I think fascism is more popular today than it was in the 1930s. — Athena

HI Athena,

I think it may be time to start reconsidering your clearly either, dishonest, or delusional takes on the world:

When comparing the 1930s to the 2020s in terms of global fascism, the 1930s unequivocally show far more examples of established, state-controlled, globally impactful fascism.

Here's why:

1930s: The Zenith of Fascism's Global Power and Influence

Established Fascist States: This decade saw the rise and consolidation of major fascist regimes with immense global impact:

Italy (Mussolini): Already in power since the 1920s, Mussolini's Italy served as the ideological blueprint for many other fascist movements.

Germany (Hitler/Nazism): Hitler came to power in 1933, rapidly transforming Germany into a totalitarian Nazi state with an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. Nazism shared core fascist characteristics but added extreme racial ideology.


Japan (Militarism/Fascist-like tendencies): While not strictly "fascist" in the European sense, Imperial Japan exhibited many characteristics of fascism, including extreme nationalism, militarism, expansionism, and authoritarian rule.

Spain (Franco): Francisco Franco's Falange, heavily supported by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, won the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and established a long-lasting authoritarian regime with strong fascist elements.

Widespread Fascist Movements: Beyond these core states, significant fascist or fascist-leaning movements gained traction and posed serious threats to democracy in many other countries, including:

France: Croix de Feu, later the French Social Party, was a large and growing right-wing movement.

Britain: The British Union of Fascists (BUF) led by Oswald Mosley.

Eastern Europe: Various authoritarian and nationalist regimes with fascist sympathies emerged across countries like Hungary, Romania, and Poland.

Latin America: Fascist-inspired movements also appeared in countries like Brazil (Integralism).
Direct Threat to Global Peace: The fascist powers of the 1930s were actively engaged in military aggression and expansion, directly leading to World War II. This included Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (1935), Japan's aggression in China, and Germany's annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia.

While there are serious concerns about the rise of far-right, authoritarian, and nativist movements in the 2020s, it's crucial to differentiate them from the state-controlled fascism of the 1930s:

Conclusion:

The 1930s clearly demonstrate a greater presence of global fascism in terms of established, state-backed regimes with aggressive expansionist aims and widespread, powerful movements that directly contributed to a world war. The threat was existential and manifested in complete state overhauls in several major powers.

Nah mate, not all that. You're obviously here for hte right reasons - thats why I still tried to respond as best I could :)
I think you'll do well.

I more or less agree with your clarification entirely!

Can someone explain, without reference to banal personal preferences, why my comment which was wholly on topic was removed? Glibness is not against the guidelines.

So, going through this piece by piece - you're leaving me with no much more to say than "So, you made it up".

You quoted yourself, not me. I'm not going to answer for your own utterances (given you didn't clarify anything in my response).

I did not intimate that prison, per se, is just. You are making absolutely insane generalisations based on literally nothing I've said, but something you've assumed.

"policing" in general is for:

protecting wider society from the ills of people who cannot conform to the social contract — AmadeusD

Yes? Yes. That's what I said you mischaracterized. Besides this, it is quite rare that people in prison shouldn't be there. You're trying to have a 'details' conversation about concepts. We're talking concepts. Stay on topic. If you want to talk about specifics (i.e which crimes require imprisonment etc..) then ask those questions/bring up those topics. Don't throw shit at me for responding in kind to your posts.

I did ask you to quote where I said it. It would've easier to just say "Sorry, you're right. You didn't say this. I made an assumption. can you please clarify for me?"

The statement does describe me as well, of course the full statement without taking out the start which reads: — boethius

I said it explains you. If this is your attitude, I am not surprised you would also make insane statements like this:

you yourself agree that your claim is such vapid and empty propaganda that it's no worth responding to. — boethius

This is so childish and underhanded, what did you actually expect as a response? Respect? Your final paragraph just tells me you're not reading much here before responding. That's not my issue. Ask clarifying questions if you have them, or at hte very least, refrain from being a dick.

Did you have a point to make, or are you just gesturing without taking the risk of saying anything substantial — Leontiskos

Both - but our most recent exchange has jaded me on the latter. No hard feelings - just an explanation.

Ah presumably — Leontiskos

.. yes, and with some jest. I should've made that clearer!

