What's in the news?

[RedEve]

I'm curious. What parties or groups do you consider to be fascist?

I never did. I was talking about the "give xenophobes what they want or else" rhetoric that has become de rigueur among certain sections of the right.

There are definitely parties I would deem far-right. e.g. Vlaams Belang, Front National.

[Sara Nilsson]

Of course, they can't pretend if the truth comes out. So they need to make it look like Comey and gang have things to hide when they don't

[Sara Nilsson]

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/the-surface-of-mars-idUSRTS26SWK

Some really snazzy pics from Mars :) I know, nothing earth shattering as far as news go. But figured we could do with something wonderful in here

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh yea that shit's nasty.

Also because I fucking love Lamborghinis: https://carbuzz.com/news/lamborghini-aventador-and-huracan-successors-will-be-plug-in-hybrids1

The next generation Aventador and Huracans are gunna be hybrids.

Missed this, but that's actually kind of interesting because I would never have thought 'engine noise' would be a selling point for luxury cars. Speed, handling, visual aesthetics, interior features are all obvious things to sell a super expensive car on - but having a distinctive sound of the engine running would not have been on that list.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Missed this, but that's actually kind of interesting because I would never have thought 'engine noise' would be a selling point for luxury cars. Speed, handling, visual aesthetics, interior features are all obvious things to sell a super expensive car on - but having a distinctive sound of the engine running would not have been on that list.

Engine noise for a high-performance luxury car is a big draw.  It tells everyone you da driver!

[TheGlyphstone]

Engine noise for a high-performance luxury car is a big draw.  It tells everyone you da driver!

I mean just having a loud engine would sort of make sense, even if it's obnoxious. But all cars sound the same to me, so the idea of a specific type of loud - aerated instead of turbocharged, apparently - being a point of value is bizarre.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Here a couple articles that may help explain it for you.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/this-is-why-various-engine-types-sound-so-different-feature

https://jalopnik.com/the-ten-most-distinctive-sounding-cars-470847082

I had a friend who was into cars and he could tell the make and model just by listening.  Got it right most of the time.

[Skynet]

Nope. Fascism is the belief in a one-party ethno-state that utilizes a mixed, planned economy and autarky to develop itself. Beyond that, Fascism also requires a belief in a strongman leader in order to guide the state that is inseparable to the individual.

Fascism does not equal right wing, or even right wing populism. In fact, fascism has always been VERY anti-populist in practice.

Fascists are right-wing in their own words.

Fascism is far-right because it, as an ideology, is opposed to egalitarianism and defines itself primarily via nationalism. Right-wing in both the US and Europe is associated with conservatism, skepticism towards change, promoting the nation/ethnicity/etc over a more "global" world, and is opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism which during the Great Depression were the other majority ideologies.

The far-left, by consequence, predominantly seeks the transition of society into a more egalitarian form. Feminism has its roots in leftist thought for wanting to combat traditional patriarchal social norms. Anarchism combats hierarchical governments and business structures. Marxism combats capitalism.

Also, Benito Mussolini in the Doctrine of Fascism defined himself and his ideology as right-wing.

Interestingly, Mussolini was anti-socialist and had little respect for Marx's work.

I can imagine that people are going to bring up "National Socialism," but it should be noted that 1.) the Nazi Party busted up trade unions and 2.) killed the Strasserites upon suspicion that they were too Soviet-friendly during the Night of Long Knives. The Nazis used a mixed market economy, and their primary critiques of socialism and capitalism were that they were "both invented by Jews."

This Snopes article does a pretty good job explaining the "Are Nazis Socialist?" thing.

In short, Hitler was being a politician. The economic depression was causing many people to gravitate towards alternative ideologies than traditional capitalism and liberal democracies at the time. Communist parties were gaining ground and in 1920s Germany were tying or even exceeding the Nazi Party in polls. Hitler viewed them as a threat but also sought to trick and win over German citizens who'd be otherwise sympathetic towards socialism. During the Weimar Republic they had the largest Communist Party outside of the Soviet Union.

