Russia and China UN ambassadors jointly say Value-Based Diplomacy Provokes Division

[Shalcker]

Yeah, they had Nazi battalions in combat....AGAINST FASCISTS THAT INVADED THEM. Bit of self awareness. I mean for fuck sake, Russia is a de-facto Fascist state.

Their crimes were against citizens of their own country as usual, not "Russian invaders".

[Specialka]

It's literally them projecting the counter to their own dishonesty.

Their argument is "it's never fascism, pay no attention to the fascists behind the curtain! Not even Franco or Mussolini were fascists! Fascism is a liberal hoax created to vilify the noble Conservative!"

Because they're dishonest and deflecting, they assume all accusations of fascist leanings must be equally dishonest, because it's just about rhetoric to them, not about facts or truth or any of that.

Eco's 14 points are definitely the best description of ur-fascism I think you'll find. Once you apply them, fascism stops being an invisible fantasy trope and starts being very real and identifiable.

Which, of course, fascists hate.

The other big fake-out, of course, is pretending that democracy or American values are somehow antithetical to fascism, despite fascism emerging directly out of democracies almost exclusively, and being in many respects directly patterned after major components of American culture and law, largely the bits that got eliminated over time like the Jim Crow laws (which were explicitly called out as an inspiration for their own laws by the Nazi Reich).

And unfortunately, the list is non exhaustive. It is only 14 points that most authoritarian states would fit anyway. All fascist states are authoritarian but not all authoritarian states are fascist.

[Endus]

And unfortunately, the list is non exhaustive. It is only 14 points that most authoritarian states would fit anyway. All fascist states are authoritarian but not all authoritarian states are fascist.

If parts of the list fit, you're at least leaning in the direction of fascism.

This "no true fascism" schtick is just deflection. "Why won't someone think of the poor fascists, so upset that they're being correctly identified as fascists!"

[Specialka]

If parts of the list fit, you're at least leaning in the direction of fascism.

This "no true fascism" schtick is just deflection. "Why won't someone think of the poor fascists, so upset that they're being correctly identified as fascists!"

And there is also no 'all authoritarian are fascists' schtick.

[Endus]

And there is also no 'all authoritarian are fascists' schtick.

No one made that claim. Stop deflecting to defend fascists.

[Cthulhu 2020]

But you don't have equal treatment. There is megathread about it right on first page.

Likewise.

Key difference is that most of the people in that thread are criticizing the lack of equal treatment, as opposed to your trying to justify it as necessary and resorting to silly fallacies like whataboutism whenever your country gets criticized for its even worse practices.

Womp womp.

Every single thread you try to play whataboutism, it's funny how the west can criticize their own shit, while you sit over there and pretend your rancid diarrhea smells like roses? You are utterly incapable of admitting anything about the way Russia/China does things is wrong or downright evil.

[Shalcker]

Every single thread you try to play whataboutism, it's funny how the west can criticize their own shit, while you sit over there and pretend your rancid diarrhea smells like roses?

Where is your criticism when you literally repeated right-wing propaganda about "equal treatment" the moment context shifted from your internal "cultural war" to international relations?

You are utterly incapable of admitting anything about the way Russia/China does things is wrong or downright evil.

I'm quite capable of that and done it on some occasions.

Mostly on not doing enough of it to produce results; but sometimes even on doing more then threat warrants (like with Navalny).

[Specialka]

No one made that claim. Stop deflecting to defend fascists.

Now, being careful about details and definition is defending fascists ?

At this rate, call everyone you do not like or not think like you a fascist, you'll get there faster.

[Shalcker]

I mean if you ignore the fact that the reason fascists are divisive is because their political ideology is predicated on the extermination of certain demographics, sure.

You're mixing facists with worst examples of racists (most of which are content with exploiting "lessers" rather then exterminating them); and while there is overlap they are not exactly the same.

Not what bigotry means, sweetheart. It isn't a synonym for intolerance.

"bigotry - obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
Fits like a glove. You say "it's actually reasonable" - but so do fascists.

[Endus]

Now, being careful about details and definition is defending fascists ?

When you're pulling "unless it's from the Fascio valley of Italy, it isn't real Fascism™, it's just Sparkling Authoritarianism", then yeah. You're deflecting from the negatives of their views by trying to focus the debate on a pointless attempt at redefining fascism to your liking, when we've got perfectly functional definitions in play.

At this rate, call everyone you do not like or not think like you a fascist, you'll get there faster.

Literally not something I'm doing, so you're just flinging random crap at this point.

