Happy Atheist Forum

General => Politics => Topic started by: xSilverPhinx on November 08, 2020, 12:34:47 AM

Title: Americans
Post by: xSilverPhinx on November 08, 2020, 12:34:47 AM
THANK YOU!

Thank you for removing that turd from the White House! Now that the "Tropical Trump" aka Jair Bolsonaro has lost his main ally there is some hope for Brazil as well!

Even if Biden has to impose economic sanctions on Brazil due to the environmental crisis, so be it. Hopefully mounting socioeconomic pressures will result in impeachment.

Today is a good day.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on November 08, 2020, 01:40:30 AM
Thank you Dr. Silver!  We stand with you in your struggle for equality, liberty, and justice.  It's a new day!
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Randy on November 08, 2020, 03:08:44 AM
I had almost forgotten about your president. Let's hope Biden doesn't give him any slack.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Dark Lightning on November 08, 2020, 04:13:25 AM
I'd like to point out that the 4M vote margin of people who elected Biden is pretty thin, so far. I live in California, where less than 80% of the vote has been counted. My vote is in that bin, as a mail-in voter. Meaning, I expect a much larger amount of NO for the votes for the chump. That 4M vote is going to increase "bigly", is all I am saying. ;D If I had my say, the chump, his spawn and his sycophants would be rolling to the guillotine in tumbrels.  >:( I'm not certain that I've properly expressed my feelings about the current administration.  :P
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Tank on November 08, 2020, 05:05:48 AM
Well done America. You have shown that democracy can work.

My personal hope is that Biden and his team can get some semblance of control over Covid and start to make the people who voted for Trump less alienated within their own country. If not Eric Trump will beat Kamala Harris in 2024.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on November 08, 2020, 06:06:18 PM
Yes, there is still danger.  We must remain vigilant and inspired.  I'm hoping the remaining Georgia Senate races will keep the fires of democracy appropriately stoked.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 08, 2020, 07:29:46 PM
No thanks from me, as it would be inappropriate since the US president is literally hashtag notmypresident. My congratulations to the supporters of the president-elect. To the rest, there is always the next time. Generic platitudes all around.

Do let us remember that it was close. I've read an occasional analyst call it a "rejection" of Trump and/or Populism and/or Nationalism. Personally, I think that particular term would have required the landslide that never happened. De jure, 50% plus one vote is as big a success as 2/3 minus that same vote. De facto, the cup may still be only half-full.

A narrow victory does not make for the radical social shift a lot of people seem to hope or even assume the change in government will herald. They will be disappointed, and I am putting actual money on that.

Eh, well... I shan't rain on the Progressive parade. Who knows, maybe I just happen to be wrong, and soon to be a lot poorer for it.

Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Dark Lightning on November 08, 2020, 08:46:16 PM
I'm pleased with the result. Maybe his staff can take him golfing every day. Now just hoping that the baby in chief doesn't go on a rampage and sign a bunch of EOs to further trash the US. This was a pretty thin win. What we get out of it is a law-abiding administration. It's going to take decades, imo, to clean up the mess. We may never be the same, let alone "great".
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 08, 2020, 09:29:51 PM
Quote from: Dark Lightning on November 08, 2020, 08:46:16 PM
What we get out of it is a law-abiding administration.
That's a very brave statement. I hope time proves you right.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Recusant on November 09, 2020, 01:00:38 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 08, 2020, 12:34:47 AM
THANK YOU!

Thank you for removing that turd from the White House! Now that the "Tropical Trump" aka Jair Bolsonaro has lost his main ally there is some hope for Brazil as well!

Even if Biden has to impose economic sanctions on Brazil due to the environmental crisis, so be it. Hopefully mounting socioeconomic pressures will result in impeachment.

Today is a good day.

I read that Bolsonaro was considering his options in regard to whether he'll run for office again. I don't know enough about his persona to say whether that's even really an option for him. Maybe he's merely trying to take the temperature of the voting public?
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Dark Lightning on November 09, 2020, 03:34:59 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 08, 2020, 09:29:51 PM
Quote from: Dark Lightning on November 08, 2020, 08:46:16 PM
What we get out of it is a law-abiding administration.
That's a very brave statement. I hope time proves you right.

Biden was Obama's vice for 8 years. He knows where the law is, and I haven't seen any scoffing of laws during the Obama administration. So that's what I base my comment on. Given the egregious and flagrant actions of the outgoing president, I expect to see a far more sane and less capricious governance...and at least one order of magnitude less golf, too. I guess we shall see, agreed.

Edit to add, let's watch to see how many of Biden's "henchmen" end up indicted and/or imprisoned. I'll wait a couple of years, just to make it fair. I'm betting nickels to holes in doughnuts that the count will be ZERO.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 08:29:25 AM
Vicious allegations about breach of international law have indeed circulated around president Obama's administration.

I seem to remember that it had something to do with either combat drones or rocket strikes, but it may be wrong.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: No one on November 09, 2020, 09:03:50 AM
The fact remains that 70,000,000+ trumpanzees admire a fascist dictator. More that 70,000,000 mindless zombies who  blindly accept what to think, how to think because they are too incompetent to think for themselves. These absolute and complete twatwaffles are perfectly fine with a tyrant who exemplifies their bigotry and hatred. Amerikkka has a long way to go to remove the stench of the trumps.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 09:51:17 AM
Quote from: No one on November 09, 2020, 09:03:50 AM
The fact remains that 70,000,000+ trumpanzees admire a fascist dictator. More that 70,000,000 mindless zombies who  blindly accept what to think, how to think because they are too incompetent to think for themselves. These absolute and complete twatwaffles are perfectly fine with a tyrant who exemplifies their bigotry and hatred. Amerikkka has a long way to go to remove the stench of the trumps.
Are you calling me "mindless," No one? Or just Americans who see something worthy of admiration in the president? Or just those who voted? And "blindly accepting?" And incapable of independent thought? Are you really? Because I do admire the president for a number of things - becoming president against all odds among them.

When you have answered that, are you really calling president Trump a "Fascist dictator" and a "tyrant?"

I think we have some beef to resolve here, my friend. Not of an unfriendly nature, but I would like to see you substantiate your description of "Trumpanzees" AND that of the president. for instance, what do you think "Fascist" and "tyrant" mean? Not to mention, how exactly do you define "dictator?"

EDIT: I calim "twatwaffle," by the way. Is mine now.  ;D
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 09, 2020, 02:44:18 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 08:29:25 AM
Vicious allegations about breach of international law have indeed circulated around president Obama's administration.

I seem to remember that it had something to do with either combat drones or rocket strikes, but it may be wrong.
Aye, Obama did some bad things. That's why it's important to be able to hold out leaders accountable. Something that the Republicans refuse to do to fellow republicans but something that Democrats have done to their own. So the point, I think, is that now there is a better chance at maintaining lawful behavior.

In the least, Biden is not likely to violate The Constitution daily.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 09, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 09:51:17 AM
[...]are you really calling president Trump a "Fascist dictator" and a "tyrant?"
Definitely fascist and tyrant at least by definition. Dictator is a little more fuzzy, but the guy clearly wanted to be.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 03:02:29 PM
How does president Trump have enough power over the nation to be a tyrant? (For that matter, dictator. Many of the pre-requisites overlap)

How does president Trump's term fit into the Fascist dogma of "nothing above the state?" How is Trump economically Socialist? How does he move towards a totalitarian top-down government? The only tenet of Fascism which I can pin on president Trump, is passionate and unashamed Nationalism. It's not a small one at that, but it along does not a Fascist make.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 09, 2020, 03:43:37 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 03:02:29 PM
How does president Trump have enough power over the nation to be a tyrant? (For that matter, dictator. Many of the pre-requisites overlap)
For one, there are a lot of people legally seeking asylum that have been oppressed and had their children taken away from them and lost.

Quote from: Asmodean
How does president Trump's term fit into the Fascist dogma of "nothing above the state?" How is Trump economically Socialist? How does he move towards a totalitarian top-down government? The only tenet of Fascism which I can pin on president Trump, is passionate and unashamed Nationalism. It's not a small one at that, but it along does not a Fascist make.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this so I'll only be supporting my claim.

I'll go off of this definition of fascism:
QuoteFascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[.]
far-right: In the interests of my time, I'm going to assume there is no disagreement that Trump is far-right since there are an abundance of quotes, videos, and tweets from him available.

authoritarian ultranationalism by dictatorial power: Also in the interests of my time, and the thousands of available tweets and other ultranationalistic statements available from Trump, so I'll skip to the second part. Bill Barr and the Republicans who were the only people who could have reigned in Trump's overreaches, fell behind a Unitary doctrine when it came to presidential power, and allowed Trump to do whatever and considered that (and in effect) within the powers of the president. Which by definition is dictatorial and using dictatorial powers.

forcible suppression of opposition: There are a few instances of such. In Portland, against the wishes of the leaders of the state and city, the federal government sent in military personnel that attacked peaceful protestors and black bagged people (some of which were just people walking down the street, not even protestors).  Another instance, Trump had protestors forcibly removed from an area for a photo-op at a church he doesn't even attend. He had encouraged and dog whistled for his followers to do some voter intimidation and a lot of Trump supporters did so. Including running the bus of their opposition off the road and ramming cars.

strong regimentation of society and of the economy: I suppose this gets a little fuzzy here. Republicans have a history of trying regimentize society and people's economic powers. Trump took that over and pushed it forward at least a little bit. But it gets complicated and time consuming to present decent evidence to back it up. So 3.1 out of four main points is good enough in my book.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 03:43:37 PM
For one, there are a lot of people legally seeking asylum that have been oppressed and had their children taken away from them and lost.
A tyrant is a ruler who has usurped power and (shared with dictator from here on) has direct control over all branches of government. This has nothing to do with asylum seekers, minorities or children. (Fascism tends to glorify youth. A minor point. Just thought it interesting to mention)

President Trump satisfies neither prerequisite.

