domain:philippelemoine.com
The question is whether you are particupating in the "who whom" yourself.
I join the chorus of condemnations for Hanania and anyone else lowly and contemptible enough to invite him to a private group chat.
Well since you're a fan of throwing out condemnations, I notice there is one thing you didn't condemn. The support of Hitler mentioned in the article.
Why is Hanania deserving of condemning but not neonazism? I don't want to assume you're a neonazi then, but "Hanania bad and needs condemning, neonazism ok don't condemn it" suggests that.
Has the definition of woke gone so far as to cover "Being against the love of Hitler"? If that's the case, the pendulum is going to start swinging back into "woke" pretty quickly given how most of the US do not support the Nazis.
Don't care, and this is also a false equivalence. To the best of my knowledge, nobody was fired because of things they said about Charlie Kirk in leaked private messages. They were fired because they were in positions of trust (teacher, doctor, etc), and they posted horrific things endorsing his assassination publicly and proudly under their full name. These are not the same thing, don't pretend they are, I'm not playing along.
But that's how these arguments always go. Jay Jones wasn't directly telling his political opponents over SMS and then a phone call that they deserve to die, something which if I'd done would have been a terroristic threat, it was a "leaked private conversation" and a "joke". No, it fucking wasn't, and also, that's exactly what these Young Republicans are getting fired for.
I said before, when teachers were getting fired because nobody wants psychos like that teaching their children, that the left wasn't upset that the right were hypocrites, they were upset that the rules they thought were meant only for them were being used by others. Then Jimmy Kimmel was back on TV after blood libeling his political opponents, and people pretended cancel culture had been defeated.
I don't know how many times this needs to happen before people stop pretending the defectbots will never stop smashing defect.
Taking Eco's definition
This thing was invented by Eco because he was seething at Silvio Berlusconi's electoral victory and came up with the broadest possible definition of Fascism that would include his party. That's all it is, not a deep reflection of an intellectual on the nature of fascism but a knee-jerk reaction to an italian political party from the 90s.
To be clear, is support of Hitler acceptable from politicians and staffers or is it not? If supporting Hitler is acceptable when done in private conversations, then what behavior if any is unacceptable to you?
Like I can hardly imagine something more awful than that. Jay Jones comments were nasty, but even that is about just a few kids instead of millions and millions of people.
- But try something for me ... go nurse some beers at a bar. Try and find a lonely guy to talk with. One hour into the conversation start making it clear that you are something absolutely reprehensible. A nazi, a closet racist, a former criminal, etc. As long as it is not something directly antagonistic to the guy you are speaking with (can't be a racist to a black guy, that is hard mode and you can try it next time) they will mostly shrug it off and proceed to tell you something equally reprehensible about themselves. It can sometimes accidentally turn into a one-upmanship of "im the worst human ever". I was drunk enough to type up an example of what me and one of my friends do in the "worst human ever" one-upmanship game. But that violates my other rule of treating this like a public space.
Should the standards we have of politicians and their staffers be "random lonely guy getting drunk at the bar"? Sounds like we're selecting for losers if our baseline is losers.
Idk, maybe you've talked about your love of Hitler in a bar before. But I've never said that I love Hitler, and I'm sure tons of other people never have so clearly it's not required to have a friendship or a private chat. Considering some of the Republican response here like Gov Scott, it seems many of them don't consider loving Hitler as normal chat topics either.
What is the difference between a person who says they love Hitler and a person like me who doesn't say it?
Eco is the worst possible source on this topic and deserves to be anathemized from polsci altogether for having originated it.
This is like if people just kept insisting that a human is a featherless biped to this day despite the definition being so prima facie terrible it was ridiculous and ridiculed in its own time.
Nothing less precise than "Palingenetic ultranationalism" is worth even entertaining.
I probably should write something more elaborate, in the spirit of cjet's post, but I'm sorry I cant be arsed to take any of this seriously anymore. I believe all this is, in fact, pearl clutching, that there is no actual moral outrage expressed by people trying to make a mountain of this particular molehill, and it's just a cynical attempt to make the outgroup jump through the ingroup hoops.
To be clear, is support of Hitler acceptable from politicians and staffers or is it not? If supporting Hitler is acceptable when done in private conversations, then what behavior if any is unacceptable to you?
The principle of "who whom" has been, to my understanding, established to broadly apply to both sides. So the most new information that can be gained is whether it applies specifically to JD Vance.
Television sets or (preferably) projector screens are for movie watching in company. Watching something together is fun.
But when I'm watching alone, I prefer studio headphones and my 30" 4K monitor 3' away from my face. It feels more immersive than IMAX (except for the bass, can't beat feeling explosions with your diaphragm).
I think that almost all societies which are commonly labeled fascist did not use that as an endonym. Comes with the territory -- "we just adopted an ideology of the Italians" is a hard sell for ultra-nationalists.
I think there is a cluster in thing-space for the states of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and it is useful to have a word to reference that cluster, and the word their opponents have adopted for better or worse is fascism. One can debate how well it applies even to Franco and if it ever applied to any other states, of course.
Just because the SJ lets people pick some common identifiers it does not mean that individuals get to pick all identifiers. The SJ certainly does not like "I identify as native-American", and "I identify as assigned-female-at-birth" is absurd. Nor do we respect people deciding that they are not schizophrenic, but merely willing servants of the man in the moon.
