I can’t upvote this enough.

Which is a problem why?

Funny but not true. Don’t give up too early, don’t give up too late. Give up at the right time. Anything else is a skill issue.

Ehh, it can definitely push you further down that path, but thought doesn’t magically make things happen. Otherwise we wouldn’t have an incel problem.

The definition of fascism doesn’t start when they put on the boots. It doesn’t end when they take the boots off. Just because Kirk never killed anyone doesn’t mean he isn’t complicit in creating a system that would kill lots of people.

You can be both a grifter and a fascist. Especially if you grift for a fascist cause.

You can be call a fascist even if ideologically you’re not, but the outcomes you produce are fascistic. This is the category I think Kirk is in.

Would we stop calling Hitler a fascist if we found out that he actually just wanted to be friends with everyone and he didn’t actually care about killing all those Jews? He just failed spectacularly.

Sorry about this second thread. It’s all my fault. I have answered your question on what I use to determine fascism in the other thread.

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Lawrence Britt

https://osbcontent.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/PC-00466.pdf

I missed some of your points because I made bad assumptions and overlooked some things.

I’m not surprised that at some point in time he would say he was pro-liberal. But the positions he argued for were in support of fascism. He didn’t other just gay people. He othered Muslims. He has brought up the Jewish question. He is a fan of centralizing power. Not that centralizing a power by itself would be a strong indicator of fascism. You have to take a look at the big picture.

There are several statistical lies that he keeps repeating to maintain his position. Someone is popular and is well known as Kirk would surely have people able to quietly correct him on some of these things. Yet he keeps repeating them. The outcome of this rhetoric is to empower fascists. He very likely knew that.

Now I’m not saying he was rubbing together his hands and whispering to himself “good good”. I think he just followed the money.

I didn’t imply the entire right was fascist. I think a lot of them are. But I also think a lot of them aren’t. I also think some lefties are fascists. I think some liberals are fascists. I think some black people are fascist. I think some Jewish people are fascist. I think some Palestinians are fascist. Name a group of people, I guarantee you some percentage of them are fascist. It’s an easy ideology to fall into. It feels comfortable.

I’ll write this again in case you missed it the first time. Fascism has a definition. There are criteria to categorize. What is fascist’s behavior, What are fascist beliefs, what is fascist ideology.

You want so badly for me to be some crazy leftist who calls everyone a fascists without cause. But I’m sorry, I’m not. I’m intentionally calling Kirk a fascist. Because he meets the definition. I’m not saying it hatefully, I’m not saying it with emotion. It’s just 1+1=2. The sky is blue. The grass is green. Kirk is a fascist.

That is kinda a strange way to counter my point that he is definitionally a fascist. Are you saying that if enough people are fascist then the none of them are?

I am saying that the rhetoric that Kirk used fits the definition of fascist rhetoric. If everyone in the world meets that definition, then everyone in the world is fascist. That’s how definitions work.

Kirk was definitionally a fascist.

As for what the shooter is, I’m sure time will tell. I don’t see a need to jump to conclusions on that yet.

~~Kirk was definitionally a fascist.

As for what the shooter is, I’m sure time will tell. I don’t see a need to jump to conclusions on that yet.~~

Edit: duplicate post due to lag. Please ignore

Holy poop you are coming on wrong and hard. I don’t know if the shooter conservative or not, but you desperately don’t want him to be. Probably because it would look bad for you if he was.

You’re not interested in the truth, just a narrative.

Right back at you. Finger guns

I don’t. I don’t really think the information points to a specific ideology at this point in time. I’d give the odds of them being conservative about 65%. He was born and raised in a Christian conservative family. In a religious conservative state. Gay hate can only really exist in an environment without gay people, same thing for people who hate trans people.

Which hate comment are you talking about? I am not familiar, so this might change my opinion.

As for not being far right enough, that’s easy. The online and professional media have been playing the game of who can be more extreme for a while now. I believe there’s a lot of conservatives out there who would be willing to kill someone on their same side for not being extreme enough. They would consider them traders, grifters, or not real conservatives.

Being pro-gay and protrans doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not right-wing. It just means you don’t share the commonly held out groups. Unusual, yes, but a tell, not really.

If he was dropping some Marxist stuff, was interested in taxing the rich, or universal healthcare, then I would say he’s not right wing.

No, I don’t think that would be good. So for example if there was a guy who thought we should all be eating lead. And every time he posts you put up facts about how eating lead was poisonous. And then the lead guy blocked you. Then every time the lead guy posts about how everyone should eat lead, you wouldn’t see it and so you wouldn’t be able to reply with how lead is poisonous.

So if the lead guy blocked everyone who disagreed with him publicly. Then the lead guy can just post whatever they want and no who knew lead was poisonous would reply because they wouldn’t see the post. So others who didn’t know lead was poisonous would start seeing this guy posting about eating lead without being challenged. And so they might think it’s a good thing.

I am a fan of the original half life sound effects.

A hypothetical is not a straw man.

By virtue of you not addressing my two hypotheticals, I have now decided that you would respond to the nuking of California by Trump with both Biden and Trump are the same. Which is an insane position to have, which is probably why you’re not answering the hypotheticals in the first place. Because you know it’s insane, and yet you still hold that position.

I noticed you also dodged my question about policy versus outcomes.

It’s pretty clear that you don’t care and you’re just a troll or an idiot.

You’d be doing everyone a favor, scratch that, possibly saving some lives, by getting your jollies off on trolling something other than politics.

I see no further reason to reply on this thread.

Have a nice life.

It’s not a straw man. It’s a hypothetical. Feel free to answer it when you want.

Also, what do you mean about policies? If Trump didn’t change his policies and nuked California, would you then still say that Biden and Trump are equally as bad?

No, I oppose it generally. You just either don’t understand the arguments or are too dogmatic.

I am willing to bet that if Trump had the military kill everyone who was more dark than a specific shade of white and then nuked California. Your opinion would still be that Biden and Trump are the same.