this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024

26 points (96.4% liked)

US Authoritarianism

979 readers

1 users here now

ChonkyOwlbear is an Illegitimate Usurper

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: [email protected]

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Conservatism is Brain Damage (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

To me there is a single defining feature to tell of something is fascist or not. I dont care that much about age old semantics and technicalities. This works as a moral compass for me.

“Does it infringe on the ability of another person to exercise harmless freedom” if the answer is yes its facism.

A harmless freedom being any activity that is not facism according the above, including the right to not be disturbed.

Practical examples:

Physical assault of any kind except as a last resort in order to decrease total harm. - facism

Stating in a conversation about religion that you think religion is unintelligent nonsense - not facism

Telling a religious person in their face that THEY are stupid and believe in nonsense. - facism

Taking a public stance against all kinds of drug use, believing that they only hurt society and have no place within - not facism.

Saying drug use should be punished by police because you believe the users are immoral criminals - facism

Stating that you would never feel comfortable around or if your child turned out lgbtq - not facism

No longer respecting or providing support to your lgbtq children/ placing people you dont like in a disadvantaged scenario - facism

If your left wandering how does one “police” such a world. The harmless freedom to be left unbothered and free of damage seizes to be harmless if the intent is to eacape public backlash from knowingly having commited acts of facism.

A good flow is:

1 notify a person they have committed facism so they can better themselves

2 inform them about aid to help better themselves if they cannot do so themselves, inform other people in the community so they can be alert this person struggles with unhealthy behaviors.

3 If they are not able to voluntarily not hurt others then the last resort is to limit freedoms in just the right amount that they can no longer limit the harmless freedom of others.

In general of course we should start funding proper global education that teaches to respect the world and all its inhabitants. Without that foundation all i just said is a pipe dream.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

“Does it infringe on the ability of another person to exercise harmless freedom” if the answer is yes its facism.

Telling a religious person in their face that THEY are stupid and believe in nonsense. - facism

Does an individual telling someone they think their beliefs are stupid infringe on their ability to exercise harmless freedom?

Your real definition seems to be just, "fascism is anything I personally dislike" which deprives the word of any real meaning.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

“Does an individual telling someone they think their beliefs are stupid infringe on their ability to exercise harmless freedom?”

The keyword is “their” in their belief, its rarely just theirs so this wording makes it personal and by default people deserve respect.

I understand that this is very context bounded. Saying “your believes” are stupid is a form of assault, attacking what the other person believes is true. Its disrespectful for no reason = an assumption of being more correct or better = the start of an assumption of authority. Therefor i would indeed label this a form of facism.

But Saying “i think this religion is stupid” towards the same person face shares the same opinion but limited to your own perspective, which is of course is by default just as valid. It doesn’t disrespect the other person = you maintain to be equals and you can both agree to disagree in peace.

It also doesn't it make assumptions that they believe every single detail. Most religious people don't know not believe every single verse. Simply making assumptions isn't fascist but still something to avoid. Using assumptions to devalue other perspectives is.

"fascism is anything I personally dislike"

I can see how it looks that way but i can assure you thats not the case. There are plenty of things i dislike and find immoral that is not infringement if rights.

Selfishness is a good example. Someone with abundance watching others suffer from needs and choosing not to share is by my book immoral but not fascist.

To talk to you straight though, I hardly think so literally about this definition in real life. Its much more a fluent awareness of respect. When i try to vocalize and define my logic, thats when i arrive at the above narrow definition.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Being rude to someone is not fascism. Criticizing someone's beliefs is not fascism. You are wrong and being ridiculous.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There are plenty of ways to be rude where its not facism.

Your comment is a good example of some of the more complex nuance and context in real life situations.

By my definition, most would probably assume your “You are wrong and being ridiculous.” Fits my bill. Because you make it personal.

I do find it rude but not Fascism for the simple reason that me providing my ideas on a public forum (correctly) presents me as open as being challenged. It be different if you send me a private message to say the same thing.

