Federalist Admits Fascism; "Stop Calling Us Conservatives"

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Liberals think fascism is anything that opposes progressive policies."

No, fascism is just trying to control people's bodies, trying to control who can marry who, trying to force religious morals on everyone, trying to force class division between the poor and the rich rather than breaking down those barriers, trying to grab power at all costs.

The mere fact that conservatives thought the election was rigged and tried to overthrow the government as it was is simple proof of their fascist tendencies. The fact that so many of these mass shooters are right wing is more proof. Resorting to violence when you're not getting your way? Just way beyond not being moral.

[Endus]

"Liberals think fascism is anything that opposes progressive policies."

No, fascism is just trying to control people's bodies, trying to control who can marry who, trying to force religious morals on everyone, trying to force class division between the poor and the rich rather than breaking down those barriers, trying to grab power at all costs.

The mere fact that conservatives thought the election was rigged and tried to overthrow the government as it was is simple proof of their fascist tendencies. The fact that so many of these mass shooters are right wing is more proof. Resorting to violence when you're not getting your way? Just way beyond not being moral.

Like, I've been pretty clear about using Eco's 14-point description of fascism as my working definition, which sure seems like a reasonable approach and I've never seen anyone argue against it.

https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/...f-fascism.html

That's really not "anything that opposes progressive policies". The whole argument's bad-faith bullshit to whine about accurate labelling of particular views, because the labels are obviously terrible and making it so clear that those views are also terrible is somehow "unfair" to those who hold those views.

Even though they're fucking terrible fascy bullshit, which they can't actually successfully contradict.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Like, I've been pretty clear about using Eco's 14-point description of fascism as my working definition, which sure seems like a reasonable approach and I've never seen anyone argue against it.

https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/...f-fascism.html

That's really not "anything that opposes progressive policies". The whole argument's bad-faith bullshit to whine about accurate labelling of particular views, because the labels are obviously terrible and making it so clear that those views are also terrible is somehow "unfair" to those who hold those views.

Even though they're fucking terrible fascy bullshit, which they can't actually successfully contradict.

If the terms fascist, white supremacists, nazi, etc. didn't have seriously negative connotations these days, I feel like the right would be more open about just admitting it. The fact is, they tick almost every box in the fascist playbook. But they KNOW embracing such a thing has serious negative consequences and repercussions. They want to exist in modern society without being outcast and ostracized. Nick Fuentes is pretty much a classic Nazi. And while he was mostly small and irrelevant before not too long ago, he's starting to gain some serious traction when it comes to an audience. Why? I wonder.


That's the thing, they deny the whole package because they know the label on the package is toxic. But they definitely want everything that's inside that package. When such things come up as separate line items they're always ready to endorse it fully.

[Dontrike]

Pretty obvious projecting. Multiple people in this forum are engaged in obvious fascist, theocrat, bigot smears … and they wish that the people who noticed were themselves doing the same thing from the other direction.

You used a whole bunch of those words wrong. It's astounding how you thought any of that was correct. Wow.....

This screams of "No U" combined with "don't look up facts and call my "proper conservatives" names while I can't describe what we are because it sounds exactly like the names you called us."

Nope. You’re just lowering your standards of evidence to match what you feel is true in your heart. Just like the equivalent rabble-rousing culture warriors were doing in the 90s with Clinton and 00s with Obama to label them with every negative term in the book.

Except with Obama they were creating conspiracy theories because they didn't like black people, while we are calling you for what you are because there's actual fucking evidence of "proper conservatives" being fascist loving racists.

The best idea would be to drop the dumb labeling games. But I don’t see that happening any time soon. It has to play itself out. But to take your phrase, was Baby Midnight Bomber’s first words “Mommy, there’s conservative fascists under my bed again, make them stop?”

"Stop calling "proper conservatives" names!" She says while calling "the radical left" names every third post.

[Slant]

Pretty obvious projecting. Multiple people in this forum are engaged in obvious fascist, theocrat, bigot smears … and they wish that the people who noticed were themselves doing the same thing from the other direction.

