Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

[Grek]

It's a militaristic ultra-nationalist movement, in which the state holds supreme power for the advancement of whatever the particular fascist movement considers the "correct" ethnicity.

Basically this. It's a combination of tribalism and totalitarianism.

Your average fascist party has some sort of arbitrary racial/religious/ethnic/language/creed-based criteria that sorts a small section of the population into the in-group and everyone else into the out-group. Core beliefs are that the in-group is superior to the out-group, that the out-group is trying to undermine or harm the in-group and that the in-group must unite together in order to survive and proper. Goals include unifying the in-group into a single political and military entity, installing members of the in-group in all positions of government, military and economic power and eliminating members of the out-group through genocide and mass deportation.

[Username17]

Can someone explain what Fascism is -really- about?

It's sort of lost most meaning as a term, just like socialism and communism. They have so much history and baggage to them that it's hard to find an accurate definition of what it was really meant to do.

But funnily enough, I trust you guys on stuff like this.

So what's it about? What's the beliefs and goals?

As Grek and name_here said, it's totalitarian and tribal. Now, a lot of people make the mistake of thinking the tribalism is the point, or even intended to make any sense. It's not. The tribalism is defined and redefined based on political expediency.

That's why for the Nazis, the correct religion is Catholic Christianity, but it's considered acceptable to be Wotanist or Shinto, but not Eastern Orthodox or Jew. Obviously there's no possible religious views you could actually hold where that delineation would make any fucking sense at all, but when you realize that the "in group" is simply defined dynamically by who is on what "side" it all becomes a lot clearer.

Fascism is essentially the most anti-democratic position there is - more so than Bolshevism and Monarchism. Things you believe come from the "in group" and the in group is radically redefined based on who is on their side. But very importantly, the "out group" is vilified to the point where it is not considered legitimate that they even have opinions.

While most people regard Fascism as a "far right" movement, Fascists regard themselves as being "beyond left and right." This is both because they support any number of lefty sounding social programs within the tribe (so long as they don't support "those people"), and also because they don't actually acknowledge that there is a spectrum at all. There is simply "us" and "them."

---

But the bare bones is that Facsism is more defined by what it opposes than by what it stands for. Because it's really more of a set of tactics than a coherent ideology. So it's opposed to materialism, liberalism, objectivity, democracy, multiculturalism, and relativism. All of these forces are opponents of totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is really the whole point of the show.

So when you come down to it: North Korea is a fascist country, and the Tea Party is a fascist movement.

-Username17

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, the big thing to understand about Fascists is that they can't hear your philosophical/ethical objections over the sound of how awesome they believe themselves to be. It's genuinely hard to exaggerate just how full of shit the Nazis were and how much they bought into the idea of exceptionalism justifying everything they did. That's why despite being a huge pinko lefty I can understand why US conservatives get so annoyed by Fascism being so often characterized as a far right position given that Fascism is actually rather indifferent regarding economic policies more complex than looting other countries. I mean, yeah, Fascists are authoritarian and routinely make broad, populist appeals to tradition, but when you actually pay attention to their positions and what they want to do it turns out that their form of "traditionalism" mostly involves upending the social order, consolidating power and placating the populace via parades, novelty flags and a good ol' fashioned pogrom aimed at anyone who objects.

Edited so my post actually makes a tiny bit of sense.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What made these people fascists? I only knew PR from his loltroll days, the others I missed entirely.

PR/GX: In addition to continually ranting about hate-crime legislation and multiculturalism they also inspired FT's epic Tenets of Fascism post.
Elennsar; He never participated in any political threads AFAIK, but in the WH40K thread made pretty blatant anti-democratic statements and was baffled as to why totalitarianism was suboptimal.
Arturick: Caused the Great Exodus of The Nifty Message Board by going on an eliminationist rant on people like FrankTrollman and Crissa.

[Prak]

Wow, I'm really glad that my whole aggressive eugenic darwinism phase never encroached on TGD. I'd be lumped in with PR/GX, Elennsar and Arturick...

[erik]

Wow, I'm really glad that my whole aggressive eugenic darwinism phase never encroached on TGD. I'd be lumped in with PR/GX, Elennsar and Arturick...

I'm sure everyone here at some point or another ascribed to some shitty ideas or ideals. In fact I'm sure we're all wrong about lots of things right this second. The important thing is to be open to discarding of those crappy ideas as you are presented with demonstrably superior alternatives, and doing so when such opportunities arise.

