If they were related, Alaska would be the BIGGEST, MOST LUXURIOUS STATE.

Hmmm...

I don't ever recall seeing Trump and Palin in the same room together.

Yeah, people throw around that word because it has historical meaning, but it's like saying Trump's a Nazi. He is not a Nazi by Nazism's very definition, even though I hear echoes of Hitler's Beer Putsches when he speaks about Islam. He's just a Trumpist.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. SJWs accuse the opposition of being fascists when they're actually the ones who forcibly suppressing opposition or criticism by working as a group to get people fired.

I disagree. I think he fits the definitions. The fact that he based his entry on anti-immigration is a big sign.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/11-ways-donald-trump-fits-defi nition-fascist/

That's a good article. I was actually thinking of Umberto Eco and Fillip Marinetti (and the other futurists) up above. Trump does fit in via appropriation of the word, but it's still by definition an Italian thing, just like Nazism's a German thing. Tenants of FAcism and Nazism of course did spread throughout the world, as does any other ideology, but I think we need a new -ism for someone like Trump, since as a "republican" that makes you like Abraham Lincoln, which Trump is the opposite of.

Yes, when people suffer the consequences of public action and behavior by being called out on it, it's exactly the same thing as fascism.
Jesus, go back to your MRA reddit hugbox, Void. You should be fucking embarrassed for even saying that shit in mixed company you mong.

I hear what you're saying RE: 'tenets of fascism and nazism' and to an extent I agree but I think the label fits him well if you go back to the basic concept of fascism as 'Radical Authoritarian Nationalism'. I mean his rhetoric so far fits that bill entirely.

The irony is that we've been well along toward the "fascist" end of the spectrum for a few decades anyhow. We just call it "neoliberalism" (well, most of the world does, in the US we've been calling it "neoconservativism" but both terms refer to the same thing). Fascism is a largely economic construct, and we've got all of the key features covered.


People tend to think fascism has to look like Orwell but it doesn't.

I think the rampant misuse of the term "fascism" makes it really hard to have any kind of meaningful public discussion of it, kind of like how the blanket use of "racism" to describe bigotry as well as actual racism makes it a lot harder for people to understand, discuss and hopefully improve things in that sphere.

I think it's also due to the word being linked with Hitler and Mussolini. Is Trump anywhere as evil as them? I doubt it, but I believe giving him presidential powers would still be a dangerous thing.

I will agree with Void this far: there are all sorts of perfectly reasonable political stances which a college professor, a middle manager, a scientist cannot dare speak aloud for fear of being taken down by an outraged mob and losing their livelihood.

Example: "I don't think there's a wage gap between women and men any more." I happen not to agree with it, but just imagine what happens to the career of anyone who DARES utter those words where they could be re-tweeted.

And when they do get mobbed down, quite a few poetvers will nod and grin and say they had it coming. After all, the schoolteacher who said those words was WRONG. Those were the WRONG WORDS, the WRONG IDEA. Let them, as Stanley Pain so proudly puts it, "suffer the consequences of public action and behavior by being called out on it".

OZ: video taken from an a blog post here
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2015/11/donald-trump-may-not-be-f ascist-but-he.html

Cliffnotes: He's not really a fascist because he's too much of an opportunist, rather than holding a coherent ideology and he hasn't used political violence. But, he does have a lot in common with fascism, and he's moving the discourse towards where genuine fascists can be taken seriously.

Clips: We're weak, everyone is laughing at us. Overwhelming crisis, narrative of degeneration and rebirth. All our problems are someone else's fault.
Massively exclusionary rhetoric. Our problems are the result of an impure community.
Incitement of mob against dissenter.
Hatred and mockery of the weak. See also his comments on John McCain.

What you are probably looking for is the nexus of populism and nativism, not fascism. Think Father Coughlin or perhaps Huey Long. If and when Don wins the primary, expect that he will pivot like a duck on most if not all of these exaggerated proposals.

They're not losing their livelihood through mindless mob outrage over an innocuous remark, they're just suffering the consequences of public action and behavior by being called out on it!

Holy shit, dude. I think that's exactly the scary attitude and climate we were talking about. What's next, trotting out "It's only censorship when the government does it" ?

"Fascism" has pretty much warped into meaning all totalitarian nationalism.

I don't mind it. Invoking what's come before as warning when a present trend echoes the spirit of the greatest mistakes of the past even if it doesn't perfectly match up in every way? It's cool.

He's less of a Hitler and more of a second-rate Mussolini in a flip wig.

Except Mussolini "at least made the trains run on time", I doubt trump could do even that.

They'd be the BIGGEST MOST LUXURIOUS trains!*




*made in China, funded by Jordan.

>>I will agree with Void this far: there are all sorts of perfectly reasonable political stances which a college professor, a middle manager, a scientist cannot dare speak aloud for fear of being taken down by an outraged mob and losing their livelihood.

I sort of agree, sort of don't. One needs a definition of "perfectly reasonable." Obviously, if someone says "I think women's place is in the kitchen," "The holocaust is a jewish lie," or "Black people are all dumb criminals," then I'm perfectly happy with them being censured by the public. I think a lot of things that are acceptable to say ("Gay people are evil") should be in the public censure category. I have, however, seen people censured for stuff that is either innocuous or not worthy of a hate mob.

