Comment by somenameforme

Comment by somenameforme 11 hours ago

17 replies

This sort of rhetoric is precisely what is fueling the rise of "the other side." It's exactly like when religious conservatives were in power and proclaiming that everybody who disagreed with them was some sort of family hating, country hating, religion hating, entity. Ummm, no - I can disagree with your views without hating much of anything or anybody, but you're doing a damn fine job of projecting your own hate, thank you very much.

And it's the same thing now a days, except the roles are largely reversed. Somebody who puts the interest of their nation and the citizens of that nation first isn't a "fascist." That sort of rhetoric, let alone the sharp rise in violence against it (to say nothing of the condoning, if not outright support of such), is just driving everybody who was kind of in the middle more and more away from the 'name callers.' I think you can see this in the US where polls show independents increasingly leaning right on most issues, whereas not that long ago they tended to lean left. And given our basically 50/50 split, independents have the power to pick which side wins.

I feel politics is like this perpetual motion machine where you reach some absolute extreme on end where the side in power starts to do really dumb stuff which ends up driving people to the other side until we trend (over what feels like a ~25 year cycle) to the next opposite extreme and the cycle begins anew.

johnnyanmac 2 hours ago

>Somebody who puts the interest of their nation and the citizens of that nation first isn't a "fascist."

No, but nationalism is a very common channel to rile up fascist behavior. Make the overly proud, then dehumanize whoever you want them to attack. Once they no longer see that other as a human, all ethics goes out the window.

>is just driving everybody who was kind of in the middle more and more away from the 'name callers.'

Don't act fascist if you don't want to be called one:

>Another issue grabbing national attention is rising numbers of foreign residents and visitors, which has fueled widespread anti-foreigner sentiment that sometimes turns outright xenophobic. Many argue that Japan is at risk of losing its way of life, or that Japanese workers are being edged out of jobs.

Uh huh. A familiar trend the far right takes advantage of. Blame the foreigners than take hostile action towards them.

My only surprise is that the job market in Japan is this impacted. I guess seven a bad economy can dwarf the under-population crisis.

> think you can see this in the US where polls show independents increasingly leaning right on most issues, whereas not that long ago they tended to lean left.

In January, yes. By now, independents in the US have already soured. Maybe they are still right wing, but they realize Far-Right actions aren't it.

  • somenameforme 2 hours ago

    I don't understand how you can say things like this when we live in a time where you have people trying to imprison their political opponents (and nearly succeeding), assassinate their political opponents (and again nearly succeeding), and even murdering people who just want to publicly debate, which you then had their base either apathetic if not outright supportive of. And it's the exact people calling everybody else fascists.

immibis 9 hours ago

It takes a special personality to be able to see the difference between Nazis killing Jews, and Jews killing Nazis, I guess. Especially in the midst of so much propaganda. Most Germans thought they were doing the right thing to protect their country. The Nazis were all like "the Jews are killing us so this is just self-defence!" and the Jews were also like "the Nazis are killing us so this is just self-defence!". Yet, one of those statements was correct. You'd have to really pay attention to know which one was correct, because the TV (if they had TV in that era) wouldn't tell you.

Politics is a perpetual motion machine because there are always people who seek to dramatically increase their own power and will use any excuse to do so - that is a constant. What fluctuates back and forth is which excuses work - that is the apparent pendulum, but it's the same constant driving force underneath. When protecting the country is in vogue, power-seeking sociopaths will use excuses related to protecting the country. When religious freedom is in vogue, power-seeking sociopaths will use excuses related to religious freedom. When liberating the working class is in vogue, power-seeking sociopaths will use excuses related to liberating the working class. Those aren't different sides - they're just different excuses used by the same side.

  • somenameforme 6 hours ago

    I'm oddly impressed by your initial paragraph and knowledge of history. Because it's indeed completely accurate. Few are aware that the Hitler weaponized 'victimhood culture' to an extreme degree. But I'm quite confused by your conclusion, at least if you're implying what I assume you are. Charlie Kirk's entire schtick was giving people a loud platform to speak where he'd engage with them in complete civility, letting them go on monologues, and debating in a completely respectful fashion - avoiding the typical trappings of ad hominem, strawman, and so on. It was actual real debate, not the news stuff where people just scream over each other. Then he'd post the entire thing, unedited, online. Everything he was doing was literally about as much of the the opposite of fascism as you could possibly get.

    You know the paradox of tolerance certainly. In it, who do you think Popper was talking about? The people happy to openly engage and debate anybody in a fair and respectful fashion? Or the people shrieking for censorship, denouncing debate, demanding people not be heard, and then going on to start murdering people over their views?

    ----

    "But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

    ----

    • immibis 4 hours ago

      Why did Charlie Kirk only ever win debates against 19-year-old college students studying things other than politics? Have you actually watched any of these debates? He "wins" the debates not by being right, but by being the loudest and most prepared with his incorrectness. This doesn't prove anything except that humans are influenced by factors other than truth. When he accidentally debates someone who is on the side of truth and knows how to debate, he gets thoroughly trounced.

      My previous comment was not a setup then conclusion. It was a response to two different things in the same comment.

      • somenameforme 2 hours ago

        I'd strongly encourage actually checking out his debates. There often is no real 'winner' or 'loser', but mostly just an exchange of views and perspectives. Sometimes people change their views, most often they don't. Often times one or both parties walks away with a bit more knowledge.

