99% of the time when I see "fascist" being thrown around its name calling. Now days I just read it as "something a left winger doesn't like". Antifa movements make a lot more sense in that context too.
That's definitely something that needs to be said. I've seen way too many instances where people immediately label someone a fascist for giving even an inkling of support for something Trump did. I wish people could calm down just long enough to have something resembling useful discourse.
How do you debate a person that denies objective reality, and embraces their very own alternative reality?
I don't think you can. For the same reason you can't negotiate with terrorists. They aren't playing by the same rule book. You hold out a hand to shake, they stab you in the face with a knife.
Unfortunately, it's how most people, on both sides, define it.
Far too many people are unwilling to recognize that news that confirms their world view might be fact. They cannot or will not challenge it, and simply accept it as fact.
The right believes Obama is from Kenya, the left believes Trump just signed an order that banned Muslims. Both claims upon inspection fall apart immediately. The fact that both of these are so widely believed shows you how little critical thinking and research the average person does. They really just want "their team" to win, it's really a instinctual reaction more than a intellectual one.
> prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.
You're right. It's not an order that bans Muslims, explicitly. It's an order that bans them implicitly. The NPR annotation:
> If you CTRL+F this document, you won’t find the words “Christian” or “Muslim.” But if you read closely, this is the section that indicates prioritizing Christians. How so? Because the seven countries affected by this order are all Muslim-majority countries. Also note that Trump himself indicated a preference for prioritizing Christians in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. And former Trump campaign surrogate Rudy Giuliani told Fox that Trump first called it a “Muslim ban” but asked him to come up with a legal framework for it. Giuliani said he did, one based on “danger,” not religion.
He did bomb Muslims BUT not because they were Muslims. Get the difference? Trump has said many times he wants to ban Muslims from the USA, even that Muslim with a MIT PHD.
Only on Google cache since he removed it:
"December 07, 2015 -
Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump"
"December 07, 2015 - Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population."
It may be gone from the location you were looking at, as happens with all kinds of stuff on the web. I believe this is the same document, available from the DJT campaign site.
It seems you care more about intent than outcome. I'm more pragmatic and concerned about what someone does not why they did it.
The reason I don't believe the "concern" coming from Democrats is if they actually cared about the Syrian people they would have been protesting in capitol hill while Obama was dropping bombs on their villages and hospitals. I was there, the Quakers were there, even some Republicans were there. Sadly the Democrats were not to be found in any significant number any of the dozen or so times I visted.
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."
When I read that I see elements of fascism in many governments around the world, with very few of them coming close to the definition.
Even so, you could fairly easily set up a number of points to check off on and score a government (and by extension) it's supporters on a scale from 'definitely not fascist' to 'definitely fascist'.
The question then becomes at what point on that scale it becomes reasonable to call a government fascist and to call a support of that government a fascist. I'm pretty sure we're not there yet but I am also pretty sure that we are slowly but surely sliding in that direction.
Using the term fascism is like a shot in the arm, it tries to wake up the organism that it is directed at that it is getting ill and needs to fend off some viral element. Unfortunately usually the opposite happens and instead the recipient will wall themselves off from the provider of the message. Even so, I guess that even fascism light is dangerous and ugly enough that plenty of people would not be caught dead being labeled a fascist, especially not when there is some hard evidence that it is so.
