Misappropriation of the word 'racist' used against Trump

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest , you have the ex-neo-nazi and the pseudo-commie telling you are wrong on areas where we both have a level of knowledge greater than your own because we believed and lived with this stuff.

Finally, the argument from authority!
Your immersion in sequestered extremist ideologies could also warp your perspective by limiting it to an arcane perspective.
When you tell me what libertarians believe, & get entirely wrong, this calls the claimed expertise into question.
Have I greater authority because I've been a Libertarian since before either of you were born?
No of course not....so I won't claim it.
(Although it's wicked fun to mention it.)

If you like we could ask Nietzsche for his expertise on Nazism and you'll have pretty much all the authorities on the respective subjects in the forum telling you, that you are wrong.

It's awkward to cite agreement with someone who isn't here.
But even so, what appears to be an agenda driven attempt to limit definitions to arcane historical ones still doesn't fly with me.

You can shout "ambiguity" and "common usage" all you want.

I haven't raised my voice yet today.

Language does evolve, but not in isolation. The roots of this evolution in language are for propaganda purposes and do not reflect historical evidence.

No matter how much you dislike this imagined corruption of language, words mean what the mean when people use them.
You cannot roll back the clock.

Historically, the libertarian views has utterly failed to understand the nature of the groups it is opposed to and you can see that in miscalculations in U.S. Foreign policy where the failure to understand these groups in their own terms has backfired throughout the Cold War.

What I observe is that you fail to understand libertarians (based upon your erroneous claims).
Moreover, this is about what words mean....not an argument about foreign policy.
(Libertarians did not effect the foreign policy you decry. Moreover, I dislike it too.)

Nowadays Islamic fundamentalists get called fascists or totalitarians and the same stereotype is rolled out to interpret any action against them as for "freedom, democracy and human rights" even if it misses the complexities of the situation entirely.

I say Islamic fundamentalist regimes are fascist.
They fit the definition I posted.

The definitions matter because of the practical consequences as ideological understandings of how these groups behave. At bottom, the way you are using "fascism" against either the far right or the far left does not reflect how these groups behave, the way in which the respective ideologies politicise their behaviour in different ways and how they understand themselves. The assumptions behind the usage of fascism in this way are inadequate which is why projecting "human nature" and thinking that totalitarian systems are simply self-interested and corrupt dictatorships lying to the people and perpetrating a fraud is a staggering Mis-calculation.

This isn't about projecting anything or making the assumptions you claim.
It's a matter of seeing a regime which fits the definition of "fascism".

(The new left cries "fascist" reflecting libertarian usage of the term as a generic slur and not as a catagorisation).

This isn't relevant to the definition.
It sounds more like you're objecting to someone insulting something.
I don't know how to address that.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one is "redefining" words. I'm going by the actual ideology, not some quick dictionary search. You really think a dictionary tells you all you need to know about a political ideology?!

If you deny dictionary definitions, & use one which is novel & misleading, then this is indeed redefining a word.
The ideological orientation of the speaker does not change it for others.
You want it to be only one way, ie, yours....but other people use it differently.

That's the overly broad colloquial usage of the term, not a description of the actual ideology.

The word applies to more than just the narrow ideology you want it to.

You do know that Fascism is a full-fledged ideology, right? It has its own worldview, veritable mythology, view of history and the human person, theories of how society should be organized, identifies problems of society and prescribes solutions, etc.

I mean, even Google gives this definition:

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
noun: fascism; noun: Fascism; plural noun: Fascisms
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
Nazism, rightism;
nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism;
jingoism, isolationism;
neofascism, neo-Nazism
"a film depicting the rise of fascism in the 1930s"
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I'd seen that one too.
Now you see that there is ambiguity in this word too.
You don't get to limit the definition to only the one you prefer.

 

[Shaul]

Wow, it looks like I opened a great big can of worms by saying Fascism could be right or left.

Benito Mussolini, who coined the term, Derived from the Latin word fasci which means bundle. (See here, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist ) The imagery and principle was to subordinate individualism into a State collective to achieve cultural and national purposes. That's it. It doesn't, per se, require those purposes to be politically left or right wing.

If some of you want to debate the issue further may I suggest you go to a more appropriate forum? Instead of a Religious debate site you might want to go to a Political debate site such as this one,*EDIT*

 

[Underhill]

Wow, it looks like I opened a great big can of worms by saying Fascism could be right or left.

Benito Mussolini, who coined the term, Derived from the Latin word fasci which means bundle. (See here, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist ) The imagery and principle was to subordinate individualism into a State collective to achieve cultural and national purposes. That's it. It doesn't, per se, require those purposes to be politically left or right wing.

If some of you want to debate the issue further may I suggest you go to a more appropriate forum? Instead of a Religious debate site you might want to go to a Political debate site such as this one,*EDIT*

Of course it can be left or right. It can be religious or secular. But in this country, right now, it is almost exclusively the realm of the right wing. The religious right even more so (although Trump is working hard to change that).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Wow, it looks like I opened a great big can of worms by saying Fascism could be right or left.

