Fascist tries to kill civilians for political beliefs/Most media ignores it

You didn't say that. But the part of the definition you isolating to try and make your point is saying that.

 

I think what you are arguing is that in practice communism ceases to be communism (in marxism sense) and becomes something else entirely.

So it is not communism being fascist but how it tends to develop (at least according to your perception of the case of USSR case study).

The guy who you for some reason suspect to be a communist is not a fascist because until Timm institutes his own version of communism in his future state (wherever that state may be per your creative imagination) and then you notice that he is in fact instituting some nationalistic leaning policies (whatever you define those to be). At this current moment however, there is NOTHING to indicate that this Timm person is a fascist/Fascist.

 

except history completely contradicts you. you read too many right wing blogs that have taught you that the left are the real fascists because that makes you and your white nationalist friends feel better

 

I read and replied to them already. Your second Merriam Webster definition doesn't apply to a political violence by a single person because a single person has no movement/people behind him/her and therefore can't present "autocratic or dictatorial" tendencies. Nobody pledged allegiance to nobody when you have a case of road rage against people wearing MAGA hats. It's just plain old interpersonal tribal violence. It's ridiculous to be trying to make it out to be something more than it is.

I also want to say that communism doesn't inevitably become anything specific "in reality" once initiated (in its ideal form) - there are a bunch of societies that can be considered to have communist beginnings and all of them ended up having a different history of socio-political development. Hence, nothing is "inevitable" about how history progresses and a particular society state comes to being.

Anyway... Have fun with these interesting ideas of yours.

 

Hahaha. You combined a definition made of 8 words and an article where the perp says "i had to take a stand". And decided to call perp a 'fascist' based on that.

That sounds super complex. You've been referring to your past arguments for the last 3 pages or so because of how complex the above equation apparently is.

You are just full of it.

 

Hey Foh does this guy sound like a fascist Like another poster implies? Just because a man acts out violently in some kind of rage doesn’t make him a fascists. Like was mentioned before in this thread. Acts of violence doesn’t make ons a fascist. To say that with limited information is dumb.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/duval-county/ex-bandmate-man-accused-targeting-gop-tent-he-just-wanted-attention/G2C4GPE7OJEMVGH7CUTUH2PEWQ/?outputType=amp

 

in the context of environmental policy (and in a non-authoritarian government context), culling operations aimed at reducing k-selected wildlife populations (e.g., for deer, elephants, etc) have often been criticized by animal rights activists (typically) as being "eco-fascist." So much so there's an entire literature on the topic--small perhaps, but significant. here's another cite:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2014.926084?src=recsys&journalCode=cepe21

note the author's use of a broad definition to convey the main idea of eco-fascism without having to use the term itself (probably to avoid the kinds of contentious problems with terminology that this thread has exhibited):

". . . the general idea that it is wrong to sacrifice individuals, their interests, their well being, and or their rights, in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community."

 

Ok i suppose i can see how you could technically define control animal populations as fascism from the animals perspective but humans do a whole lot worse on a mass scale of animals that it makes such a label even if theoretical silly.

but is there any plausible human scenario? I see where this idea is going that people will sacrifice the livelihood of others to fight climate change. It’sa useful label by which those opposed to climate change action can slap a label that’s negative to those who are trying to change the course of the runaway train we are on.

but that would be a spurious application at best since it’s not based on nationalism but rather the need for survival. Fascism is inherently built on the idea that some groups are inherently superior to others and therefore have the right even obligation to use violence to impose that believe and justify a social order based on a militarized dictatorship. I just can’t see that applying to the environmental movement

 

then why do you repeat white nationalist propaganda on here?

 

in just this past week we've had a philosophy professor in Cambridge argue seriously for human extinction to combat climate change. I don't think it's all that difficult to apply.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ne...bridge-professor-thinks-should-human-17684215

 

That isn't a policy desire. That's merely just stating the unfortunate truth that the planet's long term sustainability along with the species that live on the planet besides humans and our livestock species would massively benefit.

Fascism has a strong nationalistic component to it at least in previous forms of fascist regimes. This has no Nationalistic component to it.