@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."

@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."

@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:

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.

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.

Ahh, that's a great example too. Violence isn't really a discreet term, it means almost anything aggressive. Which also means using it as a legal term is hazardous; a bully being in the same realm of a terrorist seems a bit much for me to leave up in the air.

So ya, I disagree with him just a bit on that and his animal liberation front. And I credit more to general entropy than to flat out planning of our oppression, but I could be wrong.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like this, though, I still would call blowing up something a violent crime. Haven't really examined if I think violence is something that can only be done against people, not property. Knocking down mailboxes with a bat could be a good counter argument to that, though. Perhaps what I mean by violent is the result not only the actual result, but the potential result, and it is easier to get hit with a bomb incidentally, and it isn't so hard to hit someone you don't mean to with a bat. Or like that Myth-busters cannon that went off, it was violent to be sure, but wasn't done out of animosity. Perhaps what I mean by violence is a word better used as carnage.

QFT. Ask any abused wife if actual damage needs to occur for violence to be perpetrated. Threat of violence is still a violent act. Blowing up a Hummer conveys a threat against the owner by it's very nature.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Like this, though, I still would call blowing up something a violent crime. Haven't really examined if I think violence is something that can only be done against people, not property. Knocking down mailboxes with a bat could be a good counter argument to that, though. Perhaps what I mean by violent is the result not only the actual result, but the potential result, and it is easier to get hit with a bomb incidentally, and it isn't so hard to hit someone you don't mean to with a bat. Or like that Myth-busters cannon that went off, it was violent to be sure, but wasn't done out of animosity. Perhaps what I mean by violence is a word better used as carnage.


QFT. Ask any abused wife if actual damage needs to occur for violence to be perpetrated. Threat of violence is still a violent act. Blowing up a Hummer conveys a threat against the owner by it's very nature.

thank you for the quality!
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Watched it in one sitting.
*quality

>> ^Payback:

The Holocaust = Problem Reaction Solution.


the hegelian dialectic.talk about a vile tool but effective.

militarized culture getting her fix .. fuck yeah..

I went there last night, it was amazing. Occupy Oakland doubled and I saw many friends from my hometown of SF there in solidarity. Everyone was pretty jovial for having been brutalized by militarization the previous night. The cops did not show up but raided Occupy SF... which is not much of a story since Occupy SF seems to be non existent. Later on that night the guy with the PA announced they were going to SF, which I thought to be a bad move but it ended up turning into a break away march and hundreds of people started marching down Broadway a major street in Oakland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOMRom8DLvY&feature=related > General Assembly in reoccupied park
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywmfHKCwKoQ > illegal breakaway march

>> ^Fletch:

I didn't need any more reasons to hate cops. They are nothing but militarized, above-the-law goons nowadays. They are under-trained, shoot/tase/spray-first, hyper-testosteroned thugs whose primary purpose is to raise revenue for the city/county/state they work for. Police forces everywhere are rife with power-trip blowhards who simply can't function without a daily dose of "yes sir", "no sir", "anything you say sir". People who desire to become cops are often the very people who shouldn't be allowed to become cops because their reasons have little to do with "public service", and more to do with desiring power and longing for the respect they couldn't earn as a civilian.
Remember when a college degree was required to become a cop? They'll take anybody nowadays, as long as they can write tickets. They are nothing but paid witnesses, and absolutely worthless when it comes to "protect and serve".
O'Donnell is spot on.

(good book, btw)



"If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself."

Some police forces now do extensive psychological profiling before hiring to eliminate exactly this kind of person. The problem is that almost everyone starts out normal, but after a few years on the job, they see the world differently. They become psychologically damaged by the job. They divide the world into "Police" and "others", and cease to see people as people, but as criminals. This division creates all sorts of hostility and misunderstanding, which combined with their incredible legal powers, results again and again in what you see here. If police could just admit that it's a severely traumatic job psychologically and accept help, the world would be a much better place.>> ^Fletch:

I didn't need any more reasons to hate cops. They are nothing but militarized, above-the-law goons nowadays. They are under-trained, shoot/tase/spray-first, hyper-testosteroned thugs whose primary purpose is to raise revenue for the city/county/state they work for. Police forces everywhere are rife with power-trip blowhards who simply can't function without a daily dose of "yes sir", "no sir", "anything you say sir". People who desire to become cops are often the very people who shouldn't be allowed to become cops because their reasons have little to do with "public service", and more to do with desiring power and longing for the respect they couldn't earn as a civilian.
Remember when a college degree was required to become a cop? They'll take anybody nowadays, as long as they can write tickets. They are nothing but paid witnesses, and absolutely worthless when it comes to "protect and serve".
O'Donnell is spot on.

(good book, btw)

I didn't need any more reasons to hate cops. They are nothing but militarized, above-the-law goons nowadays. They are under-trained, shoot/tase/spray-first, hyper-testosteroned thugs whose primary purpose is to raise revenue for the city/county/state they work for. Police forces everywhere are rife with power-trip blowhards who simply can't function without a daily dose of "yes sir", "no sir", "anything you say sir". People who desire to become cops are often the very people who shouldn't be allowed to become cops because their reasons have little to do with "public service", and more to do with desiring power and longing for the respect they couldn't earn as a civilian.

Remember when a college degree was required to become a cop? They'll take anybody nowadays, as long as they can write tickets. They are nothing but paid witnesses, and absolutely worthless when it comes to "protect and serve".

O'Donnell is spot on.

(good book, btw)

You like the piechart because you already agree with the author. I wish people would stop letting others do math for them. I can claim that defense is 100% of federal spending by making up some reason that all the other programs "don't count". And why does it even matter? Look at the dollar amount. We have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Your exceedingly inclusive anti-war activist source says we spend 1.449 trillion on "defense." But even if we fire every soldier, cancel every pension, and shut down the VA, we're still hosed. All the defense contractors will stop paying taxes, and all the veterans will just collect medicare/medicaid.

I am totally sick of the the whole attitude of "We can fix our finances by cutting my pet peeve." It goes right up there with "I pay plenty of tax, someone else should be paying more," and "I should get $20 and hour plus benefits with my GED." McCain's strategist was right: we're a country of whiners.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.