Quote
I'll go off of this definition of fascism:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[.]
That helps, thanks.

I was going by the tenets of capital F Fascism, which is... Yeah. It sort-of fits, but is not a far-right ideology. (It is, but only in systems which measure Authoritarianism as being right-wing, and only by virtue of that) It does not fit to president Trump though, as the only thing I can readily pin on him, is Nationalism.

Going by your definition,

QuoteI'm going to assume there is no disagreement that Trump is far-right since there are an abundance of quotes, videos, and tweets from him available.
As seen from the centre (That being a position equally influenced by left-leaning politics as it is by right-leaning ones, and by authoritarian-leaning politics as much as libertarian-leaning ones) he's just a lightly Libertarian-leaning right-winger. Certainly, seen from the point of view of for example a Socialist (Democratic or otherwise), he would be far right. However, the absolute centrist would, from that same perspective, be closer to president Trump than to the abovementioned individual.

QuoteAlso in the interests of my time, and the thousands of available tweets and other ultranationalistic statements available from Trump, so I'll skip to the second part. Bill Barr and the Republicans who were the only people who could have reigned in Trump's overreaches, fell behind a Unitary doctrine when it came to presidential power, and allowed Trump to do whatever and considered that (and in effect) within the powers of the president. Which by definition is dictatorial and using dictatorial powers.
Trump is a Nationalist. Being the leader of the world's only remaining superpower, I'm not certain if there is a meaningful distinction between Nationalism and Ultranationalism.

In any case, we do not strongly disagree (if at all) on this point.

QuoteThere are a few instances of such. In Portland, against the wishes of the leaders of the state and city, the federal government sent in military personnel that attacked peaceful protestors and black bagged people (some of which were just people walking down the street, not even protestors).  Another instance, Trump had protestors forcibly removed from an area for a photo-op at a church he doesn't even attend. He had encouraged and dog whistled for his followers to do some voter intimidation and a lot of Trump supporters did so. Including running the bus of their opposition of the road and ramming cars.
People don't necessarily get to riot, loot, pillage or otherwise disturb the peace unopposed - political opposition or no.

How did the president forcibly suppress the Democratic party in Congress? The House successfully impeached him, for pity's sake!

Quotestrong regimentation of society and of the economy: I suppose this gets a little fuzzy here. Republicans have a history of trying regimentize society and people's economic powers. Trump took that over and pushed it forward at least a little bit. But it gets complicated and time consuming to present decent evidence to back it up. So 3.1 out of four main points is good enough in my book.
It is a tiny bit fuzzy indeed, but do remember that the economy bit refers to strict top-down (State to company/individual) control. Fascism is fine with private enterprise, as long as that enterprise directly serves the interests of the state. President Trump is far closer to Laissez-Faire Capitalism than to that. The regimentation of society refers to direct top-down control over what is and is not socially acceptable. Taken to its logical extreme, it means that serving the state is your reason for being. If anything, president Trump is self-serving, and he does not appear to have much of an issues with others being that either.

So yeah. Three out of four may be pushing it, and I doubt that even full-throated three out of four would necessarily make the president a Fascist. How so? Well, I give you the following to consider: I stand for equality under the law, the right to basic education, some economic guarantees and safeguards against falling on hard times, lean towards the right to basic healthcare and accept the necessity of some degree of progressive taxation. Am I a Socialist?

I would say categorically "no," as I also happen to be a staunch Individualist in areas, which make my world view incompatible with (if not near-opposed to) Socialism.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 09, 2020, 05:38:16 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 03:43:37 PM
For one, there are a lot of people legally seeking asylum that have been oppressed and had their children taken away from them and lost.
A tyrant is a ruler who has usurped power and (shared with dictator from here on) has direct control over all branches of government. This has nothing to do with asylum seekers, minorities or children. (Fascism tends to glorify youth. A minor point. Just thought it interesting to mention)

President Trump satisfies neither prerequisite.
There's a lot wrong in there.

Trump has the power of the presidential branch, the power of the legislative branch by controlling the power with the majority in the senate, and the power of the judicial branch by having 6 out of nine judges that vote primarily his party lines. That's all three branches of the US government.

And that's not even the definition of a tyrant, which is a cruel and oppressive ruler. His oppressive and cruel behavior is what satisfies the definition of tyrant.

This "usurping power" requirement is odd to me, where does that come from? Certainly tyrants have usurped power, but I don't think that is a requirement.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I'll go off of this definition of fascism:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[.]
That helps, thanks.

I was going by the tenets of capital F Fascism, which is... Yeah. It sort-of fits, but is not a far-right ideology. (It is, but only in systems which measure Authoritarianism as being right-wing, and only by virtue of that) It does not fit to president Trump though, as the only thing I can readily pin on him, is Nationalism.
Don't confuse things fascists commonly do or say (what some fascists have done or said), with the definition of fascism. That only leads to useless vagaries.

Quote from: Asmodean
Going by your definition,

QuoteI'm going to assume there is no disagreement that Trump is far-right since there are an abundance of quotes, videos, and tweets from him available.
As seen from the centre (That being a position equally influenced by left-leaning politics as it is by right-leaning ones, and by authoritarian-leaning politics as much as libertarian-leaning ones) he's just a lightly Libertarian-leaning right-winger. Certainly, seen from the point of view of for example a Socialist (Democratic or otherwise), he would be far right. However, the absolute centrist would, from that same perspective, be closer to president Trump than to the abovementioned individual.
I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteAlso in the interests of my time, and the thousands of available tweets and other ultranationalistic statements available from Trump, so I'll skip to the second part. Bill Barr and the Republicans who were the only people who could have reigned in Trump's overreaches, fell behind a Unitary doctrine when it came to presidential power, and allowed Trump to do whatever and considered that (and in effect) within the powers of the president. Which by definition is dictatorial and using dictatorial powers.
Trump is a Nationalist. Being the leader of the world's only remaining superpower, I'm not certain if there is a meaningful distinction between Nationalism and Ultranationalism.

In any case, we do not strongly disagree (if at all) on this point.
OK.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteThere are a few instances of such. In Portland, against the wishes of the leaders of the state and city, the federal government sent in military personnel that attacked peaceful protestors and black bagged people (some of which were just people walking down the street, not even protestors).  Another instance, Trump had protestors forcibly removed from an area for a photo-op at a church he doesn't even attend. He had encouraged and dog whistled for his followers to do some voter intimidation and a lot of Trump supporters did so. Including running the bus of their opposition of the road and ramming cars.
People don't necessarily get to riot, loot, pillage or otherwise disturb the peace unopposed - political opposition or no.
True. But one has to wonder why you're trying to poison the well here.

Quote from: Asmodean
How did the president forcibly suppress the Democratic party in Congress? The House successfully impeached him, for pity's sake!
One, the democratic side of the senate has been oppressed since Obama's second year.

Two, oppression is rarely ever successful 100%.

A weak and inane point that should not have passed even the lightest of scrutiny. This is disappointing.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quotestrong regimentation of society and of the economy: I suppose this gets a little fuzzy here. Republicans have a history of trying regimentize society and people's economic powers. Trump took that over and pushed it forward at least a little bit. But it gets complicated and time consuming to present decent evidence to back it up. So 3.1 out of four main points is good enough in my book.
It is a tiny bit fuzzy indeed, but do remember that the economy bit refers to strict top-down (State to company/individual) control. Fascism is fine with private enterprise, as long as that enterprise directly serves the interests of the state. President Trump is far closer to Laissez-Faire Capitalism than to that. The regimentation of society refers to direct top-down control over what is and is not socially acceptable. Taken to its logical extreme, it means that serving the state is your reason for being. If anything, president Trump is self-serving, and he does not appear to have much of an issues with others being that either.
Yes, while not there yet, that is what the Republicans have been legislating towards. Not every fascist government starts out that way. And I also again disagree with your peculiar inclusions into the definitions of things.

Quote from: AsmodeanSo yeah. Three out of four may be pushing it, and I doubt that even full-throated three out of four would necessarily make the president a Fascist. How so? Well, I give you the following to consider: I stand for equality under the law, the right to basic education, some economic guarantees and safeguards against falling on hard times, lean towards the right to basic healthcare and accept the necessity of some degree of progressive taxation. Am I a Socialist?

I would say categorically "no," as I also happen to be a staunch Individualist in areas, which make my world view incompatible with (if not near-opposed to) Socialism.
If you support socialist institutions it makes you, at least in part, a socialist. I.E.: a person who advocates for or participates in socialism. But if we have to put people into buckets, Trump's fascism bucket certainly outweighs all the other buckets.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 06:37:42 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 05:38:16 PM
Trump has the power of the presidential branch, the power of the legislative branch by controlling the power with the majority in the senate, and the power of the judicial branch by having 6 out of nine judges that vote primarily his party lines. That's all three branches of the US government.
And yet they are not under his control. Aligned interests are something different.

QuoteAnd that's not even the definition of a tyrant, which is a cruel and oppressive ruler. His oppressive and cruel behavior is what satisfies the definition of tyrant.
Well, that's an incomplete definition. for instance, the word "absolute" should make an appearance in one way or another, and this is me being overly-technical, but the difference between a tyrant and a dictator does reside in how they achieved power.

QuoteCertainly tyrants have usurped power, but I don't think that is a requirement.
If not for the way they came to power, "tyrant" and "dictator" are as near as makes no difference synonyms. It's not a major point - I tagged it on to differentiate the two in order to steel-man the original statement.

Quote
Don't confuse things fascists commonly do or say (what some fascists have done or said), with the definition of fascism. That only leads to useless vagaries.
I am not. I am familiar with the core tenets of Fascism, and I go by those. (Largely derived from writings by Mussolini, Marx and Gentile)

Quote
I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.
Far-right values include those of Capitalist, collectivist, nationalist, traditionalist, theocratic, racial supremacist, social Darwinist, oligarchic and hierarchic nature. Far-right policies include segregation, suppression of individual freedom (speech first out of the window - just like Far Left), state clergy, forced homogeny, isolationism, inequality under the law among equally-abled citizens and more.

