Anonymous #1 10w

Meant to post under my emoji this is lazy_eye

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Kinda, where I’m from in a republican area progressive means you’re more left than a liberal (like a super woke person). On here it means like a vaguely socialist/populist person or something. I feel like the terms aren’t that far. Also “advancement” usually just means “better”to most people so ofc people are gonna think their ideology is an advancement otherwise they wouldn’t believe in it.

-4

Anonymous #1 10w

I’m mainly talking about terms like capitalist, socialist, leftist, nazi , racist. Usually it’s the more morally loaded or ideologically loaded terms that people try to claim.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

Times are divisive for sure, but I don’t think we can automatically assume the rise of fascism is impossible in this country. A lot of people use terms for fascist that aren’t that exact word because they aren’t entirely educated on what the terms mean. Regardless they are against the very clear rise of fascism and ethnic nationalism in the United States and just need to learn the proper terms if they want to make their arguments heard

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I don’t think it’s impossible I would for sure describe the current admin as fascist. But some people say Obama was fascist or this country was always inherently fascist or fascism is just when the government is big. I’m not saying people should never use these term I’m just tired of the constant abuse of semantics. I also just think it’s a sign that we’re having a bigger matter of fact disagreement in our society.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

I mean the arguments against Obama is that he locked kids in cages and drone strikes the Middle East while passing a republican healthcare bill, when he ran on change

1

Anonymous #1 10w

And this sounds dramatic but I think there’s some truth to it. A form of manipulation in cults is coming up with unique vocabulary that people outside of the cult don’t understand. I feel like there’s media figures who do this exact thing especially in maga but I don’t think the far left is immune.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Facist no but I mean it’s just used as inflammatory language atp not the actual definition

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Is fascism when you run on Republican healthcare? Is that rlly what fascism is? If you want to say Obama was more right wing than you or was too moderate just say that. Why co-opt a morally loaded term? Well I know why it’s bc you want to relate Obama to something society already agrees is bad. It’s not that we seriously believe Obama was a fascist.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Yeah I don’t think it’s good to morally load things like that. I think that’s bad for society I think we should agree on terms instead of trying to make very political opponent hitler so we can justify anything against them.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

I’m not saying he’s a facist, I’m saying the criticisms of Obama I have but some people just get to lost in the sauce with definitions. Obama piece of shit yes, facist no

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

The argument stems from the analysis that neoliberalism and/or extreme centrism has led to the rise of fascism. There is very real academic and historical basis to back this up and how liberalism inevitably leads to some form of imperialism but the establishment doesn’t want to address how it’s assisted in heinous crimes like bombings on weddings and directly involving the US in a genocide

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Sure I think that’s a fine take. I wish everyone would just say they think Obama was morally wrong instead of fascist even though I obviously disagree.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

With both

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Like I’m agreeing with one here, there’s reactionaries on both sides, people see similarities between America or politicians and actual facists. And just call it facist while it may not be by definition

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

You don’t think it was morally wrong for someone running on change and progress to lock immigrant children in cages and drone strike the Middle East?

1

Anonymous #1 10w

That entire ramble didn’t have a lot of substance. It feels like we’re just playing a game to see how many morally loaded words we can link to whatever political movement we dislike. I would be more interested if people were more focused on articulating what they disagreed with rather than trying to link what they dislike to whatever terms.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

Wdym when you constantly concede and compromise with the right wing party it leads to more right wing countries

1

Anonymous #2 10w

No I don’t think it’s inherently wrong to do surgical drone strikes. They’re better (progress) than a large scale ground invasions which is what the U.S. was doing before. Having holding centers for a large influx of unaccompanied minors is better than just letting them be unaccompanied. Ig maybe he shouldn’t have used chain link fences the optics of that aren’t the best.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

Was bombing weddings and assisting in a genocide not enough? Enabling the empowerment of money in politics? The legal bribery of politicians that led to the overlooking of atrocious sex crimes? Liberals are just as complicit as conservatives in the appalling things that have happened in this country because of their strict adherence to the “system” and the “status quo.” There’s a reason no real justice has yet been served to the perpetrators involved with Epstein (like the literal president)

1

Anonymous #2 10w

In a democracy you’re supposed to compromise with the side you disagree with. That doesn’t mean every compromise is good or ok it just depends what specially you’re referencing.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

So when republican in charge do drone strikes on civilians and lock immigrants in cages it’s bad but when Obama and democrats do it it’s good?

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I don’t know what to say to another ramble of you want to talk go point by point I’m down. I’m not gonna go through a vague block of text and respond to everything. It was liberal doj that prosecuted Maxwell. George W. Bush was president during the Wech Baghtu wedding party airstrike if that’s what you’re referencing?

1

Anonymous #2 10w

That’s a cool strawman but no, what’s wrong with Trump’s asylum policy are things like purposeful family separation, remain in Mexico which destroy people’s ability to seek legitimate asylum, deporting people who are contributing to society etc. It would be kinda silly if we were all just anti chain link fences.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

What was wrong with Trump’s drone striking was lowering standards to avoid civilians making drone strikes less transparent etc. drone strikes are better than invasions or non surgical strikes.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

Yeah bro Obama drone striked civilians too

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

I’m referring to the 2013 strike of a wedding procession as reported by Human Rights Watch that happened under Obama’s administration. You’re calling semantics when I’m directly addressing what you’re saying and I’m not sure what to say to that. Trump would not have the power he has right now if we held to the principles of the Constitution but liberals insist on standing by while the integrity of elections is threatened

1

Anonymous #2 10w

That’s kinda the problem with urban unconventional warfare people hideout in populated areas. If you just let every terrorist go bc they’re next to people then that incentivizes terrorist to use civilians as shields. Even under international law some degree of civilian deaths is “acceptable” when you’re going after a legitimate military target. That doesn’t mean it’s always ok obviously.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

But again here’s another problem you have an understanding of the moral language but you didn’t even know how Trump was different than Obama. All that does is gives clearance to Trump. There’s no understanding of the policy bc no one is talking about policy we’re just throwing around terms and some truisms hoping they stick.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

I know how Trump is different than Obama I know he’s worse than Obama. But a little bit of drone striking civilians and more drone striking civilians is still drone striking civilians. That’s why I still vote Democrat while thinking they’re bad people.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I never called it semantics I was just asking for what specially you were referencing. Here’s a quote from human rights watch “Human Rights Watch found that the convoy was indeed a wedding procession that was bringing the bride and family members to the groom’s hometown. The procession also may have included members of AQAP, although it is not clear who they were or what was their fate” it seems like this was maybe bad intelligence but the reporting on this incident is all over the place.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

When have liberals not held to the principles of the constitution?

1

Anonymous #2 10w

You didn’t know that’s why you just equated the two. Are any civilian deaths in war acceptable by your standards?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

I mean yeah I don’t think any of the wars we have been in the past few decades have been necessarily so yeah all deaths are unacceptable to me.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Just perpetually bombing the Middle East for resources then becoming suprised when they hate America. Or destroy entire countries infrastructure for dare having socialist revolutions in fear of it spreading to America.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Ok that wasn’t the question. I didn’t ask if you felt like recent wars were justified I’ll ask again. Are any civilian deaths acceptable to you during war?

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Again that ramble has nothing to do with the question it’s a yes or no question.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10w

I literally said yes I believe all deaths in war are unacceptable as I don’t believe war is necessary

1

Anonymous #2 10w

So no wars ever are necessary? So ww2 was 100% unnecessary?

1