The complaint/crux has been that the belief is irrefutable, not that the proposition upon which it bears is unfalsifiable. — Leontiskos

Yeah - i found that discussion helpful and pretty decent as it's something I've not thought too much about. But hte conclusion seems to say something other than the discussion concludes with. I think beliefs (even ones where the state of affairs can be confirmed) can be shown to have shoddy grounding. Gettierrrrrrrrrrr (with some bells and whistles).

Don't accept intolerance. — frank

Mikie is quite intolerant ;)

Socialization. That's the process. This isn't really arguable, unless you hold (against basically every single take that makes sens) that gender is tied to sex, rather than associated with it.

(imo) the entire basis for 'gender dysphoria' is that genders are 'foisted' upon people who, naturally, would not conform to that particular set of behaviours. It is, quite simply, bullshit, that the world does not create expectations and standards for gendered behaviour. These are unavoidable in early life.

If you want to just say that "foisted" is too harsh of a word, that's fine - conditioning is decent enough. Gender is a set of expectations which play out in real time as against the developing behavioural tendencies of all children. We seem to have agreed that this is the case. If gender were not foisted upon people, we literally would not have gender dysphoria. Social ostracization and expectations to conform to 'typical' behaviours is an extremely potent aspect of growing up. If your gender and sex align perfectly, you'll have not noticed this. In reality, many people don't have that (I did not) and suffer the pressure of conform to social norms around gender.

This pattern of unchecked power and resource control consistently leads to systemic oppression throughout history. — RadicalJoe

Usually, outside of the West. So, let's be clear: you're picking out the evils of Western history for a discussion. Not the concepts you're outlining. Nothing wrong with this; but its good to be clear.

That established, I can't quite tell what you're asking about. Are you wanting to ask about the breakdown of standard social structures? This seems too incoherent to give you a specific answer to the poll question. I'll make a comment I think matters though.

These foundations often devolve — RadicalJoe

Often - not always, and so we don't need to think about them collapsing, per se. Much, muhc better answers than turning over the apple cart, returning everyone to a state much worse for themselves and their community in hopes of a better restructure (with the exact same risks we've always had in hand).

This is now beginning to be the same as having a discussion with my seven year old. As you were...

So perhaps it would be better to say that the belief can be shown to have insufficient grounds, rather than be falsified per se. — Leontiskos

Thus, running roughshod over most of the previous comments. Weird...

superfluous — panwei

No, just unfortunate. And I think that is the case. That's why there's (still) a push against democracy. People tend not to vote in their own best interests, so those standards aren't usually reflected in the vote. Superfluous makes no sense here, as nothing is done simply by having standards which you wish to see met in the governing of your society. We (collectively) woyuld have no idea what the standards, or the meeting of them could constitute unless votes at least ostensibly gave us an idea - then the fallout gives us the truth, so to speak.

I cannot grok anything from your second para.

By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs. — panwei

What's being authorised here? Either you mean you're giving permission to be served (that's disanalogous) or you're saying one must author their own desires. Sure, but pointless and unhelpful. If the ordering is supposed to be the same as a vote, then also disanalagous in the extreme.

And these standards are exactly the content of the contract. — panwei

You didn't establish any standard there?

The final section reads like someone in fourth form trying to wrangle their head around why elections often don't result in a positive outcome. So much is true. But that is something of a given, far, far prior to the type of comments i'm mkaing.

The statement was gender is not foisted upon anyone. — Malcolm Parry

But it clearly, without sense of doubt, is. This is probably hte least-arguable aspect of the debate.

If you feel otherwise, that's a shame.

words possess some sort of power or force over and above their medium. — NOS4A2

You are not paying any attention. At this stage, i am more comfortable calling you willfully ignorant.

The words are not entirely relevant. The sound waves constituted by them are. You are not a serious interlocutor if you are stuck on a point that no one has posited.

Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. — MrLiminal

Hits hard.

I think the idea that we should taken politicians seriously, morally, is a joke. Absolute joke. It leads to the types of discussions going on in the lounge with several members here clearly losing their rationality on the subject.

I think the concept of Love is far too amorphous to say anything about it. Affection? That works.

You're really saying that all the prisoners of the world not only deserve to be in prison due to their being unable to conform to the social contract — boethius

Please quote where i mentioned prison. Please.

If you really believe all the states in all the world have a perfectly just imprisonment process and protocol, then I will present the evidence to the contrary. — boethius

Please quote where I suggested this (or even mentioned it as a topic???????)

and are a lost soul of little concern to me, simply digging yourself further into the darkness, the prison of your own mind, with every thought and fancy. — boethius

This explains you, I guess.

