Politics and Religion

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2021, 12:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I found the one fascism expert's comparison of Trump to Berlusconi to be the most apt one out there, to be honest. The comparisons to Hitler's rise, and even Mussolini's, are not that close.

Indeed.  I find it interesting that people on this board who claim to be "tolerant" will so blithely toss around comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis.

(03-03-2021, 12:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: I agree with that. They are somewhat similarly crude, have a similar disdain for constitutionality, a similar tendency to populism.
The main difference I would see is that Berlusconi actually owns his friendly media, and that he is way, way smarter.

A populist with disdain for the flaws of the democratic process who is backed by a large scale media outlet.  Yes, that seems a more apt comparison.  I wonder why it is not used as much?

Quote:But a thread opened by an Austrian apparently is bound to turn to Hitler and Nazis.

Sincerely, don't blame yourself.  The resident far left posters consider a day wasted if they don't compare the right to the Nazis or Trump to Hitler.  Hell, even our resident faux intellectual professed his approval for such comparisons, because he feels they are apt.  And I wonder why we have not one conservative leaning person who posts in this subforum with any degree of regularity?

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I wonder why we have not one conservative leaning person who posts in this subforum with any degree of regularity?

Yoy really have to be desperate to play the victim card to claim that Brad, Mickeypoo, Michaelsean, and yourself are not ."conservative leaning".

90% of your posts are crying about liberals.

[hollodero]

(03-03-2021, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.  I find it interesting that people on this board who claim to be "tolerant" will so blithely toss around comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis.

A populist with disdain for the flaws of the democratic process who is backed by a large scale media outlet.  Yes, that seems a more apt comparison.  I wonder why it is not used as much?

You don't wonder that. You're lying :)

And I'm pretty much with you when it comes to Trump-Hitler comparisons. Trump is deeply flawed, but he shows no tendency to advocate any kind of mass murder, and that would be a very elementary trait for that comparison.
That being said. At times I get the similarites some people mention. There are elements in his rhetoric that make me shiver as well and that imho have a certain Naziesque flavor to them. Calling the media enemy of the people comes to mind, or creating external threats like caravans full of murderous refugees, advocating the imprisonment of perceived enemies or calling them traitors, musing about holding absolute power and how the country can't do without that, the more or less open admiration for authoritarian leaders and how great they are in keeping their people in check. These can, imho, be reasonably seen as fascism-affine words.
There are no deeds to match these words, of course, and that alone makes the comparison to fascist leaders dismissable for sure. That's why I would not make these comparisons in the first place. But they, imho, are not completely absurd on every level.

(03-03-2021, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sincerely, don't blame yourself.  The resident far left posters consider a day wasted if they don't compare the right to the Nazis or Trump to Hitler.  Hell, even our resident faux intellectual professed his approval for such comparisons, because he feels they are apt.  And I wonder why we have not one conservative leaning person who posts in this subforum with any degree of regularity?

Yeah, I don't think they got pitchforked out of here. If they were, that's on them for being plaintive. As I said, I was called many unpleasant things as well, and in my perspective the right-leaning folk are in no way more moderate in that regard than the left-leaning ones. I get that this is probably a point of disagreement.
Eg. when Sanders is called a commie or gets compared to Hugo Chavez, I don't think this holds any more water than any comparison of Trump to Mussolini.

Also, we got you :) but there are some others still, that match the description of right leaning more accurately. Fritz and Mickey and Sunset and then some.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2021, 01:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: You don't wonder that. You're lying :)

And I'm pretty much with you when it comes to Trump-Hitler comparisons. Trump is deeply flawed, but he shows no tendency to advocate any kind of mass murder, and that would be a very elementary trait for that comparison.
That being said. At times I get the similarites some people mention. There are elements in his rhetoric that make me shiver as well and that imho have a certain Naziesque flavor to them. Calling the media enemy of the people comes to mind, or creating external threats like caravans full of murderous refugees, advocating the imprisonment of perceived enemies or calling them traitors, musing about holding absolute power and how the country can't do without that, the more or less open admiration for authoritarian leaders and how great they are in keeping their people in check. These can, imho, be reasonably seen as fascism-affine words.
There are no deeds to match these words, of course, and that alone makes the comparison to fascist leaders dismissable for sure. That's why I would not make these comparisons in the first place. But they, imho, are not completely absurd on every level.

