Context? What's this from?

He's a lefty AND writes upside down?

>> ^therealblankman:

Context? What's this from?
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00046988.html

A publicity stunt staged to boost the popularity of a fascist and keep him in power.

>> ^gorillaman:

...fascist...


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fascist (noun): Politician from a party not of one's personal affiliation.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^gorillaman:
...fascist...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


What else should we call a militaristic nationalist who routinely tramples the freedoms of both his citizens and those of other countries?

Why do you think Obama goes on TV to make a joke about Betty White? The same reason he does everything else - to maintain his power over us.

Apply some critical thinking when viewing propaganda pieces like this, please.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^therealblankman:
>> ^gorillaman:
...fascist...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What else should we call a militaristic nationalist who routinely tramples the freedoms of both his citizens and those of other countries?
Why do you think Obama goes on TV to make a joke about Betty White? The same reason he does everything else - to maintain his power over us.
Apply some critical thinking when viewing propaganda pieces like this, please.


I'll take two things away from your response here. First, I respectfully submit that you are still misusing the term "fascist". Perhaps you may at some point look up the term in a dictionary so as to be able to use it correctly in future. Now you may disagree with Obama and think he is terrible at the job for which he has been elected, and that is fair enough. However a "fascist" he is not. I'm sure you can come up with some proper bad names to call him.

Secondly, I am well aware that your missive to me to "Apply some critical thinking..." is your way of saying "Yer Stoopid" as a clever retort to my post. I will forgo a response in this context, but will note it going forward.

All the best to you.

This is to everyone, I don't want to go back and forth with blankman and it was probably a mistake to quote him:

"Apply some critical thinking when..." is meant candidly. These are occasions when you should be particularly critical. Any time a political figure does something in public they are trying to manipulate you, and an ancient and effective way to do that is to make you laugh. Be on your guard.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'president, barack, obama, betty white, birthday, message, 90 years old' to 'president, barack obama, betty white, birthday, message, 90 years old' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^gorillaman:

A publicity stunt staged to boost the popularity of a fascist and keep him in power.


You may not like him as a president, but you might wanna' criticize him more intelligently 'round these parts, or you'll be downvoted fascist than a speeding bullet!

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Yes, politicians use the media to manipulate the public. Was that really your whole point?

BTW, alcohol makes you drunk! Jack Daniels is a fascist!>> ^gorillaman:

This is to everyone, I don't want to go back and forth with blankman and it was probably a mistake to quote him:
"Apply some critical thinking when..." is meant candidly. These are occasions when you should be particularly critical. Any time a political figure does something in public they are trying to manipulate you, and an ancient and effective way to do that is to make you laugh. Be on your guard.

>> ^messenger:

Yes, politicians use the media to manipulate the public. Was that really your whole point?
BTW, alcohol makes you drunk! Jack Daniels is a fascist!

Obama is a fascist, a war criminal and an enemy of all humanity. The reason everyone who meets him doesn't immediately explode into murderous, unrestrainable fury is because he's charming and uses shit like this to get into their hearts.

Look there is a thing: http://www.fascismusa.com/

Now everybody looks a bit fascy in my eyes.

>> ^gorillaman:

This is to everyone, I don't want to go back and forth with blankman and it was probably a mistake to quote him:
"Apply some critical thinking when..." is meant candidly. These are occasions when you should be particularly critical. Any time a political figure does something in public they are trying to manipulate you, and an ancient and effective way to do that is to make you laugh. Be on your guard.


Or, he could be wishing a nice old lady a happy birthday. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes that thing on your head is a tinfoil hat.

@gorillaman

Obama is a fascist, a war criminal and an enemy of all humanity. The reason everyone who meets him doesn't immediately explode into murderous, unrestrainable fury is because he's charming and uses shit like this to get into their hearts.

Words have meaning. The word "fascist" doesn't apply to Obama. Hyperbole aside, how does this make him different from any other US president? It's a long line back to the last one who didn't commit war crimes while in office. Is this the first time you've noticed? Do you have a point yet?

I challenge anyone to write an accurate definition of fascism that doesn't apply to Obama or the government he heads.

@messenger has an extraordinary technique of agreeing with all my points while claiming I'm making none.

"Hyperbole aside, how does this make him different from any other US president?"

Now you're getting it.

"I'm not going to define my words - you define them, so I can say that's what Obama is".

<pokes out tongue, runs off into playground>

You know, despite the best of intentions, sometimes attempting to rationalise with someone is just a waste of time.