On it's face, this has always appeared the case to me and it didn't take getting into any professional capacity to note it.

There's a clear difference between 'academic' philosophy and then like "Here at InGen, our philosophy is....".
The former being what we (supposedly) do here, and the latter being what laypeople take to be their general worldview. In the example, its specific to for instance, employment, but is clearly not something gleaned by any kind of attentive consideration (in most cases).

There is definitely an ignorance to the former. Seems to be the reason why most philosophers are considered pointless or superfluous (then again, the examples usually cited for that are absolutely pointless, superfluous philosophers lol).

Yes sir/ma'am/what have you. Though, I have very little problem with pre-emptively dealing with these sorts of civil unrest.

I don't think much of this is true, even on a historical level. So i'll leave it.. some of the more underhanded comments seem pretty self-serving. Specifically the one you quoted, and then dismissed as not worth responding to.
Pretty much the one part you needed to, imo. No matter.

Interesting. So, this sort of takes a 'social constructionist' view but wants to put this in the realm of the communal. I suppose I can get on with that... I haven't run that arguments around in my melon much, but that seems to a decent solution to many of hte disagreements.

If Gender is actually something foisted upon you, but it is a collective bargain, so to speak, you would need to opt ouit of the social contract to deny it. That's somewhat fair imo.

Having a family is just one of those choices and choosing not to or to be actively anti-natalist is fine a fantasy for a select few to entertain of their own free accord but if it were elevated to a statistically significant number this could imply far reaching economic, social, or cultural turmoil. In this sense people naturally choose the direction which usually creates benefits for our own economic growth and social stability — substantivalism

It is quite hard to understand what you're actually getting at in this para (the whole thing, not just not part). It seems you want to say that an anti-natalist view is somehow immoral as it would lead to X. But the former, you want to reject that possible framework?

Otherwise, a great post that does, ironically, stay quite neutral. Thanks mate

I’ve already stated my reasoning. The effects cannot be shown to reach as far as you say they do. The objects, structures, and energies responsible for such movements, responses, and actions are not the same as the ones you claim they are. There is no argument for censorship save for superstition and magical thinking. — NOS4A2

This is definitely you with fingers in your ears. No matter.. THe world will continue to turn.

No, probably not. But I do think any large-scale rioting of this kind should be quelled. Whos to do it?

Edit: Appeal court just halted the requirement to hand 'em back to Newsom. So, i guess they're going in? NG, that is.

I have to say I did not expect this.

yep. But they shade off into each other in a way that we can't really deal with in real time.

usually the level of violence depends on how law enforcement chooses to respond — Mr Bee

Good lord. If this is the type of stuff Republicans deal with socially, I am unsurprised by their stupid reactions.

100%.

Still, I rate cannabis as more consequential than cigarettes — BC

Negatively?

ven though I think safe drug use sites are a good idea, I wouldn't want to work or live next to one or have it next to a school; it would attract some disreputable people. — BC

Definitely.

I told you I wasn't aware of this. I'm not asking you to do anything.

Biden supported racial riots. I'm not really saying anything here - just that people are going to see things the way they see things. Trump, himself, certainly doesn't seem like 'a racist'. The administration definitely has racists among it.

Yes, obviously. This is not a serious discussion if you think otherwise.

A speechwriter for the Trump administration has been fired following reports that he spoke at a white nationalist conference in 2016. — RogueAI

Wow that sucks.

Does this indicate though that the administration perhaps isn't quite so gung-ho racist as purported? Unsure - but worth noting that this could cut both ways. Sitll, thanks for that. I wasn't aware.

Definitely. I was going to mention Jan 6. But more on point would be this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/funeral-etiquette-trumps-blue-suit-133712946.html

You get quotes like this from a fucking legal expert:

"One guy shows up in a blue suit to the pope's funeral. You will never guess who" from Filipkowski.

All you need do is zoom out a little bit to know that this entire narrative is a complete an utter lie. Similar to "fine people on both sides". There is a rather extreme tendency to flagrantly misrepresent Trump to flare up social rage. The number of retracts The View has had to put out is embarrassing.

That isn't particularly reasonable. Personal opinion i guess. Just a way to make it look better.

I don't understand how looking at a few video clips and pictures makes anyone think they can judge the scope of the entire situation. — prothero

If we're aware of hte geography of the city, and have plenty of aerial photography I can't understand how you cannot. Statements from officials are so far removed from anything remotely approaching 'evidence' I just can't wrap my mind around how you're approaching this. Sorry if that's coming off insulting or anything. I'm somewhat incredulous, tbh.

