Liberal Fascism

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually Kid is right on this. Fascism, in its ideological form, preys on the alienation of the individual in every single aspect of life and shows that the only way to connecting to the whole is through the leader. It seeks to strip away the family, the religion, the societal binds, to leave only the leader.

They believe in total control of the society by the state and are, hence, totalitarian regimes, which is the the most extreme form of authoritarianism. Hell, Mussolini wore the term "totalitarian" as a badge!

[Patroklos]

I can think of a few monarchies that can give fascism a run for its money, as well as a few theocracies (especially when they are mixed).

[Berzerker]

so Islamo-fascism is a liberal or progressive political movement?

[Darius871]

Why is anyone even giving this claptrap so much attention?

[Berzerker]

if the left wingers insist I'm right wing it dont make any sense to put their ideological cousins on my side of the spectrum... Anarchists would be to my right, not fascists. Thats why the left-right spectrum is nonsense, it has autocrats at both ends and no place for advocates of limited secular government.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
if the left wingers insist I'm right wing it dont make any sense to put their ideological cousins on my side of the spectrum... Anarchists would be to my right, not fascists. Thats why the left-right spectrum is nonsense, it has autocrats at both ends and no place for advocates of limited secular government.

You are in a very small minority. The libertarian contingent tends to divide into authoritarian and anti-authoritarian wings. The former is a very small segment of the population.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Patroklos
When Jon has to resort to

1.) just being simply rude (which I know to many in the liberal world equals "edgy" and "cool")

and

2.) making snide remarks that really have no berring on the topic

and most importantly

3.) cursing for comedic effect,

then Jon is on the losing end, especially since he can do sooooo much better, and has in other interviews.

Sorry Pat. More than one person has disagreed with you. And thus, by you're own bizarre rules of winning and losing, you've lost.

[Patroklos]

Note nobody denied the three things I attibuted to Jon. Sorry to break up the hero worship with simple obvious observations.

My rules? Precious

[DaShi]

Let's see. Has Pat ever used the argument that you need other people to agree with you to win?

And they have called what you said as unsubstantive, which I also agree with. So you lose.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Note nobody denied the three things I attibuted to Jon. Sorry to break up the hero worship with simple obvious observations.

My rules? Precious

I didn't only mean Jonah by this, but I wanted to be nice and not mention you by name and figure it out yourself.

Some people have the idea that as long as they keep making noise they should be debated or their "ideas" (and/or confusion) should be analyzed and wasted time on, attention feeds them, not the pursuit of truth.

Which ideas/points/watevar did you think Jonah gave to Jon that should have been debated instead of ridiculed?
There could be an argument for not even letting somebody like Jonah even be on the show, but you haven't made it and probably won't.
Obviously ridicule is what the show is mostly about anyway, but depending on what the guest says it can be more than that.

I didn't see anything in the interview that should have been taken seriously, but you did, and nobody here knows what is that you saw unless you tell us. To us Jonah was a joke that explained itself.


Imran

I don't think that is what defines fascism, that Jonah guy might be nuts or a simple charlatan but what he says about the smiley face is true. That's how you effectively lie, by mixing some truth.

This link is about Corporatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

but scroll down to "Corporatism and Fascism".

Roosevelt said

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

also this is interesting

There is a very old argument about who controlled whom in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways

The fascism entry in wiki is also good, but what I'm trying to say is that fascist state doesn't have to use totalitarian means to control the population if they can do it by other ways.

[Patroklos]

DP

[Patroklos]

Which ideas/points/watevar did you think Jonah gave to Jon that should have been debated instead of ridiculed?

I didn't say they should be debated, I said Jon should have addressed the topic. It is completely possible to pick someone apart within the topic based on obvious facts without a back and forth debate, I do it to Kid all the time

He could have done that in a ridiculing manor if he wanted to, but he simple did nothing at all. Jon invited this guy on his show, not the other way around. If you guys want to pretend Jon is a legitimate (if comedic) source of political criticism then he should be able to offer more than non sequesters, unrelated jokes, curse words, and general rudeness. Non sequesters, unrelated jokes, curse words, and general rudeness many be funny (I never said Jon was or this piece were not funny) but if you want it to be funny and relevant then they need to be combined with substantive criticism.

I didn't see anything in the interview that should have been taken seriously, but you did, and nobody here knows what is that you saw unless you tell us. To us Jonah was a joke that explained itself.

Where do you get this, I specifically said IN THIS VERY THREAD I haven't read much of what this guy is about and don't agree with what was presented in this thread (I agreed with the Orwell quote, not this guy). What I am saying is this instant "OMFG JON PWNS," isn’t warranted because Jon didn’t make any criticism that "should be taken seriously" either. I am criticizing a sub par performance (or rather some peoples characterization of that performance, Jon really could have wanted nothing more than to be funny and cared less about actual rebuttals, and if that’s the case he succeeded) by Jon (and his hero worshipers), not taking the side of his guest.

If this should have been a round of tee ball for Jon, then why the hell did he go for the bunt instead of the home run? Answer, Jon has his bad days too.

I guess when I said “slaughtered” I assumed that Darius was intending to post that video because of some rebuttal by Jon of the guys argument, not as merely a comedic piece. I may have assumed wrong.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Agathon


You are in a very small minority. The libertarian contingent tends to divide into authoritarian and anti-authoritarian wings. The former is a very small segment of the population.

authoritarian libertarians

[tinyp3nis]

I didn't see anything in the interview that should have been taken seriously, but you did

Where do you get this

Here

He actually sort of slaughtered Jon in that one. Not his best showing.

Doesn't matter if you replace "slaughtered" with something less powerful, you still are saying he did well.

I don't see any Jon worship in this thread. If you read this very short thread again neither will you, and you will see it is you who is bringing his performance up, others have been talking about the other guy. They have made fun of Jonah and not praised Jon, you do see how that makes you seem that you are really agreeing with Jonah.

I think I know what's on your mind here, and why this is hard for you to figure out.
To be honest I think it would make really interesting thread on it's own, so you should make a thread about Jon Stewart hero worship. Just because these guys aren't worshipping Stewart in this thread doesn't mean they aren't his worshippers.

[Patroklos]

Doesn't matter if you replace "slaughtered" with something less powerful, you still are saying he did well.

In the context of Darius posting the video to show a rebuttal of this guys arguements he did, because he presented ideas and Jon just waffled about with unrelated nonsense (funny nonsense, but still nonsense).

You can have stupid ideas but if nobody is going to actually refute them, especially when you invite someone onto a show where they should have been refuted and you didn't, then they may be percieved as not so stupid after all. Again, if you think Jon is not just a comedian but a hybrid comedian/serious commentator then he dropped the ball, and relative to this interview didn't do well.

I think sometimes he just wants to make fun of people, whether their ideas are sound or not.

And BTW, recognizing him slaughtering or otherwise holding his own doesn't mean I agree with him. There are plenty of people who have horrible ideas who can do that simply through their own skill or their opponent/whatevers ineptitude.

To be honest I think it would make really interesting thread on it's own, so you should make a thread about Jon Stewart hero worship. Just because these guys aren't worshipping Stewart in this thread doesn't mean they aren't his worshippers.

This thread doesn't exist in a vacuum, but rather within the Apolyton OP.