You might want to pick up a history book because it's kind of just a matter of fact at this point. The only remaining question is whether you think it's a good thing or not.
“My opinions are not opinions — these are facts, and those who disagree are either stupid, or evil, or both. In your case, I’m going to, in good faith, assume ignorance.”
I actually read a lot of history books, but I’m not limiting myself to WW2 material. I can see how someone who only reads about that could assume that WW2 is the only thing that happened — but also the only thing that is happening, and the only thing that could ever happen. For these, it’s always 1939 somewhere, and the only question that remains is where.
Would you mind explaining why you think it is subjectively wrong to call the MAGA movement fascist? There's a definition of fascism in this thread which is my working definition. Could you read it and provide your perspective on why you think it does not apply in this case? Or perhaps you'd be willing to explain why you think it is a false definition?
The reason I ask is that, by that definition, it seems rather obvious that it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that "US politics has been pretty fascist lately" but you seem to believe it's the other way around.
You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now. I am asserting that the similarities exist as a plain matter of fact. Fascism didn't exist at other times in history, so I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods, nor do I see how it refutes my assertion.
> You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now.
I never said I take issue with that claim, nor that I agree with it, nor that I disagree with it. I just pointed out that there are two groups of people: those who agree with it and those who don't; for the latter group, reading the article that starts by stating that claim is going to be a waste of their time, as the article is built upon that foundation.
> I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods
You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.
> You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.
Why would I be interested in other time periods when talking about the similarities between our time, and a phenomenon that did not exist in those other time periods?
If I state that someone on the street looks like Bill Murray, would you pull up pictures of John Cleese on your phone to refute my claim?
That's what I've addressed already: you're not interested in history as a journey of discovery which is taken in order to broaden your horizons -- you're only interested in it as a way to support your pre-existing opinions. Anything that can't support your pre-existing opinions is of no use to you.
It's as if the people in the antebellum South were only reading history books that proved to them how Blacks are inferior, while skipping over books on topics like Roman Empire or early Muslim empires (that could actually prove to them that some of very capable emperors/caliphs were actually Black.) They had no use for that information as it couldn't support their chattel slavery system.
This is an undeniable fact about American politics. I was never happy with the 14-layer bean dip definitions floating around (they seem to also try to include the definition of "authoritarian") but this one is reasonably concise and accurate to the ideologies of historically fascist movements.
The bar of "populist palingenetic ultranationalism" is fairly objective, and seems to make it clear that this is the ideology behind the "Make America Great Again" movement. By this definition, American politics has been fascist since a President was elected on a fascist-by-definition campaign.
It is when it's entirely redundant, i.e. when you've heard the same arguments countless times before and know that you're about to reject them again.
You may notice that your sibling replies treat the "alternative viewpoint" in question as if it were objective fact, and show the same unwillingness. It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.
The "unwillingness" in question is the decision not to read and engage with another's perspective. The replies calling this a fact are actually engaging with the points being made. Whether or not American politics is becoming more fascist isn't really a matter of debate unless one simply doesn't know what the word "fascist" is referring to.
You seem, er, "unwilling" to engage with an objective definition of fascism. It's in another comment in this thread if you want to discuss it in good faith. What do you think? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575415) Personally, it seems kinda obvious that the phrase "Make America Great Again" was chosen specifically for how it evokes palingenetic ultranationalism.
> It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.
It's prudent to say what you believe. Whether or not someone is willing to engage with your beliefs in good faith is on them.
That is a good advice. Do you follow it yourself? Did you, for instance, read Mein Kampf to “consider an alternative viewpoint”? Or is it only good when the “alternative viewpoint” is yours?
It's gonna be a waste of time for anyone who doesn't already agree with this statement to continue past this first sentence.