[RobbyPants]

You know, I've been reading a lot of old threads and this occurred to me:

The Nifty Message Board and The Gaming Den sure had a fuckton of fascists on these boards. Not like, generic right-wing jerks like tzor but actual fascists who agreed to the major tenets outlined in that one Italian paper. You know, like Gx, Psychic Robot, Elennsar, Arturick...

Is there just something about TTRPGs or TGD specifically that attracts fascists? I mean what the fucking fuck?

I doubt it. This site has something like 2,000 registered members (I know they're not all active), and you named four people, three (or four?) of which are not active. So, you're clocking in at around 0.2%. I'm sure if you look at any random hobby, with a you could find one fascist for every 500 members.

While most people regard Fascism as a "far right" movement, Fascists regard themselves as being "beyond left and right." This is both because they support any number of lefty sounding social programs within the tribe (so long as they don't support "those people"), and also because they don't actually acknowledge that there is a spectrum at all. There is simply "us" and "them."

I think a lot of right leaning people regard fascism as "far left". I think it's a combination of using fascism to describe "anything the government does that I don't like" and not wanting to be associated with fascism.

Arturick: Caused the Great Exodus of The Nifty Message Board by going on an eliminationist rant on people like FrankTrollman and Crissa.

So, what's this whole "Great Exodus of The Nifty Message Board"?

[DSMatticus]

Wow, I'm really glad that my whole aggressive eugenic darwinism phase never encroached on TGD. I'd be lumped in with PR/GX, Elennsar and Arturick...

I'm sure everyone here at some point or another ascribed to some shitty ideas or ideals. In fact I'm sure we're all wrong about lots of things right this second. The important thing is to be open to discarding of those crappy ideas as you are presented with demonstrably superior alternatives, and doing so when such opportunities arise.

When I was younger, I thought I was a libertarian because I was (and am) socially liberal and did not know what the word entailed, apparently. I was surprised to learn that actual libertarians believed they could apply the same reasoning that said "government shouldn't tell people to be Christian/tell women to be housewives/not be gay/punish black people for being black" to get "government shouldn't tell massive financial entities to not leverage their disproportionate power to cause social harms, including the exact ones just listed."

I was fucking baffled to learn that a lot of the politicians libertarians support aren't even socially liberal, and will openly advocate taking away social freedoms under the guise of making government smaller (in the U.S., the rhetoric is constitution-fapping and States' rights). A call for a state too weak to guarantee your rights against internal administrative divisions is not a call for a libertarian state. Suggesting that the Deep South be allowed to deny social and political freedoms to those living there is not libertarian.

[Maj]

Yeah. I thought I was libertarian for a while, too.

[Chamomile]

This seems to be a very common phenomenon. So much so that I'm wondering if it's really that people were confused about what the word meant or if the word's definition changed once it became a big deal sometime around 2009. Wouldn't be the first time a palatable political movement was warped into an uncanny valley horror that resembles its original form just enough to be terrifying.

[Kaelik]

No, the word never changed meaning. I was a libertarian. I stopped being on in... I don't know, 2003? I was under the mistaken belief perpetuated in the US that "tax and spend" is not as efficient as the free market, and the economy runs better unimpeded.

I started to feel like that wasn't the case for reasons I couldn't articulate, and further investigation showed that in fact it is literally the exact opposite of true. Since I was a results based libertarian and not a "principle of non-aggression" one, that fact turned me into a liberal.

[nockermensch]

Fascism has a black and white morality: We're the good guys, they're the bad guys.

Fascism is heroic. Not only the leader figure is all but worshipped, but you need to be reminded that your fellow man can rise to impossible feats of courage/productivity.

Fascism is romantic. As in, it makes huge appeals to emotion and against reason. If you're on the good guy team and your heart is in the right place (toeing the party line), you literally can't do wrong.

Fascism is violent. This is actually derived from heroic and romantic. Because you can't reason with them, shit has to get real, so militarism goes hand-in-hand with fascism. People in a fascist regime need to be constantly reminded that pain / death is but a step away from the Good path.

Finally, fascism is stylish. Historically, fascists are big on imposing uniforms.


These are pretty much why there are lots of WH40K players that unironically find the Empire of Man (or the humans in the Starship Troopers movie) awesome, and why you can find fascistic opinions among people who play wargames / RPGs.

[Maj]

For me, libertarianism was a great ideal. Fiscally responsible, socially progressive... The dream started coming apart, though, when I read a book about PR - I realized that the whole concept of the free market solving problems was predicated on the fact that people knew what was happening in the free market. But in real life, they don't. In real life, the goal of business is to become so successful that it can afford to mislead the public, stomp out the competition, and dominate the market.

