Seems reductive.
Because they don’t know what words mean they just know if it makes them feel good or bad based on who it’s directed at.
Why do conservatives define being fascist solely as "being violent?"
Submitted 6 months ago by Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 6 months ago
DarkFuture@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Because they’re literal fascists, by definition, and are trying to convince others that they are not.
Fascists always attempt to change the definition of words to suit their narrative.
Don’t let them.
queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
Because they’re fascists.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
Because it suits them to. That is really all there is to it. “Fascism” got such a universally bad name, that even (almost all) fascists dont want yo call themselves such. Instead, they try to use this negatively associated word to describe the people fighting against them.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Fascism is about killing as many people you don’t like as possible and lying about everything while doing. You are all the good things and your enemies are all the bad things. There is no value in truth or rationality.
Good luck.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There are two things you should read.
The Authoritarians by Dr. Bob Altemeyer
To summarize, they do not use any genuine definition of fascism or any other word they wield as a pejorative. Words are weapons that mean whatever they want them to mean. At the same time, the fascist/authoritarian control scheme requires the nurturing of a fear of violence. This fear is irrational, but at the cycle continues and escalates to real violence - particularly among radicalized rightists - it is used to reinforce the fears, which are carefully directed toward the desired out-groups. For example, jews, minorities, immigrants, queer people, and “leftists.”
To summarize further, they are terrorists.
LuigiMaoFrance@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
Because conservatives don’t argue in good faith and at this point the only way you should communicate with them is with bricks
Treczoks@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They need an arbitrary definition of separation, because otherwise they would easily be put in one pot.
MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Self sitting convenience.
MisterOwl@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Because, to put it mildly, they lack intelligence.
lovely_reader@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The people at the bottom, yes, probably. But it bears mentioning that the world’s simpletons are just repeating rhetoric that was carefully engineered and fed to them by powerful people who are smart enough to know it’ll make them more powerful.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Possibly more precisely:
Self-Awareness.
masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Firstly - there is no workable “definition” of fascism that’s remotely useful. Not yet, anyway. It probably has something to do with the fact that fascism isn’t so much an ideology but more a function within the modern liberal nation state - ie, the people who perform the violent repression for the benefit of the rich elites at the top. Sometimes, the elites become so frightened that they will literally hand the very state over to these people in it’s entirety - as happened in Germany and Italy (and other places).
Secondly - these people calling themselves “conservatives” and/or “libertarians” don’t actually care much about labels. The fact that they actually call themselves “conservatives” (essentially a dead ideology they wouldn’t recognise if it bit them on their behinds) and “libertarians” (a term that originally described anarchist and other libertarian socialists) without having the foggiest clue what those terms really mean is a clue. The only thing they understand is that it’s a term they can throw at any people pushing back against their vile (and often fascist or fascist-adjacent) narratives.
That’s pretty much it.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 6 months ago
there is no workable “definition” of fascism that’s remotely useful.
Untrue. It has been described and defined in great detail.
masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Umberto Eco never managed to “define” fascism, Clyde.
He only provided a list of characteristics of (what he termed) “ur-fascism” - what I’d call “secondary fascism” (ie, the violent re-enforcement of the status quo in the imperial core using methods and justifications pioneered in the colonised world).
Here is what he said himself -
“These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism.”
Ie… no workable definition of fascism.
Okay?
Doomsider@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There has been a shinning example of Fascism in the US since it’s creation. From genociding the Native Americans to over throwing countless democracies and installing fascist states.
Sure the founding fathers existed before fascism was envisioned, but they did real good checking off every box. We will call them the proto-fascists, they helped guide the creation of the most destructive fascist nation ever. The kind of nation that nurtured the Nazi movement after creating the the perfect storm by walking away from the aftermath of WWI.
The kind of nation that purged all its left wing back during the McCarthyism Era. A nation whose military complex is bigger and stronger than the rest of the world combined. A country created by the wealthy for the wealthy embracing the corruption of greed from the start to the end.
masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
There has been a shinning example of Fascism in the US since it’s creation.
Yes. Mussolini didn’t invent it… he just gave it a convenient name for us to use. What we call “fascism” today was birthed by colonialist brutality long before it’s vicious logic was applied to the populations of the newly-minted imperial core.
This is why all the (so-called) “definitions” of fascism offered by liberals is so risible - they conveniently forget about fascism’s intimate links with imperialism (and therefore liberalism - the preferred ideology of colonisers) and merely try to write it off as some “aberration” of otherwise “perfect” western civilisation.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Excuse me. If they a re not conservative what are they?
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
They’re conservatives. Regardless of what the word may have used to mean, it means this now. No matter how much people want that to not be true.
masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
If they a re not conservative what are they?