Nope. You’re just lowering your standards of evidence to match what you feel is true in your heart. Just like the equivalent rabble-rousing culture warriors were doing in the 90s with Clinton and 00s with Obama to label them with every negative term in the book.

The best idea would be to drop the dumb labeling games. But I don’t see that happening any time soon. It has to play itself out. But to take your phrase, was Baby Midnight Bomber’s first words “Mommy, there’s conservative fascists under my bed again, make them stop?”

Of course it won't stop, since you keep doing it. Do people like you ever read their own posts just for funsies and realise "Holy shit, I should probably rephrase that. I can't manage to be consistent across only three paragraphs"?

Probably not, much more fun to spew your vomit into an incoherent rambling post and then feel all righteous and shit...

[tehdang]

"The left says I can't kill the gays and Jews anymore or call for their extermination without getting fired from my job and banned on social media. The left are so fascist. "

That's you buddy.

The article quoted at the beginning would've been a much more interesting article if it detailed a break with conservatism for wanting to kill the gays and Jews.

Of course it won't stop, since you keep doing it. Do people like you ever read their own posts just for funsies and realise "Holy shit, I should probably rephrase that. I can't manage to be consistent across only three paragraphs"?

Probably not, much more fun to spew your vomit into an incoherent rambling post and then feel all righteous and shit...

Since I keep responding to such posts, perhaps.

But let's see what you're trying to point out. You may have read statements from this thread like "Republicans do want a theocracy, just like Iran" and "trying to deny this hate is not tied to the mainstream conservative movement [is impossible]." The thread title is "Federalist Admits Fascism." I think these are dumb labels and destructive to political discourse. You wish to say that their use of these labels, and my opinion about their use, are one and the same. I can't call for an end to them without speaking on what I wish would stop, therefore I'm perpetuating their use? Is that your point?

You quoted my response to a different poster who alleged I was previously guilty of the same smears they use now. Do you understand his attempt to allege previous hypocrisy?

I did respond to your post, if you're interested in commenting on that instead of what I said to others.

[Endus]

You may have read statements from this thread like "Republicans do want a theocracy, just like Iran" and "trying to deny this hate is not tied to the mainstream conservative movement [is impossible]." The thread title is "Federalist Admits Fascism." I think these are dumb labels and destructive to political discourse. You wish to say that their use of these labels, and my opinion about their use, are one and the same. I can't call for an end to them without speaking on what I wish would stop, therefore I'm perpetuating their use? Is that your point?

What's "destructive to political discourse" is demanding that accurate labelling of political views be banned/curtailed because some labels clearly identify political views that are well-understood to be destructive or harmful to society. By removing such labels, you're essentially trying to engage in a version of Newspeak; if you can't say a thing, you can't effectively think the thing, because you lack the words to describe it. So opposition to such labels isn't about protecting "political discourse", at all, it's entirely about protecting fascism and bigotry from pushback by trying to eliminate the capacity to accurately identify it when it occurs.

And that's over and above the toxicity to political discourse that such views inherently represent. You keep protesting that anyone be ever described by such terms, no matter how accurate those labels are, rather than contesting whether such labels are accurate in their specific application.

[Slant]

The article quoted at the beginning would've been a much more interesting article if it detailed a break with conservatism for wanting to kill the gays and Jews.

Since I keep responding to such posts, perhaps.

But let's see what you're trying to point out. You may have read statements from this thread like "Republicans do want a theocracy, just like Iran" and "trying to deny this hate is not tied to the mainstream conservative movement [is impossible]." The thread title is "Federalist Admits Fascism." I think these are dumb labels and destructive to political discourse. You wish to say that their use of these labels, and my opinion about their use, are one and the same. I can't call for an end to them without speaking on what I wish would stop, therefore I'm perpetuating their use? Is that your point?

You quoted my response to a different poster who alleged I was previously guilty of the same smears they use now. Do you understand his attempt to allege previous hypocrisy?

I did respond to your post, if you're interested in commenting on that instead of what I said to others.

