this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
44 points (100.0% liked)
/kbin meta
12 readers
1 users here now
Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmm, let's break it down:
Could be leftists, conservatives, or any other political group.
Well that excludes conservatives, because conservatism celebrates rugged individualism.
Leftism, by contrast, embraces groups above individualism. This is what conservatives usually refer to as neo-Marxism. It's also known as identity politics. It's this idea that we're all members of a group, and that group gives us our identity. Then with intersectionality, you have multiple groups defining identity.
Two caveats:
Yes, in general, conservatives support small government, while leftists prefer government regulations over private business, government handouts for the poor, government taxation of the wealthy, and government control of every little thing in life — basically big government.
Centralized? In the US, centralized means federal control whereas decentralized means State and local control. Leftists generally prefer the former, whereas conservatives generally prefer the latter.
Not applicable in the US, but I wouldn't put it past the Left in the near future.
Yep, see this thread for instance. Leftist love regimented control over what we're allowed to think, and they love silencing the opposition.
Oh, you mean like when Biden has his primary opponent, Trump, tied up in court with accusations and a threat of imprisonment? Or, you mean like this very thread where leftists are trying to silence the TERFs? Yes, leftists absolutely love the forcible suppression of their opposition.
In conclusion, no, it's not a perfect fit for leftists, but it's loosely close — and it certainly doesn't fit conservatives even slightly.
Great theory, but lets take a look at reality.
Have you heard of MAGA?
While Trump announced he "plans to eliminate executive branch constraints on his power if he is elected president in 2024"
See the last point..
Like Jan 6th.
You can't just make up whatever you want when you're not in /r/conservative. You are constrained by reality. Nobody is here to delete my posts and ban me for you.
Yes, well the MAGA crowd isn't very conservative if you ask me, and personally I support DeSantis. I think Democrats are strongly pushing for a Trump nomination because they know he's unelectable, and it's an easy play.
But to your point, I concede that most people do consider MAGA to be right wing, and that Trump has on several occasions said things suggesting he'd like an autocracy. I think we can agree that'd be undesirable. I just don't think it's very conservative.
All that was, was a group of jaded voters who believed (rightly or wrongly) that there was election fraud. Personally I see no evidence of fraud substantial enough to change the election. But at the same time, I recognize that for someone who truly did believe there was election fraud, they were upset and they wanted to protest about it. That's all it was — a protest that was legitimate based on what they believed.
And I'm glad about that, 100%. I wouldn't want you banned.
But back to the definition, you can't just pluck a couple of words out of there and say it's a match. The whole definition fits the left way better than the right, and yet in truth doesn't fit either completely.
"lol, I hate the main conservative group in the US because they're not the right kind of ~~Scotsman~~ conservative. Instead, I love the guy who been pushing the most extreme book-banning policy in the US."
did you forget that this was a conversation about fascism when you brought DeSantis up, or do you not know who he is?
lol no
who do you think tricked them into believing that? or do you think it was all one massive coincidence?
That's what you did. So I responded with actual examples, using the conservative front runner- and you replied with "no true Scotsman".
That makes absolutely no sense.
Oh wow did somebody place you under arrest for posting your opinions online?? Or does this have absolutely nothing to do with free speech, again?
I'm not saying "no true Scotsman." I'm saying Mussolini was a legitimate fascist, and his party died a long time ago. Some people today have similar traits, especially on the Left, but nobody is really part of his party anymore.
Free speech is a delicate principle. It requires everyone to firmly agree that everyone is allowed to speak freely, and we're all prepared to fight to the death, literally, to defend their right to say it. It's delicate because as soon as people abandon it, the entire project of western civilization can be destabilized. What we are permitted to say on kbin and every other online platform is the essence of free speech.
What? Says who? This only exists in r/conservative echo chambers. You're free to say what you want but nobody has to listen.
The "prepared to fight to the death to defend it" is in reference to the "free speech" that the constitution protects. We literally had a war about it 300 years ago. You can't have it both ways.
I'm saying Trump it the leader of the Conservative party in America and you are saying he's not a true conservative. It's the definition of "no true Scotsman". Stating it's not doesn't actually change anything.
