3 ms·

You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now. I am asserting that the similarities exist as a plain matter of fact. Fascism didn

You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now. I am asserting that the similarities exist as a plain matter of fact. Fascism didn't exist at other times in history, so I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods, nor do I see how it refutes my assertion.

maratc 1y ago
> You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now. I never said I take issue with that claim, nor that I agree with it, nor that I disagree with it. I just pointed out that there are two groups of people: those who agree with it and those who don't; for the latter group, reading the article that starts by stating that claim is going to be a waste of their time, as the article is built upon that foundation. > I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.
- nerdponx 1y ago
  > You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination. Why would I be interested in other time periods when talking about the similarities between our time, and a phenomenon that did not exist in those other time periods? If I state that someone on the street looks like Bill Murray, would you pull up pictures of John Cleese on your phone to refute my claim?
  - maratc 1y ago
    That's what I've addressed already: you're not interested in history as a journey of discovery which is taken in order to broaden your horizons -- you're only interested in it as a way to support your pre-existing opinions. Anything that can't support your pre-existing opinions is of no use to you. It's as if the people in the antebellum South were only reading history books that proved to them how Blacks are inferior, while skipping over books on topics like Roman Empire or early Muslim empires (that could actually prove to them that some of very capable emperors/caliphs were actually Black.) They had no use for that information as it couldn't support their chattel slavery system.

maratc 1y ago

> You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now. I never said I take issue with that claim, nor that I agree with it, nor that I disagree with it. I just pointed out that there are two groups of people: those who agree with it and those who don't; for the latter group, reading the article that starts by stating that claim is going to be a waste of their time, as the article is built upon that foundation. > I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.

nerdponx 1y ago
> You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination. Why would I be interested in other time periods when talking about the similarities between our time, and a phenomenon that did not exist in those other time periods? If I state that someone on the street looks like Bill Murray, would you pull up pictures of John Cleese on your phone to refute my claim?
- maratc 1y ago
  That's what I've addressed already: you're not interested in history as a journey of discovery which is taken in order to broaden your horizons -- you're only interested in it as a way to support your pre-existing opinions. Anything that can't support your pre-existing opinions is of no use to you. It's as if the people in the antebellum South were only reading history books that proved to them how Blacks are inferior, while skipping over books on topics like Roman Empire or early Muslim empires (that could actually prove to them that some of very capable emperors/caliphs were actually Black.) They had no use for that information as it couldn't support their chattel slavery system.