Benito Mussolini, who coined the term, Derived from the Latin word fasci which means bundle. (See here, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist ) The imagery and principle was to subordinate individualism into a State collective to achieve cultural and national purposes. That's it. It doesn't, per se, require those purposes to be politically left or right wing.

If some of you want to debate the issue further may I suggest you go to a more appropriate forum? Instead of a Religious debate site you might want to go to a Political debate site such as this one, *EDIT*

Being that this thread is in a political subforum, I think it's appropriate content for the discussion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Apparently words can just mean whatever you want them to mean now and dictionaries tell you all you need to know about political ideologies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, it looks like I opened a great big can of worms by saying Fascism could be right or left.

So you are the one we should blame, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently words can just mean whatever you want them to mean now and dictionaries tell you all you need to know about political ideologies.

Everyone knows that dictionaries merely offer definitions (& pronunciation & some etymology).
So your claim is a straw man.
If one eschews common usage in preference for arcane historical jargon, & insists that
no other definitions exist, then one is essentially redefining the word for ideological reasons.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

arcane historical jargon

I'm sorry that Wikipedia is too "arcane" for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry that Wikipedia is too "arcane" for you.

I've used it to bolster my case for there being multiple definitions & usages of both "right" & "left".
One cannot claim victory by just proclaiming "Wikipedia!".

 

[Watchmen]

Trump's comments on the Mexican judge are the epitome of racism. He feels since the judge has Mexican heritage, that immediately means he's unskilled and beneath him. What else could it mean?

It's common to hear conservative media refer to mexicans as having no skills and no education.

Nope. That's not what Trump said. Nice try.

 

[Watchmen]

That's just his bizarre notion. If that were true, the Judge wouldn't have made it through law school to where he is. Judges are supposed to be impartial and unbiased. It's part of the job or you're removed.

Judges are human. They all make their rulings based on the lenses of their life. And, you can't remove Article III judges. Nice try.

 

[Watchmen]

To start, i'm NOT a Trump fan. There is absolutely nothing about him that appeals to me and he won't be getting my vote.

With that said however...

When the white kid shot and killed several black people in a South Carolina church and also when a white cop shot a black man in the back at a traffic stop, again in South Carolina, they would not let a white judge sit the bench for those trials. They purposely chose black judges and it was even reported so by the local media.

Now supposedly this was to ensure the judge would be impartial although that makes no sense to me as the black judge could have been equally partial in the other direction.

I say this only to reluctantly side with Trump in situation as its an etablished common practice. Trump has cause based on his public stance on immigration to question whether or not a hispanic judge can be impartial in the case against him and his rights require that concern to be taken seriously.

This is nothing more than a media circus.

Words of wisdom. I like you.

 

[Watchmen]

It's often based on racial and ethnic bigotry. It ties into nativism and serves as a wedge, which right-wing populists and demagogues use to rile the masses up against scapegoated groups. Trump's racially-charged rhetoric has inspired at least one racist violent attack, which Trump did not denounce; only saying that his followers are "very passionate": http://nypost.com/2015/08/20/trump-...p-hispanic-homeless-man-suspects-tell-police/


Yes, his complaint is racist and so is his call to build a wall between here and Mexico. He is scapegoating the Mexican people, he assumes that this judge has anything to do with undocumented migrants and is just stereotyping him based on his ethnicity. His ridiculous claims have no legal ground and he is just trying to wriggle out of the fact that his criminal activity is being exposed by this case.

"That is undoubtedly because court precedents are unanimous in holding that race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation are not themselves grounds for disqualifying a judge. If they were, legal ethicists observe, the legal system would fall into chaos because no judge would be free from taint. The five Supreme Court justices who are Catholic could not rule on a case in which the Catholic church participated, but neither could the other justices who are not Catholic."
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/04/48071...at-mexican-judge-curiel-is-biased-against-him


Now that is racism, because science currently does not recognize discrete categorizations of humans and there are no behavioral traits that more common to certain ethnic groups over others. It's just generalizing and making judgments about the behavior of a group of people over what phenotype they have. It's stupid and prejudiced. Human behavior is largely shaped by environment. Impoverished and working class areas will always be more violent and have higher rates of crime in general. That has nothing to do with the ethnic makeup of the neighborhood.

Yes, Trump is a racist. He's at least using racism as a political weapon. He's a disgusting piece of **** in general.

This thread is just you trying to make apologies for the racism that is widespread among even the mainstream right. Sickening.

Wrong on so many levels.

Why can't we build a wall? We're a nation. Nations have borders. Why not protect ours by keeping illegals out?

Judges see things through the filters of their life. The judge in the Trump case is no exception. Bias is real!

My best friends, who happen to be African American, defend Trump to the end. The "racist" argument is contrived by Trump's enemies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've used it to bolster my case for there being multiple definitions & usages of both "right" & "left".
One cannot claim victory by just proclaiming "Wikipedia!".