Once I realized how idyllic and naive the libertarian view of capitalism was, I started looking at other aspects of it. There are facts that just don't line up. Fiscally responsible ≠ small government ≠ efficient government. Socially progressive ≠ Keeping government out of your life. Government inefficiency ≠ private efficiency... Terms that held meaning for me were turning out to be catchphrases that didn't actually embody what I wanted them to. I don't actually care how big my government is; I care about how efficient it is, and I'm willing to forgive some government inefficiencies because private businesses can be just as bureaucratic and inefficient. Sometimes the socially progressive thing to do (gay marriage, legalizing marijuana) requires the government getting involved.

And then I looked at how libertarianism actually plays out at the polls. The reality of libertarian-supported policies is very different from the "fiscally responsible, socially progressive" ideal - going so far as to be completely opposite what they claim to stand for.

The whole house of cards didn't just collapse. It spontaneously combusted. While I can look back and remember what it was that attracted me, I think the whole thing is a pyramid scheme perpetuated by rich, asshole-ish business people who are subtly trying to disenfranchise those on the bottom of the pyramid by making them waste their precious votes on uselessness.

[nockermensch]

Re: Libertarianism, in the american current form is an engineered movement to divide young people. Once VIPs noted that young people have liberal views and that that wasn't changing, their strategy was to fund a movement that has liberal social views AND conservative market views.

That the american political scene all but lacks the something akin to european/south american Christian Socialism (where people are conservative on social issues and liberal / socialist on market issues) is what puzzles me. Brazil has been under Labor Party government for more than a decade now and abortion is still illegal for everything but rape / serious wealth risk for the woman and just last year our president (a woman) sheepishly said that "abortion is a public wealth matter, not a religious one, and should be dealt as such". Any attempt to put legislation to modernize how we deal with abortion will be a huge uphill battle, because religion. But people are at the same time very at ease with big government.

[Prak]

I think my eugenically darwinist/vague libertarian phase was partially predicated on my Satanic beliefs influencing my political views--my very early satanic beliefs. Now, my satanic beliefs influence me differently, and I describe myself as something more like an anarchocommunist who realizes that Anarchy is a nice thought but horribly impractical. Basically I think people have the freedom to do and be whatever they want which does not harm others (or doesn't do so without consent), and that a government has a responsibility to it's people which should include basic sustenance survival- food, clothing, shelter.

I'm not demanding the government supply me lobster and filet mignon, I'm saying that everyone should have a stipend which includes rice, beans, some produce, and an animal protein--eggs, and maybe a large chicken every couple weeks. If people want more, that is what the free market is for, along with community gardens and such.

[Username17]

In the US we have European (rather than Latin American) Christian Democrats, who are socially conservative and economically conservative. Until the 1960s, they actually called themselves that.

Libertarianism will always have a place in the hearts of the young and educated who aren't specifically deeply read in matters relating to economics and public policy. Libertarianism has simple and internally consistent answers to all major policy issues. Libertarians can explain their economic policy and the theory behind it on the back of a postcard. No Social Democrat is going to be able to explain why they think a graduated income tax should be used to pay for post offices in rural areas in less than ten minutes. Even Market Monetarism (Libertarianism's slightly more respectable cousin) requires charts and diagrams to explain why they think central banks purchasing bonds at specific times can ward off recessions.

In the war of ideas, Libertarianism has been completely vanquished in circles that have done a lot of research into the subject. But there will never ever stop being new recruits of young Libertarians, because they can explain their entire philosophy in the amount of time it takes for a Social Democrat to explain why healthcare is prone to several forms of market failure.

Seriously, Libertarians can point to any random piece of government waste (or even just government spending whose purpose isn't immediately obviously, it doesn't have to really be wasteful at all) and claim that as evidence that the private sector would do it better. They can deflect any and all counter examples of private sector waste by claiming that in their Libertarian paradise, inefficient firms would be allowed to fail and only perfect special snowflake private enterprises would rise to the top.

We don't actually live in a world where all parts of the economy can be handled flawlessly or even "well enough" by private enterprise policed only for force and fraud. Hell, we don't even live in a Market Monetarist world where the economy can be mostly left alone save for having the central bank add or subtract money from the money supply according to a set of simple heuristics. But there will always be people who believe this to be the case, because it's a simple enough worldview that you could make a new convert during the commercial breaks of a TV show.

-Username17

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, Libertarianism and its retarded cousin Objectivism become less and less attractive the further away you get from being a 15 year old who believes their shit doesn't stick. To paraphrase the Dude, the few stated beliefs are consistent, but you're still an asshole.