An important aspect of this is the magnitude. For instance, you can be as staunch a white supremacist as they come, and yet not be "far-right."

Far-left values include those of Socialist, collectivist, anti-property, internationalist, anti-hierarchic, progressive, humanitarian, racial and anarchist nature.

Far-left policies include forced redistribution/abolition of wealth, limiting of personal freedom, state/collective ownership of land, resources and productive capabilities thereof, forced diversity, international cointegration (fancy way of saying "no borders"), inequality under the law of equally-abled citizens and others.

The same aside as above applies. You can be a staunch proponent of open borders, and still not be Far Left.

Quote
True. But one has to wonder why you're trying to poison the well here.
Not at all. I'm sure there are otherwise fine people on both sides.

President Trump did not forcefully suppress protests. For one, if he had, there would either be as good as no protest or a full-blown civil war at this point. (The US is more like Paris - somewhat on fire - then it is like the Arab spring states - broken and bloodied, or turned (more-)authoritarian) For two, there is a difference between suppressing the opposition (As in, not letting the opposition's message to come through) and suppressing unrest. For three, even were I to concede this one unconditionally, suppressing the opposition is far from exclusive to Fascism. Communists are just as renowned for that, if not more. For four, and mostly just for fun, why, oh why did he not run a column of tanks right over that separatist enclave in that one city somewhere up North? (Portland... Or was it?) What kind of dictator is he?!  :rant1:

Quote from: Asmodean
One, the democratic side of the senate has been oppressed since Obama's second year.
No. They are just in minority. Until they win a majority in an election, they can expect to be out-voted, but they do get to vote.

QuoteTwo, oppression is rarely ever successful 100%.
If you have the agency to do something, but not the real world means to succeed, you still have that freedom.

For instance, you are free to vote (assuming you are otherwise eligible) even though there is no bus going from your house to the polling station. You are free to vote AND you are free to figure out your own logistics of how to do so.

QuoteA weak and inane point that should not have passed even the lightest of scrutiny. This is disappointing.
You, my friend, used bloody asylum seekers in your defence of the tyrant argument - they are not even citizens of your nation, for crying out loud, and here you are, calling my point "weak?" Pot. Kettle. N-word.  ;)

Quote
Yes, while not there yet, that is what the Republicans have been legislating towards. Not every fascist government starts out that way. And I also again disagree with your peculiar inclusions into the definitions of things.
Those inclusions are particular of Fascism. I, too, disagree with them on an ideological level.

Quote
If you support socialist institutions it makes you, at least in part, a socialist. I.E.: a person who advocates for and participates in socialism. But if we have to put people into buckets, Trump's fascism bucket certainly outweighs all the other buckets.
What if I support exactly as many Laissez-Faire Capitalist institutions just as strongly?

Ah, don't let me provoke you into a lengthy semantic argument. I see what you are saying, and I partly agree in a weird different-angle sort of way;

It is a matter of buckets. It is also a matter of where the fulcrum is on the scale; does Trump have some Fascist or Fascist-like attitudes and values? Yeah. Sure. But then, any-one who ever said "good morning" in German was probably quoting Hitler. The latter is not an example of a realistic fulcrum, I suppose, but it illustrates what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 09, 2020, 09:05:20 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 06:37:42 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 05:38:16 PM
Trump has the power of the presidential branch, the power of the legislative branch by controlling the power with the majority in the senate, and the power of the judicial branch by having 6 out of nine judges that vote primarily his party lines. That's all three branches of the US government.
And yet they are not under his control. Aligned interests are something different.

QuoteAnd that's not even the definition of a tyrant, which is a cruel and oppressive ruler. His oppressive and cruel behavior is what satisfies the definition of tyrant.
Well, that's an incomplete definition. for instance, the word "absolute" should make an appearance in one way or another, and this is me being overly-technical, but the difference between a tyrant and a dictator does reside in how they achieved power.

QuoteCertainly tyrants have usurped power, but I don't think that is a requirement.
If not for the way they came to power, "tyrant" and "dictator" are as near as makes no difference synonyms. It's not a major point - I tagged it on to differentiate the two in order to steel-man the original statement.
No need to steel-man it at all though.

The point was in classifying Trump as a tyrant, and I provided an example that matches that definition. What you did was try to change the means of classifying so that you could attempt to say that Trump is not a tyrant or at least to criticize those that do by telling them they should not. If you want to continue to try to change the definition of terms, I'm not interested in that kind of dead end discussion.

The point is: it's fine to call Trump a tyrant because he did tyrannical things. I'm bored of this now, so unless I see something of substance that goes against that, I consider this done.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Don't confuse things fascists commonly do or say (what some fascists have done or said), with the definition of fascism. That only leads to useless vagaries.
I am not. I am familiar with the core tenets of Fascism, and I go by those. (Largely derived from writings by Mussolini, Marx and Gentile)
You're doing exactly as I have described while denying doing it. That is a little funny.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.
Far-right values include those[...]
No one is 100% one thing. It makes discussion useless to only discuss absolutes because almost nothing is. If this is the kind of thing you're into, congratulations, nothing means anything and discussion is meaningless.

The point is Trump is far-right because he espouses and enacts far-right values far more than any other. It's actually quite odd to hear anyone argue against Trump being far-right as that's usually only heard of from the crazies.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
True. But one has to wonder why you're trying to poison the well here.
Not at all. [...]
The point is, that 90+% of the protests were/are peaceful, even when the police came in to shoot them with rubber bullets and use tear gas and pepper spray on them. And then your counter-point to peaceful protestors being oppressed, is to bring up looters, rioters... etc. If we're being honest, that's not an honest take. The most charitable interpretation that makes sense, is that take was taken in ignorance.

But even if was in ignorance why even do that when my point was talking about peaceful protestors, unless some shady shit was intended. I'm reserving judgment but this is the same kind of thing bad faith arguers pull.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote from: Davin
One, the democratic side of the senate has been oppressed since Obama's second year.
No. They are just in minority. Until they win a majority in an election, they can expect to be out-voted, but they do get to vote.
On paper, sure. But hopefully no-one is that naive. In the past, the minority had been able to get things to the floor and to sway the majority part and still get things passed. That however changed in 2010. In practice, the minority party has had no power. In actually one of the real states of near 100% oppression that does fit your definition, you try to say they are not oppressed. Seems like you have some introspection that needs doing.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteTwo, oppression is rarely ever successful 100%.
If you have the agency to do something, but not the real world means to succeed, you still have that freedom.
Effectively you do not. But that avoids my point rather than addresses it.

Do you think that oppression must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression?

If you agree that it doesn't have to be 100% successful 100% of the time then you are wrong and should accept it. If you think it must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression, then you will remain being wrong without admitting it. Either case, you are wrong and there is no point discussing this point any further.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteA weak and inane point that should not have passed even the lightest of scrutiny. This is disappointing.
You, my friend, used bloody asylum seekers in your defence of the tyrant argument - they are not even citizens of your nation, for crying out loud, and here you are, calling my point "weak?" Pot. Kettle. N-word.  ;)
Not even close here, you're a lot in the wrong here.

I provided an example of his behavior that matches the definition of a tyrant to justify calling him a tyrant. In contrast here, you're trying to say that because there was some dissent he couldn't be oppressive. You're wrong here, it's OK to admit it and to grow.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Yes, while not there yet, that is what the Republicans have been legislating towards. Not every fascist government starts out that way. And I also again disagree with your peculiar inclusions into the definitions of things.
Those inclusions are particular of Fascism. I, too, disagree with them on an ideological level.
My agreement or disagreement with the odd inclusions you irrationally brought in to poison the well doesn't matter, nor does yours. It's still illogical.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
If you support socialist institutions it makes you, at least in part, a socialist. I.E.: a person who advocates for and participates in socialism. But if we have to put people into buckets, Trump's fascism bucket certainly outweighs all the other buckets.
What if I support exactly as many Laissez-Faire Capitalist institutions just as strongly?

Ah, don't let me provoke you into a lengthy semantic argument. I see what you are saying, and I partly agree in a weird different-angle sort of way;

It is a matter of buckets. It is also a matter of where the fulcrum is on the scale; does Trump have some Fascist or Fascist-like attitudes and values? Yeah. Sure. But then, any-one who ever said "good morning" in German was probably quoting Hitler. The latter is not an example of a realistic fulcrum, I suppose, but it illustrates what I'm saying.
I wouldn't say simply saying "guten Morgen" makes a fascist, but the concentration camps for primarily Jews and the concentration camps for primarily Hispanic people is not a stretch to define as a sign of fascism.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 09, 2020, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 06:37:42 PM
Quote
I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.
Far-right values include those of Capitalist, collectivist, nationalist, traditionalist, theocratic, racial supremacist, social Darwinist, oligarchic and hierarchic nature. Far-right policies include segregation, suppression of individual freedom (speech first out of the window - just like Far Left), state clergy, forced homogeny, isolationism, inequality under the law among equally-abled citizens and more.

An important aspect of this is the magnitude. For instance, you can be as staunch a white supremacist as they come, and yet not be "far-right."

Far-left values include those of Socialist, collectivist, anti-property, internationalist, anti-hierarchic, progressive, humanitarian, racial and anarchist nature.

Far-left policies include forced redistribution/abolition of wealth, limiting of personal freedom, state/collective ownership of land, resources and productive capabilities thereof, forced diversity, international cointegration (fancy way of saying "no borders"), inequality under the law of equally-abled citizens and others.

The same aside as above applies. You can be a staunch proponent of open borders, and still not be Far Left.
Well that got lost in my reply somewhere.

