Hitler firmly believed he was making “society better for basically everyone”. The Christian Nationalists and White Supremacists firmly believe their getting into power via a Trump administration will make “society better for basically everyone”.
Well for Hitler and White Supremacists they clearly weren’t making “society better for basically everyone” and all it takes to understand this is basic logic that they support one superior race and commit genocides against other races. We can argue that our thinking may be flawed and biased all we want, but that doesn’t change the objective reality that Hitler’s genocide is very well documented and that it clearly caused massive amounts of harm and suffering.
Christian Nationalism is more nuanced having been a Christian myself previously, and deconversion fucking sucks. But if they want to make a convincing argument that Christian Nationalism is a good thing, they need to prove that God actually exists and there’s enough things in the belief system that contradict scientific observation that they have no real argument supporting this. The various other pieces of bullshit they brainwashed me for 18 years with does not help their argument either (like my science teacher who was trying to convince us that dragons and dinosaurs exist right now but very few people have discovered them). Science has more ground in objective reality than religion does, and the amount of innovations science has helped us with that religion hasn’t shows us that one clearly works better than the other when it comes to progressing.
The wrinkle that you overlook is that there are many wildly varying viewpoints about what is “good”. Being “inclusive of everyone” for example, is something that most Christo-fascists would abhor, their bible notwithstanding.
So because other people’s definition of “good” is targeting people for how they were born, nobody should do anything to protect them? Why do you think these ideologies are worth defending? They’re a danger to myself and my friends. If you want to convince me that genocides are good for humanity, you’re going to need to be a lot more convincing than that.
if one group ignores the rule of law because they are “right” then the other group feels fully justified in doing the same. And because we have a democracy and that democracy doesn’t enshrine progressive ideas into law, we can’t ensure groups with ideas we find abhorrent don’t use our precedent to impose those ideas on us.
Guess what? While good people are arguing about whether it is right to do things that aren’t normal or expected to progress their agenda, horrible people are going to take the initiative and do them and then it’s too late. Life isn’t a democracy, it’s a battle between rulers that are engaging in genocides and doing other extreme human rights abuses versus everyone else. There’s a reason why aggressive people consistently end up at the top. If we want any sort of chance whatsoever of dethroning the genociders and abusers, being aggressive is the only way that even has a chance at happening. Same reason leftists and even liberals now are buying up guns. The law has a history of being weaponized to keep people marginalized, we cannot rely on law to save humanity when that law comes from the same people that are humanity’s biggest threat.
And on top of that the very reason the Democrats lost to Trump is because Trump is an actually interesting candidate promising to make radical changes, aligning with the interests and identities of many Americans, and building a shared vision and hope for the future. While meanwhile the Democrats fuck around doing basically nothing, they flip-flop on their stances whenever its convenient for them, they make vague statements that do nothing to give people any sort of inspiration, and they act like they’re out of touch with the population. If we want to stop Trump while the Democrats continue to not due shit, our best bet is a sort-of left-wing “Trump” that has the same sort of enthusiasm, energy, and vision that can inspire people to unify and fight for the social good.
Have you ever tried to negotiate or educate someone when you are angry? Like say your neighbor keeps playing loud music and you really want them to stop. If you come out yelling at them and are visibly angry you -might- get them to stop, but you have made an enemy. If you approach them in an open-minded way that acknowledges their rights and autonomy you have a much better chance of a constructive dialog that gets you what you want.
Approaching capitalists in an open-minded way rarely works. They operate on a system of optimizing to what benefits them the most economically, and if it benefits them economically for you to not have rights no conversation is going to change that. It’s more likely to work for people who are socially conservative or lower-class economic conservative, but capitalists are generally a lost cause.
Maybe it helps to be reminded that we still have a lot of power, especially at the local level…
Well funny enough in my very local area the protestors who bent laws and got arrested for it have had a bigger impact on political discussion than any single other event that has happened here. And other cities within my state have made it illegal to feed homeless people, yet activists did it anyways and even sued the government and ended up on national news for it. It seems like the most interesting people here have no problem with ignoring the rule of law, and I respect them for that.