My point is, if you want to have a discussion about the behaviour of political parties while at the same time not using labels at all, you will have a very tedious conversation with yourself, because nobody else is going to read through that. Labels, just like nouns, have inherent meaning to skip past me explaining to you everytime what I'm talking about.

What is valid criticism is not understanding what labels mean. Just like nouns, they demand that we're on common ground and understand what those labels mean. Fascism in particular is a weird one in that many people use it without actually understanding it. They use it as a sort of synonym for "Nazi". A sort of nicer way of saying someone's a Nazi. That is incorrect.

And as you demonstrated yourself, you can't escape responding to other people using labels by using the same labels yourself. Congratulations, you have discoverd what a conversation looks like. Your only job right now is to properly understand those labels and if you don't like the use of particular labels, find out why you don't like it and see if maybe there's a justification to call an apple an apple. Hint: It's probably not an orange!

- - - Updated - - -

What's "destructive to political discourse" is demanding that accurate labelling of political views be banned/curtailed because some labels clearly identify political views that are well-understood to be destructive or harmful to society. By removing such labels, you're essentially trying to engage in a version of Newspeak; if you can't say a thing, you can't effectively think the thing, because you lack the words to describe it. So opposition to such labels isn't about protecting "political discourse", at all, it's entirely about protecting fascism and bigotry from pushback by trying to eliminate the capacity to accurately identify it when it occurs.

And that's over and above the toxicity to political discourse that such views inherently represent. You keep protesting that anyone be ever described by such terms, no matter how accurate those labels are, rather than contesting whether such labels are accurate in their specific application.

And, to the surprise of literally nobody, this. So much this.

[Paranoid Android]

Official House Judiciary GOP had this up through Kanye's antisemitic rant until today of Alex Jones interview

But please don't tell me that this is fringe Republicans.

[Mekh]

Official House Judiciary GOP had this up through Kanye's antisemitic rant until today of Alex Jones interview

But please don't tell me that this is fringe Republicans.

How dare you insinuate the Official House Judiciary GOP has anything to do with Mainstream Conservativism. I am appalled on @tehdang 's behalf!

[Edge-]

How dare you insinuate the Official House Judiciary GOP has anything to do with Mainstream Conservativism. I am appalled on @tehdang 's behalf!

Every day we find out that more and more elected Republican officials and major Republican groups aren't actually representative of the Republican party.

[Cthulhu 2020]

@tehdang can argue up and down all day that he personally doesn't believe the same things as these people. The reality is that the mainline ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS are doing borderline fascist stuff, and say outright fascist things. What really matters in this discourse is how your elected officials act. Not what you "believe" the core conservative movement is about. Actions mean far more than words.

[Edge-]

@tehdang can argue up and down all day that he personally doesn't believe the same things as these people. The reality is that the mainline ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS are doing borderline fascist stuff, and say outright fascist things. What really matters in this discourse is how your elected officials act. Not what you "believe" the core conservative movement is about. Actions mean far more than words.

Kanye. Elon. Trump.

[Endus]

@tehdang can argue up and down all day that he personally doesn't believe the same things as these people. The reality is that the mainline ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS are doing borderline fascist stuff, and say outright fascist things. What really matters in this discourse is how your elected officials act. Not what you "believe" the core conservative movement is about. Actions mean far more than words.

Also, if they really violate your core principles, stop voting for and supporting them and join the voices shouting them down.

If you're okay with fascism or bigotry because it's on your political "side", you're a fascist and/or bigot yourself. There is no middle ground to that equation. Indifference is allegiance.

Like, I'll freely point out that Biden's "pro-labor" claims are pretty obviously just absolute horseshit in the aftermath of the railroad strikes. He couldn't sided with the workers in that and forced their employers to give them what they were asking for, which wasn't remotely out of line. Instead, he sided with the railroads against the workers. It was the same legislative complexity regardless of which side he picked, and he sided with the capitalist corporations over the workers. "Pro-labor" my fuckin' ass.

That's how criticism and having principles works. If you swallow your criticism because they're on "your side", you don't have principles or convictions. You're just a political opportunist who twists whichever way the wind blows.