Trump was a life-long Democrat until he switched parties. He's not a Christian. His personality could hardly be described as "conservative" by anyone. Trump may win the GOP primary again, just because Democrats control the mass media, but he does not represent the voice of conservative Americans, even if we end up voting for him in the general election. He's a political anomaly, which is why he has a fanbase, but is also why he shouldn't be a factor in this conversation.
lol. "He does not represent the voice of conservative Americans. I mean, conservative Americans love him and want to vote for him and boo anybody who wants to run against him, especailly in Republican-party-controlled spaces, but that's all liberals' fault, no true conservative likes Trump."
also, weird to focus on religion, but: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024120658/https://religionnews.com/2020/10/23/exclusive-trump-confirmed-a-presbyterian-now-identifies-as-non-denominational-christian/
This is delusional. Fox news is the largest "news" organization in America by a wide margin.
Fox is centrist, but every other mass media outlet is far to the left of them. And Fox publishes whatever gets clicks, including Trump stories.
Fox is only centrist by American conservative standards. The positions they support are considered far-right by most of the developed world outside of the middle-east and china.
Perhaps — I have no idea about the rest of the world — but Fox serves an American audience, so that's the context in which it's appropriate to evaluate it.
As a conservative, when I look at the Fox News website, I typically think all of the following: A) these stories are notably well-balanced compared to the other mass media outlets, B) man, they publish some really stupid articles on this site, C) Why do the articles all have huge videos that are completely unrelated to the articles on top of them?, and D) Yikes, the comment section sure does feature some openly racist remarks sometimes.
But outside of Fox, in the US, there are generally two types of news organizations: large-and-leftist and tiny-and-conservative.
I believe it. What I'm saying is that from your insular experience you wouldn't realize that what you consider "centrist" is actually "far-right".
In reality the largest news organization in America is "far-right" with some smaller extremist-right orgs. What you consider "leftist" is actually "centrist" by developed-nation standards. You can go on calling it what ever you like but it has no basis in reality outside of conservative echo chambers.
That can be true or false. I neither know nor care. I'm sorry to be dismissive, and I don't mean to be rude. You're just trying to make a point that seems irrelevant to me. I'm sure it's meaningful to you, but it's not to me.
No, I get it. You are not going to let facts get in the way of your conclusions. You don't sound dismissive you seem uninformed. That's fine and on brand with the positions you've shared.
I understand that some citizens of various other countries see themselves as part of an interconnected global world, where countries are fungible. And to be fair, a few Americans think that too. But in reality the US is far removed from all other countries, and we're blessed with being the greatest country possible, so a foreign perspective really doesn't impact us at all.
So you're right to say I'm uninformed — indeed we all are, somewhat, depending on the holes in our areas of focus — but you're wrong to say my conclusions are not based on facts. Because my conclusions are entirely factual within the context of the US.
If I'm incorrect outside of that context, well okay, I'll take your word on that. But so? It just seems like such an irrelevant point to make.
By what metric? Name one metric that US is number one in other than defense spending.
You cannot back up a single thing you say; all you offer are personal anecdotes. I guess your point would be that you're not informed enough to know the difference? That doesn't make you correct it makes you ignorant. And that's fine, not everyone can be informed, just don't pretend that you are.
I'm cracking up that you're now downvoting my comments after writing:
Feeling sanctimonious, yet?
Please continue dazzling me with you personal anecdotes from the butt-crack of America.
Ha, it's not fascist to click downvote. You wrote something I believed to be false, so I downvoted. If it really hurts your feelings I can take it back. I do enjoy mutually respectful debate. I don't think a downvote is all that disrespectful, and I also don't think we're having much of a debate. (What's the topic exactly?)
By a ton of metrics, but a few that come to mind off the top of my head:
You didn't list a single thing America is #1 in. Is there a single thing other than defense spending?
All of your "metrics" are either not true or not metrics. That is amazing.
This interaction is done. You're obviously not a fan of the US, and if you don't live here anyway then you have every right not to be. It's no skin off my back. I wish you all the best. See ya around.
