By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

 

Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

Yes 67 56.78%
 
No 21 17.80%
 
Not a "movement sim... 27 22.88%
 
Total:115
Rath on 21 July 2011
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:


1) That may be something religion requires - it is not however the definition of religion. Atheism is not a religion as it has no dogma or rituals.

2) Also I (and many others) would argue that atheism does not require an active disbelief in a god, just a lack of belief in one. It can be a passive position with no active beliefs.


1) Being that there are religions (like Christianity) where not observing dogma or rituals doesn't change the fact that you're following the religion as long as you maintain a handful of core beliefs, and you can believe most of the dogma and follow all of the rituals and are not following the religion as long as you don't maintain a handful of core beliefs, I don't think you can say that dogma or rituals are a requirement of religion

2 Simply understanding the definitions of what Atheism is tells you that you must maintain the belief that there is no god

a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnosticism is closer to what you describe because most agnostics (like myself) accept that it is unlikely that the existance of god will be proven, and the premises surrounding the existance of god make it impossible to prove its non-existance, and choose not to live our lives free from the belief in the existance or non-existance of god.

ag·nos·ti·cism
   [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun

1.the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2.an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

 

Being that agnosticism could accurately be described as the "lack of belief in god" and not the "belief in the non-existence of god" is why agnosticism could be seen as the freedom from religion while atheism is still a religion. You can see this in the difference in how agnostics and atheists interact with the world. Unlike atheists, agnostics don't try to evangelize people and you’re not likely to see billboards trying to push people to an agnostic worldview. Agnostics tend not to be in conflict with other groups because they accept that no one can know what the truth is, while Atheist groups are constantly in conflict with organized religious groups (primarily christianity) because they assume they're correct and the organized religions are wrong.

 

Ok, I completely disagree with your definition of religion. To back myself up here is the definition from what I consider to be the definitive dictionary - the Oxford Dictionary

 

religion

Pronunciation:/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/

noun

[mass noun]
  • the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion 
  • [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world's great religions 
  • [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

The third one is not the sense we are talking in and the first two do not describe atheism.

 

Nevertheless this essentially comes down to an argument over semantics where the main point was that atheism is equally as irrational as theism. However I also think this is incorrect. The claim that god does not exist is no more absurd than the claim that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. It is a claim based upon there being no evidence to the contrary and the burden of proof is upon the positive claim. Most atheists do not claim to know god does not exist but rather to believe based on the lack of evidence that he does not exist - as such they are also under the strict definition agnostics (believing that whether god exists or not is unknowable) as well as atheists (believing that god does not exist).

Essentially I agree that strong atheism (claiming the absolute knowledge that God does not exist) is just as illogical as strong theism (claiming the absolute knowledge that he does) when there is no evidence for either position. However unless you are willing to give credence to every claim made without evidence (say also the possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists) then weak atheism (belief that God does not exist) is not an illogical position.



Around the Network
badgenome on 21 July 2011
sapphi_snake said:

Have you ever heard of the anti-jew rhetoric present in Nazi Germany? Fear/hate mongering has disastrous consequences for the targets. Also, by your logic direct instignations towards violence should not be illegal either.

Have you ever heard of the hate speech laws present in Weimar Germany? Fat lot of good they did.



badgenome on 21 July 2011
sapphi_snake said:

Regarding your first paragraph, I already said I'd have to read the article in question before being able to have an opinion on the matter. His article could've been totally misinterpreted, if just the words used were taken into consideration, and not the global message.

Regarding the 2nd paragraph, a majority is simply a group that dominates society by being more numerous than all others (50+%). I never said women are a minority, whatI said was that they're a historically oppressed group. They may outnumber men, but they have no real power within society. Society simply considers that men are more "valuable" than women and this starts from birth. Studies actually show that the birth of a boy is considered a much more joyful even in basically every culture (exception being some South American country, I think either Colombia or Venezuela). T This extends well after birth, and in society women don't really have any power (how many world leaders are women?), women being confined to the household and dependent on men for survival. he practice of the Chinese you pointed out being proof of how valued women are. You may be the lowest on the "hate speech totem pole", but that's because you're at the top of the society totem pole (especially if you're also a christian). Regarding political correctness, isn't it's purpose not insulting anyone in order to minimize conflict? I think that insulting a man is just as bad as insulting a woman, and I don't see a problem with being anti PC, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of insulting others.