“Well for Hitler and White Supremacists they clearly weren’t making “society better for basically everyone” and all it takes to understand this is basic logic that they support one superior race and commit genocides against other races.”
You missed my point. THEY thought they were making society better. That “everyone” meant exclusively aryans to them I thought was obvious and fundamental to the point I’m try to make - that from their perspective their actions were perfectly reasonable and justified. There’s uncomfortably little daylight between that and MAGA beliefs.
“…if they want to make a convincing argument that Christian Nationalism is a good thing”
I’m disappointed that you missed this too and launched into a segue that has little to do with the topic I brought up. I don’t think you really read my comment.
" If you want to convince me that genocides are good for humanity, you’re going to need to be a lot more convincing than that."
Ok now we’re getting ridiculous. I’m now convinced that you either didn’t read what I wrote or just didn’t understand it.
“Trump is an actually interesting candidate promising to make radical changes, aligning with the interests and identities of many Americans, and building a shared vision and hope for the future”
Untruthfully. You are missing that very important qualificaiion.
“While meanwhile the Democrats fuck around doing basically nothing, they flip-flop on their stances whenever its convenient for them”
A common error. “I didn’t personally notice any change so therefore they did nothing.” It’s demonstrably NOT true.
“Approaching capitalists in an open-minded way rarely works.”
That doesn’t even make sense. Who said anything about “approaching capitalists in an open-minded way”? WTF are you talking about?
Dude, I started out reading your lengthy comment excited to have a substantive debate. I thought you might have some interesting points. But you are so all over the place and use a very large volume of words to say very little. I’m disappointed.
So what are you saying? That objectivity doesn’t exist? That there is no way to run a society that objectively does a better job at making people as a whole feel comfortable? That it’s ideal for people with opposing ideologies to exist (I used to think that when I was a libertarian but over time realized that having an ideology coexist with another ideology that wants the first ideology gone simply doesn’t work well at all, so we need to find the ideology that works better and progress from the other one).
I would argue that there is no objective right or wrong, but also that people in general have certain shared interests and usually some sort of a common moral ground. Like basically nobody wants to be in a concentration camp. People don’t like being endangered by others, so basic laws are agreed upon to minimize this, like don’t murder or rape people. And people want to be free to do things they want to do, so if they don’t cause significant problems to another person they should be allowed. There might not be an objective “right” but there is an objective “this is what this person wants” for every person which means that there is a way to balance these interests to come up with a set of principles that objectively makes a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible. So since I naturally want to be comfortable and I know other people naturally want to be comfortable and societies tend to be more efficient and comfortable when people cooperate, working toward these principles is how we successfully do that, and this is what I will use as my basis for right and wrong.
However, when one person’s freedom infringes on the freedoms of another person, this is where major problems arise and compromises need to be made. With the goal being to have a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible, this means that there is an objectively best compromise that meets this goal, and what people need to do is figure out what that “objectively best” compromise is, which happens by understanding the context of every party involved in this conflict. So whether an action is “right” in terms of making a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible is dependent entirely on the context, not the action itself. Which means that while actions such as killing another person are normally “wrong” as it infringes on the freedom of another person, if killing that person helps society reach the goal of being as comfortable for as many people as possible (i.e. the person is actively oppressing people based on characteristics they cannot change and killing them would help stop that), then killing that person is “right” in terms of that moral context.
This is the basic idea that separates “fascism” from “antifascism” (and other similar ideas such as “racism” vs “antiracism”), in that they may use similar tactics but when you look at what those actions are objectively doing to people, one is promoting discrimination based on characteristics people cannot change leading to a more unequal society that deviates from this ideal, and the other is countering that, leading to a less overall unequal society and progressing toward that ideal.
The challenge is that this objectivity in terms of what actions are “right” and “wrong” is still being discovered and debated on, and putting those disagreements in light so they can be resolved is important for making social progress. But in the end, whether a person or a society is “fascist” is an objective measure and in my view there is nothing wrong with combating this through any means possible.