Seriously, Libertarians can point to any random piece of government waste (or even just government spending whose purpose isn't immediately obviously, it doesn't have to really be wasteful at all) and claim that as evidence that the private sector would do it better.
-Username17

The way they stubbornly pound away at that drum is one of the things that gave away the game to me when I was younger. John Stossel was doing his whole "Gimme a break" routine on 20/20 and was basically saying the government was retarded for backing research into things that can already be explained by school children. When he briefly touched upon corrosion my already irritated uncle (Who, worked in material sciences for NASA at point) switched over to full-on heckling mode. You know, because if you come up with a cheap enough way to prevent corrosion a BASF rep will knock on your door with a check that says "All of the money" on it.

[Koumei]

When I was younger and a self-hating Christian (from a middle-class family that had clawed its way up from working class but never been in dire straits), I was just the "entitled shit" kind of conservative/libertarian.

But then I did, you know, research, and slowly rejected my world view in light of new evidence. Including one research paper in school on illegal immigration, human rights abuses at the detention centres and such that... when I decided to do it, I was thinking "Fuck 'em, coming to our country AND STEALING OUR JOBS and bringing nothing just because their country isn't as nice as ours. They break in like that, they go to prison, that's how it works".

Yeah, the final thing I handed in was nothing like that, in light of all the evidence, and was basically a piece on why our government (Howard, Liberal party) was completely vile, why our police belonged in the prisons more than anyone, and why people like me were shits for letting it happen.

I'm glad I had that capacity to change, because politics have shown us that many people don't.

[DSMatticus]

I was never entirely comfortable with the notion of libertarian freedom. I understood corporations could trample your social freedoms as easily as any government, because they had in fact been doing so for fun and profit through all of human history, and government had to bare minimum be powerful enough to protect your rights both from violent and financial aggressors. The point is to actually have freedoms, not to have those freedoms taken from you by a different group using different mechanisms. But it wasn't until I started learning about game theory that I realized libertarian economic policy wasn't even necessarily economically optimum, because the proof that groups of rational, self-interested actors can act in such a way as to not reach optimum outcomes is simple and compelling. Once you have it reduced to a mathematical statement as unassailable as 2+2=4, it becomes a lot harder to believe libertarians when they tell you "there's a utopian paradise on the other side of this wasteland of deregulation. I promise."

The whole house of cards didn't just collapse. It spontaneously combusted. While I can look back and remember what it was that attracted me, I think the whole thing is a pyramid scheme perpetuated by rich, asshole-ish business people who are subtly trying to disenfranchise those on the bottom of the pyramid by making them waste their precious votes on uselessness.

A lot of libertarians vote straight red every single time, because conservatives use the same buzzwords and have the ability to win elections - it's the compromise between what they want and what they can actually have. Conservatives mean them even less than U.S. libertarians do and are socially conservative to boot (what the fuck?), but you can generally count on libertarians to respond more to loudly-stated ideals than any analysis, so they're not going to catch you on it.

Realizing that libertarians didn't care enough about the freedom of individuals to not align themself with social conservatives was what moved my opinion of libertarianism from "it has respectable ideals but is bad at math" to "it's a bunch of disgusting shitbags who believe in none of the things they use to draw in idealistic youth."

[Lago PARANOIA]

Realizing that libertarians didn't care enough about the freedom of individuals to not align themself with social conservatives was what moved my opinion of libertarianism from "it has respectable ideals but is bad at math" to "it's a bunch of disgusting shitbags who believe in none of the things they use to draw in idealistic youth."

My transition came when I realized that libertarians don't give a fuck about your rights when you're at the workplace. Oh, they talk a good game but they'll cheerfully admit to saying that since your corporate overlords 'own' the means of production you should shut the fuck up. Considering that people spend from a fourth to half (or even more, if you're something like a Marine) of their lives at the workplace, the kind of freedom that they were offering was functionally meaningless.

Of course, I lied through my teeth and said that I was a libertarian while I was actually in the military. I probably shouldn't have done that, because at least in my division there were a lot more liberals/centrists than I suspected. Of course, by the time I got out I was a socialist leaning heavily on the side of communism so I'd probably have had to lie anyway.

[Whipstitch]

An ideology that practically enshrines selfishness is hardly the pony to bet on when looking for a source of long term allies. Bottom line is that gay rights will never seem as immediate an issue to straight libertarians as even bullshit non-problems like vaccinations, so gays go right under the bus, forever.

[PoliteNewb]

A lot of libertarians vote straight red every single time, because conservatives use the same buzzwords and have the ability to win elections - it's the compromise between what they want and what they can actually have. Conservatives mean them even less than U.S. libertarians do and are socially conservative to boot (what the fuck?), but you can generally count on libertarians to respond more to loudly-stated ideals than any analysis, so they're not going to catch you on it.