>> ^gorillaman:

I challenge anyone to write an accurate definition of fascism that doesn't apply to Obama or the government he heads.
@messenger has an extraordinary technique of agreeing with all my points while claiming I'm making none.
"Hyperbole aside, how does this make him different from any other US president?"
Now you're getting it.


I think at this point the onus rests on you to prove your thesis to others, rather than the opposite.

It's funny how this word that apparently everyone but me is able to apply accurately suddenly becomes so elusive when it's time for you to spit out a definition. Historically it has been difficult; but so many experts have weighed in here, thirty of them so far echoing Inigo Montoya, that together you ought to have a pretty solid consensus.

But you don't.

Well, I use two definitions of fascism. Both equally valid, both describe Obama.

My broad definition of fascism is anything that restricts freedom for a bullshit reason. You guys might not like that one.

My narrow definition of fascism is any political movement characterised by most or all of the following: nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, militarism, and stupidity. Obama's regime is five out of five by that measure.

Narrower definitions exist - they're not useful to anybody but historians.

I believe fascists should be killed. I want all of you to believe it too.

>> ^gorillaman:

It's funny how this word that apparently everyone but me is able to apply accurately suddenly becomes so elusive when it's time for you to spit out a definition. Historically it has been difficult; but so many experts have weighed in here, thirty of them so far echoing Inigo Montoya, that together you ought to have a pretty solid consensus.
But you don't.
Well, I use two definitions of fascism. Both equally valid, both describe Obama.
My broad definition of fascism is anything that restricts freedom for a bullshit reason. You guys might not like that one.
My narrow definition of fascism is any political movement characterised by most or all of the following: nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, militarism, and stupidity. Obama's regime is five out of five by that measure.
Narrower definitions exist - they're not useful to anybody but historians.
I believe fascists should be killed. I want all of you to believe it too.


How about instead we go down the (admittedly controversial) route of using a dictionary to define fascism, as opposed to your "anyone who disagrees me" definition. Here, I'll even look it up for you.

"Fascism : noun
1: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control Now, if you truly believe that Obama satisfies those requirements, you're either a) an idiot or b) suffering from a severe case of first world problems.

Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

Shut up, ChaosEngine, you fascist!

>> ^ChaosEngine:
How about instead we go down the (admittedly controversial) route of using a dictionary to define fascism, as opposed to your "anyone who disagrees me" definition.

Because dictionaries suck at defining political concepts, and anyone who would do something like post an entry from Webster's in a discussion like this one would just be embarrassing themselves.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
How about instead we go down the (admittedly controversial) route of using a dictionary to define fascism, as opposed to your "anyone who disagrees me" definition.
Because dictionaries suck at defining political concepts, and anyone who would do something like post an entry from Webster's in a discussion like this one would just be embarrassing themselves.


You got me. Here I am trying to use rationale to talk to an idiot. I actually am kinda embarrassed.

Yeah, we need more accurate definitions, like 'people who do stupid shit for, like, bullshit reasons'.

Serenity now.

Well I, for one, am impressed by the level of scholarship in these comments.

Belated happy birthday, Betty White!

*parody

Adding video to channels (Parody) - requested by ant.

Stop calling that communist narcissist a fascist!

Man it's just a troll feeding frenzy in here... A veritable buffet

Several people have already risen to your challenge to define fascism. Googling it reveals many dictionary and encyclopaedic definitions (unless you've got a thing against truthiness). None bear any resemblance to Obama. Your move.

I agree with what you're saying and I'm trying to show that you're not telling us anything the average adult doesn't already know about American presidents. It's like telling everyone that alcohol gets you drunk. If you did, someone would probably say, "Yes, and what's your point?" Get it now?>> ^gorillaman:

I challenge anyone to write an accurate definition of fascism that doesn't apply to Obama or the government he heads.
@messenger has an extraordinary technique of agreeing with all my points while claiming I'm making none.
"Hyperbole aside, how does this make him different from any other US president?"
Now you're getting it.

>> ^gorillaman:
I believe fascists should be killed. I want all of you to believe it too.


You don't notice the irony of this?

You sound like you should be clicking on the sarcasm button. What the hell's wrong (or embarrassing) about using a dictionary to, gasp, get a definition?

>> ^kymbos:

Yeah, we need more accurate definitions, like 'people who do stupid shit for, like, bullshit reasons'.
Serenity now.


Gorillamanists (noun)
1) People doing stupid shit for, like, bullshit reasons.

