serious. Trump is for reals fascist."

But then how would they describe a future political figure who literally proposed a totalitarian one-party state as the best way for America could resist armed attacks and survive economically?

"OK, super serious this time. THIS GUY is a fascist. 100% swear this time."
Hold on a minute.

What was quoted doesn't say anything about Trum being a fascist. I didn't say anything about Trump being a fascist. In fact the article specifically says:

Quote:
Fascism is not our future—it cannot be; we cannot allow it to be so—but this is surely the way fascism can begin.
<bolding mine> "Can begin". That's as close as it gets.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 03-21-2017, 02:11 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I took the two articles to be more parody than anything else. From the first paragraph of the 2nd linked article:
Quote:
It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety.
It's "impossible"? That's a definitional failure right there. Not to besmirch the New Yorker or the author, but I hope these articles aren't representative of the publication's quality.
If your strongest objection to those articles centers around a common figure of speech, I'm tempted to respond "it's impossible for me to consider that to be a serious criticism."

Your criticism seems to me to be contrary to the basic spirit of good writing, and it's probably a safe bet that David Remnick does know how to write. Your criticism takes literalism to an extreme that one rarely sees applied to literature, and that seems more suited to the language of a legal contract. In fact it's not unusual to see this common figure of speech even in court rulings: "... when we look to the condition of this race in the several States at the time, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges were intended to be extended to them" (Supreme Court, Scott v Sandford).

Clearly, Remnick is saying, in effect, "I believe that it would be impossible for any thinking person to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety" but as any good writer would recognize, adding a string of perfectly obvious qualifiers is both unnecessary and deleterious to impactful, effective writing. This is a well-reasoned but obviously impassioned essay written the day after an astounding election, not a legal contract to be dissected with tweezers. My respect for David Remnick and the New Yorker remain safely intact.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 03-21-2017, 02:13 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist.
Your pronouns lack antecedents.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 03-21-2017, 02:23 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Clearly, Remnick is saying, in effect, "I believe that it would be impossible for any thinking person to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety" but as any good writer would recognize, adding a string of perfectly obvious qualifiers is both unnecessary and deleterious to impactful, effective writing. This is a well-reasoned but obviously impassioned essay written the day after an astounding election, not a legal contract to be dissected with tweezers. My respect for David Remnick and the New Yorker remain safely intact.
If Remnick is saying as you characterize, that it would be impossible for any thinking person to react...that too betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of those that would disagree with him, or a Scotsman fallacy. But yes, I take the author to be speaking more colloquially and that's why I consider the article to be more parody than anything else. It's obviously an opinion piece - one that I think exaggerates to such an extent that it cannot be taken seriously (by me). Those exaggerations are in the same vein of the 'fascism' discussion above; it gives cover to dismiss the article which I do.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 03-21-2017, 02:42 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
I hope you recognize that to be a completely different criticism. Now you're saying that it's an opinion piece that you disagree with (no one disputes that it's an opinion piece, and disagreeing with it is your right). I cited those articles because I thought they were persuasive and well reasoned. Those of a different political bent may have a different world view that will probably not be changed by any one or two pieces of writing, however eloquent they may be. But perhaps they may be changed over time as events unfold. The notion that the articles are "hyperbole" is just the perspective of that particular world view.

I think the core of all the arguments around Trumpism is that even if it achieves some conservative goals that conservatives deem desirable and liberals don't, there are a great many insidious side effects unfolding that are extremely damaging and are good for no one at all -- like the institutionalization of dishonesty, the creation of fictitious realities based on a web of lies, xenophobia and ultranationalism, and contempt for the rule of law.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 03-21-2017, 02:45 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Hold on a minute.

What was quoted doesn't say anything about Trum being a fascist. I didn't say anything about Trump being a fascist. In fact the article specifically says:



<bolding mine> "Can begin". That's as close as it gets.
Closer than that right here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the serious use of a serious political label like "fascism" is justified in this particular extraordinary circumstance. I've cited ample evidence that it is.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 03-21-2017, 02:48 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I'm not sure what the "problem" is. Some people (I assume) called GWB a fascist. Perhaps some of the same people are calling Trump a fascist. Maybe we'll get a "true fascist" some time in the future. Each will be judged by the merits at the time. If the next guy is a fascist, I don't think we'll forgive that because someone cried wolf about Trump.

BTW, I don't think Trump is an actual fascist. That's probably the nicest thing I can say about him.
He's fascist has jumped the shark. And that is a problem. Just like all the other baseless leftwing accusations. It's like calling someone a witch or something. It's eye rolling not alarming.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.