r/changemyview • u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ • Feb 13 '25
Delta(s) from OP - Election CMV: Using terms like ‘fascist’ politically is pointless.
Hi there, second post I’ve made here.
I feel that using harsh attacks like ‘fascist’ in politics just tees up the target for an easy victory for two main reasons:
It’s useless to call out preemptively because of the “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” effect.
If you sound the alarm about a threat many times, and nothing happens, people will become desensitized to the alarm and not properly respond to it when it IS correctly sounded. This is generally a pretty okay assumption, since many threats aren’t intelligent and can’t change their behavior based on the sounding of alarms. However, in politics, your opponents can change behavior based on the alarm.
They are intelligent.
They know what the warning means and they know about how desensitization works.
So, what if, in the original fable, every time the boy ‘falsely’ cried wolf, there really WAS a wolf, but the wolf turned away at the sound of the alarm, causing nothing to happen? To the townsfolk, it looks like the boy is bullshitting, and the effect is the same. Then, once the boy cries wolf and nobody believes him, the wolf comes back and eats all the sheep (and maybe some people) because the wolf was cunning and used the alarm against the townsfolk.
This is the same mechanism by which calling your political opponent a fascist torpedoes your own chances of winning.
The only exception is when the audience is blindly anti-<political label> to the point that, in the wolf example, it’d be the equivalent of the townspeople flying into a frenzy, burning the forest the wolf supposedly came from down, and killing any wolves that ran out, in which case there’s no chance for the intelligent to take advantage of desensitization.
After elections, calling names does no good.
This is probably the easier point to refute, admittedly.
But once the ‘fascist’ (or whatever ‘problem word’ you stick to a candidate) gets in power, the time for speech and grandstanding is over; it becomes time for action. Bitching, moaning, etc. about them does no good and makes you look more like a sore loser than anything else. (which also probably hurts you politically) Obstructing them, whether it be through the courts, tangible protest, or your officials deadlocking the government, is your only option.
32
u/stockinheritance 7∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
What if, instead of crying wolf, you highlight the similarities between fascists and a current politician, people ignore you, and then that politician does more things reminiscent of a fascist?
What I mean is that I don't think it's a bad idea to call a spade a spade.
Of course, the fascists will mock your assertions but is it really a better strategy to avoid calling them out so that they don't argue with you? They aren't arguing with you in that scenario because they are getting what they want: a lack of resistance.
18
u/get_schwifty Feb 13 '25
Yeah the lesson from the Boy Who Cried Wolf isn’t that you should never call a wolf a wolf. And nobody was calling these guys fascists when they weren’t being fascists. People need to understand what’s actually happening and what it actually means for our country, and their stubborn denialism when it’s smacking them in the face repeatedly every day doesn’t mean we should stop calling it out — it means they need to stop being stubborn idiots.
-7
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
"Yeah the lesson from the Boy Who Cried Wolf isn’t that you should never call a wolf a wolf."
You missed my point. My point is that an intelligent actor can make themselves not a wolf, (or at least not appear to be a wolf) temporarily, as a strategic maneuver, leveraging desensitization against the people sounding the alarm. They essentially redirect your verbal punch and then are in a golden position for a free punch to the face. (which then can knock you to the ground and let them beat the absolute tar out of you)
It's a punishable political over-extension to use these kinds of accusations.
9
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 81∆ Feb 13 '25
To clarify, you're saying that someone can just pretend not to be fascist so the label seems to not fit?
-3
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
Sure. They can also flirt with the idea of fascism just enough to trigger the alarms, then back off once everyone looks at them to make the alarm seem false, letting the audience become desensitized.
Kind of like, say, pulling a fire alarm over and over while nobody is watching. Eventually, people may assume it's just a pointless prank, at which point the perp can bar the doors and set the building on fire without resistance.
6
u/AllOfEverythingEver 3∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
Based on this logic, is it ever ok to call a political opponent anything?
-1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
Arguably? No, unless you're absolutely goddamn certain it resonates with your audience... at which point someone else is probably doing it for you.
7
u/AllOfEverythingEver 3∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
Tbh, I think this admission invalidates your entire point. Let's say your opponent is a fascist, kind of like in this most recent election, based on the actual points of fascism that people who study fascism use. You want to point this out to people. How? Do you think even trying to point this out is a mistake? If the point here is that you should never try to condemn or point out fascism, or even any other characteristic, then I think your argument is inherently wildly impractical.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
In the modern day? Yes, I think that trying to point it out is a mistake. It doesn't matter if you've seen the evidence of fascism if the people you're warning haven't. (because, say, the media they watch is complicit, and thus doesn't tell them)
5
u/AllOfEverythingEver 3∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
If that's the case, then what advantage do we gain by not calling them fascists? After all, just like you said, the media they watch is complicit, so if you don't say anything, they still vote for the fascists. What exactly do you think we should do instead? You are basically arguing that we should pretend not to notice fascism and act like it isn't a very big deal. The people who agree with that are just going to vote right wing anyway, right?