        Here [1] is a debate between him and a professor (amongst 3 that showed up during just that event) that's on almost on our exact topic. The professor's argument was weak and his behavior quite undignified. The professor "lost" but it's not really the point or purpose of the debate. For instance here's another [2] (from the same campus tour) where not only was the crowd was much more for the professor, but the professor also formulated a far more viable argument, got Charlie flustered and made him say some things that certainly made his argument look foolish. Charlie "lost" that one, but again it's not really the point or purpose. I'd also add that Charlie still posted it, unedited.

        This is how an Open Society, the sort Karl Popper spoke of, should work.

        [1] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644

        [2] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448

      • johnnyanmac 2 hours ago

        Even "losing" debates doesn't matter in this age. He just makes a highlight reel of whatever makes him look good to his audience. They won't ever venture out and see the full context.

        We have so much information conviniently accessible, but we underestimated human apathy once again.

lyu07282 9 hours ago

Putting the "interests of their nation and the citizens of that nation" first is the meaningless populist rhetoric part, that always appeals in a racist, bigoted populous (so every nation ever pretty much). That's like people suffer economically from neoliberalism, so you redirect to unrelated scapegoats, that's trivial, happened a million times.

Historically the fascist then, will use economic populist policy. That's like when Hitler built the Autobahn, you alleviate the economic grievances, support for the autocrat cements and then the real fascist stuff begins, that's when term limits go away and their enemies go in the oven.

But they don't do that economic populist part do they? These new right-wing movements in the west aren't doing this part of the equation.

Because we are now in the "interesting", novel case where the autocrats themselves are also just more neoliberals, the real power hasn't really moved an inch, like they are all paid by the same set of oligarchs, power is already fully consolidated. So I suspect nothing much will happen, it will just swing back to the center that shifted the overton window a bit more to the right in the meantime, the status quo didn't change so people are perpetually unhappy with no idea why.

> I feel politics is like this perpetual motion machine where you reach some absolute extreme on end

Yeah man! Totally! It's like when we move from Reaganomics in the 80s to Clintonomics in the 90s, from one "absolute extreme end" to the other! TF

  • somenameforme 5 hours ago

    Contemporary issues have on novel nuance you aren't considering - globalism. Many political leaders, particularly in Western democracies today, are much more at home among other globalists than amongst their own people. And these people tend to be extremely unpopular. For instance Germany's Merz's approval rating is 30%, a rating France's Macron and his 17% approval rating would love. It's extremely dysfunctional.

    In the past such unpopular leaders could never have been able to maintain power. So you have this weird dissonance growing where countries are ruled by people who don't particularly care for their country, and people who don't particularly care for their leaders. The 'populist' rhetoric isn't some veiled proxy for supremacy, but simply getting rid of this really weird state of affairs. The entire point of a representative democracy is for the people who lead to be representative. And in many countries around the world, that's no longer the case.

    I would take myself as an example of the problem. I am an advocate for free speech, against war/screwing around in other countries/military industrial complex, against political correctness, and strongly support equality of opportunity. In other words I'm pretty much a textbook liberal of 20 years ago, yet these values leave me far closer to contemporary "conservative" populist parties, worldwide, than to liberal parties, again - worldwide.

    I find many of the values that "liberal" parties espouse now a days are rather illiberal and extremely similar to conservative policies of some 20+ years ago. Censorship, war, deplatforming, political correctness, and so on. I think we may actually be living through a 'flip' akin to what happened in the early 20th century in the US.

    • immibis 4 hours ago

      Populist denotes leaders who say anything the people want to hear - in other words, leaders who are very effective at propaganda. A populist will say they want to reduce the debt. People will vote for him, because they want the debt to decrease. That populist will increase the debt more than any other president in history and his followers won't find out - he'll tell them some different propaganda. He might even say he lowered the debt even though he obviously didn't.

      A populist will say he supports free speech, then make it illegal for certain people to speak on TV, cut funding to universities where people are allowed to say things he doesn't like, take ownership of the largest social media platforms and ban everyone who disagrees with him, all while repeating the claim of supporting free speech.

      A populist will say every other politician is corrupt and he's the only one who can end the corruption. When elected, he'll be more corrupt than anyone else ever, while proclaiming there's no corruption any more, and we have always been at war with Eastasia.

      • somenameforme 2 hours ago

        So a populist is a politician who says things people want to hear, often ends up lying, and feigns achievement in the face of failure? So literally every single politician worldwide is a populist?

    • lyu07282 an hour ago

      > For instance Germany's Merz's approval rating is 30%, a rating France's Macron and his 17% approval rating would love. It's extremely dysfunctional.

      Look how badly these far-left politicians in Germany and France are doing, these liberals have lost their mind with their woke mind virus.

      I think the most impressive part is how republicans where successfully able to sell themselves as the peace party, while literally simultaneously renaming DoD to Department of War, bombing Venezuelans, bombing Yemen, unilaterally cancelling peace agreements then bombing Iran, continueing the genocide on Palestinians, expanding NATO and starting a trade war with the entire rest of the world. But these people literally know absolutely nothing, so to them Trump and other far-right dipshits are the peace candidates. Bravo.

      It's such infantile politics, no basis in reality for anything, it's all just vibes fueled by endless disinformation. If you read a entry level polisci text book your head would explode.