Affirmative action was set up to protect minority groups from discrimination in universities (and to some extent assure that the number of educated people within these minority groups rises), no? Why are you bringing this into the conversation?

Regarding the 3rd paragraph, words can hurt people, and I'm not talking about feelings. Words spread ideeas, and ideeas lead to actions. I already mentioned that hate speech is speech that promotes violence and discrimination of high risk groups. If words weren't effective, there would be no problem, but reality shows that words have a great power over people. Tell people group X is evil, wants to outnumber them and steal their country, and you'll see lynch mobs forming. Ending discrimination requires treating the cause, not the symptom, as you propose.

I brought up affirmative action to show how counterproductive and unfair things can become when self-righteous politicians set out to right a societal wrong. Lots of minorities and women have done very well for themselves in America. They idea that they are oppressed simply because they belong to Group X, Y, or Z is... well, it's frankly incredibly fucking retarded. My biggest problem with the left is that they like to divide people into groups and treat them as nothing more than a representative of said group rather than as an individual. A poor white (or Asian, for that matter) male is at a considerable disadvantage due to affirmative action, since it is entirely race based rather than means based. The fact of the matter is that the son of a rich black actor or football player simply doesn't need the government's help the way he would have decades ago. Things have changed, but affirmative action hasn't changed with the times, and leftists' slavish devotion to that outdated program resembles nothing more or less than old-tyme religion.

"Oh dear! Words spread ideas! We'd better regulate them, then!" That is so hilarious and creepy. You don't think that is treating the symptom? Forcing people to have only government-approved conversations is nothing anyone who fancies themselves a liberal should want any part of. The answer to bad speech is not less speech, but more speech.



FaRmLaNd on 21 July 2011

There are two major types of atheism.

There is the negative response to the burden of proof not being met by theists and then there is the active claim that god doesn't exist. Many atheists are the former and not the latter.

I simply reject the claim that god exists because of the fallacious arguments put forward and the lack of evidence. The burden of the theists doesn't seem upheld in my opinion. Thus I'm an atheist. I have a lack of belief in a deity and therefore I live my life in the practical sense like one doesn't exist. It's really that simple.

To be an agnostic does not contradict with this position at all. Hence why many atheists call themselves agnostic atheists and you may even find some agnostic theists, though thats quite rare I should think.

Atheism isn't a religion, stop the strawmans.



Player1x3 on 21 July 2011
sapphi_snake said:
badgenome said:

It should be pretty obvious why slander and so-called fighting words (threats, incitement of violence, etc.) are illegal. Obscenity is a pretty vague concept, but it basically boils down to protecting the virgin eyes and ears of children. If it can be successfully argued that something has serious artistic merit (which is seemingly pretty much anything these days), someone can usually beat an obscenity charge, but the very concept almost seems designed to chill speech.

I think the same can be said for hate speech. Even if hate speech laws are drafted with the very best of intentions, they are incredibly susceptible to abuse. Look at Canada's creepily Orwellian Human Rights Commission, before which a columnist named Mark Steyn was hauled to answer for... writing unflattering things about Muslims, basically. The thing to which they took greatest offense turned out to have been some line about how Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes" in European countries, but that was a direct quote from a Norwegian imam, Mullah Krekar. So Steyn skated, but the whole thing sort of puts all Canadians on notice: careful what you say about Muslims. Even perfectly moderate, politically disengaged Canadians are bound to resent the fact that there is essentially a double standard regarding what you can say about, say, the average white Protestant Canadian and what you can say about Muslims. So the very laws that are meant to help bring people together only serve to drive a bigger wedge between them and otherize Canadian Muslims more than all the hate speech in the world ever could.

As for the second paragraph, you have to understand that hate speech laws aren't designed to "bring people together", they're designed to protect high risk groups, such as minority groups, or groups that have been historically abused by society (like women). White protestants don't qualify, because they're the majority (and also the "ruling class"). Realistically, the only thing that you can do to them is offend them, but since they're the majority they're not likely to experience any persecution/violence from society, because... they make up most of society.