Then to drop a bomb shell, among your fellow Libertarians you get to include Noam Chomsky. Not only because that is what he self-identifies as, but primarily because the root word of Libertarian is liberty, which is the focus of Libertarianism. However, right-Libertarians and left-Libertarians do not agree over the means and methods to maximize and best preserve individual liberty for all.

My best friends, who happen to be African American, defend Trump to the end. The "racist" argument is contrived by Trump's enemies.

Just because some black people defended slavery and the societal ideas that black people are inferior to white people doesn't make slavery and such views not racist. The "Uncle Tom" character archetype has survived and still used for a reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then to drop a bomb shell, among your fellow Libertarians you get to include Noam Chomsky. Not only because that is what he self-identifies as, but primarily because the root word of Libertarian is liberty, which is the focus of Libertarianism. However, right-Libertarians and left-Libertarians do not agree over the means and methods to maximize and best preserve individual liberty for all.

Obviously, "left libertarians" are wrongo pongo.
But I harbor hope to convert them to becoming simply "libertarian".
How, you ask?
Within a non-government imposed economic environment, there will be capitalism,
& individuals inclined to socialism, communism, feudalism, or hunter-gatherer would
be able to form voluntary associations geared to those systems. I greatly favor that.
We'll all have on name in our very big tent.

And there will be....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Obviously, "left libertarians" are wrongo pongo.
But I harbor hope to convert them to becoming simply "libertarian".
How, you ask?
Within a non-government imposed economic environment, there will be capitalism,
& individuals inclined to socialism, communism, feudalism, or hunter-gatherer would
be able to form voluntary associations geared to those systems. I greatly favor that.
We'll all have on name in our very big tent.

Without government intervention you can't have Capitalism because Capitalism requires private property, which is at odds with left-winged Socialism, Communism, and it's just entirely non-existent under hunter-gatherer models. Without a government to enforce private property, Capitalism cannot work (according to right-Libertarian author Robert Nozick, that should be the sole purpose of the government). If one group says something like land belongs to everyone or no one, it becomes incompatible with something that says land can belong to a single person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Without government intervention you can't have Capitalism because Capitalism requires private property, which is at odds with left-winged Socialism, Communism, and it's just entirely non-existent under hunter-gatherer models. Without a government to enforce private property, Capitalism cannot work (according to right-Libertarian author Robert Nozick, that should be the sole purpose of the government). If one group says something like land belongs to everyone or no one, it becomes incompatible with something that says land can belong to a single person.

Capitalism has worked without government enforcing property rights.
(I've covered this before.) Enforcement is simply left up to the property holder.
Government simply provides dispute resolution & enforcement mechanisms,
thereby making for a more orderly, peaceful & predictable society.
Any system which would ban capitalism or private property would be far far more
authoritarian, & would not be even remotely libertarian. It would be N Korea.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Any system which would ban capitalism or private property would be far far more
authoritarian, & would not be even remotely libertarian. It would be N Korea.

Tons of people and cultures had absolutely no concept of private property, and yet were not oppressed or living under an authoritarian regime. Many left-Libertarians do call for the abolishment of private property - this does not mean they are not "true" Libertarians, but rather that your views and theirs are not congruent. To these left-Libertarians, private property creates far more problems in society than what it's worth, and to do away with it brings liberty to more people rather than just a few who can use their vast amounts of wealth to purchase vast amounts of private property and economically suppress those beneath them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tons of people and cultures had absolutely no concept of private property, and yet were not oppressed or living under an authoritarian regime.

This could be true, but not in modern technological societies.
And I don't see us returning to earlier more primitive economic systems.

Many left-Libertarians do call for the abolishment of private property - this does not mean they are not "true" Libertarians, but rather that your views and theirs are not congruent.
To these left-Libertarians, private property creates far more problems in society than what it's worth, and to do away with it brings liberty to more people rather than just a few who can use their vast amounts of wealth to purchase vast amounts of private property and economically suppress those beneath them.

The big problem is that to abolish private property & capitalism requires a far
more powerful & authoritarian government that we find in many capitalist countries.
Everywhere socialists or their kin have had power, they've had to keep the people
under their thumb to prevent legit & black markets, eg, USSR, PRC, N Korea, Cuba.
Capitalism is more compatible with libertarian values, eg, Canuckistan, Norway, USA.
Anyone who would ban capitalism & private property would have to do so by violent
force & oppression. That's what history shows us. This is not libertarian.....except
perhaps in Bizarro World.

The argument that liberty requires purging capitalism & taking private property from
others reminds me of fundies who say they're oppressed by being forced to endure
gay marriage of others. If I make & sell widgets to Bill & Sally, this doesn't prevent
you from forming a commune with Moonbeam & Flower, & making your own widgets.
If you don't want to buy my product, that's OK. But you shouldn't claim harm because
of a voluntary relationship between me & my customers.

We now even see calls for censorship by what some have named the "Snowflake Generation",
ie, people so sensitive that they require freedom from offensive opinions. I suppose they might
call this "libertarian". Perhaps some day, they might call the novel, 1984, a "libertarian" primer.
Bizarre. Liberty is not about the strict control of others.