I bet if we would have a long real life conversation where i could include a novel of nuance around expression, freedom, respect and authority you wouldn't think of me as being such ridiculous anymore but if you take just my definition literally on pure face value i can absolutely see why you feel this way.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No, I'm not taking your definition literally on pure face value. The definition you provided isn't your actual definition, your actual definition is whatever you happen to feel like at any given moment. Which is incorrect and ridiculous. On a fundamental level, that is not how words work.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

As a very specific autist i have no choice then to strongly disagree or my ability to understand the world quite literally collapses. I hope you can forgive me for that.

It may be important to note i don’t experience myself using language to think, my thoughts are abstract feelings and i have to put effort in translating them in human words, which often lack nor fit. I have no inner monologue but i can “see” concept, certain logic and ideas. with my “minds eye” as its sometimes called.

Were getting to the deep stuff now :p and i had a long day already so yes a bit unhinged but not unreasonably so, bear with me. I do spend a life inhibiting amount of time analyzing stuff like this.

What you describe is simply put not my experience of reality but i also want to tell you, your different experience is just as valid.

In my experience:

our entire experience of reality is that we are consciousness and have the ability to perceive.
the group of things we cant perceive (dont know) is much bigger and then the group of things we can perceive (do know).
historically in science we where wrong but not entirely. Plague masks don’t stop the plague but they did have a noticeable working effect. The science of mental health changes and improves every day.
All people carry bias and hypocritical standpoints. There are many things i stand for that appear contradictory when put next to eachother, This is a sign of incorrect logic, being unaware of all the facts and nuance but as i have never met a person free of it i consider this normal. (The normalcy of holding multiple contradictions opinions was agreed on by a psychiatrist)

I conclude that i can never know if something is fact, and science which is one of my strongest passions which has the goal of finding truth will only ever be an increasingly closer and more correct approximation.

I at the same time found absolutely no use or reason to act like all facts and information i know is all wrong and incorrect. For survival it needs to be as correct as needed to survive, for me personal its as correct as i can be from my own first principles. (Starting with a Decartian “i know that i exist” and moving from there till i manage to reason a recognizable concept i witness or experience in day to day life.

From the above i experience and reason the below:

all words are made up and there meaning involve over time.
communication is about copying information from one brain to another. As long as this is successful the communication was successful and all other factors like spelling become irrelevant.

Disclaimer: Known definitions and spelling are generally very useful tools to communicate, especially to not like minded people.

My understanding of concept of the world should grow over time just like science and language. I actively look for materials and other perspectives to broaden my understanding i incorporate those and adapt definitions all the time. I would be a fool to stubbornly believe my current understanding of anything is an absolute truth, and like i said science , to get to the closest possible approximately truth is a passion of mine.

Having said that, and admitting that yes definitions often are my personal own i do not feel i used language in an incorrect or incomprehensible way.

I use words like “to me” which was my opener and others like “i feel”, “i think”, “i believe” and especially “i know”very intentionally and not at all lightly.

“to me” It means exactly what the dictionary textbook says. That the following statement is a subjective opinion coming from my own interpretation and understanding.

I hope this helped to clarify my stance, your valid to disagree but i hope you can see my perspective is just as.

Btw: love how your username checks out for me.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Language is collaborative. It's true that the meaning of words can change over time, but if you just redefine words however you want, then the ability to communicate breaks down. The words "dog" and "cat" may have fluid meanings but if I just decide to start calling cats dogs and dogs cats, then it's going to result in a lot of pointless confusion.

Let's say I was going to completely accept your definition of fascism. That would mean that going forward, any time I wanted to determine if something was fascism or not, I would have to DM you specifically to find out. Because your definition is both nonstandard and does not follow any kind of consistent, coherent rules. It would be impossible for me to really agree with you about what is and isn't fascism, because you haven't given me any sort of coherent way to distinguish between what you think is fascist and what you don't think is fascist.

Different people do define fascism in different ways, which does create confusion, but at least with most people they can give me a standard by which I can evaluate things. Even if that standard is wrong, like, "Fascism is whenever the government does anything," it is at least possible to evaluate whether something counts as fascism by that definition, without having to ask the person every single time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I fully agree on the first paragraph. Unless the goal is poetry, I wouldn’t recommend using completely random words. And believe me, my much younger distressed autistic ass has tried exactly that, not once, but twice. But no, I didn’t expect to be correctly interpreted. But people get surprisingly upset when you do that.