Fascism as used by Eco is mostly an exonym, and it makes sense to have an exodefinition for that.
Well gosh golly gee willickers, mister! All of that combined sounds almost as bad as a Weekend Update joke swap! By the inverse property of bipolar politics, I'm now feeling much friendlier towards the young democrats, the people who've spent the last two years in open, full-throated support of the demonic death cult that wants to rape and murder my children for being Jewish.
Nah, I'm just kidding. Michael Che goes way harder than any of the stuff in that Politico article during the left's weekly religious services. The crocodile tears are worth nothing until Colin Jost's head is on a pike.
And finally, no one but the most repulsive monsters would ever interact with a horrid goblin like Richard Hanania. I'm sure the Kamala Harris supporters of the "right", like Fuentes, are quite terrible in private. I join the chorus of condemnations for Hanania and anyone else lowly and contemptible enough to invite him to a private group chat.
Not "did people who are freaking out about this have anything to say about the comments on Charlie Kirk"?
we'll do weird things like them away from their parents and raise them as our own'.
I'd say the intention of the Stolen Generation was ultimately benevolent from the government of the day even if the way it was carried out has a bunch of controversies. Also the ironicness of the Stolen Generation ultimately producing the vast majority of educated, reasonably-affluent Indigenous and their descendants who now rally endlessly about how bad the stolen generation was whilst their un-stolen counterparts essentially continue to rot in the ass-end of nowhere maybe deserves a serious thinkthrough.
Yeah but a lot of the China rhetoric stuff is paying tribute to the legacy that led them to the current moment and sufficient undercurrent of 'if you do not pay lip service, you will not advance'. At an individual level from having chatted to a decent amount of Mainlanders there's a collectivist spirit but anything that your standard Westerner would call 'communism' is fairly dead on the ground.
'Did JD have anything to say about the comments on Charlie Kirk's shooting' is the pertinent question here, I think.
I am so profoundly glad I had my teens and 20-somethings before the age of, whatever this is. We had ICQ, AOL IM, irc, and to the best of my knowledge none of this was really permanent? Logs were all stored locally, if you missed something in irc, you just missed it. It was all far more ephemeral by nature.
I'm especially glad there are no recording of what went on at LAN parties even into our 20's. Or the insane conversations we had at college. Or the things we said drunk post college. Or the chauvinistic things we joked about when we started having some success with women.
Side note: Didn't we just get done watching liberals melt down over "comedy being illegal" because Jimmy Kimmel almost lost his job? Isn't Jay Jones still running in my state on a platform of making me suffer because I'm evil, I'm breeding little fascist, and I need to feel the boot until I change my politics? And not a single Democrat has called for him to drop out, or even withdrawn their endorsement?
JD has the right of this.
At least some of the “praise for hitler” was mocking their own side/base for being far right.
Don’t know much about the rest. They should resign, but for being stupid and a liability not for their jokes.
In this day and age how is anyone dumb enough to make edgy jokes in professional or at least “official” forums.
Save it for the bar. Be friends with people IRL that you can meet with physically and say dumb shit to.
I'd make sure that whatever I did, there wouldn't be gigantic protest movements against my country all over the world.
Your phrasing is very telling. Whatever I did. Because I really do get the distinct impression that whatever Israel does, people will be condemning it.
The gigantic protest movements against the country in question had begun in earnest less than a week after October 7th, well before Israel even had the opportunity to commit any war crimes. In New York, there were protests and calls to "globalise the intifada" literally the day after. (The less said about the people at these protests chanting "Allahu akbar" and "gas the Jews", the better.)
Call me crazy, but it kind of seems like at least a significant proportion of these protests have nothing to do with how Israel's military conducts itself, and more to do with the fact that Israel exists at all.
If you mean injecting drugs....sure.
Lots of Meth users are pure meth though.
They haven't - I think MAGA are wrong about the American establishment being full of communists - even with a small "c". But the whole point of the "cultural Marxist" meme as used by the right is to allow you to call people communists even if they are talking about racial equality and not violently seizing the means of production. Similarly "Bio-Leninism", which is a favourite of MAGA-friendly Motteposters.
But the question "Are left-wing authoritarian wokists communist?" is fundamentally irrelevant - it is an argument about the definition of a defeated ideology. It is no more useful than the question "Are right-wing authoritarian MAGA supporters fascist?" If you abstract out the meaning of controversial words and try to answer questions about the real world, the key questions are "Was there ever a real threat of a left-wing authoritarian woke takeover that would justify a right-wing authoritarian response?" (MAGA think the answer to this one is "Yes", and appear to do so sincerely) and "Is there a real threat of a right-wing authoritarian takeover under the Trump-Miller administration?" (The fact that Trump, Miller, and their supporters in the country all think that the answer to the first question is "Yes" is a large part of why the answer to the second question is "Yes")
"I love Hitler" seems about as literal Nazi as possible. If that is not "proof of Bad Nazi" to you, what is?
And it's not just "leftists", the Republican governor of Vermont has also joined in condemning the group chat. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5556112-vermont-gov-scott-calls-state-senator-resign-gop-group-chat/
Or maybe the group chat's commentary about the pressure they feel to never publicly disagree with the leader or else they get labeled RINOs is true, and "leftists" just includes Governor Scott and Elise Stefanik as exiles who spoke up against the tribe.
More options
Context Copy link