Have you ever been to LA — prothero

Yes.

Do you always think those who disagree with you are not serious or worth having a discussion with? — prothero

Are you serious with this question? Because this is just further showing me that you are not seriously engaging a discussion - no good faith here, if this is a serious question.

(the extent of which could hardly be evaluated) — prothero

If you can't evaluate them against the objection facts of the extend of LA, the extent of downtown LA, the numbers involved and the levels of violence I am unsure what to say....
I'm unsure I have, since Jan 6, seen swathes of politically-motivated pundits deny what is before their eyes in my lifetime (particularly in reliance on biased and clearly politically motivated officals statements which contradict the video and image evidence - and hte evidence of those who are literally under attack). Victim blaming at its finest, I say.

This is more reliable than the police chief of L.A. , the mayor and the governor of the state. — prothero

Yes. Obviously. This is not a serious discussion if you think otherwise. This seals it:

Your are not striking me as trying to get a fair and balanced picture of the overall situation rather just confirming your preexisting bias — prothero

Oh brother.

I am not condoning rioting, assault or destruction of property — prothero

To be fully clear, i don't expect anyone here does (except maybe Mikie and probably not him even). I do expect people to be incapable of seeing the truth, for their prior commitments though. I don't actually have any. They're all shitheads to me.

this gorgeous Masterpiece. Unfortunately, they have no other songs I'm even remotely moved by.

That's a racist action, though.

Your point isn't lost, hence my only real conclusion being:

it isn't that hard to see why people are going to equivocate. — AmadeusD

When the sorts of racism I'm picking up are overtly defended I have no problem with acting as if (though, this is wrong) its on the same level of some of Trumps statements. but again, i don't think either is actually racist. These sorts of moves (i.e "No, this form of racism is fine. In fact, we will re-define racism so it doesn't capture these clearly racially-motivated policies which detriment, or lift up specific racial groups for opportunity") are precisely hte kind of moves an authoritarian would make prior to something like "whites need to stay at home".

Oh wait. That's also happened, in some areas (though, no govt. backed at all - sidenote, and definitely glib).

Oh.. fwiw: I think Trump is a worse speaker than Biden by some considerable margin (last 36 months or so notwithstanding). He will make more mistakes than any other official, and seems to be doing so. He just doubles down, which is imbecilic when he could clarify that he sucks at it but his ego wont let him). So, I actually give Trump a bit more margin for error in this sense - he's mostly talking shit. A bigger problem, in a different way.

Yes. Actual videos and pictures of the riots across multiple areas, which include vandalism, looting and various forms of assault.

I am unsure why you would trust an official over that. Particularly one's who aren't excatly bastions of truth and light.

Does that happen in a non racist administration? — RogueAI

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black!" - Joe Biden

It seems perhaps so. We could put this down to Biden making a gaffe, but that's cop out material. Given that his administration put forward at least a few overtly racist policies or guidelines (COVID recovery, ARP, COVID mortgage relief guidelines etc..) it isn't that hard to see why people are going to equivocate.

Its hard to think Trump or Biden are actually racist - they both played to their audience. Does this mean everyone is racist? Probably all the loud people, yes.

Are we really wanting to play that game? AI is literally designed to not report accurately on politically charged issues. It tells us as much, in many cases. We have seen the videos. We have seen the pictures. We have eyes - we don't need an AI to trawl the internet for reports written by other humans. We can see the riots ourselves.

This was also said of BLM, with buildings burning and assaults occurring at the time.

past major riots. — prothero

Give it time. BLM riots lasted months. I'm not pretending this riot is somehow as big or bad as some previous ones at this moment. But "mostly peaceful" simply ignores the non-peaceful aspects - which are the point.

BLM was "mostly peaceful" but 19 people died and $1-$2bil in damages occurred having achieved nothing, and was based on a lie (two, actually). So its probably best not to use terms designed to prevaricate and have been shown to be disingenuous.

I think this entirely depends on the individual and the vice. I've been at the mercy of several vices through my life, and am pretty strong-willed generally (eg: I quit smoking cigarettes cold turkey 0o 25 March 2020 and have never looked back once).