>> ^messenger:

Several people have already risen to your challenge to define fascism. Googling it reveals many dictionary and encyclopaedic definitions (unless you've got a thing against truthiness). None bear any resemblance to Obama. Your move.
I agree with what you're saying and I'm trying to show that you're not telling us anything the average adult doesn't already know about American presidents. It's like telling everyone that alcohol gets you drunk. If you did, someone would probably say, "Yes, and what's your point?" Get it now?

Who here has been able to define their terms? Apart from one moron who copy-pasted the dictionary, shit which would not even fly in grade school, only me. So, my work must frame the discussion.

My narrow definition, which is a distillation of the work of experts, is both more elegant and more comprehensive than any you'll find in a dictionary. However, even those blunt instruments, except where they make amateur mistakes like placing dictatorship as an essential tenet of fascist ideology, closely describe modern US political conditions. Where do you see a deviation?

These observations are important. The POTUS is an immensely influential and historically significant individual. His supporters have to be confronted with the character of the man they're empowering.

I'm not here to tell you alcohol gets you drunk. I'm here to tell you to stop drinking while operating heavy machinery.

I'm interested if Gorillaman thinks that George W. Bush was a fascist as well.

In fact, by your definition GM every American president has been fascist even before fascism existed.

Without common referents language fails to be useful. You can be arguing about something based upon significant differences in definition without knowing it. So, while GM has failed to address the dictionary definition on the basis that it does not show enough effort I will now present a definition of fascism that is accepted amoung historians and political scientists alike. With this Gorillaman can amend has he sees fit but must acknowledge the consequences of agreeing upon a universalisable definition insofar as they apply to anyone else who is or has been in a position akin to the POTUS.

Fascism.
The Fascist party was formed in Italy in the wake of World War 1. It was an ultra-right radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism (regardless of race in its initial incarnation) and authoritarian leadership. It was characterised by its violent and brutal oppression of opposition parties and voices of dissent and its anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-intellectualism. Nazism is fascistic but not fascist. Franco's Spain was more in line with fascism. It is often debated in academic literature whether it is useful to even use the term fascist outside of the Fascist party of Italy of the interwar period.

There you go Gorillaman. You now have a definition of fascism from a bonafide political science grad student. Now please indicate how this applies to Obama and, out of interest, how it does or does not apply to the last 3 presidents of the U.S.A. or any leader in a liberal-democratic nation.

Edit:
P.S. Dictionary definitions are used very frequently in scholarly writing. Wikipedia is another matter.

@Kofi 's definition is a good and meaningful one, but of the type I already said was too narrow to be useful to anyone but historians.

Stripping away historical context, which is ultimately trivia; the negations, which define what fascism was reacting against rather than what it actually is; mere observations about the behaviour of fascist states in practice - suppression of dissent is inevitable in any authoritarian and particularly collectivist society, and not unique to fascism or in any way one of its core ideals; its arbitrary and debatable place on the political spectrum; and assuming that it is in fact useful to use the term fascist outside the very limited area of italian political history - you're left with a definition very like mine:

Fascism is a radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism and authoritarian leadership.

This is almost exactly the method I used to arrive at my definition in the first place. So; Nationalism, Collectivism, Authoritarianism (inward aggression). To that I've added Militarism (outward aggression) and Stupidity (we could say anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, but we're avoiding negation and Stupidity is anyway genuinely more relevant - fascists are proudly and unapologetically stupid).

Do we like this definition? I say it applies to Obama, his two predecessors, and all of their contemporary peers.

@gorillaman

My broad definition of fascism is anything that restricts freedom for a bullshit reason. You guys might not like that one.

My narrow definition of fascism is any political movement characterised by most or all of the following: nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, militarism, and stupidity. Obama's regime is five out of five by that measure.

I'm getting the feeling this is your first rodeo.

You cannot define something objective with subjective terms like "stupid". Nobody thinks what they themselves are doing is stupid. If they did, they wouldn't do it. For their own reasons, they think it's the right thing to do. And majority isn't a valid judge of what's stupid and what's not, particularly when the majority voted for it.

Also, what you describe is really tame. I mean, if you blanked out the word "fascism", do you think anyone would come up with that as the word your definitions describe? That makes them very weak definitions. In what context have those definitions ever been applied?

Here's how I believe your thinking goes: "I hate Obama and all POTUSs ever because they are evil and have too much power. I also know that the word 'fascism' generally means something about 'people who are evil because of how they abuse power'. It makes me feel good when I say this word like a swear about the POTUSs, so, I'm going to decide now that the word 'fascism' actually describes everything I hate about the POTUSs without regard for what the word has historically meant."