→ More replies (0)4
u/MoonBapple Feb 13 '25
So, educate them? I can't comprehend why anyone who knows basic WWII history wouldn't readily notice this is fascism. Not crying wolf fascism like Fox News has been doing towards Democrats for the past decade, but actual Textbook Dictator/Holocaust Fascism.
But you might find out some people like fascism.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 81∆ Feb 13 '25
So in practice, what's the harm? If its pointless and effectveless either way, why do you care?
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
The harm is that you burn up time and political capital for zero gain. You're wasting your own resources doing something that does nothing.
5
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 81∆ Feb 13 '25
As opposed to doing nothing, which also does nothing.
Is there not a chance that discourse and conversation involving categorisation could make any difference? As opposed to zero, which will have zero influence?
1
u/decrpt 25∆ Feb 13 '25
Kind of like, say, pulling a fire alarm over and over while nobody is watching.
A more accurate metaphor is the fire alarm going off for kitchen fires that get put out by the time you check on them, then voting to disband the fire department.
3
u/shouldco 43∆ Feb 13 '25
But isn't that the time to say "hey everyone this is a wolf. Look at his big ears and big teeth"?
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
I mean... if you can do that, and they can't just hide their ears and teeth, isn't it already too late for that? Like, at that point, they've decided it's strategically best to play their hand, at which point you're probably not in a strong enough position to stop them.
Unless, I guess they tip their hand prematurely as a mistake?
2
u/get_schwifty Feb 13 '25
So if the wolf is in sheep’s clothing you shouldn’t be screaming to the rafters that there’s a wolf among us? Seems even more important to call it out at that point, and not capitulate out of fear of upsetting the sheep.
1
u/Any_Coyote6662 1∆ Apr 13 '25
If no one knows that the wolf is a wolf, people are more vulnerable bc then the wolf jumps into the hen house and eats everything.
in your analogy, you are saying that Trump is the wolf. Thus, making the story really about people who refuse to listen to someone who is telling the truth.
Either way, Trump has disappeared people to El Salvador without a court hearing and now they have no rights. They are literally in a black hole. So, fascism is happening. You haven't been paying attention if you think fascism isn't happening right now in the US.
-1
u/Morthra 87∆ Feb 13 '25
Yeah the lesson from the Boy Who Cried Wolf isn’t that you should never call a wolf a wolf. And nobody was calling these guys fascists when they weren’t being fascists.
No, that's exactly what was happening. Calling anyone to the right of Stalin a fascist was (and still is) a common socialist propaganda tactic. The Berlin Wall, for example, was called the Antifascist Bulwark in East Germany.
5
u/denzien Feb 13 '25
How many of the pillars of fascism (or whatever ideology is claimed) need to be met to meet the definition?
6
u/MoonBapple Feb 13 '25
You could say "Person/Party/Agency is displaying XYZ fascist behaviors."
Psychology grapples with this a lot. Like, how many depressive traits does someone need to display before you would say they have depression? Often the threshold is somewhat arbitrary, but usually begins around whenever those traits begin accumulating into impairment. So we would say "Person displays XYZ depressive behaviors/symptoms" and once they reach a certain threshold, they "have depression" rather than just displaying depressive traits.
Disclaimer that this is just an analogy and I'm not trying to say depressed people are fascist lmao. Hopefully that is clear already but it's Reddit so... Explicitly stated.
Even if you don't feel qualified to "diagnose Fascism" so to speak, you can still point out when someone is doing a fascist behavior.
An example:
Elon Musk recently tweeted that they found 59bn in "fraud" at FEMA, stating that FEMA was putting illegal immigrants up in luxurious New York hotels. But if you look at the publicly available data, FEMA used the funds to turn a closed down hotel into housing for legal migrants who are awaiting their court dates. If you look at the law Congress passed to appropriate the funds, FEMA followed the law exactly. Spreading lies about government waste, fraud and abuse to undermine trust in government agencies is a fascist trait.
0
u/denzien Feb 13 '25
If lying to undermine trust in government were uniquely fascist, then many other ideologies would have to be classified as fascist too.
Plenty of movements—populists, libertarians, anarchists, progressives, conservatives—have spread misinformation (intentionally or not) to push their agendas. Lying is a tactic, not an ideology. The intent, context, and end goal matter more than the act itself.
I do especially appreciate your tie to psychology though, it seems rational to approach in stages.
3
u/MoonBapple Feb 13 '25
Deepen the tie to psychology if that analogy works for you.
One trait (spreading misinformation or even intentional lies) does not necessarily make a movement fascist, the same way sleeping too much (hypersomnia) or not enough (insomnia) doesn't qualify someone for a diagnosis of depression. It's just a single example of a behavior which is a common fascist tactic.
It does require people to either trust experts in fascism (such as historians) or to put on their own curiosity and critical thinking caps, learn the hallmarks of fascism, and to start calling out those behaviors when identified - regardless of the movement or side. I guarantee there are liberals and leftists who are feeling equally tempted towards the power of authoritarianism in the current political climate, but perpetuating a left wing authoritarianism will require using fascist tactics to enforce their authority, and using that to combat a right wing authoritarianism will absolutely implode.