When I was heroin addict it was because I sought out heroin (though, tbf, the situation in which i encountered it finally was lets say lucky). I pulled it to me, in some sense, because I was 13 and entirely taken with the romantic view of heroin as an accessory to the tortured artist (or some such.. can't quite remember, as you can imagine).

When I was an alcohol addict, it was because drinking curtailed (significantly) heroin withdrawal when I quit heroin and it was readily available (I had a full beard and ass-length hair by 15 when I quit). Push?

When I was a sex addict, I was both approached, and sought sex. Both?

Hard to know - I think it's more interesting to think of something like social media which is 100% pushed. Its a much more subtle "push" that Curtis Mayfield would want. But I don't think that changes it.

Enjoy the thread - Can't add much more than Wayfarer has said.

Perhaps I would add that that account doesn't seem to engage literal suffering, as laid out here. That seems to be something that, to avoid, would be to dismiss some of one's humanity.

Yeah, i'd agree, but I don't rush to immediately condemn it.

I tend to just look at what's happening in each case - BLM, I was on board with until I realised it based on a lie (disproportionate death of unarmed black men in Police encounters - absolute nonsense) and subsequently meant it was very, very close to what i'd consider a terrorist insurrection.

In this case, I see things like that the rioters are protesting deporting but flying flags of the countries they refuse to return to. Totally unserious and it looks like an excuse for the normal, social-media-enraged Youth to feel historically important and self-righteous by way of "morally permissible" violence. Again, totally unserious in my view.

eDefinitely worthwhile, even if only in a wider sense!

I'm unsure that's right, but I understand the point and I think its an interesting, if not even illuminating way of thinking about it.

This is clearly not BLM levels of dickheadery, but its the same shit. Businesses looted, cars destroyed, highways blocked:

"Police reported people were shooting fireworks at officers. Rocks, scooters and cinder blocks were thrown at police cars. People attempted to set police cruisers on fire. Protesters also threw cinder blocks at police officers and at other people.[100] Five Waymo driverless cars were vandalized, set alight, and destroyed. LAPD officials warned that burning lithium-ion batteries releases toxic gasses."

"The LAPD reported that looting had occurred at stores in the area of 6th Street and Broadway (downtown Los Angeles),[106][107] as well as near 8th Street and Broadway.[108] Several fires were also reported to have been set in dumpsters and trash bins. Numerous buildings, including the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, the United States Courthouse, and the old Los Angeles Times Building, were tagged with graffiti. At least one store had windows shattered by alleged looters.[109] Multiple windows at the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters were also broken.[109]"

"Mayor Bass declared a local state of emergency ..."

This "mostly peaceful" shit has got to stop. By numbers? Maybe. That isn't the point.

The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. — prothero

Clear horseshit. These are views of entire blocks and full stretches of highway - multiple cities, multiple neighbourhoods. This is just having blinkers on, at this stage.

Entirely reasonable people have serious objections to the methods and process being used by Trump. — prothero

Agreed.

The rest of your post tells me nothing, really. If people are here illegally, they should be deported. If people are rioting over that, sleep in their own beds. They are rioting, so they can sleep in their own beds.

This, again, acknowledging that Trump is absolutelyultra vires here (for the most part). That said, ICE agents being doxxed with families being threatened for enforcing laws and following their lawful commands (i.e chain of command instruction) is reason enough to protect their identities in lieu of ignoring immigration laws.

Once again, for complete clarity: Some of the methods are obviously overstep. Riots are too. Being here illegally isn't in any way ambiguous, or a 'humanitarian' issue. Its a legal issue with a clear and obvious response required.

Police is an entirely different system of justice than what existed in feudal times and emerges out of colonialization as an occupation army needing to pacify the local population. — boethius

This seems completely untrue, to my understanding. The first modern police force was Louis' in the 17th C in France.

The earliest American Systems were jus formalized watchmen systems utilizing local enforcers and militias. Municipal police is a different story, but still seems to not have a lot to do with anything colonial, per se. It was a density issue being dealt with by formalizing overwhelmed informed policing systems as above.

Of course the main evil of police is the whole justice system of essentially disappearing citizens from the community and imprisoning them without possibility of work, generally in a process without any effective rights for the poor. — boethius

This is an utterly bizarre way of characterizing protecting wider society from the ills of people who cannot conform to the social contract. Exile is less humane, but more on-point. Would we want that?

Police are not members of the community with duties to and interest in the community but a garrison force imposed on the local population to serve the interests of a distant power. — boethius

Pure nonsense.