@gorillaman

My broad definition of fascism is anything that restricts freedom for a bullshit reason. You guys might not like that one.

My narrow definition of fascism is any political movement characterised by most or all of the following: nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, militarism, and stupidity. Obama's regime is five out of five by that measure.

I'm getting the feeling this is your first rodeo.

You cannot define something objective with subjective terms like "stupid". Nobody thinks what they themselves are doing is stupid. If they did, they wouldn't do it. For their own reasons, they think it's the right thing to do. And majority isn't a valid judge of what's stupid and what's not, particularly when the majority voted for the it.

Also, what you describe is really tame. I mean, if you blanked out the word "fascism", do you think anyone would come up with that as the word your definitions describe? That makes them very weak definitions. In what context have those definitions ever been applied?

Here's how I believe your thinking goes: "I hate Obama and all POTUSs ever because they are evil and have too much power. I also know that the word 'fascism' generalmeans something about 'people who are evil because of how they abuse power'. So, I'm going to decide now that the word 'fascism' actually describes everything I hate about the POTUSs without regard for what the word has historically meant."

GM - You appeal to convention to convey a message then reject what that convention is in favour of your own definition.

If you feel so strongly about Obama that you feel the need to co-opt the ill sentiment behind a historical political movement without adhering to the content of that phenomenon then it is futile to try to communicate with you in any meaningful way.

Internal violence directed against dissent and political adversaries is an essential element of fascism. Militarism is ubiquitous throughout developed nations and as such it is a comparative term. Is the USA more militaristic that other nations? Externally it is but internally it is not. The civilian police force maintain law and order. Is it authoritarian? Hardly. The US's fetishisation of liberty makes that near impossible. Social unity? You are way off there.

You need to read your history more in order to understand why things are the way they are and why terminology is the way it is. You can't just use words to convey a meaning without knowing what it will mean to other people.

Requiring the application of historical standards to fascism is like claiming a country that allows women to vote isn't a real democracy. How the athenians did things, or how the italians did things shouldn't matter to us; we live in the real world, not the past.

I can't allow comparative politics. Whether other states are more or less militaristic, more or less authoritarian than the US doesn't concern us. Let's look at what it actually is.

The US is smotheringly authoritarian. Try walking down the street without modestly covering your genitalia, try openly using unapproved drugs. Obama believes the state owns your body chemistry, and has the sole authority to decide how you may or may not alter it. This is one of the most authoritarian principles imaginable.

The US overflows with militaristic sentiment - everywhere there is glorification of the armed forces. Politicians regularly campaign on US military strength. Military culture indoctrinates recruits to believe those who haven't served aren't real citizens, ask them, they'll tell you.

All language is metaphor (this is literally true). I don't have a particular grudge against fascists; it's any authoritarian or tribalist I hate. I'm going to continue to refer to modern political figures as fascists, because the term does fit and because the associations it produces are fitting.

You sir are a solipsistic windbag.

Now seeing as you don't derive your meaning of words from convention, fact or history you can take that to mean what ever you like.

>> ^Kofi:

You sir are a solipsistic windbag.
Now seeing as you don't derive your meaning of words from convention, fact or history you can take that to mean what ever you like.


I assume you mean to say that I have explicitly taken the epistemological position of denying the availability of objective knowledge of other minds or an external reality, in the mode of Gorgias.

Or were you using solipsism in exactly the way you've been telling me I shouldn't use fascism?

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.

I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.

Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.

Anti-realism is not a term that is conventionally applied to language. You were employing a metaphor. That's fine; that's how all language works. There would be no words, and no dictionary to look them up in, if we didn't use metaphor.

This belief that a word can have only one narrow and arbitrary meaning, which its enforcers have memorised and to which they will allow no opposition, is dangerous and stifling to discourse. It's particularly bizarre in the context of this discussion since I'm sure, if we could be bothered to check, we would find many examples in dictionaries and other scholarly instruments of the term 'fascist' applied much more loosely than I've proposed here. It's often used, legitimately, as a simple synonym for 'bully'.

You'll notice that far from insisting on my own, I allow your meaning, and Webster's and mine all together. I only say that mine is better, being a pruned and perfected incarnation of its relatives. If we didn't prefer our own ideas to those of others there would be no point to independent thought at all.

I think you ought to read my posts more carefully and assume, for the sake of scientific inquiry, that I might be as smart as you are.>> ^Kofi:

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.
I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.
Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.