Yet I do feel like talking is much more similar to painting. I have more theories about this if you like.

The information in my head (and I reason this is true for others) is at least partially stored in the connection of neurons. Language is a construct and a tool. In my experience, it is a very restricted one, at least to fully express what I mean most of the time.

I find I struggle a great deal finding the right words, yet I know a great deal of vocabulary. My first language was not English, and I often combine languages to fit my intent better, but people tend to hate that. It’s like a palette; what words actually fit the feeling of what I am trying to express?

There’s, of course, also context as insider knowledge (also on the internet) which can greatly affect the meaning of the same words. So does intonation, but that isn’t possible in text.

When I try to express the feeling of a dog, “dog” is a good fit. Complex concepts like consciousness, reality, love, and fascism can’t properly be defined after so many books.

So admittedly my definition is a gross simplification, but I do in fact rely on real logic (prone to human error) to come to such a summary, and most of the words can be taken in a general well-known context.

“Fascism is the expression of hate” would have been an equally good summary.

The term “hate” is just as complex. For me, to hate is to feel strong negative feelings towards a person with no valid explanation.

What is a valid explanation to feel negative towards a person? When they have personally wronged you.

Feeling they wronged you is a fully subjective individual experience.

Someone of the same skin color once stole their bike, which can explain fear and the feeling of hate towards that skin color. Racism is not fascism. Expressing racism, hate towards anyone but the thief themselves, especially when educated enough to understand that other individuals who look similar are their own individuals and unrelated to your inner feelings, that is what I believe is unquestionably fascist.

Edit: i didnt even get to include that disrespect for no valid reason is to me an assumption of authority. Thats why i believe authority to be ultimately toxic its when people feel they are better then others so pleasantries flow one way.

Authority is important to mention in context of facism and while it related in the logic i rely on to define facism there is admittedly no good puzzle piece here to do it justice.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Fascism is a specific political ideology that emerged in 20th century Italy, developed by Mussolini. What you're describing, not recognizing other people as individuals, is something that has existed for as long as there have been humans.

When prehistoric tribes were killing each other, they weren't respecting each other as individuals, but that wasn't fascism. There wasn't even a state, political ideology did not exist.

When feudal lords worked their serfs to death, they weren't respecting them as individuals, but that was not fascism, it was feudalism.

Fascism is not the correct word for the thing you're describing. It doesn't seem possible to reason with you, so this is probably my last attempt.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Not recognizing other people as individuals does feel core to fascism but I cannot disagree with your nuanced examples. I would indeed not recognize those historic mechanics as fascism.

What word would you pick that better fits my sentiment?

When i analyze what i recognize as fascism around and try to nail it down to the sin itself. What it almost boils down to is this not recognizing people. If we could “magically” not commit that sin then fascism couldn’t possibly take hold. its a crucial element to my present day understanding. I wouldn’t know how else to recognize it in people but i experience that humanity is getting plagued by something horrible.

I am sad you feel i cant be reasoned with, in my experience you provided good material to reflect on end i have already admitted my definition was a simplification. At least give me a few days of time to process before i decide to refocus my perspectives.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I apologize for being overly harsh. I think we were just on different wavelengths.

I think the word you're looking for is "dehumanization." Dehumanization is something that is utilized by fascism, but it's also used in lots of other contexts. To dehumanize someone is to view or treat someone as less than human. An experience where one's beliefs or values are not respected may feel dehumanizing. A person might find their job dehumanizing, or dealing with beuraucracy dehumanizing, and so on.

Fascism implies a mass political movement, and takes dehumanization to an extreme that is necessary to lay the groundwork for the extermination of minorities.

Some degree of dehumanization is normal, especially when interacting with rude or insensitive people, or with uncaring systems. But that's not enough to constitute fascism on its own.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (12 children)

As "conservatism" is essentially just liberalsm with extra paranoia and hysterics (ie - liberals overtly sidling up to fascism) one has to wonder where the "brain damage" starts...

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments