Protests in the US can grow quite heated and Americans, unlike most civilian populations, are heavily armed. Violent clashes are inevitable; the regime has not yet had time (if they're even competent to do it) to organize an effective enforcement agency. Civil war may yet be averted, but if they get frightened enough, the Trumpites will surely call for martial law. Then it will depend on which side the federal, state and municipal armed forces take. (My guess is, half and half, which ensures a long and costly civil war, like the last one.)There are always possibilities, until the clamp down of prison, torture and death for those who protest.
Being criminalised for protest happens even in a so-called democracy like the UK. — Amity
All those benefits are beside the point. European countries have a long tradition of national identity, national pride, patriotism; long histories of war for domination of other nations or liberation from other nations. Two thousand years of patriotic fervour, stoked by every monarch, prelate and premier who needed to raise and army doesn't go very far underground in one or two generations: the liberal veneer of prosperous times shatters at the first rousing "make us great again" speech in anxious times.The issue of immigrants. People ignorant of their value e.g. in the NHS, tourism, agriculture, etc..
Not to mention they fill the gap in decreasing populations in different European countries. — Amity
Do we need this crisis to get real? Or is it now about going to war?
How civilised are we? Will the people even have a say in the matter? — Amity
Nobody has agreed on a hard-and-fast definition, not even Hitler and Mussolini.Won't lie, haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone actually agreed on a definition of fascism? Because without that, debating whether the USA is heading in that direction seems pointless — ZisKnow
The only ism Trump adheres to is opportunism. He believes in nothing except his own enrichment and aggrandizement. He's a grifter with a huge ego and unlimited spite.Trump is a right wing populist, as far as I'm concerned. He's not a fascist in the same sense that Mussolini was. — Arcane Sandwich
Wrecking the economy and shredding the constitution is a real danger?Yet there is a real danger (to my mind, at least) with some of the policies that his administration wishes to carry out. — Arcane Sandwich
Of-bloody-course it doesn't mean well! This is the end-times feeding frenzy.Even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that his administration "means well" — Arcane Sandwich
My contention is that Stalin was not involved in the development of socialism: he may have made speeches about it (which added nothing to existing social theory), but all his official acts were aimed at making a stronger, better armed federation than the US.My point was precisely thus: just because someone was actively involved in the development of X, that doesn't entail that the person in question can't be wrong about X. — Arcane Sandwich
Just as Stalin, the guy who helped develop socialism, — Arcane Sandwich
“Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not),” Trump wrote Sunday morning on social media. “But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid.”
To what end?Yeah, I was specifically looking for quotes about fascism, by fascists, not a general phrase used by a multitude of politicians across many ideologies. — NOS4A2
Mussolini's 'spiritual' version of L'Etat, c'est moi.Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one,
and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing,
as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual
formation. Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people,
historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with
the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality.
Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group described as "fascist" has at least some unique elements, and frequently definitions of "fascism" have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow.[29] According to many scholars, fascists—especially when they're in power—have historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[30] - wiki
Hitler's version of making Germany great again.The National Government will therefore regard it as its first and supreme task to restore to the German people unity of mind and will. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our nation rests. It will take under its firm protection Christianity as the basis of our morality, and the family as the nucleus of our nation and our state. Standing above estates [groups that make up society’s social hierarchy] and classes, it will bring back to our people the consciousness of its racial and political unity and the obligations arising therefrom. It wishes to base the education of German youth on respect for our great past and pride in our old traditions. . . . Germany must not and will not sink into Communist anarchy.
No, they cannot. Lenin may have started out as a communist, but went astray; Stalin had no ideology, any more than Trump does: he was out for personal power. Mussolini may have started out as a socialist, but went over to the dark side; Hitler's ideology was always fascist.. All I'm saying is that if Lenin and Stalin can be called fascists, then, by parity of reasoning, Mussolini and Hitler can be called communists. — Arcane Sandwich
So Lenin is a fascist now? Is that it? — Arcane Sandwich
They don't need to. They've already put the cabal in charge of all the levers of power. Now, they just sit back, watch the bloodbaths and wait to be disappointed that none of the destruction they've unleashed improves their lot one jot or tittle.All I can say is that I hope that the different radicalized right wing groups that have formed in the USA as of late don't keep proliferating. — Arcane Sandwich
They did that four years ago, were confronted, chastised and pardoned; now they're plotting revenge for their chastisement. The situation is way far past dialogue.I say "verbally" because I believe that they shouldn't be physically confronted unless it's absolutely necessary to do so -for example, if they attempt to seize power by taking over the White House. — Arcane Sandwich
We know that some law enforcement agents are, but we don't yet know what percent. Same with the military. No until the actual armed confrontation will we know the relative strengths.Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group? — Tom Storm
Should he live that long (which I consider highly doubtful), by then one of two situations will prevail:Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler? — Tom Storm
That comes fairly late in the game. First, and for a longish time, government must be rendered unable to to meet the demands. That is, some faction or factions opposed to the public weal must have influence in or on the government long before the figurehead emerges. This influence is usually economic. While financial interests don't intend to bring about any particular ism, their cumulative activities in industry, media and politics set the stage for populist leaders.Fascist leaders understand that such top-down efforts to disarticulated a discontent and radicalized mass goes against their own plans for seizing power, hence they need to double down on their vitriolic rhetoric. — Arcane Sandwich
What I was trying to get across is that it's not 'irrational sentiments'. People have real problems that the government has failed to address - and in many cases, even to acknowledge. They feel unvalued and ignored. If they're not significant enough numbers to make a difference in elections, politicians do tend to ignore them. Business interests, landowners, unscrupulous preachers manipulate and exploit them with impunity: the government doesn't protect them. They grow resentful and mistrustful. They're not interested in enlightenment; they want something in particular: prayer in their schools, an all-white neighbourhood, free range for their cattle on public lands, better jobs and housing, health insurance, a ban on abortion, no limit on the arsenal they can own, no competition from immigrants - something. Each of the groups wants something different. They don't know why they can't have it, so they're generally angry with everyone in a position of authority.The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers. — Arcane Sandwich
I think that those are necessary but insufficient causes of fascism. — Arcane Sandwich
Here it is again: style. It's all about the how. Add heritage, racial purity and the right to bully those who disagree and you have the full Monty.A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer. — BC
Okay, he did want to join the fight against Hitler and help France and England, but mostly, he was concerned about being unable to defend the US in case of attack. He persuaded - not forced - business and political leaders to co-operate and to approve his initiative. Readiness is not the same as preparation to invade. Still no similarity to Hitler. Incidentally, this armaments initiative also prompted the desegregation of the defence industry.The level of war production ramped up steeply in 1942 and following, certainly. Remember the pre-Pearl Harbor Lend - Lease program. — BC
Hitler did nothing remotely similar.Hitler did the same. — NOS4A2
Yes, except that the New Dealdidn't create a war economy. It was about labour unions and financial reform, social security and agriculture. Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR prepared for war.It’s true that war economies work, — NOS4A2
With respect, Roosevelt had some pretty serious public problems o contend with: mass unemployment, homelessness, people literally starving. What he did actually helped the economy and the population get back on their feet. It's not quite the same as giving huge whacks of public money to one's political supporters.There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”, just a bunch of people pretending they know what is and how to reach it. — NOS4A2
Yes - an obvious one. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he will replace all the top officials of agencies with people who will carry out his 'retribution'.Is this a prediction? Four years from now, no one will be speaking out in public against Trump because they will all have been silenced? — Tzeentch
It's pretty damn serious already.But hey, if you're willing to make that prediction then we have at last found someone who is taking the premise of this thread seriously. — Tzeentch
Only because the reasonable - and I will not debate the definition of 'reasonable' - people who have dared to speak out in public will have been silenced. Starting with those who - according to a definition most reasonable people have accepted for decades - have been warning about this particular threat for at least four years.In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch
Okay. Visceral belief.Ultimately, I fall back on the conviction that some acts are simply moral or immoral by their nature. It’s a deeply held belief that truth-telling is moral, while lying is immoral. I admit it’s not a logically airtight answer, but for me, it’s foundational to my moral framework, it just is. — ZisKnow
I asked specifically why it's moral to tell the truth, in your system. On what you base that particular classification.Fundamentally, my 'why' is to avoid the uncertainty and doubt that surround moral relativism. I separate the judgment of morality (moral/immoral) from the assessment of outcomes (right/wrong) to provide myself with a clear and consistent decision-making framework. — ZisKnow
That would make for some very slow conversations. Most decisions are made in a split second, and most of what we say is unpremeditated - half the time, we don't even know what will fall out when we open our mouth. Sometimes it's embarrassingly frank and sometimes it's a face-saving fib.At the end, both our systems and approaches result in the same practical result that you can tell lies. I just feel you should always consider that choice in detail before you make it, and reflect afterwards. — ZisKnow
That is a laudable ambition. We all did something in the way of working out a personal philosophy, world-view and ethical framework between 16 and 21. Thereafter, we mostly followed one of our organs - brain, heart, gut or gonads.By putting a moral weight on the action, I work towards being a better person. — ZisKnow
No, it's about a nation hearing what that guy intends to do to their institutions, their government, their personal lives, their environment and their foundational document - and then electing him top gun, because ... well, hell, it's better than being ruled by a bunch of liberal do-gooders.Fascism isn't really about what one guy is doing. — frank
Yes, we've been watching that political scene crumble for years.It comes from the whole political scene.
Done and done.It comes from a change in attitudes toward acceptance of strong-arm strategies, and of course, acceptance of dictatorship.
Or just not hungry enough - yet.I doubt there will be a civil war. We're too lazy for that. — frank
Quite blatant enough, to judge by the spate of post-putsch executive orders.Fascism in the US starts tomorrow. New variety: techno-fascim. Not as blatant as the older versions, but far more insidious. — Wayfarer
Denying financial aid to a member nation that has repeatedly flouted both the human rights and foreign policy requirements of the union? That's not so much fascist as sensible - and in this case, several years overdue.Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience — Tzeentch
The economic collapse will be a total surprise to its engineers. As for losing a war, you'd have to engage in one first. The "Let's you and him fight!" approach won't have much domestic impact; the arms merchants will still be fat and happy; the private prisons will be filled up with young people protesting things other than war. The only things we can't predict, yet, is how soon the civil war begins and which side will be supported by more of the professional military - in which I include police.I think it would take losing a war or a deep economic collapse. — frank
Why?Looking solely at the action, telling the truth is moral, — ZisKnow
The automated customer service ones usually come with a drop-box of questions you can ask, and if your problem isn't covered by those possibilities, the bot doesn't understand you. These are not at all intelligent programs, they're fairly primitive. It would be nice if you could pick up the phone, have your call answered - within minutes, not hours - by an entity who a) speaks your language, b) knows the service or industry they speak for, c) is bright and attentive enough to understand the caller's question even if the caller doesn't know the correct terms and d) is motivated to help.It would be good to think that it would be about efficiency but my own experience of AI, such as telephone lines, have been so unhelpful. — Jack Cummins
Most of the solutions being sought by private enterprise are for the maximization of profit by various means and methods. That need not concern us, since the tasks do not require creative or original thinking, just even faster and more efficient computing and robot control. Most of the solutions sought by government agencies are for expediting and streamlining office functions (cutting cost) or increasing military capability. Again, not so much more clever than last year's computers and weapon systems.So much money and effort is being put into it by governments as an investment for future solutions. — Jack Cummins
As an aid to research, of course it's embraced by scientists. Also, just for itself: the next generation of even more sophisticated tech. That's not quite the same thing as embracing it scientifically - at least, if I understand that phrase correctly.Many of its development involve medical technology and engineering diagnostics. This goes along with ideas of technological progress and makes it appears as an idea to be embraced scientifically. — Jack Cummins
How deep into what? I'm sure it can calculate more, better, faster than the previous generation. It can compare, collate, distill and synthesize existing human knowledge and theories faster than any human. it can apply critical analyses that humans have already worked out. Most humans are not original; they build on the knowledge of their predecessors. Whether an AI can add something new remains to be seen.The technology may identify problems and look at solutions, but how deep does it go? — Jack Cummins
Mass and social media have already done that.It may be a tool, but the danger is that it will be used to replace critical human thinking — Jack Cummins
About some things, yes. Whatever presents available objective facts, a computer can draw objective conclusions. But that doesn't mean the owners will share those truths with the rest of us. If the information is incomplete or inaccurate, the computer can make even less sense of it than we can, since it can't fill in with intuition. About the things computers can't fathom, we each have some perception of a truth - but we're not objective.Does the idea of artificial Intelligence embrace the seeking of objective 'truth'? — Jack Cummins
Yes, of course. They learn that in Sunday school and just keep repeating it, because it sounds right, feels right and gives them some reassurance that, if only they try hard enough to deserve his favour, God will make everything all right. Most of the Christians I've met - sincere, half-hearted or cynical - haven't read very much of their holy book. Or else, they wave off the nasty bits of their religion's underpinnings with 'interpretation': "It doesn't mean what it says; it's metaphorical or allegorical or lost in translation...."As far as I can tell from my discussions with Christians, God's nature is good and He wants us to be good like Him. — MoK
Unfortunately, the bulk of that effort was not directed toward making sense of moral issues, but justifying their religious tenets. Not just Jews and Christians, Muslims, too, have struggled to rationalize their irrational god. That doesn't make their moral system more sophisticated, just more convoluted.There's simply no comparison in effort exerted. — BitconnectCarlos
We don't actually need an authority to give us a reason to do right. We have subjective motives, social motives and a few of us have spiritual motives.And then there's the pesky question of moral motivation — BitconnectCarlos
Yup. I'm afraid I can't fix that. Stupidity is part of the Human Condition.It's a real problem in education just at a merely institutional level, to say nothing of a cultural level. — Arcane Sandwich