In the 1933 general federal election of Germany, the German Communist Party had nearly 5 million votes. Social Democratic Party had around 7 million, while the Nazi Party had 17 million.


So in conclusion we have that even by their own definitions and tactics, fascists were right-wing and anti-Communist as well as being anti-socialist, even if Nazis deceptively referred to themselves as such.




I should also note that a lot of white supremacists, alt-righters, and Neo-Nazis by any other name are often deceptive in their stated goals and practice. Stefan Molyneux is a very popular figure in their circles; he self-identifies as an anarcho-capitalist but wants border control enforced by the government and criticizes Black Lives Matter for being anti-police in rhetoric.

In fact, there's more than a few "classical liberal/libertarian" etc white supremacists such as Lew Rockwell. They assert that the Non-Aggression Principle, small government ideals, etc are only able to be understood by white people b/c something other races are akin to fantasy monsters who are inherently violent or criminal.

[Skynet]

PS Forgot relevant Mussolini quotes:

A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

[Icelandic]

PS Forgot relevant Mussolini quotes:

I would definitely agree that fascism is a right-wing ideology. My point was that it was a more specific ideology then just being 'super right-wing'.

I was not trying to argue that fascism was not right-wing, just that political parties seeking to curb immigration does not equal fascism, and it then spiraled from there.

I never did. I was talking about the "give xenophobes what they want or else" rhetoric that has become de rigueur among certain sections of the right.

There are definitely parties I would deem far-right. e.g. Vlaams Belang, Front National.

Fair enough, I probably should have said "What do you consider xenophobic?".

I would definitely consider Front National to be far-right, just not fascism. My point was that fascism does not just meant someone that is super-duper right-wing.

[Icelandic]

Missed this, but that's actually kind of interesting because I would never have thought 'engine noise' would be a selling point for luxury cars. Speed, handling, visual aesthetics, interior features are all obvious things to sell a super expensive car on - but having a distinctive sound of the engine running would not have been on that list.

Oh they mentioned that they are gunna have the engine sorted out. How? I dunno.

[TheGlyphstone]

Since we're on a trend for minor news, and tech-related stuff, this popped up on my pocket feed:

http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/11/how-the-wall-street-journal-is-preparing-its-journalists-to-detect-deepfakes/

Pretty interesting stuff - both the wide variety of methods that are starting to become available for faking images/footage, and the ways they can be detected. The whole recent thing with the Acosta video shows one very minor way that sort of stuff could be used, and for the most part our news industry is both woefully underprepared to spot deepfakes and exceedingly vulnerable to their effects with everyone's rush to get the breaking scoop.

[RedRose]

Some people served coffee and soup laced with laxatives to "gilets jaunes".
Also, the new debate in France, summed up here. Start at What next for metoo.

[Tolvo]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/macys-parade-2018-gay-kiss_us_5bf6d42fe4b0eb6d930c8577

So during the broadcast of the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade for a musical they were showing two women kissed as a part of it which is pretty cool to see on television normalized like that. Most of what I've seen has been excited queer people though there are now groups calling for a boycott of Macy's and threatening lawsuits and such because of course bigots are mad at the possibility that children saw two women kiss and that they "Gay Agenda" is coming for them.

[Lustful Bride]

I'm not one to usually use the phrase "toxic masculinity" because I feel it is overused and losing its meaning. but after reading this, I cant help but feel that it applies. Just let the boys be whatever they want. If they don't want to be 'real men' then that's their choice. But I forget, this is China. Choice is irrelevant. Only conformity.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/in-china-a-school-trains-boys-to-be-‘real-men’/ar-BBQ0oRW?ocid=spartandhp

[Tolvo]

Well to be fair this is a worldwide problem not just a Chinese one, we have these same things in the USA. There are some better things but in regards to toxic masculinity we are the exact same broadly. And we have schools just like that, possibly many more of them than China. Our public schools are also often like that. Though the USA is a bit better about women having roles in the government, and somewhat in business though again those are still heavily male dominated things.