What they are in reality is an extremist, fundamentalist and far-right strain of liberal. Liberalism has always really just been the fig-leaf ideology behind which capitalism hides… but these people calling themselves “conservatives” are really just capitalists that don’t see the need to bother with a fig-leaf at all. Simply consider the behaviour of people like Trump, Musk and all the other billionaires that barely hide their contempt for the working class. They are not true fascists, but I don’t see a problem with people calling them that - they certainly would like to be true fascists but lack the connection to the working class to actually do that like Hitler or Mussolini did. They are just extremely spoilt rich people living in bubbles of privilege… unlike the fascists of old.
Conservatism itself is essentially a dead ideology - the conservatives of Abraham Lincoln’s time would sound like radical leftists in comparison to the people using that label today.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 months ago
they don’t care about the meanings of words, they only care about “winning” the conversation
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
They don’t. They play the victim a lot more ways than that.
For example: you don’t go to church. They think “Christian values are under attack.” You argue for civil rights. “The right of the White Man is under attack.” Shit like that. And they will call you a fascist, a socialist, a communist, everything but what you are, which is a nonconformist, for not doing exactly what they want you to do.
A conservative, by the simplest definition, is one who opposes change for the sake of change. The ideal of “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” The problem is, while the system may not be broken for them (WASP), it needs work for people of colour, the LGBTQ+, Palestinians, and more. But they don’t want a world that works for the rest of us. They just want to maintain the status quo. A lot of them have much more complicated feelings and opinions than that, but that’s basically conservatism in a nutshell. Not extreme. Unfortunately very few conservatives are basic conservatives anymore.
4grams@awful.systems 6 months ago
which is a nonconformist
Thank you for this, it puts it in terms that make a lot of sense. This really helps explain a phenomenon I see so often. I know a few folks who are certainly not pro-trump, but are very anti-political. I’ve been told that I need to shut up, and things would be fine once the next election rolls around.
These folks might not like what’s happening, but they are fine conforming to it.
Maybe it’s a me problem, but I think it’s going to take a little more work than the bare minimum.
Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Nah the goalposts move whenever proof is received
Iceblade02@lemmy.world 6 months ago
False question fallacy.
Conservatives don’t solely define fascists as “being violent”, at least in my country.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
I see it all the time. “A leftist was Vicente? See I told you they were fascist.”
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 6 months ago
Got any examples? Never seen any conservatives say that.
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
I find it funny how this question is being asked on Lemmy of all places, where the definition of fascism has been completely lost (essentially now being some vague notion of right-wing evil)
Bristlecone@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Because conservatives are stupid
52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 6 months ago
Instead of demonizing a class of person, perhaps you should select someone’s writing or speech and then make an argument about something someone actually said. Even better if you turn it into a conversation with two way discourse. Your question just alienates others.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
You really dont have a problem with me honestly. You have a problem with the site format and moderation choices.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 6 months ago
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They define every single thing as what they need it to mean that day. or hour. or minute. Religions vary wildly from the same religious texts.
There’s no overall logic. Just lie as they go along, and see what catches. It’s exactly how con-men work.
Zier@fedia.io 6 months ago
Conservatives love violence and guns.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They didn’t become conservatives to understand things…
Zexks@lemmy.world 6 months ago
A core tenant of conservatism is extreme lack of education so…
sad_detective_man@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
so this is actually really interesting to me. it’s a willful ignorance that’s produced by their lifestyle but also their religion. killing people through legislation, depriving food/medicine, or with epidemics is a loophole that to them meets the requirements of “not physically attacking” someone.
so they active choose not to believe any education they are given about how violence was done in the past or how it transcends physical accost. also when faced it undeniable violence, they can project the supernatural onto it and distance themselves from any sort of introspection.
just as a thought expirament, empty yourself of any preconceptions and simply observe what they do with this young Utah man. there’s a routine that everyone needs to observe them doing if you’re not caught up to speed on how they work.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
Why do you accept it at face value when fascists try to call themselves “conservative” instead, when they’re anything but?
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Because they control the conservative party and conserative spaces. They are still slightly against being called fascist.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
There hasn’t been a conservative party in this millennium. Twenty years ago there were some conservatives in the right-wing party, today they’ve been purged.
IDK what you mean by “conservative spaces”.
ileftreddit@piefed.social 6 months ago
When one party is openly advocating for civil war, and killing their opposition, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO BE DEALT VIOLENCE
kelpie_returns@lemmy.world 6 months ago
[deleted]Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Sorry bro, we were doomed the second 2024 results came in. Would love to be proven wrong.
drzoidberg@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They are stupid.
BurgerBaron@piefed.social 6 months ago
Bad faith, nothing they say can be believed at face value, despite that being exactly what mass media trains people to do.
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Because they don’t want to admit that they’re fascists, so they leave out all the characteristics that would confirm that they are.
obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
They don’t. Any time a Democrat exercises the slightest bit of executive authority they scream fascism
They know the difference. They just play ignorant when it’s convenient.
Tucker calls Obama a fascist
Biden got it from JD Vance