This is all fine and good but what I want to see you support is: how real people with various political views, do not see Trump as far-right. With real data.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 10:48:42 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 09:05:20 PM
The point was in classifying Trump as a tyrant, and I provided an example that matches that definition. What you did was try to change the means of classifying so that you could attempt to say that Trump is not a tyrant or at least to criticize those that do by telling them they should not. If you want to continue to try to change the definition of terms, I'm not interested in that kind of dead end discussion.
Does not fulfil the absolute ruler criteria. Not a tyrant or a dictator.

He may still be a mean or even cruel leader, but absolute control of government is required by definition

QuoteThe point is: it's fine to call Trump a tyrant because he did tyrannical things. I'm bored of this now, so unless I see something of substance that goes against that, I consider this done.
Here is Aristotle's definition of tyranny then;
QuoteAny sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself, and who rules over subjects all equal or superior to himself to suit his own interest and not theirs, can only be exercising a tyranny.


Quote
You're doing exactly as I have described while denying doing it. That is a little funny.
The tenets of Fascism are what separates a Fascist movement from a non-Fascist one.

Quote
No one is 100% one thing. It makes discussion useless to only discuss absolutes because almost nothing is. If this is the kind of thing you're into, congratulations, nothing means anything and discussion is meaningless.
What on earth are you talking about?! What precise thing am I alleged to be "into" here? Where does this 100% come from? My example included a single value, held vehemently, not making a person "far right." It relates to president Trump's Nationalism. That just makes him a Nationalist.

Quote
The point is, that 90+% of the protests were/are peaceful, even when the police came in to shoot them with rubber bullets and use tear gas and pepper spray on them. And then your counter-point to peaceful protestors being oppressed, is to bring up looters, rioters... etc. If we're being honest, that's not an honest take. The most charitable interpretation that makes sense, is that take was taken in ignorance.
Actually, the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed, but I don't even mind. I will happily enough buy that most protesters were peaceful. As for most protests, what I'm saying is that IF there is rioting and looting and general unrest (to specify, the kind of unrest that is likely to result in injury and property damage) force may be justified. It may suppress the opposition. But it may be justified.

Fascistically suppressing one's political opposition requires either that the opposition's right to voice an opinion or to cast a ballot in a lawful fashion (or similar) is suppressed, or that laws are being passed which specifically or disproportionally target the opposition's ability to do that. It's actually a pretty narrow definition in the context of Fascism. Look at the bloody Internet - there is opposition opinion absolutely everywhere.

Which sanctions can you expect for disagreeing with me on the ever-virtue of the glorious God-Emperor?

QuoteBut even if was in ignorance why even do that when my point was talking about peaceful protestors, unless some shady shit was intended. I'm reserving judgment but this is the same kind of thing bad faith arguers pull.
Doesn't matter. There were fine people on both sides. On both sides. Still, there were riots, looting, attacks on civilians and law enforcement and attempts at separatism/domestic terrorism.

Quote
On paper, sure. But hopefully no-one is that naive. In the past, the minority had been able to get things to the floor and to sway the majority part and still get things passed. That however changed in 2010. In practice, the minority party has had no power. In actually one of the real states of near 100% oppression that does fit your definition, you try to say they are not oppressed. Seems like you have some introspection that needs doing.
De jure is not always de facto.

What you describe next is a deep polarization of society. I find that regrettable. That said, minority party having no power may be the consequence of a two-party system, rather than [Fascist] oppression. In my country, no one party can govern alone (could, by obtaining 50% plus one representative, but it's been a long time since the last time, and will likely be longer still until the next), and that results in the opposite phenomenon - the smallest parties can end up with the most power per seat, as without them... No one party can govern.

Quote
Effectively you do not. But that avoids my point rather than addresses it.
It addresses you point. Having the freedom to do something is not the same as being capable of doing it or being able to follow it through to a satisfying conclusion.

I am free to try and become an astronaut. I have no real-world capability of doing so what-so-ever, but I DO have that freedom. As such, I am not being oppressed by the institution of space travel.

QuoteDo you think that oppression must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression?

I don't measure oppression in points, units and percent. I am not an intersectionalist.

In broad terms, you are oppressed if you are legally/socially prevented from doing something the "common man" gets to do.

Does the "common man" get to vote? Well, then so do you. Does the "common man" have to live with the results of said vote? Well, then so do you. Does the "common man" get to have a gun, choose his own faith, apply for a job, compete in the Olympics, tick the minority box on an application form, buy a house... Do you? If your answer is different from his, you might make a case for oppression.

It's not perfectly nuanced, as I have ignored the class divide in this example, but I can account for it upon a chance of getting somewhere, which I frankly do not see.

QuoteIf you agree that it doesn't have to be 100% successful 100% of the time then you are wrong and should accept it. If you think it must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression, then you will remain being wrong without admitting it. Either case, you are wrong and there is no point discussing this point any further.
I reject your way of measuring oppression.

Quote
Not even close here, you're a lot in the wrong here.
Pot. Kettle. N-word. Again. Why do you assume that you are correct?

QuoteI provided an example of his behavior that matches the definition of a tyrant to justify calling him a tyrant. In contrast here, you're trying to say that because there was some dissent he couldn't be oppressive. You're wrong here, it's OK to admit it and to grow.
Disregarded a disqualifying factor. Again, why do you assume that you are correct here?

Quote
My agreement or disagreement with the odd inclusions you irrationally brought in to poison the well doesn't matter, nor does yours. It's still illogical.
"Illogical." A bold claim. Please explain what specifically goes against logic in what I said? What does the regimentation of society and economy mean in the context of Fascism? Pretty much what I said. If you call logical fallacies, then call them out so I can evaluate and address them.

Quote
I wouldn't say simply saying "guten Morgen" makes a fascist,
Nono, of course not. I was not suggesting that you did. I was illustrating how moving the fulcrum can have the same kind of effect on the scales as altering the weight of the bucket.

Quote
but the concentration camps for primarily Jews and the concentration camps for primarily Hispanic people is not a stretch to define as a sign of fascism.
I'm not too inclined to just hand you the definition of "concentration camp" as calling de-glorified prisons for people illegally crossing your borders such somehow cheapens the term, but I think we have enough on our plate as it is, so I'll just finish by saying that concentration camps are also a Communist phenomenon. Chinese Uyghurs are a fine recent example.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 11:50:43 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 10:19:18 PM
This is all fine and good but what I want to see you support is: how real people with various political views, do not see Trump as far-right. With real data.
Oh!

This one from Pew, and handles how the US is percieved in largely left-leaning Europe with some other major "Western" nations;
[spoiler](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/09/PG_2020.09.15_U.S.-Image_0-13.png?w=550)[/spoiler]

Grain of salt, because the question is about the country, not the president specifically, so at best this is indirect. What's interesting here is that the US is perceived favourably by about +20 right on average, but that the relative position of the Centre dot is more or less mid-way between the left and the Right opinion in four out of ten statistically significant countries, with three having a favourable Centrist bias and three having an unfavourable centrist bias.

This puts the US in a pretty Centre-Right position.

I do not have a poll of where people in the world pin the president on the political scale (In Norway, it's mostly just as "Republican" and/or "Populist" by and large, maybe because our right/left distinction is Socialist/non-Socialist. Doesn't exactly apply to the "classical" US model with two non-Socialist wings. Example from our version of Encyclopaedia Britannica below) so I do infer from data like the above, dealing with favourability or confidence in relation to the political opinions of the pool. This puts the president sort-of in the middle of the right field.

[spoiler]From: Store Norske Leksikon
Google Translate unaltered for posterity. Link to source in Norwegian below quote.
QuotePolitical point of view
Ideologically, Trump doesn't let himself be easily placed. In economic policy, he has combined traditional market thinking from the Conservatives with some acceptance of public support schemes, including for health care. The 2017 tax reform was characterized by traditional Republican core issues such as easing corporate taxation and the notion that tax relief for the most affluent will provide greater investment and thus benefit broadly through economic growth.

Trump has supported increased defense spending, but also criticized america's willingness to use military force on other continents. His choice of Gorsuch as Supreme Court justice satisfied the Christian right, but Trump has not spoken in depth about his own religious convictions.

In his 2016 election campaign, there were elements typical of right-wing populist parties in many countries. Central to the depiction of a conflict between peoples and elites, a restrictive immigration policy, an appeal to national pride, demands for a stronger military system and an assertion that American workers would get better conditions through less free trade and harsher confrontations in trade policy.
https://snl.no/Donald_Trump

[/spoiler]

EDIT: I forgot to link to source in the Pew thing. :-[ It's from here: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/

I also think I have a similar study, though not in English, from around 2018 bookmarked somewhere on my work laptop. Will post if find.



Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 10, 2020, 02:47:08 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 10:48:42 PM
[...]
He may still be a mean or even cruel leader, but absolute control of government is required by definition
[...]
By definition it is not required. Nice that Trump also satisfies Aristotle's definition. Nothing of substance so nothing to talk about.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
You're doing exactly as I have described while denying doing it. That is a little funny.
The tenets of Fascism are what separates a Fascist movement from a non-Fascist one.
Oh my, this is basic stuff, but here we go: We have definitions for things so that we can apply those terms to things. Those things can then have their own tenets, but tenets are not required to be defined as a thing. I said you were confusing what fascists did or said with the definition of fascism, and you continue to do so. It is kind of funny for you to keep doing a thing I said you're doing, while denying doing it at the same time. There is nothing new of substance here, this line of discussion is ended as well.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
No one is 100% one thing. It makes discussion useless to only discuss absolutes because almost nothing is. If this is the kind of thing you're into, congratulations, nothing means anything and discussion is meaningless.
What on earth are you talking about?! What precise thing am I alleged to be "into" here? Where does this 100% come from? My example included a single value, held vehemently, not making a person "far right." It relates to president Trump's Nationalism. That just makes him a Nationalist.
It's looking a lot like you don't know what terms are, how to apply them, what they mean, or anything about them. Like it's a basic language usage thing and now I'm not even sure if you're even saying what you think you're saying because I've lost confidence in your ability to understand what terms are. And at this point it's kinda funny.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
The point is, that 90+% of the protests were/are peaceful, even when the police came in to shoot them with rubber bullets and use tear gas and pepper spray on them. And then your counter-point to peaceful protestors being oppressed, is to bring up looters, rioters... etc. If we're being honest, that's not an honest take. The most charitable interpretation that makes sense, is that take was taken in ignorance.
Actually, the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed, but I don't even mind.
Actually the "the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed" is being disputed, but I don't even mind. :D

Like what the fuck stupid weak ass shit point is that? You have to just be fucking with me now because this shit is hilarious.

