ebled
On 11/9/2021 at 10:10 PM, dashofweak said:You know what the funny thing is?
I responded to your post before, figuring I was right, but also figured, "Hey, let's read the article, see what the man has to say.
And literally one of the FIRST PARAGRAPHS cites Robert Paxton:
So the author that you just called a "Pundit" is literally saying on the Vox article that YOU provided AND said made some good points about the topic of fascism has the literal author that I cite for my views on fascism agreeing with me.
AND from that same article:
So even the author doesn't have a problem with me calling Trump a fascist.
No.
On 11/9/2021 at 9:58 PM, Im_Unemployed said: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.
This is an abstract example. Pundit A and Pundit B can be Paxton and any of the other people that article quoted. The Author having no issue with calling Trump a facist isn't a problem because the whole point of the article is the subject of debate and whether or not the definition fits.
But lets say that I agree, Trump is a facist. Somehow this means that all conservative flows empty into the same unified delta of White Supremacy. Like I said before, political science is soft and has no rule set or axioms that could construct such brief and blanket answer, especially regarding tens of millions of people.