I never said Trump wasn’t one. I was wondering more about some of the other people who get accused on the side. But I will take your advice.

Was anyone saying you had to?

Thanks.

It might help if he had a co-host.

This is apologist rhetoric, and since you are the OP, it is telling that you found this crap worth posting to start with.

No, it’s just me asking where the boundaries are. As someone trying to understand the issue, is this not a good thing to ask?

You are not persuaded yet huh?

Of what? Most people who put me on the spectrum would say I’m left-winged.

And think Rogan is middle of the tent? He might be an idiot but he is squarely right wing you know

By “mid”, I was using the slang term that means someone who is nowhere near as severe as the people on the same boat. I wasn’t saying he wasn’t “right winged”.

You know Kirk had lists with targeted academics whom his fan-base harassed?

No, I didn’t know that. Would like to read more. That’s immediately alarming.

People who don’t see that it is mainly because they have zero idea about what the Nazi party was, except for “the absolute evil”, and then pearl-clutch and say “they call me a nazi for being a militarist racist transphobe and because I believe in nationalism and traditional family values”. Well, yeah? That was what a fucking nazi was, you pitiful ignoramus. What you nowadays call a “centrist”.

I’m not sure why you think I’m denying this. I just prefer to address things deconstructively. It doesn’t mean they’re not what they are. It’s not a matter of someone being a “pitiful ignoramus”.

Questioning whether “it is formally fascist” regarding the christian nationalist and organized racist forces behind this systematic attack on check and balances of the executive branch is simply SEALIONING.

As I said, I don’t take away from what I know they are. They are still what they are. It’s not me asking for proof of anything they’ve done, if you think it’s sealioning. Have you ever thought of how cultural it is to use the more indirect means of addressing someone?

Your own fucking intelligence service says so. What you are doing is really actionable, because if you are not simply a useful idiot, you are an active operative. As an added bonus, he poses with established nazi apologists among young Republicans. And you are STILL MOVING THE GOALPOSTS ABOUT WHAT A FASCIST IS THEORETICALLY?

I condemn him on those points. Out of habit, I just simply don’t use the same words you use. I don’t know why that’s such a big deal. Also, it’s bold of you to assume this relates to my intelligence service (or even country).

there really isn’t reason to waste time on you personally or any other regime apologist.

I don’t support the regime. Never did I say Trump wasn’t a fascist.

You are the type of person who will tell us we are overreacting until there are actual gas chambers, and then claim it never happened.

Or… maybe I just use different words. That’s a huge jump to conclusions.

I know how they’d define one, but the question in my mind when it comes up is specifically how the accusers would define one. Because along with there being a difference between going by a conventional definition and going by a modified one, there is also a difference between having your own modified definition and it just being vague.

It’s why, when I criticize many of these people, I don’t use the word “fascist”. I just use the words that come to mind when I first think of what kind of individual they are. I don’t even use the word “terrorist” half the time for the same reason, I just describe them based on direct adjectives for the act itself. “Mass murderer” seems completely fine.

That much is true. I remember back when the wars George W. Bush started were still going on, anytime someone on “that side” died, it was a weird tradition in my old hometown to wake up the school kids at like five in the morning (because time zones) and say “hey, that one guy died”.

I’ve seen a lot of people called fascists who don’t fall under those criteria, which is the issue. An obvious example now might be Donald Trump (arguably, due to immigration crackdowns, power assertions, espionage, and marginalization of people with autism), but people such as Joe Rogan or Vladimir Zelensky? And you have people nobody is calling a fascist who nevertheless fit in that criteria, like Kim Jong-un and Emmanual Macron.

The issue when it comes to the self-defense part stems from when the operations cease to go by set criteria.

None of the arguments that defend the killing of Brian Thompson are going to, for example, help any of the people who passed around the idea of Joe Rogan dying, unless the motivation in question is to just eliminate people on the right.

Also, how is it clickbait?

I hope this doesn’t come across as undermining, but considering how often I see the term “fascist” used to describe the people who are giving society a hard time, if I may ask, how does one actually define a fascist? What are the criteria (according to those who use the term today) where, if you fit the criteria, you’re a fascist, and if you’re not a fascist, it’s because you don’t fit the criteria?

As for violence, there are a lot of people who have been killed this year whose death everyone has been cheering but who doesn’t have a history of violence (or even direct control over human life). I mean, when Kirk was assassinated, one of the people who got death threats in the aftermath was Joe Rogan. In terms of individuals on that side of the political spectrum, he’s as mid as you can get.

For someone so rich, you’d think he’d know a little more science.

What does it look like? Does this ongoing discussion truly sound like the kind of concern that would be compatible with a certain individual that was declared unwelcome in trans communities based on a history of intolerance?

I don’t know your game, but with all that having been expressed, don’t compare me to a transphobe. I’m not even sure what anyone who isn’t obsessed with past community members would think this has to do with the question.

My week has been good. I’ve been getting end-of-the-month shopping done.

I thought that place was dead.

And we’re sure the writer wasn’t going for Greek or just chose the Cyrillic font found on many programs to slightly conceal the message?

Let us hope. Not defending either of these two individuals, but Pope Leo wasn’t afraid of throwing shade on Donald Trump due to his practices involving ICE at the most vulnerable moments, which follows Pope Francis who was equally political but more about social progress (e.g. climate change). Both of these popes, as well as Pope Benedict, always used to stop just short of declaring full tolerance towards LGBT practices while trying to appeal to the LGBT crowd, so let’s hope this is their limit.

Was that what the manifesto video was? I was early to the news but too late to see her manifesto part before it was blocked out. Though without having seen it and having just heard about it, I found it absurd she expected nobody to do anything about it, like it was just going to stay on display after she had died.

Based on the track record of the people currently in power, I wouldn’t put it past them to use that as a justification in hindsight, but how do we know it was what the shooter meant to bring about at the time of her actions?

Removed by mod