 


Wow, you really beleive that?  My God, you are a very  dangerous person.



Around the Network
EdHieron on 21 July 2011

We already have a movement similar to fascism in the US. It's called Fundamentalist Christianity and as Republican / Tea Party types continue to gain more power in the US over the next couple of years, we're going to see a rise in its insidious influence on our culture as well.

[-]-mod edit-

This users post has been moderated



EdHieron on 21 July 2011
sapphi_snake said:
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fascism and socialism/communism takes hold in countries because a charismatic leader comes to power and promises to solve all your social or economic problems; and never once are the jackboots and political oppression these individuals will face mentioned. While I wouldn't say Obama is a fascist, I think his presidency demonstrates how big of a risk there is for Fascism in the United States; and it also offers a glimmer of hope that the United States has some form of inoculation against fascism ...

 

 

To a certain extent conservatives tend to choose their leaders based on what they see as the best of bad choices, and there is rarely any belief that their leaders are smarter or better than can really be demonstrated. In contrast, progressive leaders are often put on a pedestal and elevated to the level of a "rock star" and are rarely questioned on the substance of their plans; and Obama has been elevated to a level far above typical political leaders to where it is more correct to say that people see him as the "messiah". This has created an environment where the media and a large portion of the voting base believes everything he says and follows him without question regardless of what he is doing. While I don't see him doing this, the kind of power this gives a leader could allow him to erode the essential rights away from individuals until the USA was a fascist state.

What I believe may demonstrate the US is inoculated from this fate is how independent voters, libertarians and conservatives are willing to stand up to the media and fight against the growth in power of the state. While it is obvious that a large portion of conservatives are motivated more by partisanship than principle, the fact that independent voters and libertarians are willing to make a stand in the face of unsupported and unfair claims that they’re "racist" is reason to be optimistic.

This i sincerely disagree with. Conservatives are always looking for their messiah too, namely their dead messiah Reagan (who was much more moderate than the Tea Party would be willing to tolerate today), and many conservatives seem to blindly put their faith in "the entrepreneur," or "the rich," people who have greater reasons to be purely self-interested yet have no true proof of actually being smarter or better able than the rest of us

 

Fascism and Communism are not bad ideas (well, fascism also has a dim, darwinian view of human nature), it's just that no-one has resolved the problems that human nature poses against them (namely that a self-interested elite without any sort of tilt against them will inevitably emerge, diluting the ideology that got them in their position in the first place, like the incredibly bureaucratic Soviet Union of the Brezhnev years). For now democracy is the best bet we have to hedge against our pessimistic view of human nature, but it's not necessarily the best overall

On the topic of Charasmatic leaders portrayed as a Mesiah ... Since I was old enough to start paying attention to politics (about 20 years ago) there hasn't really been any charasmatic conservative leaders who were portrayed as a rock star or messiah like figure in any western country I can think of, and yet in every country I can think of there have been several instances of political figures on the left being portrayed in this way. It doesn't matter though, my core point was the elevation of a political figure to this level is the problem not which party does it more.

Berlusconi? Sarkozy? I'm pretty sue they're both portrayed as rock starts. And don't Conservatives in the US worship Raegan?

Quite a lot of them worship Jesus and "want to put God back in our country."  That's bad enough.  And shows that they definitely set up Messiah figures.



EdHieron on 21 July 2011
HappySqurriel said:
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:
Obama has been as close to Facism as we've come in a long time.
and with indoctrination centers like Universities and "news" stations like MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. they try to block out all dissent and vilify all opposition wit out any facts. they are in bed with the government and are pretty much an arm of the democratic party.

but no we wont be Fascists because luckily we have had citizen revolts like the tea party pushing for smaller less totalitarian goverment. and we have news stations that actually show both sides of isssues like FOX news instead of being spoon fed what this administration tells them, they actually are fair in providing both sides

And you want to be taken seriously (regarding the part in italics)? As for the underlined, anti-intelectualism is one of the first symptoms of an iminent dictatorship.