If one dumbass on the internet somewhere disputes something then you think that's valid?

Quote from: Asmodean
[...]what I'm saying is that IF there is rioting and looting and general unrest (to specify, the kind of unrest that is likely to result in injury and property damage) force may be justified. It may suppress the opposition. But it may be justified.
Great, this is muddying the waters. Why bring up such a stupid point in counter to peaceful protestors being shot and maced?

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Effectively you do not. But that avoids my point rather than addresses it.
It addresses you point.[...]
It does not and the rest is useless.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteDo you think that oppression must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression?

I don't measure oppression[...]
Are you having trouble reading? It's a basic question.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteIf you agree that it doesn't have to be 100% successful 100% of the time then you are wrong and should accept it. If you think it must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression, then you will remain being wrong without admitting it. Either case, you are wrong and there is no point discussing this point any further.
I reject your way of measuring oppression.
What the fuck does that even mean? :lol: Are you OK? I didn't provide a way of measuring oppression. There were only two ways to go about this, and you choose to remain wrong.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Not even close here, you're a lot in the wrong here.
Pot. Kettle. N-word. Again. Why do you assume that you are correct?
I clearly explained it.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI provided an example of his behavior that matches the definition of a tyrant to justify calling him a tyrant. In contrast here, you're trying to say that because there was some dissent he couldn't be oppressive. You're wrong here, it's OK to admit it and to grow.
Disregarded a disqualifying factor. Again, why do you assume that you are correct here?
Because that's how using terms works, what the fuck is going on here? :D Do I have to explain how to use words? ;D

Asmodean: How can you call that thing "red?"
Davin: Because it's red.
Asmodean: And what makes you think you're right?

Like this is hilarious but what the fuck, dude.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
My agreement or disagreement with the odd inclusions you irrationally brought in to poison the well doesn't matter, nor does yours. It's still illogical.
"Illogical." A bold claim. Please explain what specifically [...]
See the explanation I already gave. No need for me to repeat myself.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
but the concentration camps for primarily Jews and the concentration camps for primarily Hispanic people is not a stretch to define as a sign of fascism.
I'm not too inclined to just hand you the definition of "concentration camp" as calling de-glorified prisons for people illegally crossing your borders such somehow cheapens the term, but I think we have enough on our plate as it is[...]
Most were legally crossing the border. That's how you seek asylum, legally. You cross the border and then ask for asylum. It's the legal process. You've fallen for the stupid bullshit narrative presented by bad faith actors. Try not being so gullible.

Quote from: Asmodean
[...]so I'll just finish by saying that concentration camps are also a Communist phenomenon. Chinese Uyghurs are a fine recent example.
Some definitions share things with other definitions sometimes. That's why I covered all the criteria. As funny as this is to me, it feels a lot like most of this "discussion" is me telling you how English and using words works, and you demonstrating that you don't understand how English and using words works.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 10, 2020, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 11:50:43 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 10:19:18 PM
This is all fine and good but what I want to see you support is: how real people with various political views, do not see Trump as far-right. With real data.
Oh![...]
Look at my sentence, then look at what you provided. It doesn't match up.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Recusant on November 10, 2020, 03:50:19 PM
A reminder that personal remarks are not helpful to a productive discussion
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 10, 2020, 05:52:12 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 10, 2020, 02:47:08 PM
By definition it is not required. Nice that Trump also satisfies Aristotle's definition. Nothing of substance so nothing to talk about.
"Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself..."

Not "any elected official who refuses to..." or "any mean-spirited leader protected by..." Any sole ruler, who is not required to give account of himself.

I'm taking this point in the name of The Asmo.

Quote
...this line of discussion is ended as well.

Fine, I'm grabbing this one too then.

Quote
It's looking a lot like you don't know what terms are, how to apply them, what they mean, or anything about them. Like it's a basic language usage thing and now I'm not even sure if you're even saying what you think you're saying because I've lost confidence in your ability to understand what terms are. And at this point it's kinda funny.
Not an argument. Are we dropping this one as well?

Quote
Actually the "the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed" is being disputed, but I don't even mind. :D
Indeed. It matters not to the underlying principle of the thing.

QuoteLike what the fuck stupid weak ass shit point is that? You have to just be fucking with me now because this shit is hilarious.
Actually, only a tiny bit. In reality, you don't have much of a point in regards to this being an example of Fascist suppression of the opposition.

QuoteIf one dumbass on the internet somewhere disputes something then you think that's valid?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on whether or not I care, who the dumbass is and whether or not the dispute changes the nature of the original claim.

Quote
Great, this is muddying the waters. Why bring up such a stupid point in counter to peaceful protestors being shot and maced?
Because under the same flag, there were riots. And looting. And assault on law enforcement. And separatism. Because any self-respecting Fascist, or even tyrant for that matter, would have rolled out the artillery (actual wartime artillery) for far less. He [Fascist] would have to. Nothing above the state - and nothing against the state.

Quote
Are you having trouble reading? It's a basic question.
You are either oppressed by x, in which case you are "100%" oppressed by it, or you are not - in which case you are "0%" oppressed by it.

What I'm saying is that I do not see being "78% oppressed" as a legitimate state. I do not measure oppression - it is, or it is not. The matter of degrees comes in specifically what kind of oppression you are and are not willing to live with.

Quote
What the fuck does that even mean? :lol: Are you OK? I didn't provide a way of measuring oppression. There were only two ways to go about this, and you choose to remain wrong.
What is "100% [successful] 100% [of the time]," if not measurement of success rate per time interval?

Quote
I clearly explained it.
Well, not really, but I'm content to never-mind.

Quote
Because that's how using terms works, what the fuck is going on here? :D Do I have to explain how to use words? ;D
Yes, that's precisely how it works. A man is an adult human male. If he's not adult, he's not a man. (Boy) If he's not human, he's not a man. (Bull, for example) The third condition is necessary for the narrowest definitions only, but the first two are disqualifying if not met.

You do logic. You have to know this..?

Quote
Most were legally crossing the border. That's how you seek asylum, legally.
Actually...

QuoteYou cross the border and then ask for asylum. It's the legal process. You've fallen for the stupid bullshit narrative presented by bad faith actors. Try not being so gullible.
...You cross the border into the closest safe  region, then seek asylum there. Or you do it from the nearest embassy of the nation in which you are seeking asylum. While your claim is being processed, you do not have the legal right to cross into the country in question unless that right has been granted to you by relevant authorities in said country.

But let us assume that they indeed cross the border legally. For all I know, the United States has a law that specifically permits entry into the country upon the submission of an asylum request.

My question is this: a person requests asylum at a point of entry. Their asylum request has not been addressed at this point. Why should they be allowed to proceed beyond that point of entry freely? Personally, I'd consider solving that through the use of GPS ankle bracelets - maybe that's being done, but has some severe limiting factors. Sounds like a better idea than tent cities and guarded compounds, anyways.

Quote
Some definitions share things with other definitions sometimes. That's why I covered all the criteria. As funny as this is to me, it feels a lot like most of this "discussion" is me telling you how English and using words works, and you demonstrating that you don't understand how English and using words works.
I am not a native speaker, so perhaps I don't. I do understand, however, that there are conditions which disqualify a given term from being applicable to something.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 10, 2020, 06:01:23 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 10, 2020, 02:47:50 PM
Look at my sentence, then look at what you provided. It doesn't match up.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no such polling data for the World, by ideology of the participants.

How am I wrong to infer what I do, based on the data I do have? The article I provided calls the president many labels, but not once Far-Right. The positive favourability of the country under his leadership leans right, but on average, the difference between the Left and Centre and the Right and Centre is about the same. There is a similar trend in confidence in the president, although the Centre is skewed more towards the left there.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 10, 2020, 07:50:03 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 10, 2020, 05:52:12 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 10, 2020, 02:47:08 PM
By definition it is not required. Nice that Trump also satisfies Aristotle's definition. Nothing of substance so nothing to talk about.
"Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself..."
Exactly. Which is what we have witnessed. He satisfies more than one definition of Tyrant. Only needed one, but two will work as well.

Quote from: Asmodean
I'm taking this point in the name of The Asmo.
Do what you want, dude, whatever helps you. :D

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteLike what the fuck stupid weak ass shit point is that? You have to just be fucking with me now because this shit is hilarious.
Actually, only a tiny bit. In reality, you don't have much of a point in regards to this being an example of Fascist suppression of the opposition.
Oppressing peacefully protesting politcal opponents through violence, intimidation, and arrests using the power of the state is not suppression? Weird, let's check the dictionary to see if I'm still using English.

Quote from: Oppress
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.

Quote from: Suppress
the action of suppressing something such as an activity or publication.

By definition, it fucking is. :D Like what the fuck is going on here?

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Great, this is muddying the waters. Why bring up such a stupid point in counter to peaceful protestors being shot and maced?
Because under the same flag, there were riots. And looting. And assault on law enforcement. And separatism. Because any self-respecting Fascist, or even tyrant for that matter, would have rolled out the artillery (actual wartime artillery) for far less. He [Fascist] would have to. Nothing above the state - and nothing against the state.
Yes, this is a textbook example of muddying the waters. I will save it as a real world reference.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Are you having trouble reading? It's a basic question.
You are either oppressed by x, in which case you are "100%" oppressed by it, or you are not - in which case you are "0%" oppressed by it.