Not completely absurd if you're making comparisons to far right totalitarianism, no.  When comparing them to the Nazis, yes.  As I have stated repeatedly, I loathe comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis because they are so intentionally inflammatory and 99.9% of the times utterly flawed.  Some "progressive" people here seem not to mind them, which IMO says a lot about them, but to me the comparison better be iron clad to even be voiced.

Quote:Yeah, I don't think they got pitchforked out of here. If they were, that's on them for being plaintive. As I said, I was called many unpleasant things as well, and in my perspective the right-leaning folk are in no way more moderate in that regard than the left-leaning ones. I get that this is probably a point of disagreement.
Eg. when Sanders is called a commie or gets compared to Hugo Chavez, I don't think this holds any more water than any comparison of Trump to Mussolini.

No, they absolutely got bullied out of here.  I've been posting in this sub-forum longer than anyone but Bel.  Of course there were others who posted here before me, but they have fallen off posting here, and by here I mean the board as a whole.  I witnessed the bullying and I saw the expressed intent behind it.  I have a job that has basically inured me to this type of abuse.  Especially as the people here are rank amateurs in this regard compared to what I've had to deal with in real life.  But most people don't have that ability, especially in regards to something that should provide at least a modicum of enjoyment.

Quote:Also, we got you :) but there are some others still, that match the description of right leaning more accurately. Fritz and Mickey and Sunset and then some.

The fact that I could even be considered "conservative" shows you the dearth of actual conservatives here.  Sunset limits his posting, correctly IMO, due to being a mod.  Fritz, forgive me, is not a great example for reasons I won't get in to.  Mickey, sure, but he doesn't post often.  Even allowing for all three, you're talking about less than 5% of the regular posters here.  Face it, this place was made a hostile environment for right leaning people.  One need look no further than our discussions on Hitler and Nazi comparisons to see an example.

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2021, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not completely absurd if you're making comparisons to far right totalitarianism, no.  When comparing them to the Nazis, yes.  As I have stated repeatedly, I loathe comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis because they are so intentionally inflammatory and 99.9% of the times utterly flawed.  Some "progressive" people here seem not to mind them, which IMO says a lot about them, but to me the comparison better be iron clad to even be voiced.

I think the only Hitler parallel I've really been keen on for Trump was one of the names for the attempted insurrection, just because the Beer Belly Putsch cracked me up.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2021, 02:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the only Hitler parallel I've really been keen on for Trump was one of the names for the attempted insurrection, just because the Beer Belly Putsch cracked me up.

Ahahaha, I hadn't heard that one.  That one is fine because it's actually clever.  

[hollodero]

(03-03-2021, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not completely absurd if you're making comparisons to far right totalitarianism, no.  When comparing them to the Nazis, yes.  As I have stated repeatedly, I loathe comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis because they are so intentionally inflammatory and 99.9% of the times utterly flawed.  Some "progressive" people here seem not to mind them, which IMO says a lot about them, but to me the comparison better be iron clad to even be voiced.

There's no real disagreement.

(03-03-2021, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they absolutely got bullied out of here.  I've been posting in this sub-forum longer than anyone but Bel.  Of course there were others who posted here before me, but they have fallen off posting here, and by here I mean the board as a whole.  I witnessed the bullying and I saw the expressed intent behind it.  I have a job that has basically inured me to this type of abuse.  Especially as the people here are rank amateurs in this regard compared to what I've had to deal with in real life.  But most people don't have that ability, especially in regards to something that should provide at least a modicum of enjoyment.

The fact that I could even be considered "conservative" shows you the dearth of actual conservatives here.  Sunset limits his posting, correctly IMO, due to being a mod.  Fritz, forgive me, is not a great example for reasons I won't get in to.  Mickey, sure, but he doesn't post often.  Even allowing for all three, you're talking about less than 5% of the regular posters here.  Face it, this place was made a hostile environment for right leaning people.  One need look no further than our discussions on Hitler and Nazi comparisons to see an example.

It's far from me to defend bullying of any kind, and I kinda get what you mean. Meaning, I can think of examples that fit your portrayal, and I can not refute the notion that I might have blind spots as well. I sure do.
It's just.... it's not so much just the left to me. Still. The US climate is hostile to begin with. If there are more liberals, it's more hostile towards conservatives. But as I mentioned. I was called being mentally deranged, of having no independent thought, of parroting lies I am told on CNN, of slavishly watching MSM and being incapable to escape propaganda for my mind is too weak and I am too dumb a person to see the truth. This also is pretty unpleasant, and even more unpleasant when there are more right-leaning folks that call all liberals sick bastards. Which is frequent on the internet, a place where most people tend to be tough guys to begin with. If you just look at the left, imho you're also displaying quite the blind spot about what's going on.