Realizing that libertarians didn't care enough about the freedom of individuals to not align themself with social conservatives was what moved my opinion of libertarianism from "it has respectable ideals but is bad at math" to "it's a bunch of disgusting shitbags who believe in none of the things they use to draw in idealistic youth."

I'm just curious...do you have any numbers to back up the bolded claim? I've been trying to dig some out of google, but having little luck. I found one Reason piece that was fairly ambiguous (dealing mostly with marijuana legalization).

Given the option, a Libertarian will (naturally enough) vote for a Libertarian...for instance, Gary Johnson, in the last election. But if they go for a "compromise vote" because the Libertarian candidate isn't seen as viable (commonly the case)...why would they choose "social conservatism" over "fiscal liberalism", considering both of those are anti-libertarian? I can understand that you feel that the capitalist buzzwords mean more to them than the civil rights buzzwords, so they vote red...but is there any data that shows that's what self-described libertarians actually do?

[Kaelik]

but is there any data that shows that's what self-described libertarians actually do?

You mean aside from things like these paragraphs:

"The party affiliation of libertarians skews significantly more Republican than Democratic. Close to half (45%) of libertarians identify as Republican, compared to only 5% who identify as Democrat. However, half of libertarians identify as politically independent (35%) or identify with a third political party (15%), including roughly 1-in-10 (8%) who identify with the Libertarian Party.

...

A majority (57%) of libertarians have a favorable view of the Republican Party, but a substantial minority (40%) have an unfavorable view of the GOP. Americans who identify with the Tea Party and white evangelical Protestants have a more positive view of the GOP than libertarians. Approximately two-thirds of Tea Party members (68%) and white evangelical Protestants (66%) have a favorable view of the Republican Party. Notably, libertarians hold more negative views of Democrats than they hold positive views of Republicans. Nearly 9-in-10 (89%) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party including nearly two-thirds (64%) who have a very unfavorable opinion of the party."

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-conte ... VS_WEB.pdf

Other information comes out to basically, 70% of Libertarians claim to support euthanasia and marijuana, 60% support abortion (or, oppose making it more difficult, but maybe they live in Texas where it is literally impossible), and 40% support same sex marriage.

On the other hand, opposition to fiscal liberalism features percentages such as 96, 73, and most curiously 65%. I say most curiously because while apparently all Libertarians can agree that they hate healthcare, over a third of "libertarians" think that the minimum wage should be increased to $10. Who the fuck are these people and do they have any idea what they are saying... Nope.[/url]

[DSMatticus]

but is there any data that shows that's what self-described libertarians actually do?

When people who self-describe as libertarians win elections, they almost always do so as Republicans. Neither Ron Paul nor Gary Johnson have ever held public office as anything other than the red side of a blue/red ticket. It's pretty clear what their priorities are (and by extension, what the priorities of their supporters are).

Also: it's difficult to compare primaries and elections, but Gary Johnson got ~1.28 million votes in the election and Ron Paul got ~2.10 million votes in the primaries. Even if you consider the very real possibility we're double-counting a significant number of people, that's still a lot of people out of a much smaller pool who voted for Ron Paul and clearly did not vote for Gary Johnson. Fuck, Ron Paul is an honest to god social conservative, pro-life, "federal government does not have the power to guarantee your liberties against authoritarian state regimes," and he is the face of U.S. libertarianism. Not its crazy retarded grandpa. The dude people actually take seriously and elect to federal office. And they elect him not because he is a libertarian, but because he is both socially and economically conservative and rambles off libertarian talking points exactly like Republicans.

Also, all of that stuff Kaelik said.

[Korgan0]

It's also important to stress that regardless of whatever rhetoric fascists happen to be spouting, historically, fascist organizations have been backed and armed by capital, and have principally acted in the defense of capital. Both the SA and the immediate precursors to Mussolini's party frequently engaged in strikebreaking in addition to violence against organized labour and communist parties in general, were backed by large corporations. Furthermore, when these movements actually rose to power, they ended up completely eliminating any leftist movements and organized labour, and ended up maintaining the capitalist mode of production, and the corporations that upheld it.

It's honestly not inaccurate to say that fascist movements appear to function as a kind of last-resort defense system for capitalism; when it's threatened by leftist opposition (as it was in the '30's with powerful communist parties and a surging Soviet Union), fascist ideologies spring up and attempt to defend the capitalist mode of production from these threats by blaming the failure of capitalism on whatever scapegoat is available, often ethnic or religious minorities.