What I'm saying is that I do not see being "78% oppressed" as a legitimate state. I do not measure oppression - it is, or it is not. The matter of degrees comes in specifically what kind of oppression you are and are not willing to live with.
That is exactly why you're wrong. Look up the definition of oppression. You'll notice that it does not in any way at all require 100% oppression or suppression to be used. If you want to stick to your peculiar little definitions, that's up to you, but to go out into the world and try to tell other people they have to use them is very silly. :D This whole thing is hilarious.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I clearly explained it.
Well, not really, but I'm content to never-mind.
I used basic English. Which parts did you not understand?

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Because that's how using terms works, what the fuck is going on here? :D Do I have to explain how to use words? ;D
Yes, that's precisely how it works. A man is an adult human male. If he's not adult, he's not a man. (Boy) If he's not human, he's not a man. (Bull, for example) The third condition is necessary for the narrowest definitions only, but the first two are disqualifying if not met.

You do logic. You have to know this..?
I do know logic, that's why what you're doing here is hilarious. It's like a performance piece in the same vein as Andy Kaufman.

It's exactly like you're coming in here telling me that me calling Trump a tyrant is wrong because you think tyrants have to wear pink socks. It's ridiculous on every level.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Most were legally crossing the border. That's how you seek asylum, legally.
Actually...[...]
Not going to respond to made up bullshit. What I will say is that when a person is fleeing a dangerous situation and asking for help, it's a shitty thing to do to strip their kids from them and even worse to then lose those kids. It's also a shitty thing to not provide basic necessities like soap and toothpaste. Also, it's a shitty thing to treat people following the law, like they're criminals and locking them up and taking away their freedom. And there's so much more wrong with it.

It's also oppressive (by the English definition), and cruel (by the English definition), which makes tyrannical (by the English definition).

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Some definitions share things with other definitions sometimes. That's why I covered all the criteria. As funny as this is to me, it feels a lot like most of this "discussion" is me telling you how English and using words works, and you demonstrating that you don't understand how English and using words works.
I am not a native speaker, so perhaps I don't. I do understand, however, that there are conditions which disqualify a given term from being applicable to something.
Give an example of such.

The way it works is we have definitions for things, if something satisfies the definition, then we can call it that thing. Each term can have multiple definitions that do not always agree, and most of the confusion is taken care of by the context. If someone brings up a definition and (even if you have your own weird definitions), and shows how the thing they're applying the definition to applies because it satisfies the definition they are using, then it's dumb to argue against it and it's very weird.

You can disagree with the definition, but that looks dumb especially when the definition is pulled from language sources like a dictionary or from commonly accepted term definitions. This has been a long a stupid discussion that did not need to be because it was really simple. But at least I got some laughs.

What you're doing here is bringing in your own weird definitions, and telling other people that they can't use the terms the way they're using them because they don't satisfy your weird little definitions. That's just silly. It's one thing to try to be super pedantic about a definition which is a boring discussion in itself, it's another to be pedantic about your personal definitions that no else even agrees with. Which, it turns out, is also a boring discussion.

Quote from: Asmodean on November 10, 2020, 06:01:23 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 10, 2020, 02:47:50 PM
Look at my sentence, then look at what you provided. It doesn't match up.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no such polling data for the World, by ideology of the participants.[...]
Vacuously infer what you want, baselessly claim what you want, it will carry about as much value as not saying anything at all.

I wanted to see you back up your stance that people don't see Trump as far-right, you could not, and all you had to do was admit it.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 10, 2020, 09:51:53 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 10, 2020, 07:50:03 PM
That is exactly why you're wrong. Look up the definition of oppression. You'll notice that it does not in any way at all require 100% oppression or suppression to be used. If you want to stick to your peculiar little definitions, that's up to you, but to go out into the world and try to tell other people they have to use them is very silly. :D This whole thing is hilarious.
I am not requiring "100%" oppression. I do. Not. Measure. Oppression. It is, or it is not. My argument did not hinge on someone being "100%" oppressed. It did not contain a measurement of any kind. This is your game.

Quote
I do know logic, that's why what you're doing here is hilarious. It's like a performance piece in the same vein as Andy Kaufman.
Is a man, who is not human, a man?

Quote
Not going to respond to made up bullshit. What I will say is that when a person is fleeing a dangerous situation and asking for help, it's a shitty thing to do to strip their kids from them and even worse to then lose those kids. It's also a shitty thing to not provide basic necessities like soap and toothpaste. Also, it's a shitty thing to treat people following the law, like they're criminals and locking them up and taking away their freedom. And there's so much more wrong with it.
What did I make up?

QuoteIt's also oppressive (by the English definition), and cruel (by the English definition), which makes tyrannical (by the English definition).
They are not citizens  of your nation. They have limited rights and obligations to your society. Yes, they are oppressed, and there may certainly be cruelty involved, but at the end of the day, as long as they are non-citizens with or without legal permission to stay in the country, they can expect oppression.

Or are you among those who are OK with foreigners coming over to vote in your elections and use your social safety net just so you can claim some virtue from not being an oppressor?

Quote
Give an example of such.
A man is an adult human male.

there are two in that sentence alone.

QuoteThe way it works is we have definitions for things, if something satisfies the definition, then we can call it that thing. Each term can have multiple definitions that do not always agree, and most of the confusion is taken care of by the context.
That is certainly true. So in context, why do the terms "tyrant" and "dictator" as applied to president Trump not require him to be in control of the judicial and legislative branches of government?

You know what, these posts are long enough. We come back to this later when discussing specific definitions, and there is some interesting stuff there. Ignore for now...

QuoteIf someone brings up a definition and (even if you have your own weird definitions), and shows how the thing they're applying the definition to applies because it satisfies the definition they are using, then it's dumb to argue against it and it's very weird.
If someone brings a definition that says that a man is an adult human male, then applies it to an ox (which, it has to be granted, satisfies definition partly) then I maintain that a good bout of arguing is in order.

QuoteYou can disagree with the definition, but that looks dumb especially when the definition is pulled from language sources like a dictionary or from commonly accepted term definitions. This has been a long a stupid discussion that did not need to be because it was really simple. But at least I got some laughs.
Dictator by Merriam Webster
Quote1a: a person granted absolute emergency power
especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see SENATE sense 1a) of ancient Rome
b: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power
c: one ruling in an absolute (see ABSOLUTE sense 2*) and often oppressive way
fascist dictators
2: one who says or reads something for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record : one that dictates (see DICTATE entry 1 sense 1)

*2: being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator

Tyrant by Merriam Webster:
Quote1a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b: a usurper of sovereignty
2a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant

2B of the latter fits. None of the former do.

An interesting yet unimportant aside here, Webster agrees with my tagging on "usurper of power" in 1b. above. Good times.

QuoteWhat you're doing here is bringing in your own weird definitions, and telling other people that they can't use the terms the way they're using them because they don't satisfy your weird little definitions
And yet just above here, I seem to remember saying, "2b of the latter fits." Was that how you were using the term? Then why did you not say so? Because I genuinely was not aware that someone who appeared tyrannical could legitimately be called a tyrant on that alone.

QuoteThat's just silly. It's one thing to try to be super pedantic about a definition which is a boring discussion in itself, it's another to be pedantic about your personal definitions that no else even agrees with. Which, it turns out, is also a boring discussion.

And yet Merriam Webster is well in line with my personal definitions, except the one I conceded above. (Not arguing from authority - it's just an observation I find peculiar in this context)

Quote
Vacuously infer what you want, baselessly claim what you want, it will carry about as much value as not saying anything at all.

I wanted to see you back up your stance that people don't see Trump as far-right, you could not, and all you had to do was admit it.
Vacuous and baseless?

I did not claim to have polling data relating specifically to the question you asked. I was clear about that, and described my method of arriving at my conclusion. I do, however, have related polling data, media and lexicon entries which never once mention "Far-Right" in their description of the president's political position and the fact that close to half your country voted for the guy. I have enough to be secure in my opinion.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Icarus on November 11, 2020, 01:40:38 AM
You two are having a spirited debate that is for the most part, healthy.  Please continue.

My own thought is that the Asmo may be pulling our leg.  He is damn good at that when he chooses to be.   :toff:

Meanwhile Davin is putting up some good argument.   :boaterhat:

Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Tom62 on November 11, 2020, 04:28:33 AM
Great discussion. I mainly agree with the Asmo. Davin offers however a very good fight back.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Bad Penny II on November 11, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on November 11, 2020, 04:28:33 AM
Great discussion. I mainly agree with the Asmo. Davin offers however a very good fight back.

I don't think so, not really, it just sounds like two preening extremists sending mortars across the line.

Typing music Green!

OK



It started with this:

Quote from: No one on November 09, 2020, 09:03:50 AM
The fact remains that 70,000,000+ trumpanzees admire a fascist dictator. More that 70,000,000 mindless zombies who  blindly accept what to think, how to think because they are too incompetent to think for themselves. These absolute and complete twatwaffles are perfectly fine with a tyrant who exemplifies their bigotry and hatred. Amerikkka has a long way to go to remove the stench of the trumps.

I don't think that is meant to be taken literally, I hope not.

I think Trump should have been rejected because he is a slimy bastard.
'I could shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters'
Perhaps brazen is a better word. He said that and still people voted for him
What is he? Some kinda super nihilist, impervious to all theories of morality? and yet the choice of churchy moral types.
He was never going to build the wall, how much has Mexico contributed so far?

What is the cost of making words so cheap?
There were ideals to do with democracy, pride in being the first modern democracy.
It doesn't matter if you win or loose, it's how you play the game, the rules are sacred.
People fought for them and died for them, adherence to them are what separate civilised states from those we deride.

Donald Trump is a deplorable human, he turns his own people against each other for his benefit, puts at risk democracy in the world's oldest democracy.

I don't care if he make the trains run on time, benefits the portfolios of the fat, he is WRONG.