I once (at least once) banished someone conservative from these boards. My eternal sin was correcting some apparent falsehoods about the climate accord. The response was "I'm outta here, I got enough of that crap", and off this user went. I'm sorry, but I do not feel sorry about this kind of "bullying", and I'm also not the least bit sorry for "bullying" bfine. I do acknowledge that there's some way more severe kind of diminishing others going on, it's not like I am unaware of that. I refute it's that one-sided though.

When it comes to conservative users, I think 5% is too low a number. There's masonbengalsfan, Harley steps by, so does Philhos, Wes might be more conservative than liberal, as might michaelsean be, every two months or so JustWinBaby makes his rounds of offending everyone. LeonardLeap is not a liberal, and neither is Nately. The one conservative missing lately is bfine, but imho he can't really complain (though he sure tried) for being called out on certain things. Yeah, there are more liberals for sure. But most of them are not here to bully anyone.

And you... I mean, I don't really know what to make out of your political affiliations. You're a liberal turned off by liberals, with some takes I would deem more conservative. Eg. your take on liberal policies leading to failing socialism, your stance on gun laws, or on crime and law enforcement come to mind. Overall, I don't deem it that far off to see you as somewhat conservative leaning. Even though I would not say so myself.

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The fact that I could even be considered "conservative" shows you the dearth of actual conservatives here.

You honestly don't think that the fact that 90% of your posts are squealing about how bad liberals are has anything to do with it?

Or that fact that you defend Tucker Carlson for supporting "Western Culture"?

Or that fact that a lot of your posts are identical to sound bites from FoxNews?

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they absolutely got bullied out of here.

Who specifically?  Give me some examples of conservatives who used to post here all the time but stopped because they were bullied.  I say you are just trying to play the victim.

Are you still insisting that Brad, Sunset, Michaelseason, and Mickeypoo are not conservatives?

[GMDino]

(03-03-2021, 03:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who specifically?  Give me some examples of conservatives who used to post here all the time but stopped because they were bullied.  I say you are just trying to play the victim.

Are you still insisting that Brad, Sunset, Michaelseason, and Mickeypoo are not conservatives?

I think that list covers a broad spectrum of "conservatives" that post fairly regularly.

Some have left in the past and I don't know why and I don't care.  This is a sub forum of a sports board ran by fans of a team.  The mods have attempted to make this as "safe" a place as possible and if you can't handle it that is on the individual.  If they felt unwelcome because there were challenges to what they posted and "ran off" so be it.  Why would that even be an issue?  Who is keeping track of the balance of the posters vs the political spectrum?  Just be here for the discussions, and maybe to learn something, and move along.  If someone is letting anything here bother them beyond that they need to log off for awhile.

And that goes back to the topic of the thread:  This subject here can be volatile.  That's not for everyone.  Disagreements are frequent both because of the political lean of the posters and the loss of inflection with the written word vs actual talking.  Idea and points are easily misconstrued as easily as they are deliberately misrepresented.

Edit to add: Then they play the victim card and/or claim they "won" because people won't argue anymore. Grade school stuff.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I, for one, am shocked that the main perpetrators don't see it. Shocked I tell you.

[hollodero]

(03-03-2021, 03:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: Edit to add:  Then they play the victim card and/or claim they "won" because people won't argue anymore.  Grade school stuff.

Look. I'm half way with you on that. But I do share the observation that quite some posters, very much including you, have a tendency to be overly dismissive towards different takes. It's not always fair to associate the non-liberal point with Tucker Carlson or compare harboring said opinions to Trump at his worst. You do that more often as is called for. 

I'm sure not the one to judge or critizise, but since this used to be "my" thread I dare to share that observation.

[GMDino]

(03-03-2021, 04:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Look. I'm half way with you on that. But I do share the observation that quite some posters, very much including you, have a tendency to be overly dismissive towards different takes. It's not always fair to associate the non-liberal point with Tucker Carlson or compare harboring said opinions to Trump at his worst. You do that more often as is called for. 

I'm sure not the one to judge or critizise, but since this used to be "my" thread I dare to share that observation.

