Americans

[Davin]

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.

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

Do what you want, dude, whatever helps you.

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.

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.

the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.

the action of suppressing something such as an activity or publication.

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

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.

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. This whole thing is hilarious.

I clearly explained it.

Well, not really, but I'm content to never-mind.

I used basic English. Which parts did you not understand?

Because that's how using terms works, what the fuck is going on here? Do I have to explain how to use words?

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Asmodean]

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. 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.

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?

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?

It'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?

Give an example of such.

A man is an adult human male.

there are two in that sentence alone.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Dictator by Merriam Webster

1a: 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:

1a: 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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

[Icarus]

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.   

Meanwhile Davin is putting up some good argument.   

[Tom62]

Great discussion. I mainly agree with the Asmo. Davin offers however a very good fight back.

[Bad Penny II]

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:

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.

 

[No one]

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.

[Tom62]

Best description of Trump.

[Dark Lightning]

Best description of Trump.

Completely agree! That fella has a real way with words!

[Magdalena]

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.

[No one]

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: ShowHide

And it would not be the pedophile.

[Icarus]

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.

[Recusant]

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.

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.

[Davin]

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.

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.

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.

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?

It'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.

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.

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.

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.

Tyrant by Merriam Webster:

1a: 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:

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.

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?

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.

[Asmodean]

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;

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OK, support your claims. Why should I go and do all the work?

Because this is your party?

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?

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.

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

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")

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.

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?

This you?

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.

[Davin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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")

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.

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.

This you?

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.