Title: Re: Americans
Post by: No one on November 11, 2020, 03:13:23 PM
Oh your gray lumpiness, I am directly speaking to the narrow-minded, intolerant, xenophobic sycophants that worship and parrot every form of deranged hate-filled twattle that trump's 0.015625 watt bulb can muster. The despot-in-chief has consistently demonstrated just how racist, sexist, misogynistic, and anti-semitic he is. This absolute cuntmuffin is an abusive, arrogant, insolent little bully. With no idea of how democracy works. Anyone who challenges, or defies him is punished to the fullest extent. He and his fragile little ego cannot accept confrontation, any and all must bow to him. Those who refuse are dealt with, with contempt, spite, and retribution.
I have zero admiration for him. In fact, I hate dumb donald more than I have ever hated anything! He is below pedophiles in my list of the worst forms of life.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Tom62 on November 11, 2020, 11:07:20 PM
Best  description (https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read?fbclid=IwAR0TVDujOh4AgG8O9PwAgFQmzwmUH-skeHU8fLifblRxCS7DD2lJlEf7ZIE) of Trump.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Dark Lightning on November 12, 2020, 12:26:17 AM
Quote from: Tom62 on November 11, 2020, 11:07:20 PM
Best  description (https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read?fbclid=IwAR0TVDujOh4AgG8O9PwAgFQmzwmUH-skeHU8fLifblRxCS7DD2lJlEf7ZIE) of Trump.

Completely agree! That fella has a real way with words! :lol:
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Magdalena on November 12, 2020, 04:10:42 AM
Quote from: No one on November 11, 2020, 03:13:23 PM
Oh your gray lumpiness, I am directly speaking to the narrow-minded, intolerant, xenophobic sycophants that worship and parrot every form of deranged hate-filled twattle that trump's 0.015625 watt bulb can muster. The despot-in-chief has consistently demonstrated just how racist, sexist, misogynistic, and anti-semitic he is. This absolute cuntmuffin is an abusive, arrogant, insolent little bully. With no idea of how democracy works. Anyone who challenges, or defies him is punished to the fullest extent. He and his fragile little ego cannot accept confrontation, any and all must bow to him. Those who refuse are dealt with, with contempt, spite, and retribution.
I have zero admiration for him. In fact, I hate dumb donald more than I have ever hated anything! He is below pedophiles in my list of the worst forms of life.

(https://giffiles.alphacoders.com/138/13834.gif)
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: No one on November 12, 2020, 04:41:14 AM
Let's just say that if I were in a room with the worst pedophile ever and trump, and I had a gun with two bullets, I'd shoot one if them twice.

[spoiler]And it would not be the pedophile.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Icarus on November 12, 2020, 04:45:15 AM
No Ones description, ^ , is appropriate.  When my better angels speak to me, they force me to realize Trump is to be pitied.  The poor man is handicapped.  He is mentally compromised. (the word; compromised, is a polite way to say that he is emotionally and morally fucked up) These are matters of fact that he has demonstrated repeatedly for all the word to see.  His progeny appears to be as rude, greedy, dishonest, and disconnected as the father.

Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Recusant on November 12, 2020, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: Icarus on November 12, 2020, 04:45:15 AMNo Ones description, ^ , is appropriate.  When my better angels speak to me, they force me to realize Trump is to be pitied.  The poor man is handicapped.  He is mentally compromised. (the word; compromised, is a polite way to say that he is emotionally and morally fucked up) These are matters of fact that he has demonstrated repeatedly for all the word to see.  His progeny appears to be as rude, greedy, dishonest, and disconnected as the father.

Also like their father, not particularly intelligent. I think the Duke of Bullshit is more intelligent than average, but that's not saying much. Ivanka may actually be slightly more intelligent than her father, but the sons seem notably less so.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 12, 2020, 04:54:46 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 10, 2020, 09:51:53 PM
Quote
I do know logic, that's why what you're doing here is hilarious. It's like a performance piece in the same vein as Andy Kaufman.
Is a man, who is not human, a man?

[Moved because it involves the same error.

Quote
Give an example of such.
A man is an adult human male.

there are two in that sentence alone.
What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? And it would depend on the context.

Quote from: Man
a figure or token used in playing a board game.
Looks it doesn't have to be a human male to be called a man, at least not if we're speaking English.

As an allegory that fits this weird discussion:

I'm calling Trump a man, but you're telling me I can't because against common usage (even against any term definition available), you're saying that's not right because you think a man needs to have an extra nipple.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Not going to respond to made up bullshit. What I will say is that when a person is fleeing a dangerous situation and asking for help, it's a shitty thing to do to strip their kids from them and even worse to then lose those kids. It's also a shitty thing to not provide basic necessities like soap and toothpaste. Also, it's a shitty thing to treat people following the law, like they're criminals and locking them up and taking away their freedom. And there's so much more wrong with it.
What did I make up?
OK, support your claims. Why should I go and do all the work?

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteIt's also oppressive (by the English definition), and cruel (by the English definition), which makes tyrannical (by the English definition).
[...]Yes, they are oppressed, and there may certainly be cruelty involved[...]
Then done. Definition satisfied. This is the end of the argument. Anything else has nothing at all to do with applying the term.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteThe way it works is we have definitions for things, if something satisfies the definition, then we can call it that thing. Each term can have multiple definitions that do not always agree, and most of the confusion is taken care of by the context.
That is certainly true. So in context, why do the terms "tyrant" and "dictator" as applied to president Trump not require him to be in control of the judicial and legislative branches of government?
He is in control of those. The GOP is in control of all branches, Trump is in control of the GOP.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteYou can disagree with the definition, but that looks dumb especially when the definition is pulled from language sources like a dictionary or from commonly accepted term definitions. This has been a long a stupid discussion that did not need to be because it was really simple. But at least I got some laughs.
Tyrant by Merriam Webster:
Quote1a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b: a usurper of sovereignty
2a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant

2B of the latter fits. None of the former do.
I'll ignore the unnecessary bits as it appears you've attempted to move my goal posts:

Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
Definitely fascist and tyrant at least by definition. Dictator is a little more fuzzy, but the guy clearly wanted to be.

So that covers "tyrant" glad we could finally get here after a useless and boring run around. Though there were some laughs along the way.

I guess since you dropped the line of fascism that there were no more disagreements there. Since I on the onset never committed to "dictator" I'm not going to try to defend that or have a discussion with someone who appears to be arguing in bad faith. That's it, the discussion is done. It's finally over.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Vacuously infer what you want, baselessly claim what you want, it will carry about as much value as not saying anything at all.

I wanted to see you back up your stance that people don't see Trump as far-right, you could not, and all you had to do was admit it.
Vacuous and baseless?

I did not claim to have polling data relating specifically to the question you asked. I was clear about that, and described my method of arriving at my conclusion. I do, however, have related polling data, media and lexicon entries which never once mention "Far-Right" in their description of the president's political position and the fact that close to half your country voted for the guy. I have enough to be secure in my opinion.

This you?

Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
As seen from the centre (That being a position equally influenced by left-leaning politics as it is by right-leaning ones, and by authoritarian-leaning politics as much as libertarian-leaning ones) he's just a lightly Libertarian-leaning right-winger. Certainly, seen from the point of view of for example a Socialist (Democratic or otherwise), he would be far right. However, the absolute centrist would, from that same perspective, be closer to president Trump than to the abovementioned individual.

I'd like to see you support your claim here. You did not, so all I have to go on is that it's vacuous and baseless. In that there is no base and it is devoid of substance.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Asmodean on November 13, 2020, 12:23:05 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 11, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
I don't think so, not really, it just sounds like two preening extremists sending mortars across the line.
This is what <insert current year> political discourse often looks like.

I don't think either of us has expressed extreme opinions when compared to something outside each other, but extreme to one may be moderate to another. The root of this discussion, as was pointed out, was whether or not certain definitions used were [strictly/at-all]applicable in certain cases and why.

I'm perfectly content with this for a response;
Quote from: No one on November 11, 2020, 03:13:23 PM
Oh your gray lumpiness, I am directly speaking to the narrow-minded, intolerant, xenophobic sycophants that worship and parrot every form of deranged hate-filled twattle that trump's 0.015625 watt bulb can muster. The despot-in-chief has consistently demonstrated just how racist, sexist, misogynistic, and anti-semitic he is. This absolute cuntmuffin is an abusive, arrogant, insolent little bully. With no idea of how democracy works. Anyone who challenges, or defies him is punished to the fullest extent. He and his fragile little ego cannot accept confrontation, any and all must bow to him. Those who refuse are dealt with, with contempt, spite, and retribution.
I have zero admiration for him. In fact, I hate dumb donald more than I have ever hated anything! He is below pedophiles in my list of the worst forms of life.

In fact, I do not like the man either. For starters, his presentation is too unrefined (a polite way of saying "crude," which in turn is a polite way of saying some of what you said) for my taste.

That said, people have different reasons for electing certain officials. Those reasons range from a singular concern above all others, through group think and being politically closer to the candidate in question than to the opposing one, to purely self-serving or just flat-out "fuck the system" or "for the lulz." The considerations behind them also vary greatly, from multi-faceted, evolved social, political and economic value analyses, to "My dad's gonna vote for him, so I might as well."

I think that someone who has weighed the pros and cons and still voted for Trump did a better job of this whole democracy thing than someone who voted for Biden because he was not Trump. I do not presume to know why any individual voted the way they did, however, so I am careful with accusing either camp of anything beyond making their choice.

Quote from: Davin on November 12, 2020, 04:54:46 PM
What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? And it would depend on the context.
It has to do with words having meaning. Deriving from that example, the Statue of Liberty is not a woman - it's a statue of a woman. Had it been human, it would have been.

By the same token, a dictator, who is not also in control of government, is not a dictator. An absolute monarch, who rules by decree and whose rulings are not subject to being overturned by any entity other than himself would be a subset of dictator. A constitutional monarch would not be. A president, whose decrees are subject to being overturned by the legal system is not a dictator.