So what are you saying? That objectivity doesn’t exist?
I think the fact that this is so unclear to you is both disappointing and disturbing. And you are going so so so far afield in an apparent effort to hear yourself talk more that I’m just not that keen on engaging.
Then clarify your statement. What even are you trying to convince me? You keep telling me that everyone thinks they are right and people should follow the law - but the law is made by the same people who think they’re right so what makes the law so special? Why should I as a person with strong opinions on many topics ditch my own moral compass in favor of the law? I can’t tell what point you’re trying to make with this.
Well for Hitler and White Supremacists they clearly weren’t making “society better for basically everyone” and all it takes to understand this is basic logic that they support one superior race and commit genocides against other races. We can argue that our thinking may be flawed and biased all we want, but that doesn’t change the objective reality that Hitler’s genocide is very well documented and that it clearly caused massive amounts of harm and suffering.
Christian Nationalism is more nuanced having been a Christian myself previously, and deconversion fucking sucks. But if they want to make a convincing argument that Christian Nationalism is a good thing, they need to prove that God actually exists and there’s enough things in the belief system that contradict scientific observation that they have no real argument supporting this. The various other pieces of bullshit they brainwashed me for 18 years with does not help their argument either (like my science teacher who was trying to convince us that dragons and dinosaurs exist right now but very few people have discovered them). Science has more ground in objective reality than religion does, and the amount of innovations science has helped us with that religion hasn’t shows us that one clearly works better than the other when it comes to progressing.
So because other people’s definition of “good” is targeting people for how they were born, nobody should do anything to protect them? Why do you think these ideologies are worth defending? They’re a danger to myself and my friends. If you want to convince me that genocides are good for humanity, you’re going to need to be a lot more convincing than that.
Guess what? While good people are arguing about whether it is right to do things that aren’t normal or expected to progress their agenda, horrible people are going to take the initiative and do them and then it’s too late. Life isn’t a democracy, it’s a battle between rulers that are engaging in genocides and doing other extreme human rights abuses versus everyone else. There’s a reason why aggressive people consistently end up at the top. If we want any sort of chance whatsoever of dethroning the genociders and abusers, being aggressive is the only way that even has a chance at happening. Same reason leftists and even liberals now are buying up guns. The law has a history of being weaponized to keep people marginalized, we cannot rely on law to save humanity when that law comes from the same people that are humanity’s biggest threat.
And on top of that the very reason the Democrats lost to Trump is because Trump is an actually interesting candidate promising to make radical changes, aligning with the interests and identities of many Americans, and building a shared vision and hope for the future. While meanwhile the Democrats fuck around doing basically nothing, they flip-flop on their stances whenever its convenient for them, they make vague statements that do nothing to give people any sort of inspiration, and they act like they’re out of touch with the population. If we want to stop Trump while the Democrats continue to not due shit, our best bet is a sort-of left-wing “Trump” that has the same sort of enthusiasm, energy, and vision that can inspire people to unify and fight for the social good.
Approaching capitalists in an open-minded way rarely works. They operate on a system of optimizing to what benefits them the most economically, and if it benefits them economically for you to not have rights no conversation is going to change that. It’s more likely to work for people who are socially conservative or lower-class economic conservative, but capitalists are generally a lost cause.
Well funny enough in my very local area the protestors who bent laws and got arrested for it have had a bigger impact on political discussion than any single other event that has happened here. And other cities within my state have made it illegal to feed homeless people, yet activists did it anyways and even sued the government and ended up on national news for it. It seems like the most interesting people here have no problem with ignoring the rule of law, and I respect them for that.
“Well for Hitler and White Supremacists they clearly weren’t making “society better for basically everyone” and all it takes to understand this is basic logic that they support one superior race and commit genocides against other races.”
You missed my point. THEY thought they were making society better. That “everyone” meant exclusively aryans to them I thought was obvious and fundamental to the point I’m try to make - that from their perspective their actions were perfectly reasonable and justified. There’s uncomfortably little daylight between that and MAGA beliefs.