[tehdang]

My point is, if you want to have a discussion about the behaviour of political parties while at the same time not using labels at all, you will have a very tedious conversation with yourself, because nobody else is going to read through that. Labels, just like nouns, have inherent meaning to skip past me explaining to you everytime what I'm talking about.

What is valid criticism is not understanding what labels mean. Just like nouns, they demand that we're on common ground and understand what those labels mean. Fascism in particular is a weird one in that many people use it without actually understanding it. They use it as a sort of synonym for "Nazi". A sort of nicer way of saying someone's a Nazi. That is incorrect.

And as you demonstrated yourself, you can't escape responding to other people using labels by using the same labels yourself. Congratulations, you have discoverd what a conversation looks like. Your only job right now is to properly understand those labels and if you don't like the use of particular labels, find out why you don't like it and see if maybe there's a justification to call an apple an apple. Hint: It's probably not an orange!

I grow tired at the use of the maximum derogatory ones in this forum. Taking fascist as a sort of polite way of saying 'Nazi,' I see it used to describe generic political opposition. When it's social or cultural policy, and posters believe it to be rooted in some religious or culturally-non-progressive ideology, it's theocracy. And I've already spent enough words describing how the "hate" or "bigotry" label intersects forum rules, but is also used as a catch-all term in gender ideology and political topics involving education and law. I don't mean to attack the more tame, negative labels that have been fixtures of normal political discourse for decades, but the tendency to jump to the gutter instantly.

How dare you insinuate the Official House Judiciary GOP has anything to do with Mainstream Conservativism. I am appalled on @tehdang 's behalf!

The tweet did not age well, and was deleted. It's a flaw in right-of-center politicians in this country. They crave the same kind of celebrity endorsements that the left enjoys. That has all kinds of downsides, as seen here.

@tehdang can argue up and down all day that he personally doesn't believe the same things as these people. The reality is that the mainline ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS are doing borderline fascist stuff, and say outright fascist things. What really matters in this discourse is how your elected officials act. Not what you "believe" the core conservative movement is about. Actions mean far more than words.

I don't object to saying "ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS" because that does include figures such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Matt Gaetz. Their influence has waned after so many Trump-endorsed and crazy candidates that were looking to join their ranks lost in the 2022 midterm elections.

[Edge-]

The tweet did not age well, and was deleted. It's a flaw in right-of-center politicians in this country. They crave the same kind of celebrity endorsements that the left enjoys. That has all kinds of downsides, as seen here.

The way you've managed to somehow blame "the left" for this in a roundout way is honestly, really impressive. I'm not shitposting here or being snarky, this is pretty masterful redirection on your part. I just wish it was towards something positive or remotely reflective of reality.

Their influence has waned after so many Trump-endorsed and crazy candidates that were looking to join their ranks lost in the 2022 midterm elections.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...03d8800c21bfa3

So little influence and such fringe that the notable and much-desired positions of standing behind the Republican House leader and likely Speaker of the House shortly before the midterms when he announced their agenda. (Yes, these things and optics like this matter, a lot)

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/14/mar...carthy-speaker

Oh yeah, and she's angling for notable Committee positions by, as the de-facto leader of the Treason Caucus, supporting his Speaker bid that was in jeopardy in part to said Treason Caucus. You know, positions of significant power and influence?

You think McCarthy is gonna take her vote and then drop her like a hot coal, knowing that she has absolutely no qualms about gumming up the works of normal order and operations because she's petty as fuck and gives no fucks about anyone other than herself?

[Endus]

I grow tired at the use of the maximum derogatory ones in this forum. Taking fascist as a sort of polite way of saying 'Nazi,' I see it used to describe generic political opposition.

Not by most of us, you don't. That's a dishonest framing.

When it's social or cultural policy, and posters believe it to be rooted in some religious or culturally-non-progressive ideology, it's theocracy.