[Icelandic]

Some people served coffee and soup laced with laxatives to "gilets jaunes".
Also, the new debate in France, summed up here. Start at What next for metoo.

Why the new Metoo debate?

[Tolvo]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/21/border-patrol-agent-not-guilty-involuntary-manslaughter-mexican-boys-death?CMP=twt_gu

So the agent at the border has not been convicted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting a boy through the border fence, who was throwing rocks, multiple times in the back and head as he tried to run away. Though he might still get convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

https://hillreporter.com/leaders-anti-caravan-marche-tijuana-exposed-as-nazi-sympathizers-15165

Also it looks like many of the leaders against immigrant caravans in South America are Neo-Nazis or are sympathizers.

[Icelandic]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/21/border-patrol-agent-not-guilty-involuntary-manslaughter-mexican-boys-death?CMP=twt_gu

So the agent at the border has not been convicted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting a boy through the border fence, who was throwing rocks, multiple times in the back and head as he tried to run away. Though he might still get convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

This makes sense. Involuntary manslaughter convictions require that the person did not intend to kill the victim, which I think would be very hard to prove, considering that people usually don't shoot to injure when firing on someone. Voluntary manslaughter seems a lot more likely of a conviction.

https://hillreporter.com/leaders-anti-caravan-marche-tijuana-exposed-as-nazi-sympathizers-15165

Also it looks like many of the leaders against immigrant caravans in South America are Neo-Nazis or are sympathizers.

>"Many of the leaders."
>Article talks about one guy and another random protester.

[Lustful Bride]

This makes sense. Involuntary manslaughter convictions require that the person did not intend to kill the victim, which I think would be very hard to prove, considering that people usually don't shoot to injure when firing on someone. Voluntary manslaughter seems a lot more likely of a conviction.

Isnt it also illegal in Texas or at least very frowned on to shoot someone from behind?

[Icelandic]

Isnt it also illegal in Texas or at least very frowned on to shoot someone from behind?

Quite likely.

[Tolvo]

Isnt it also illegal in Texas or at least very frowned on to shoot someone from behind?

It depends. Usually for your average citizen to do that yes. Cops are able to depending on the situation. I'm not sure where Border Patrol Agents exactly fall on that but I think they aren't considered full law enforcement so I'd assume they can't easily get away with it. But it also is murky because the person who shot I don't believe was a US citizen and the USA doesn't care as much about non-citizen deaths unless it is of an absolute ton of people or an important figure, usually if it will make another country mad enough.

[Tolvo]

Or correction, I guess law enforcement isn't the correct term. I'm just not really sure on what their specific rules and jurisdictions are in regards to shooting someone on the other side of the border fence in the back.

[TheGlyphstone]

Or correction, I guess law enforcement isn't the correct term. I'm just not really sure on what their specific rules and jurisdictions are in regards to shooting someone on the other side of the border fence in the back.

That's actually be an interesting question if it didn't, you know, involve a dead kid. If someone on one side of a border commits a crime against someone on the other side of the border, where is the crime actually committed for the purpose of determining jurisdiction? Actual Lawyers would probably have a definite answer though, because it can't possibly be something that hasn't happened before.

[Tolvo]

I'm pretty sure crimes on the border happen pretty regularly but usually not of this nature. It depends on where exactly in along the fence they were, because they can be in nebulous regions border wise or on American soil. You see it a lot with stuff relating to embassies and what their grounds legally count as in regards to what country you are in. There have always been examples for states where someone shoots someone who is in another state and what the jurisdiction is and exact legal ramifications. Simpsons even did a parody of it with Sideshow Bob planning to fire from one state, hit Bart in a 2nd state, but his body lands in a 3rd state, so he couldn't be tried in any one state.