I'm just asking for facts not biased nationalism. I'm not sure what I expected.
Here's the thing: I'm tired and headed to sleep. This has been a long and meandering conversation full of disagreements, with no real point. It's a bit exhausting. You're asking me about a topic that has been written about extensively in multiple books and articles. You can look up "American Exceptionalism" if you really want researched facts with academic citations. I was just giving you my honest thoughts, as a rather sleepy individual. I'm sorry those thoughts weren't up to snuff for you.
My point was that America is not number one in anything. It doesn't mean it's a bad place to live it's just delusional to think it's the "greatest" by any measurable metric. Research "nationalism" if you need more information.
I know what nationalism is, thank you. I also know what American Exceptionalism is, and it's a well established doctrine, well rooted in fact. I might have failed to explain it well, or maybe you just didn't want to question your preconceived beliefs. Either way, American Exceptionalism is the real deal, and no amount of bickering over it could change my mind. Thank you, though, for sharing your perspective with me.
I'm sure you can list one thing America is number one at? Its such a firm belief you hold you must know one thing, right?
Or is your opinion just entirely based on emotion?
It's a confluence of many factors, some of which I already listed, and instead of accepting and seeking knowledge, you rejected my explanation. I'm done replying to you here. Take care.
Your position is that America is "the greatest country possible" so the political spectrum used by the rest of the developed world is not relevant to us. We went through this exercise to illustrate that America actually doesn't lead the world in anything except defense spending and mass shootings.
So to bring it back full-circle, before you sent us down a tangent about your nationalism-
The largest news organization in America, Fox News, is far-right. What you consider "far-left" is considered centrist to right-leaning in the rest of the developed world. America is not "so great" that we can't consider these classifications because America doesn't actually lead the world in anything other than death.
Lol, this person has to be a troll or completely delusional.
I've never heard anybody argue that fascism means "literally the Italian fascist party" before. Based on your previous comment, it seems that you're unaware—many people consider the Nazis fascists, as well. Particularly, everybody who knows the first thing about fascism.
Well, if he didn't selectively edit reality, he wouldn't be conservative but my money is on "this is how he stays mask on".
He doesn't truly believe anything he's just said. That's why if you check his history, it's littered with examples of Fascist Brand™ nationalism that he's just claimed conservatives don't believe in.
He knows his peers and politicians fit the fascist label better than anyone. That's why self-confessed, swastika-waving fascists support them and more than likely why he supports them.
It took decades to dawn on them, but nobody gives a shit what fascists and neo-nazis think about the way society is run. Their gold standard is a genocide.
And so the alt-right was born. They had the same opinions as neo-nazis, the same key figures as neo-nazis and the same solutions as neo-nazis but they staunchly insisted they weren't neo-nazis.
That plausible deniability earned them a platform they'd previously only dreamed of. Not just social media and it's endless pool of disaffected young men and unmedicated schizophrenics but actual international news networks who hadn't handed a mic to a Nazi since Hitler.
Of course, they couldn't keep it in their pants for long. They triumphantly ripped off their masks at the "Unite The Right", proudly displaying their swastika tattoos, white supremacist chants and domestic terrorism against innocent people deemed "leftist".
Their plausible deniability vanished, as did some of their biggest, violentest, most slur-friendly platforms. So they retreated, regrouped and came back with a new strategy.
They're just "conservatives" now. Still the same neo-nazi opinions, still the same neo-nazi figures, still the same neo-nazi solutions. But if you state the obvious, they'll deny it. They'll try and shame you for saying it. They'll claim over and over again that the alt-right never existed and they're just average conservatives. Maybe even moderates.
Not because they believe it, but because they know that going mask off loses them platforms.
This guy definitely knows it. His tactics aren't just rehearsed, but traceable back to brain-storming sessions held by racists, sexists and extremists where they openly try and figure out how best to "red-pill" vulnerable people like children, the lonely, the stupid and the mentally ill.
If your instance admin can't see that, it's time to find a new instance. That one has cancer and thinks they can stop it metastasizing with polite discussion.