If you're trying to have your religious rules enforced on society through force of law, even on nonbelievers, that's "theocracy". I literally do not care how devoutly you believe your religious rules to be "right", they have no business being applied to anyone outside your faith group. Trying to force anti-abortion positions based on your religious views is not functionally different from female genital mutilation or forcing women to wear a burqa outside the home. Same infliction of harmful religious views on an entire populace, regardless of their beliefs, denying them religious freedoms.

And I've already spent enough words describing how the "hate" or "bigotry" label intersects forum rules, but is also used as a catch-all term in gender ideology and political topics involving education and law.

That's because the arguments you want to present on those issues are either hate or bigotry. It isn't a "catch-all", it's very specifically used against the views in question, because of what they fundamentally are. If you oppose marriage equality, you're a homophobe and your position is entirely predicated on malicious hate. Same for opposing education about LGBT identities to schoolchildren. Or denying gender-confirming healthcare to trans people, especially trans kids. All those positions are explicitly bigoted, and based on nothing but hate.

[Cthulhu 2020]

McCarthy knows he's going to have to bend over and take the alt-right's ass fucking if he wants their votes. That's the most despicable part about this. He COULD stand up to them, but that in turn would tear a divide in the Republican party. Republicans would rather kowtow to the alt right just to ensure they have their vote than stand up to them.

[tehdang]

The way you've managed to somehow blame "the left" for this in a roundout way is honestly, really impressive. I'm not shitposting here or being snarky, this is pretty masterful redirection on your part. I just wish it was towards something positive or remotely reflective of reality.

It's a fairly straightforward explanation of the error.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...03d8800c21bfa3

So little influence and such fringe that the notable and much-desired positions of standing behind the Republican House leader and likely Speaker of the House shortly before the midterms when he announced their agenda. (Yes, these things and optics like this matter, a lot)

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/14/mar...carthy-speaker

Oh yeah, and she's angling for notable Committee positions by, as the de-facto leader of the Treason Caucus, supporting his Speaker bid that was in jeopardy in part to said Treason Caucus. You know, positions of significant power and influence?

You think McCarthy is gonna take her vote and then drop her like a hot coal, knowing that she has absolutely no qualms about gumming up the works of normal order and operations because she's petty as fuck and gives no fucks about anyone other than herself?

She sat behind the majority leader and warmed up the crowd for Trump. Such centrality, much influence.

She wants committee assignments and is voting for the majority leader in a closely divided House. Yes, thank you for calling my attention to these thrilling developments from MTG.

[Edge-]

It's a fairly straightforward explanation of the error.

Is the alternative of, "Be decent people with decent platforms aimed at helping people, and generally not be assholes." be out of the question? Because really, it's not hard to get people like celebrities to like you. You can be a weird, cooky old guy who nobody has heard of until this past decade but has spent a lifetime in politics, with fringe ideas and a funny accent, while also being very serious about your work, and as long as you're somewhat personable and are actually trying to help people you can be a favorite of a great many celebrities.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is definitely more socially liberal and more overall liberal than the Republican party nowadays, but remains a Republican. He's incredibly popular in celebrity circles and hasn't been shunned by those around him, because he's remained a largely decent person who tries to do good in the world. Sure, he also has cheats on his wife and has kids out of wedlock and all, but what actual former Republican president or Republican Senate candidate running in the Georgia special election next week hasn't cheated on their wife or had children out of wedlock? Oh, and he was a "not a politician" governor too! One who even took the job seriously!

She sat behind the majority leader and warmed up the crowd for Trump. Such centrality, much influence.

Not many second-term House members have that kind of influence. You may want to downplay it, but we both know that optics is key to politics, and who gets to be standing next to important people during important speeches matters.

And yes, she's managing to make inroads with the incoming leader of her party who, while supportive of Trump for the most part, is absolutely at-odds with the rest of her terrorist caucus - whom don't support him (though I imagine she'll whip them in line).

You continue to try to downplay literally everything that is inconvenient to your position of, "Mainstream conservativism hasn't been co-opted by and largely become the MAGA party." despite literally example after example of yes, it very much being the truth. CPAC may have gone to the crazies, but that's because the party has, too.