Thread: Why Liberals are Fascists........

Originally Posted by Kranes56

So liberals are intolertant, according to the person called Libhater?

I daresay the irony and hypocrisy would escape him.

Originally Posted by Johnny-C

Why another STUPID thread about alleged "Fascists"??

A STUPID thread about fascists is when it alleges the fascists are liberals. If the allegation is that the conservatives are fascists, that's not a STUPID thread for Johnny. No, that would be a PERCEPTIVE, HONEST, FAIR thread.

I understand the irony in your comment but intolerance isn't bad. There are things one should not tolerate. Hatred is bad though, something we shouldn't tolerate, and to quote that presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean, "I hate all Republicans and everything they stand for."

Originally Posted by PatrickT

I understand the irony in your comment but intolerance isn't bad. There are things one should not tolerate. Hatred is bad though, something we shouldn't tolerate, and to quote that presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean, "I hate all Republicans and everything they stand for."

But this isn't anything more than hypocracy in action. Hating is usually defined by those who hear the opinion called "hateful" -- it's only a matter of time before those who disagree with you can call some opinion hateful, thus shutting down the debate. We've been prevented from having lots of fruitful debates for just that reason. If you oppose a social program, you're "at war with" or "hating on" the poor. If you oppose contraception/abortion "war on women" or "hating on women". Hating hate has a good side effect for people who cannot win the debate on merit -- they have a cognitive kill-switch. At any point, they can stop the boxing match by pulling out the "Hate" guns. Racist, Sexist, Anti-Poor, Anti-Semite, Bigot, Anti-Worker. They usually only come out only when the victims are about to lose the debate -- when a liberal is trapped by a good debater on contraception/abortion, they start calling the other debater "Sexist" in so many words. If they're loosing on regulations or the welfare state, you're anti-poor.

I'm not in favor of hate, but I think that we need to stop with the cognitive kill-switches. If an idea cannot be defended without screaming "heretic" in some form, it's probably not true. Either win on the facts -- and if your opponent is wrong on what you're debating, the facts will show it -- or don't debate.

As to fascism, I think it's a hazard of strong statism. Either side is prone to that kind of Utopianist thinking -- if we could just make people do X, then problem solved. It doesn't work, because humans are autonomous agents, not the Borg.

Originally Posted by Leffe

Apparently. Could someone remind me what the definition of "liberal" is again?

Let's see...socialist, communist, Marxist, Muslim, Islamist, America-hater, fascist, gay...

Originally Posted by The Real American Thinker

Let's see...socialist, communist, Marxist, Muslim, Islamist, America-hater, fascist, gay...

Good job. But to complete the identity process of liberalism we would have to include the terms progressives, femanazis and American apologists as well.

Originally Posted by MilitantConservative

Authoritarianism is only wrong against people who don't deserve to be controlled. Smart people who were competent enough to become business owners/rich investors have the right to freedom because they earned it, via attaining legal force over their property. Poor people who own nothing and must persuade others to give them opportunities, have not yet earned liberty.

Smart people don't spew absurd, judgemental, ignorant crap like the above.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

A STUPID thread about fascists is when it alleges the fascists are liberals. If the allegation is that the conservatives are fascists, that's not a STUPID thread for Johnny. No, that would be a PERCEPTIVE, HONEST, FAIR thread.

And he'd be correct, judging by some of the posts here from alleged conservatives, but who exhibit unsettling fascist 'thought' processes...

Originally Posted by Libhater

Good job. But to complete the identity process of liberalism we would have to include the terms progressives, femanazis and American apologists as well.

When you figure out what an apologist is get back to us. That you would lump liberals whom, I assume, you believe hate America, with those who support and argue in favour of America (that would be apologists), it just shoots your credibility rating down to zero.

Originally Posted by Libhater

Good job. But to complete the identity process of liberalism we would have to include the terms progressives, femanazis and American apologists as well.

Oh, right. Forgot.

You know, Heretic seemed to imply on another thread that we should also add zionist, Catholic, anyone who believes sex is for pleasure...

It may just be easier to define what 'conservative' is =P