Quote
Looks it doesn't have to be a human male to be called a man, at least not if we're speaking English.
It has to be both adult and human. It has to also be male by a narrow definition, but more broadly, it can be a person who appears male.

QuoteI'm calling Trump a man, but you're telling me I can't because against common usage (even against any term definition available), you're saying that's not right because you think a man needs to have an extra nipple.
If a man is an adult human male with more than two nipples, and the president only has two, then you still could call him that, but it would be incorrect in the same way that calling a five year old boy a man would.

Quote from: Asmodean
OK, support your claims. Why should I go and do all the work?
Because this is your party?

Quote
Then done. Definition satisfied. This is the end of the argument. Anything else has nothing at all to do with applying the term.
That may render the term so broad as to be meaningless, however. It's a technicality, and I do like technicalities, but if unequal treatment is oppression, and oppression is undesirable, then why shouldn't I pop over to the neighboring country when I need some free dental work done if its citizens get that?

Quote
He is in control of those. The GOP is in control of all branches, Trump is in control of the GOP.
That is one opinion. another is that the supreme court justices rule according to their agenda, and the senators vote according to their. Their [individual or group-]interests aligning with the president's does not amount to him having control over them.

Quote
I'll ignore the unnecessary bits as it appears you've attempted to move my goal posts:

Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
Definitely fascist and tyrant at least by definition. Dictator is a little more fuzzy, but the guy clearly wanted to be.
Apologies - I have misremembered. (As "tyrant and dictator, fascist is fuzzy")

QuoteI guess since you dropped the line of fascism that there were no more disagreements there. Since I on the onset never committed to "dictator" I'm not going to try to defend that or have a discussion with someone who appears to be arguing in bad faith. That's it, the discussion is done. It's finally over.
Oh, there is a lot more to say on Fascism, but it's unlikely to get us anywhere - at least anywhere meaningful. I will say one thing, only loosely-related to our specific back-and-forth;

In <insert current year,> "everybody" is a "Fascist" or a "Nazi" or a "Communist." Skirting the periphery of what those terms encompass to the degree to which it's being done cheapens them (decreases their impact) and politicises them. Would you even recognise Fascism (Classical, Mussolini-esque sense) if it crept up on you? Perhaps today. What about in twenty years?

Quote
This you?

Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
As seen from the centre (That being a position equally influenced by left-leaning politics as it is by right-leaning ones, and by authoritarian-leaning politics as much as libertarian-leaning ones) he's just a lightly Libertarian-leaning right-winger. Certainly, seen from the point of view of for example a Socialist (Democratic or otherwise), he would be far right. However, the absolute centrist would, from that same perspective, be closer to president Trump than to the abovementioned individual.
Yep.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Davin on November 13, 2020, 07:35:49 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on November 13, 2020, 12:23:05 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 12, 2020, 04:54:46 PM
What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? And it would depend on the context.
It has to do with words having meaning.[...]
It looks more like you going off on a tangent due to your own misunderstandings.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Looks it doesn't have to be a human male to be called a man, at least not if we're speaking English.
It has to be both adult and human.
Not according to the valid English definition I provided.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI'm calling Trump a man, but you're telling me I can't because against common usage (even against any term definition available), you're saying that's not right because you think a man needs to have an extra nipple.
If a man is an adult human male with more than two nipples, and the president only has two, then you still could call him that, but it would be incorrect in the same way that calling a five year old boy a man would.
But since the definition is not such, then you trying force extra things into it is incorrect. And since you already admitted to the error this line was meant to address, there is no point in continuing this line.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
OK, support your claims. Why should I go and do all the work?
Because this is your party?
Making claims then not supporting them is bad enough behavior (unless there is no contention), but trying to shift the burden of proof is much, much worse.

It's unreasonable and dishonest to make a claim and then ask the other person to do the heavy lifting for you.

This is a common dishonest tactic employed a lot here on the site, but usually it's the god botherers doing it. Not a good sign for your character that you're employing the same tactic.

Also, better go back and check who started this party.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Then done. Definition satisfied. This is the end of the argument. Anything else has nothing at all to do with applying the term.
That may render the term so broad as to be meaningless, however. It's a technicality, and I do like technicalities, but if unequal treatment is oppression, and oppression is undesirable, then why shouldn't I pop over to the neighboring country when I need some free dental work done if its citizens get that?
Why red herrings? Why can't you remain rational? Because it looks like you're just trying to find anything and everything you can instead of facing what I'm saying head on.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
He is in control of those. The GOP is in control of all branches, Trump is in control of the GOP.
That is one opinion. another is that the supreme court justices rule according to their agenda, and the senators vote according to their. Their [individual or group-]interests aligning with the president's does not amount to him having control over them.
Considering the dishonest tactics and irrational statements that you've demonstrated throughout this discussion, I don't think going into a nuanced (even if only slightly so), discussion will be much good for either one of us.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I'll ignore the unnecessary bits as it appears you've attempted to move my goal posts:

Quote from: Davin on November 09, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
Definitely fascist and tyrant at least by definition. Dictator is a little more fuzzy, but the guy clearly wanted to be.
Apologies - I have misremembered. (As "tyrant and dictator, fascist is fuzzy")

QuoteI guess since you dropped the line of fascism that there were no more disagreements there. Since I on the onset never committed to "dictator" I'm not going to try to defend that or have a discussion with someone who appears to be arguing in bad faith. That's it, the discussion is done. It's finally over.
Oh, there is a lot more to say on Fascism, but it's unlikely to get us anywhere - at least anywhere meaningful.[...]
Yes, it's difficult when one person's main point of contention is their own misunderstanding of a word or term. A misunderstanding that didn't need to happen in the first place if you first looked up the word real quick before telling someone else they're using it wrong. And also, you could have looked up the word/term at pretty much every point where I brought up that I was using a valid definition.

You being confidently incorrect was funny though.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
This you?

Quote from: Asmodean on November 09, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
As seen from the centre (That being a position equally influenced by left-leaning politics as it is by right-leaning ones, and by authoritarian-leaning politics as much as libertarian-leaning ones) he's just a lightly Libertarian-leaning right-winger. Certainly, seen from the point of view of for example a Socialist (Democratic or otherwise), he would be far right. However, the absolute centrist would, from that same perspective, be closer to president Trump than to the abovementioned individual.
Yep.
Great, so now we're clear that what you said is vacuous and baseless.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: TheFightSong on February 01, 2022, 03:57:28 AM
Asmodean's profile picture looks like Donald Trump's angry ancestor before its offspring's descendants evolved into humans miraculously. But I digress from that.

But every American president has been a buzzkill with endless wars through systemic genocide, global warming that threatens our ecosystem (thereby threatening our specie's survival in the future), increasing wealth inequality through systemic slavery, poverty caused by increasing wealth inequality, sweatshops that keep poor people poorer than ultra-wealthy men, broken education systems meant to keep lower class children as dumb and impoverished physical labor trapped in their workplaces compared to upper class children through anti-freethinking fascism and preventing lower class workers from having enough leisure time for intellectual growth, disallowing not American-born people from becoming presidents through systemic racism, etc. Joe Biden is no better. He represents the cancer of America. He is another replaceable swine. If he wasn't, there would be no more endless wars, genocides, increasing wealth inequality, sweatshops, global warming, animal abuse from the meat and dairy industries, anti-freethinking fascism, racism, kleptocratically international trade policies, religious grifting causing southern states to be impoverished, pedophilic child marriages allowing old sickos to groom minors, drug trafficking when the Mexican drug cartel sends recreational drugs to Texas for corrupt politicians in powerful positions, etc.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 01, 2022, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: TheFightSong on February 01, 2022, 03:57:28 AM
Asmodean's profile picture looks like

Asmodean's profile pic depicts our local deity, show some respect.



Title: Re: Americans
Post by: billy rubin on February 01, 2022, 04:29:12 PM
fightsong, what brings you joy in your life?
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: billy rubin on February 02, 2022, 11:43:14 PM
nothing, i guess.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Icarus on February 12, 2022, 06:10:57 AM
Ain't no joy in excessive negativism, Fightsong.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: TheFightSong on February 12, 2022, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: Icarus on February 12, 2022, 06:10:57 AM
Ain't no joy in excessive negativism, Fightsong.
Ain't no sense being a blind optimist.
Title: Re: Americans
Post by: Old Seer on February 12, 2022, 02:54:08 PM
Quote from: TheFightSong on February 01, 2022, 03:57:28 AM
Asmodean's profile picture looks like Donald Trump's angry ancestor before its offspring's descendants evolved into humans miraculously. But I digress from that.

But every American president has been a buzzkill with endless wars through systemic genocide, global warming that threatens our ecosystem (thereby threatening our specie's survival in the future), increasing wealth inequality through systemic slavery, poverty caused by increasing wealth inequality, sweatshops that keep poor people poorer than ultra-wealthy men, broken education systems meant to keep lower class children as dumb and impoverished physical labor trapped in their workplaces compared to upper class children through anti-freethinking fascism and preventing lower class workers from having enough leisure time for intellectual growth, disallowing not American-born people from becoming presidents through systemic racism, etc. Joe Biden is no better. He represents the cancer of America. He is another replaceable swine. If he wasn't, there would be no more endless wars, genocides, increasing wealth inequality, sweatshops, global warming, animal abuse from the meat and dairy industries, anti-freethinking fascism, racism, kleptocratically international trade policies, religious grifting causing southern states to be impoverished, pedophilic child marriages allowing old sickos to groom minors, drug trafficking when the Mexican drug cartel sends recreational drugs to Texas for corrupt politicians in powerful positions, etc.
About 8000 years ago someone, or a cadre of someones came up with the ideals that people are living under. Since then it hasn't improved on anyone's personal level, except materially. The thinking patterns induced then are still no different today. So then, how does one choose who to blame. :-)