Calling for academics in colleges and universities to stop indoctrinating their students into a particular political ideology is not "anti-intellectualism" or "anti-academic"


I guess you would prefer it if they were teaching their students that the myths in the Bible were true and that they were indoctrinating their students into a Randian philosophy or to be complacent slaves to those with more money?



EdHieron on 21 July 2011
osamanobama said:
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:
Obama has been as close to Facism as we've come in a long time.
and with indoctrination centers like Universities and "news" stations like MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. they try to block out all dissent and vilify all opposition wit out any facts. they are in bed with the government and are pretty much an arm of the democratic party.

but no we wont be Fascists because luckily we have had citizen revolts like the tea party pushing for smaller less totalitarian goverment. and we have news stations that actually show both sides of isssues like FOX news instead of being spoon fed what this administration tells them, they actually are fair in providing both sides

And you want to be taken seriously (regarding the part in italics)? As for the underlined, anti-intelectualism is one of the first symptoms of an iminent dictatorship.

i couldnt be more serious.

and yes universities do indoctrinate. 97% of proffessors are liberals. they push their ideology on student, and punish those with differeing views (you might not experience this because youre not in America). they have no fear of repercusions because of tenure.  and colleges get favorable treatment by our government becasue they push out (liberal) voters and politicians. they get a constant base, and in turn "help" te universities. incompetent proffessors dont get fired and get away with everythiing.

as for the other thing, i suggest you watch our news. its apparrent that you do not

aslo for you other posts. modern day conservates (not establishment conservatives, im talking new tea party ones) stand for individual freedom, thats why liberatarians have teamed up with them.

since about a hundred years ago, starting back with woodrow wilson (some could argue TR) the liberal idealogy got hijacked by the progressive. they stand for inti democracy (including censor ship of other ideas, ex. your only a bigot or close minded if you disagree with them), anti-freedom, pro-totalitarian governement.

as for the topic at hand, i suggest you read liberal fascism, by Jonah Goldberg


A lot of the Tea Partiers want to put their imaginary God back in everything and in charge of everyone else's lives which definitely means that they're not for personal freedoms.  And since their God doesn't exist, one is defintely not being close-minded when they tell them they're wrong for believing in it and for trying to place it above everyone else's personal freedoms.

I watch a lot of Fox News and other than the 700 Club or whacked out local religious holy roller stations, they're really the only major media outlet that puts a serious spin on "God"'s existence which is all anyone needs to see to know how wrong their ideas are.



EdHieron on 21 July 2011
osamanobama said:
sapphi_snake said:
mrstickball said:
sapphi_snake said:
mrstickball said:


Wrong.

Modern day conservatives want liberty and freedom - but primarily for market sectors, and not personal sectors. That is 'conservative' as most nations have had less regulation/economic controls in the past, thus they want to 'conserve' this. Likewise, most personal freedoms have been restricted in the past, thus want to 'conserve' it.

Likewise, modern day liberals want the opposite of this - market restrictions and personal freedoms.

Well, economic liberalism is only a small part of overall liberalism. Overall conservatives still don't care much for freedom or liberty.

Given that you've never held a job, run a business, or hired anyone, I believe you don't know enough about the subject to make such an assertion.

Economic liberty to those that work, employ people, or run a business is just as valid as those that engage in personal liberties. Furthermore, heavily liberal ideologies also support redistribution of all workers' incomes in various fashions means that they are directly pre-empting your work with their own views of where your livelihood should go. Additionally, it means in some cases, you may or may not buy certain goods or services to which they deem are improper for society (such as fatty food taxes, wage and salary caps by economic sector, price controls). These things are just as egregious as the state deciding who you can marry, what you can say in a public domain, what you may smoke or drink, and the like.

I actually don't think they're on the same level. And if I have to choose, I'll choose the side that's defending what I care about more. Still, conservatives are hardly liberal even in economic matters. They're the chief opponents of things like legalizing drugs or prostitution, and unlike liberals who give somewhat compelling reasons for things they want to restrict/ban something, conservatives base their arguments on irrational things like religion (basically their dislike of personal freedoms extends in the economical sphere also).

liberals (in america) are completely inconsistant in what they value as rights, it constintly changes in order to gain a bigger voter base. they pander and change just so they can get votes.

and in our country our rights are God given, not by government


God doesn't exist.