I readily admit I am not immune to crossing that line where the "Broad brush" is used.  I try to do so when I can provide a source that shows a similar thought process.  But I also don't cry that I'm being bullied or care who was "run off" or claim I am a victim of unfair practices.  I get what this forum is and I like to participate.  Am I perfect?  Of course not.  I don't have to declare "victory" either...it's a discussion. Maybe I'm not "alpha male" enough? :)

So I've learned. I don't engage in the stupid back and forth. Hopefully I will continue to be better than worse.

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 04:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I, for one, am shocked that the main perpetrators don't see it.  Shocked I tell you.  

There is nothing to see.

You never post anything to support your claims because there is nothing.

[Dill]

(03-02-2021, 10:54 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: The Germans weren't able to vote out Hitler after four years in 1937. I've seen Trump compared to Mussolini by the MSM more than Hitler. Some referred to him as Donaldito Trumpolini.

If all you know about the Nazis is what happened after the war started and think that Trump wasn't on a similar path, then I suggest reading more about his rise to power. Hitler didn't have Fox, OAN or Newsmax but he did have the extremely talented Josef Goebbels whose title was Minister Of Propaganda. They were honest about their lies. Basically, "It's my job to blow smoke up your ass by gaslighting."

I tend to agree with this. The less people know about Hitler's rise to power, the less likely they are to find comparisons to Trump "apt" or useful. Most view Hitler in a kind of rearview mirror in which his later deeds overshadow the conditions which allowed his rise to power, and how he availed himself of opportunities or created them.  Some assume the standard of comparison to be persons, whereby the more "like" Trump an autocrat is, the more useful the comparison. The less like, the less useful. Even more assume the point of such comparisons is to simply tar political opposition rather than legitimate critique of actual behavior (or they do see the legitimate critique, but want to obscure it).

Better to make this point from a different angle--the more people know about autocrats/authoritarians in general, how they acquire power, how they overcome democratic checks, how they undermine public discourse with false narratives and foster distrust in government, the more likely they are to find Hitler comparisons useful, though not the end goal of analysis. From this perspective, one compares someone like Trump to a spectrum of autocratic rulers, especially those who emerged in democratic regimes, as well as borderline cases, like some of our own presidents and vice-presidents.  Then one can see how different cases may offer different and multiple points of illumination on the present. E.g., the Nazi case helps illuminate how standards of public discourse (truth vs post-truth) are broken down by systematic inversions of victimhood (Hannah Arendt's work on Totalitarianism would be a useful bridge here). Spiro Agnew provides an American model for discrediting the press to cover corruption. And such study is not limited to persons. E.g. Hungary's Fidesz shows how a contemporary liberal party slides into a regime party over two decades.  Venezuela foregrounds autocracy conditioned by economic constriction. The point of this more comprehensive approach would be to raise awareness about behaviors in current leaders, their relation to their own party (like targeting critics within the party for exclusion) and to social/economic conditions, which might otherwise go unremarked.

This approach might have a better chance of receiving a fair hearing, since it doesn't place Hitler front and center, and it allows people to see authoritarian leadership in a variety of actual and potential forms, not all of them fully "ripe."  And it might alter peoples' assumptions about how to go about comparing political leaders, parties and ideologies, leaving them with a kind of generalizable civic/political knowledge which is not Trump-specific, but likely to become ever more useful in an increasing divided U.S. in which the turn to authoritarian leaders may intensify in the future.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2021, 02:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the only Hitler parallel I've really been keen on for Trump was one of the names for the attempted insurrection, just because the Beer Belly Putsch cracked me up.

(03-03-2021, 02:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: There's no real disagreement.

then

(03-03-2021, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: I tend to agree with this. The less people know about Hitler's rise to power, the less likely they are to find comparisons to Trump "apt" or useful. Most view Hitler in a kind of rearview mirror in which his later deeds overshadow the conditions which allowed his rise to power, and how he availed himself of opportunities or created them.  Some assume the standard of comparison to be persons, whereby the more "like" Trump an autocrat is, the more useful the comparison. The less like, the less useful. Even more assume the point of such comparisons is to simply tar political opposition rather than legitimate critique of actual behavior (or they do see the legitimate critique, but want to obscure it).

