Lincoln Project: "law and order" president is the "most corrupt president in US history"

[anon61221983]

@mcsnee

it just seemed to me like you were snarking at somebody who didn’t really deserve it and who, I suspect, is pretty much in agreement with you

I tend not to snark at posters who don’t deserve to be snarked at. @Skeptic and I don’t always agree on things, but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are certainly people I will snark at, but those tend to be people who are obviously not arguing in good faith or who are trollies.

@mcsnee

I respect you a lot,

Well, please treat me as an equal, and not a child. This is an ongoing problem for women, even those of us with credentials under our belts.

Thanks.

@chenille

It’s because the fascists are deliberately muddying the waters by bad faith use

Yes. This is absolutely the case. There is an active campaign, for example to equate fascist with the left, especially with the nazis. If the terminology is unclear, they are in large part to blame for that. I don’t think that most people were unclear about the term even 20 years ago. They knew it meant right wing political orientation with strong racist and nationalist overtones.

@Skeptic

But I’ve discovered over the years that I’ve misunderstood political terms I thought I knew.

I assume you corrected your thinking, right?

@Skeptic

I think you may be expecting people to be as smart and as knowledgeable as yourself

I don’t think that. I know what I know.

@Skeptic

while I’m expecting people to be at least as dumb and ignorant as I am

You’re not. Ignorance is fixable. The problem is two fold, deliberate misinformation AND people who value their ignorance rather than seeking to fix that. You don’t strike me as someone who values their ignorance, but one that is keen to improve their knowledge.

I’m arguing the definition of fascism isn’t that complicated, at the heart of it. @chenille noted, the waters have been intentionally muddied… now people might not be aware of that fact, but that doesn’t make it any less true. We should be concerned with fixing that and with using terms that are accurate, even if we have to do a bit of explaining.

As for this ad, I suspect their core audience knows if nothing else that fascism = bad, since Fox news, etc, regularly employees it for people they are not supposed to like (the left). It seems to be doing a little shortcut by using that to describe someone they are now supposed to not be liking. It’s true that they don’t have time for an extended conversation on political science debates on fascism, but they also are attempting to get a lot across in a very short amount of time. Using a word that is associated with bad political things does that job.

[Skeptic]

@anon61221983

You don’t strike me as someone who values their ignorance, but one that is keen to improve their knowledge.

I’m arguing the definition of fascism isn’t that complicated, at the heart of it. @chenille noted, the waters have been intentionally muddied…

At some point I think we are talking cross purposes. There seems to be an agreement that there is not universal understanding of the term, regardless of whether that is from intentional malfeasance. I’m not against calling fascists fascist, but I don’t think one can safely assume that everyone understands how you mean the term. But I’m all for “reclaiming” it from those who would seek to dilute it to diffuse the culpability of those in office, but that requires not just using the term, but explaining it in some manner.

[anon61221983]

@Skeptic

There seems to be an agreement that there is not universal understanding of the term, regardless of whether that is from intentional malfeasance.

I think of the more accurate definition, yes. But at the same time, fascism is reflexively used to mean “bad, anti-democractic” political stance, and I think that is more generally understood. If not, I don’t think Fox and other right wing outlets would use it to mean “bad leftists”.

@Skeptic

I’m not against calling fascists fascist,

When speaking of the current administration, I think it’s fair to use it as both it’s more technical definition AND to mean “bad, anti-democratic politics” because both are accurate.

@Skeptic

but that requires not just using the term, but explaining it in some manner.

We should not be afraid to do so. I think it’s something of a moral obligation to do so.

[Mister44]

@anon61221983

As for bi-partisanship… it seems like the only time this gets brought up is when the Democrats try to move even the slightest bit left.

IMO the Republicans have been the least reasonable when it comes to this in the past decade or so.

That said, we SHOULD be working towards common goals. There certainly should be more overlap in the venn diagram of political views than their is. The Republican shift to the right after Obama gained office hasn’t helped that.

[anon61221983]

@Mister44

That said, we SHOULD be working towards common goals.

I can’t make common cause with people who don’t believe I’m capable of making personal, medical decisions for myself. Basic human rights are not up for negotiation. They want to put mine and those of others up for debate. That’s not remotely acceptable.

@Mister44

The Republican shit to the right after Obama gained office hasn’t helped that.

They are not that far right from the Reagan era, when it comes down to it. We just did not have a mass media that actively catered to the most jingoistic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, etc, etc aspects of that ideology so it was not as apparent. But it was there in the Reagan era, all the same.