[Specialka]

When you're pulling "unless it's from the Fascio valley of Italy, it isn't real Fascism™, it's just Sparkling Authoritarianism", then yeah. You're deflecting from the negatives of their views by trying to focus the debate on a pointless attempt at redefining fascism to your liking, when we've got perfectly functional definitions in play.



Literally not something I'm doing, so you're just flinging random crap at this point.

That is exactly what you are doing, you are too ashamed to acknowledge it.

And we have a definition of fascism, but that is not one you like you can't sling all those authoritarian in the same basket.

[Shalcker]

I oppose divisiveness. That necessarily means I can't tolerate inherently divisive points of view, because they are directly antagonistic and create the divisions that I oppose. "Opposing divisiveness" is not "accepting all viewpoints". It can't be. It's the so-called "paradox of tolerance". Simply accepting those viewpoints means you are accepting and supporting divisiveness, directly, and that means you are not opposed to that divisiveness in society.

That's literally one of points of fascism (point 4 on usual list). Removing/suppressing divisive points of view so that only one viewpoint remains.

That point happens to be dictatorial control in their case and "anti-racism with greatly expanded racism definition" in your case; but approach stays the same.

"Opposing divisiviness" is not "accepting all viewpoints", but understanding their reasons and motivations and looking for common goals that might move them away from entrenched positions - not rejecting them outright and declaring your own solutions as the only option so that they'll dig in even further.

All you're doing is projecting the blame for issues created by your own point of view onto those who oppose it. It's like a school shooter trying to accuse the security officer for tackling them mid-spree and breaking their arm. You provoked the hostility with an attack, and you don't get to complain when others defend themselves from that attack.

When they respond with disproportionate force you certainly can.

I'll also note pre-emptively that I don't "lump people together" as "regressive, lying, and racist". I point out specific instances of individuals being regressive, being racist, or lying. There is no "lumping" going on. Just individuals being called out for their own stated positions and comments. And the implications thereof, because I'm a thinking human being and thus can draw the connection from Point A to Point B pretty easily.

I haven't seen you approach any serious opposition - even ones largely agreeing with you on other points - as anything else. Like in Rittenhouse thread.

[Endus]

That is exactly what you are doing, you are too ashamed to acknowledge it.

"NO U" is not an argument. It's just deflection.

It's not what I'm doing, and you know it, but this is all you've got.

And we have a definition of fascism, but that is not one you like you can't sling all those authoritarian in the same basket.

I've made no such effort to treat all authoritarians as fascists. You're making that up. While trying to deflect from Eco's definition.

[Specialka]

"NO U" is not an argument. It's just deflection.

It's not what I'm doing, and you know it, but this is all you've got.



I've made no such effort to treat all authoritarians as fascists. You're making that up. While trying to deflect from Eco's definition.

Because there are many definition of fascism and Eco's is not the bible about it ? Just for starter.

And no, all do you is saying people are defending fascists when they just say that not all authoritarian state is fascist. But obviously, you are not saying they are fascist themselves ... Now, you take attention to details while one sentence before you did not care. Talk about a bad faith conversation.

[Endus]

That's literally one of points of fascism (point 4 on usual list). Removing/suppressing divisive points of view so that only one viewpoint remains.

That's not what's happening, here.

1> "Disagreement is treason" is not about divisive points of view.
2> I'm not suppressing/removing shit. I'm just calling it out for being a shitty, bigoted, smooth-brained viewpoint. That's called "criticism".

"Opposing divisiviness" is not "accepting all viewpoints", but understanding their reasons and motivations and looking for common goals that might move them away from entrenched positions - not rejecting them outright and declaring your own solutions as the only option so that they'll dig in even further.

Their reasons are "bigotry". They're bigots. They need someone "lesser" they can heap abuse on, to feel better about their own station.

And I can sure as hell reject that point of view outright. Same way I would cannibals. Or serial killers. There's also no need to convince them to change; marginalizing them so they cannot harm others while their views naturally die out is a perfectly legitimate alternative.

I haven't seen you approach any serious opposition - even ones largely agreeing with you on other points - as anything else. Like in Rittenhouse thread.

Then you haven't paid much attention to my posts, in general. I've made a lot of posts against capitalist theory, and that's got nothing to do with bigotry.

I may respond a lot to correct dishonesty and lies, sure. If someone has a legitimate position that's based on the truth, what else is there to say? I either agree, or I don't and have equally good reasons, and either way, there's little to discuss. So I don't bother.