Better to make this point from a different angle--the more people know about autocrats/authoritarians in general, how they acquire power, how they overcome democratic checks, how they undermine public discourse with false narratives and foster distrust in government, the more likely they are to find Hitler comparisons useful, though not the end goal of analysis. From this perspective, one compares someone like Trump to a spectrum of autocratic rulers, especially those who emerged in democratic regimes, as well as borderline cases, like some of our own presidents and vice-presidents.  Then one can see how different cases may offer different and multiple points of illumination on the present. E.g., the Nazi case helps illuminate how standards of public discourse (truth vs post-truth) are broken down by systematic inversions of victimhood (Hannah Arendt's work on Totalitarianism would be a useful bridge here). Spiro Agnew provides an American model for discrediting the press to cover corruption. And such study is not limited to persons. E.g. Hungary's Fidesz shows how a contemporary liberal party slides into a regime party over two decades.  Venezuela foregrounds autocracy conditioned by economic constriction. The point of this more comprehensive approach would be to raise awareness about behaviors in current leaders, their relation to their own party (like targeting critics within the party for exclusion) and to economic conditions, which might otherwise go unremarked.

This approach might have a better chance of receiving a fair hearing, since it doesn't place Hitler front and center, and it allows people to see dictatorship in a variety of actual and potential forms.  And it might alter peoples' assumptions about how to go about comparing political leaders, parties and ideologies, leaving them with a kind of generalizable civic/political knowledge which is not Trump-specific, but likely to become ever more useful in an increasing divided U.S. in which the turn to authoritarian leaders may intensify in the future.

[GMDino]

(03-03-2021, 03:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think that list covers a broad spectrum of "conservatives" that post fairly regularly.

Some have left in the past and I don't know why and I don't care.  This is a sub forum of a sports board ran by fans of a team.  The mods have attempted to make this as "safe" a place as possible and if you can't handle it that is on the individual.  If they felt unwelcome because there were challenges to what they posted and "ran off" so be it.  Why would that even be an issue?  Who is keeping track of the balance of the posters vs the political spectrum?  Just be here for the discussions, and maybe to learn something, and move along.  If someone is letting anything here bother them beyond that they need to log off for awhile.

And that goes back to the topic of the thread:  This subject here can be volatile.  That's not for everyone.  Disagreements are frequent both because of the political lean of the posters and the loss of inflection with the written word vs actual talking.  Idea and points are easily misconstrued as easily as they are deliberately misrepresented.

Edit to add:  Then they play the victim card and/or claim they "won" because people won't argue anymore.  Grade school stuff.

For example when one poster's response to one statement is quoted to try and make them look like they were responding to a different statement.

Bad form and childish.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2021, 08:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: For example when one poster's response to one statement is quoted to try and make them look like they were responding to a different statement.

Bad form and childish.

I'm sorry you lack the capacity to understand the point of the above post, but it's not what you're stating it is.  Which is ironic considering what you highlighted when quoting yourself. 

[Dill]

(03-03-2021, 03:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think that list covers a broad spectrum of "conservatives" that post fairly regularly.

Some have left in the past and I don't know why and I don't care.  This is a sub forum of a sports board ran by fans of a team.  The mods have attempted to make this as "safe" a place as possible and if you can't handle it that is on the individual.  If they felt unwelcome because there were challenges to what they posted and "ran off" so be it.  Why would that even be an issue?  Who is keeping track of the balance of the posters vs the political spectrum?  Just be here for the discussions, and maybe to learn something, and move along.  If someone is letting anything here bother them beyond that they need to log off for awhile.

And that goes back to the topic of the thread:  This subject here can be volatile.  That's not for everyone.  Disagreements are frequent both because of the political lean of the posters and the loss of inflection with the written word vs actual talking.  Idea and points are easily misconstrued as easily as they are deliberately misrepresented.

Edit to add:  Then they play the victim card and/or claim they "won" because people won't argue anymore.  Grade school stuff.

I'm in agreement with the bolded. 

I have several times questioned right wing takes on illegals voting and pizzagate, after which the posters disappeared. 

Some, like Lucy and Vlad, were banned for their own intemperate language.

Not everyone is really up for dialogue with people of different views. Difference = attack.
Some are just more comfortable in a bubble where beliefs can circulate unchallenged. 
A QAnon supporter might feel more comfortable in a forum where everyone already agrees what Hillary does with babies.

A narrative about "leftists" who bully rightists and chase them out of this forum could only prevail 
to the degree that forum members eschew any requirement for factual, citable grounding.

There is a question about what constitutes "bullying" as well. 
If merely advancing certain political arguments can be defined as bullying, then one has a tool 
for dismissing others views without addressing or actually refuting them. 

[fredtoast]

Still waiting for one single specific example of a member who stopped posting here because he was bullied by liberals.