Any conservative tropers?

All other arguments notwithstanding, the greatest irony in trying to curb free speech for the ostensible purpose of quelling hate speech is that the very definition of hate speech depends overwhelmingly on the incumbent government. Things could go horribly right, particularly when, wouldn't you know it, one party holds all three branches of government at the same time. And indeed, if historical and modern examples (such as Jinping the Pooh) are any indication, such censorship is both ineffective and increasingly ridiculous. Articles and videos about trying to "decrypt" the far right already look like the type of scare-pieces that get parents paranoid over what the latest text-speak made up words "really" mean. Respectively, considering the speed with which various acronyms and numbers-for-letters swaps can propagate, any censorship endeavors may as well ban half the keyboard and the number pad already. It won't prevent anything, but will make some people feel better about themselves... so, big government legislation in a nutshell.

edited 14th Mar '18 8:45:20 PM by indiana404

And then there is plain old sarcasm.

The right leaning part of the german image-board I frequent pretty much exclusively uses sarcastic quotes from politicians when they comment on refugees. Like if someone posts an article of some refugees doing anything bad you get tags like "Wertvoller als Gold"(more valuable than gold) "Ärzte und Ingeniuere" (doctors and engineers) "bedauerliche Einzelfälle"(regrettable isolated cases <- mind the plural).

Banning these phrases would be near impossible and even if they did that the right would just take the newest batch of quotes and use them with sarcastically,

I honestly feel that many so called "liberals" and "anti fascists" act more like fascists than many modern "fascists"

They do seem to lack a certain amount of self awareness. I often see arguments boil down to:

• A: "Don't tell others what they have to think/do!"
• B: "You just did that yourself..."
• A: "Yes but this is different because I am right."

You know who else did think that they were right...

edited 20th Mar '18 8:12:36 AM by Kiefen

I'm uncomfortable using the fascist argument unless they're point blank saying stuff like "Gas the Mexicans." or "Put conservatives into concentration camps." Otherwise, it'd just be shorthand for "I don't like what you have to say, fuck you."

There often seems to be a big case of Slippery Slope Fallacy within their arguments, as if every person who does not favor women quotas is also plotting to remove ALL woman rights in general.

Fair enough. To reiterate the unrelated points from my previous post, fascism relies on external national enemies to foster group cohesion; meanwhile, the attitudes currently found on the left are more evocative of the fervent suppression of internal foes, real and imagined, characteristic of both communist and post-communist governments, mostly as a form of solidifying newly-established authorities and settling personal scores. Speaking from experience, these governments were also far more likely to proclaim some sort of moral high-ground, focusing on their opponents more as "villains", rather than "threats".

Respectively, the above mentioned slippery slope fallacy is more like the Debate and Switch cliche often found around fictional villains, in that conservatives are invariably expected to have hidden agendas or bigoted motives, thus avoiding to actually address their points as actually stated.

All in all, unless there's an even further shift in focus toward, say, Russia and maybe China as outside threats employing manipulative schemes - such as the collusion conspiracy spiel and the "Russian troll" insult that's pretty much the modern equivalent of the good old "subversive element" - I don't think the current attitude of the left can be considered fascism proper. There are a lot of other problems, but they'd best be addressed without adding one already overused and semantically muddled political term.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia^note a source which can be edited by anyone, so take it with a grain of salt defines fascism as such:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Basically, fascists want supreme control over their country.

I think authoritarianism fits the description better than fascism.

I can't help but recall a line by C. S. Lewis - that the most oppressive form of tyranny is the one exercised for the good of its victims. So far, this would still be an exaggeration of modern left policies, but there is something to be said about the attitude that the government knows best and can enforce regulations without the consent of the governed themselves... an attitude that holds up, mind you, only so long as such regulations entirely match one's personal views. The fact that the next government lineup can abuse the same enforcement frameworks for dramatically different purposes doesn't seem to be accounted for. And this applies to anything from industrial regulations to consumer goods labeling. The notion that governments aren't idealized conceptual entities, but rather are made up of people - who can be corrupt, biased, incompetent, and often notably ungoverned - seems to be ignored, lest it ruin some utopian vision or other.

I do also have to say for many conservatives who are tempted by the allure of authoritarianism. The power to tell people what to follow is very tempting, especially when it's with views and beliefs you are supportive of.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Authoritarianism is the perfect description. How many governments wouldn't give their right arms for that level of control over their citizens? I'm guessing very few. And it becomes especially dangerous when said government ends up enforcing views you agree with: a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have.

All forms of authoritarianism comes from the idea someone thinks they are in the right to stamp over someone else's rights in the name of morality, safety, etc. It's easy to appeal to authoritarianism when people are scared and feel there is a crisis on hand. In American history, you get things like the Japanese internment camps due to the fact that people were fearful of those who were Japanese and it lead to American citizens being unjustly imprisoned.

Sorry for disrupting the convo with a different subject here, but what do you guys think of Far Left Watch?

I think it'd be a good idea. There's people looking for criminals on the far right, it makes sense for people to be looking for criminals on the far left as well.

Why do so many people deny or downplay the violent actions of Antifa

I think the reason is they believe that Antifa's antifascist efforts make them the lesser of the two evils, even when they are not above not just punching just Neo-Nazis.

Another reason may be that it's dangerously antithetical to the usual narrative. Typically, the left is styled as the do-no-wrong side - the one that's not destroying the environment, not killing the poor, not oppressing minorities etc. etc. This narrative can also easily shrug off any criticism regarding economic incompetence, lack of political foresight, the support of feelgood policies that don't really work as advertised... so long as one can play the pure noble hero fighting for moral victories, such petty concerns can be ignored. And of course, massive atrocities committed by socialist governments worldwide don't count.

But enter Antifa - not only are they too close for comfort, but they present an aspect of modern leftism that's not just violent, but pointlessly and uncinematically so. As much as the average black-clad protest ninja might feel straight out of a Disturbed video, fighting The Man and whatnot, in practice, the picture is far from glamorous or marketable. It's the kind of thuggery that nobody wants to be associated with, so the spiel so far is to downplay its existence altogether.

edited 23rd Apr '18 1:27:40 PM by indiana404

"When facism comes it will come under the guise of anti-fascism." — George Orwell (I think?)

huh I heard it was Churchill who said that

Anyways here's an interesting video by Emplemon about the problems with Jimmy Kimmel

edited 25th Apr '18 8:34:26 AM by GraymanofBelka

Probably Churchill ^note I wasn't entirely certain.

edited 25th Apr '18 8:35:53 AM by TempestKnight

Doing some research their are some who attribute it to Huey Long. It seems to be one of those quotes that was definitely said but no one has a definitive answer as to who said it.