“…if they want to make a convincing argument that Christian Nationalism is a good thing”
I’m disappointed that you missed this too and launched into a segue that has little to do with the topic I brought up. I don’t think you really read my comment.
" If you want to convince me that genocides are good for humanity, you’re going to need to be a lot more convincing than that."
Ok now we’re getting ridiculous. I’m now convinced that you either didn’t read what I wrote or just didn’t understand it.
“Trump is an actually interesting candidate promising to make radical changes, aligning with the interests and identities of many Americans, and building a shared vision and hope for the future”
Untruthfully. You are missing that very important qualificaiion.
“While meanwhile the Democrats fuck around doing basically nothing, they flip-flop on their stances whenever its convenient for them”
A common error. “I didn’t personally notice any change so therefore they did nothing.” It’s demonstrably NOT true.
“Approaching capitalists in an open-minded way rarely works.”
That doesn’t even make sense. Who said anything about “approaching capitalists in an open-minded way”? WTF are you talking about?
Dude, I started out reading your lengthy comment excited to have a substantive debate. I thought you might have some interesting points. But you are so all over the place and use a very large volume of words to say very little. I’m disappointed.
So what are you saying? That objectivity doesn’t exist? That there is no way to run a society that objectively does a better job at making people as a whole feel comfortable? That it’s ideal for people with opposing ideologies to exist (I used to think that when I was a libertarian but over time realized that having an ideology coexist with another ideology that wants the first ideology gone simply doesn’t work well at all, so we need to find the ideology that works better and progress from the other one).
I would argue that there is no objective right or wrong, but also that people in general have certain shared interests and usually some sort of a common moral ground. Like basically nobody wants to be in a concentration camp. People don’t like being endangered by others, so basic laws are agreed upon to minimize this, like don’t murder or rape people. And people want to be free to do things they want to do, so if they don’t cause significant problems to another person they should be allowed. There might not be an objective “right” but there is an objective “this is what this person wants” for every person which means that there is a way to balance these interests to come up with a set of principles that objectively makes a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible. So since I naturally want to be comfortable and I know other people naturally want to be comfortable and societies tend to be more efficient and comfortable when people cooperate, working toward these principles is how we successfully do that, and this is what I will use as my basis for right and wrong.
However, when one person’s freedom infringes on the freedoms of another person, this is where major problems arise and compromises need to be made. With the goal being to have a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible, this means that there is an objectively best compromise that meets this goal, and what people need to do is figure out what that “objectively best” compromise is, which happens by understanding the context of every party involved in this conflict. So whether an action is “right” in terms of making a society that is comfortable for as many people as possible is dependent entirely on the context, not the action itself. Which means that while actions such as killing another person are normally “wrong” as it infringes on the freedom of another person, if killing that person helps society reach the goal of being as comfortable for as many people as possible (i.e. the person is actively oppressing people based on characteristics they cannot change and killing them would help stop that), then killing that person is “right” in terms of that moral context.
This is the basic idea that separates “fascism” from “antifascism” (and other similar ideas such as “racism” vs “antiracism”), in that they may use similar tactics but when you look at what those actions are objectively doing to people, one is promoting discrimination based on characteristics people cannot change leading to a more unequal society that deviates from this ideal, and the other is countering that, leading to a less overall unequal society and progressing toward that ideal.
The challenge is that this objectivity in terms of what actions are “right” and “wrong” is still being discovered and debated on, and putting those disagreements in light so they can be resolved is important for making social progress. But in the end, whether a person or a society is “fascist” is an objective measure and in my view there is nothing wrong with combating this through any means possible.
I think the fact that this is so unclear to you is both disappointing and disturbing. And you are going so so so far afield in an apparent effort to hear yourself talk more that I’m just not that keen on engaging.
Have a nice day.
Then clarify your statement. What even are you trying to convince me? You keep telling me that everyone thinks they are right and people should follow the law - but the law is made by the same people who think they’re right so what makes the law so special? Why should I as a person with strong opinions on many topics ditch my own moral compass in favor of the law? I can’t tell what point you’re trying to make with this.