There's a lot of people lying about basic shit, and a lot of people pushing petty bigotries. When that stops, maybe you'll see a wider variety of responses from me. I'm generally pretty reactive, not proactive, as a poster; I don't start threads and I'm mostly responding to what others have posted. If that's mostly responses to bigotry and lies, well, that's not to do with me, other than that I won't let that stuff pass by without comment.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there are many definition of fascism and Eco's is not the bible about it ? Just for starter.

I haven't seen you link another useful definition. And regardless, you're not making a counterpoint against Eco's definition.

For the record; I prefer Eco's because it has specific characteristics that can be objectively determined, making it a hell of a lot more functional for actual analysis than dictionary blurbs.

And no, all do you is saying people are defending fascists when they just say that not all authoritarian state is fascist. But obviously, you are not saying they are fascist themselves ... Now, you take attention to details while one sentence before you did not care. Talk about a bad faith conversation.

You're defending fascists because you're trying to refute them being labelled as fascist. This isn't complicated.

[Orange Joe]

Because there are many definition of fascism and Eco's is not the bible about it ? Just for starter.

And no, all do you is saying people are defending fascists when they just say that not all authoritarian state is fascist. But obviously, you are not saying they are fascist themselves ... Now, you take attention to details while one sentence before you did not care. Talk about a bad faith conversation.

There are? Can you link 2 definitions of fascism? I mean 2 different definitions not just a different sub definition.

[Specialka]

That's not what's happening, here.

1> "Disagreement is treason" is not about divisive points of view.
2> I'm not suppressing/removing shit. I'm just calling it out for being a shitty, bigoted, smooth-brained viewpoint. That's called "criticism".



Their reasons are "bigotry". They're bigots. They need someone "lesser" they can heap abuse on, to feel better about their own station.

And I can sure as hell reject that point of view outright. Same way I would cannibals. Or serial killers. There's also no need to convince them to change; marginalizing them so they cannot harm others while their views naturally die out is a perfectly legitimate alternative.



Then you haven't paid much attention to my posts, in general. I've made a lot of posts against capitalist theory, and that's got nothing to do with bigotry.

I may respond a lot to correct dishonesty and lies, sure. If someone has a legitimate position that's based on the truth, what else is there to say? I either agree, or I don't and have equally good reasons, and either way, there's little to discuss. So I don't bother.

There's a lot of people lying about basic shit, and a lot of people pushing petty bigotries. When that stops, maybe you'll see a wider variety of responses from me. I'm generally pretty reactive, not proactive, as a poster; I don't start threads and I'm mostly responding to what others have posted. If that's mostly responses to bigotry and lies, well, that's not to do with me, other than that I won't let that stuff pass by without comment.

- - - Updated - - -



I haven't seen you link another useful definition. And regardless, you're not making a counterpoint against Eco's definition.



You're defending fascists because you're trying to refute them being labelled as fascist. This isn't complicated.

Because they aren't fascists ? At least yet.

And I do not need to refute Eco's definition as it was refute in the text itself as it mentions that the list is not complete and those 14 points are not all that define fascism but rather the seed or root for fascism to spread (which is not surprising as fascism is authoritarian by nature).

So in clear, so you would understand, checking all 14 points is not enough for a state to be fascist.

[Endus]

Because they aren't fascists ? At least yet.

"Sparkling authoritarianism!"

It's a sliding scale. Insisting you have to be 14/14 to be "fascist" is just dishonest gamesmanship.

And I do not need to refute Eco's definition as it was refute in the text itself as it mentions that the list is not complete and those 14 points are not all that define fascism but rather the seed or root for fascism to spread (which is not surprising as fascism is authoritarian by nature).

That's not what "refuting" means. You're flailing.

So in clear, so you would understand, checking all 14 points is not enough for a state to be fascist.

Oh, so they have to be 15/14 or 16/14 for you to admit anything is "fascist", then.

Yeah, that's horseshit. You're just making a "no true fascism" argument, to defend fascists from being correctly labelled as such.

[Edge-]

So in clear, so you would understand, checking all 14 points is not enough for a state to be fascist.

So what other definitions of fascism are you using, then? Can we see those so we can cross-reference/compare?

[Mihalik]

Their crimes were against citizens of their own country as usual, not "Russian invaders".

Wait. Are you hinting here that Russia invaded to combat Ukrainian Nazis?

Nice horseshit on the chain of events here.

Russia invaded because the Ukrainian public deposed a Russian puppet dictator and tried to escape the Kremlin's sphere of influence.

Do I really need to constantly remind you how you lied through the entire thing? Dude after your "little green men" stunt you lost every shred of credibility you ever had, and just kept digging since then. Take a hike.