Jump to content

Edit History

Im_CIA

Im_CIA

On 11/9/2021 at 9:24 PM, dashofweak said:

A. All of this still doesn't address the main point, even if Trump wasn't a fascist.

 

B. Trump is absolutely a fascist.

 

Ever read "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert Paxton?

 

Because I have, twice in fact, and Trump checks like, every box. It's why I said if Trump isn't a fascist Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco aren't fascist. All of these leaders line up perfectly to the definition.

 

I COULD go through all the attributes, but I would mostly be copying the book. And if you disagree with Paxton's point that means you think you know fascism better than someone who pays his bills through research about this exact topic.

One pundit writes an article on why Trump is a facist, another pundit writes an article on why he isn't. A layperson reads the professional viewpoint that he finds most agreeable and then appeals to its authority. Many such cases.  

 

I think you are framing this whole thing entirely wrong. The classical hard logic of "If X is Y then Z" can't be definitively applied to soft political science, which is a sum of infinitely granular and nebulous parts. 

Im_CIA

Im_CIA

On 11/9/2021 at 9:24 PM, dashofweak said:

A. All of this still doesn't address the main point, even if Trump wasn't a fascist.

 

B. Trump is absolutely a fascist.

 

Ever read "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert Paxton?

 

Because I have, twice in fact, and Trump checks like, every box. It's why I said if Trump isn't a fascist Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco aren't fascist. All of these leaders line up perfectly to the definition.

 

I COULD go through all the attributes, but I would mostly be copying the book. And if you disagree with Paxton's point that means you think you know fascism better than someone who pays his bills through research about this exact topic.

One pundit writes an article on why Trump is a facist, another pundit writes an article on why he isn't. A layperson reads the professional viewpoint that he finds most agreeable and then appeals to its authority. Many such cases.  

 

I think you are framing this whole thing entirely wrong. The classical hard logic of "If X is Y than Z" can't be definitively applied to soft political science, which is a sum of infinitely granular and nebulous parts. 

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.