I also want to point out that this might be due in part to social media and outrage-as-entertainment allowing/encouraging anger mobs, rather than it being a phenomenon rising out of (specifically) the activist left.

Just wait. When his army of Omarosa clones swarm over the steppes of Central Asia, demanding the blood of the Taliban and ISIS, you'll thank Overlord Trump, President for Life and Grand Chairman of the Corporate Clans.

"Hazelnut
I will agree with Void this far: there are all sorts of perfectly reasonable political stances which a college professor, a middle manager, a scientist cannot dare speak aloud for fear of being taken down by an outraged mob and losing their livelihood."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1/ful ltext.html

NB I'm posting that because of Dreger's excellent analysis, not because I have an opinion one way or the other about Bailey's work itself, I've never read it and don't expect to.

Void and Stanley, I think you're each considering very different types of cases where someone was fired for the uproar over what they said. There are examples on both extremes, surely.

The problem is EVERYTHING is an extreme to the outrage mobs. To them there is no difference between Kim Davis, Don Imus, and that Yale professor who sent the Halloween costume email.


Also, the disconnect of saying Void is obsessed with SJWs by the very same people who invoke MRAs in every other video.

ashtar's got it.

Regardless of whether Trump's a fascist or an opportunist or whatever, his popularity is revealing that the States could conceivably elect someone who would consider banning Muslims from entering the country, for instance. Every week he seems to say something a little more provocative, and his popularity only seems to rise as a result. A lot of folks will gladly overlook the content of what he's suggesting and instead be impressed by a politician saying stuff that's not "politically correct", because like, bro, omg bro, fuck political correctness, bro. But the content is frightening, and the historical echoes we hear in Trump ought to be listened to, you know?

Well yeah, President Trump might be enough to make me jump ship on the USA if I didn't have aging parents I want to stay close to. Plus I can't think of an alternative that isn't just as fucked up in one way or another.

If that happens, maybe the SJWs will learn that Newton's third law also applies to politics.

Nah, probably not.

do you ever not think about SJWs?

when I say the words "anita sarkeesian," how does that make you feel?

I can refer to them as 'the co-opters of Western liberalism and the main reason the extreme right is gaining traction in the West' from now on if you'd like me to get technical. You can't talk about Trump without talking about the behavior that gave rise to the spirit he represents. As a progressive, I find it more useful to do as much as I can to clean my own yard before pointing at the mess on my neighbor's lawn.

If you want to blame anyone for co-opting Western Liberalism it's the Democratic party with the Republican party deserving an honorable mention. You might also add the corporate media machine, unemployment, the fact that our wages haven't increased with productivity since the '70's, the financial crisis, rampant imperialism that's making us morally and financially bankrupt, the hate inflamed by 9/11, "the immigration crisis", nationalism...

Shit... seems like SJWs might be low on the list.

It sure would be nice if the left talked about issues that mattered again, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, identity politics and frivolous social criticism are the orders of the day.

Anita Sarkeesian. Anita Sarkeesian. Anita Sarkeesian.

Dammit Void, I was supporting you up above: "SJWs" (unfortunate term) have caused a lot of needless misery. But it's crazy to blame them for the rise of the extreme Right. As one example among many, they're strongest now in places like Hungaray which have basically no SJW phenomenon.

I'm still defending Void here:

You don't have to quibble over his thoughts about SJWs just because you don't like other comments he's made.

SJWs may be low on the list of things that are fucking the country up, granted, but they're doing more than a butterfly flapping its wings in China. They're not exactly champions of unity and real progress. By progress I mean grassroots uproar tackling the fucking distribution of wealth, and only the distribution of wealth (along with its related issues that are predominantly anti-right e.g. tax dodges).
You know, not progress PLUS a comprehensive, codified list of illegal microagressions as defined by your metaphysics.

Obama has had the senate, and when he started he had the house too. Progress is only going to come from some real, real grassroots shit. SJWs are about as likely to achieve that as evangelicals are.

Evangelicals aren't slouches though when it comes to organizing voting blocks.

What's really fucking progressives in this country is the "absolute purity and perfect track record or nothing" attitude when it comes to voting and the excuse it provides to be lazy and not do anything, because that would be "buying into the whole corrupt system".

When conservatives get outraged over petty or fabricated shit, they still go out and vote.

Eastern Europe is mercifully free of SJWs, but countries like Hungary are reacting to policies that Western European SJWs facilitated. The gates of Europe are now wide open to the entirety of the Middle East with absolutely no way to vet the Muslims who pour in by the thousands on a daily basis, and Eastern Europe simply isn't having that. Hence, the rise in ultra-nationalism, an 'equal and opposite reaction'.

Sure Nominal, point taken even though that cuts into what I was saying. The 'lefty angst -> apathy' non-voting block doesn't help.
But the problem with the "don't worry about purity" thing is that you wind up electing plain ol' Dems that way. They can talk a good game during elections, and then get there and say 'we didn't have the votes', while they just do the same ol big biz special interest game the other side does. The Dem track record is balls over the last 7.5 years, and they had the whole congress for 2 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not calling political expertise here, by any means.

that was meant as a reply

Everyone remembers the story of Newton sitting under the apple tree and getting hit in the head with misandry.