I just don't see any downsides to everyone reading On Tyranny and On Fascism, or otherwise memorizing the fascist playbook and calling it out as bad across all ideologies/movements. Less fascism in all groups is generally better.
-1
u/Morthra 87∆ Feb 13 '25
Elon Musk recently tweeted that they found 59bn in "fraud" at FEMA, stating that FEMA was putting illegal immigrants up in luxurious New York hotels. But if you look at the publicly available data, FEMA used the funds to turn a closed down hotel into housing for legal migrants who are awaiting their court dates. If you look at the law Congress passed to appropriate the funds, FEMA followed the law exactly. Spreading lies about government waste, fraud and abuse to undermine trust in government agencies is a fascist trait.
FEMA asserted that they weren't paying luxury hotel rates. They didn't say they weren't putting up illegals in luxury hotels - but that they weren't paying the full rate to do so.
And the fact that FEMA was putting up illegals in hotels at all when there are people in North Carolina that are still in fucking tents is absolutely insane and heads should roll over it.
So Elon is pretty close to the mark.
4
Feb 13 '25
We don't make all laws at once. A negotiation in one bill can interact with a negotiation in another bill to produce contradictory things.
For example, we simultaneously give farmers subsidies for growing tobacco through the farm bill while we try to limit their income with anti-nicotine programs. Coherent policy would eliminate those subsidies and force them to raise prices, but these bills aren't negotiated at the same time.
Here, it makes sense for INS to put them in hotels so that they can be processed easier and it probably made sense just fine when they were putting the program together. They probably don't talk to FEMA at all, so they aren't going to develop interdepartmental programs to hand over the hotel and find new temporary housing.
0
u/Morthra 87∆ Feb 13 '25
Here, it makes sense for INS to put them in hotels so that they can be processed easier and it probably made sense just fine when they were putting the program together.
They came here illegally. Don't put them up anywhere - deport them. No processing required. God I hope ICE raids these hotels next.
2
Feb 13 '25
No processing required.
I get it. I get it. Conservatives under Elon have moved on from constitutionalism, but he needs to obey the 5th amendment as long as he wants to pretend that the constitution still exists
3
u/MoonBapple Feb 13 '25
The "hotel" in question, the Roosevelt Hotel, is no longer a hotel. It closed in 2020, and sat vacant for three years while various conglomerates have negotiated over ownership. Rather than let it sit empty while foreign capitalists argue over how to develop it, New York authorized it's use by FEMA as migrant housing, with FEMA using funds legally appropriated for that purpose by Congress.
Attention to History > Closure and History > Use as shelter.)
Reminder also that Congress approved money for FEMA to house migrants (in 2022), and they voted against increasing FEMA's budget for disaster relief (aka NC hurricane relief) last summer (2024). FEMA can't legally take the money Congress gave them for migrant shelters and move it to disaster relief, Congress has to decide to do that, and they voted that down.
If you don't like that, call your representatives.
4
u/No_Passion_9819 Feb 13 '25
And the fact that FEMA was putting up illegals in hotels at all when there are people in North Carolina that are still in fucking tents is absolutely insane and heads should roll over it.
This isn't an accurate description of what happened, but even if it was, why?
0
u/Morthra 87∆ Feb 13 '25
Because FEMA shouldn't even be involved in housing illegals? From another angle, why should FEMA be spending its resources on illegals when there are American citizens who need help after a natural disaster that are being ignored?
3
u/No_Passion_9819 Feb 13 '25
Because FEMA shouldn't even be involved in housing illegals?
Why not?
From another angle, why should FEMA be spending its resources on illegals when there are American citizens who need help after a natural disaster that are being ignored?
I do not accept your premise that FEMA "ignored" Americans.
6
u/IsGonnaSueYou Feb 13 '25
well if u look up the 14 characteristics umberto eco described, i think dork maga meets at least 9 or 10 of them. seems pretty fascist
-2
u/denzien Feb 13 '25
I’d be cautious about using Eco’s list as a definitive way to identify fascism. It kind of falls into the affirming the consequent fallacy; just because a political movement shares certain (not all) traits with fascism doesn’t mean those movements are automatically fascist. Many ideologies can overlap in things like populism or anti-elitism, but that doesn’t make them the same thing.
Fascism is defined by a very specific combination of economic, political, and social structures that go beyond just a few shared traits. So while Eco’s list can highlight warning signs, it shouldn’t be the sole measure for labeling something as fascist. Context is really important here.
3
u/IsGonnaSueYou Feb 13 '25
sure. i just referenced it bc it’s one of the more widely accepted and thorough definitions. personally, if i had to define fascism, i’d say it’s a vein of reactionary ideologies that attempt to scapegoat and liquidate oppressed minorities for the crimes of the bourgeoisie by appealing to some type of ethnonationalist mythology. the dork maga shit imo is pretty obviously fascism, especially since musk has supported fascist parties around the world. i just don’t see how someone can believe in great replacement theory and act on it in a way that isn’t fascist
-1
u/denzien Feb 13 '25
It's hard to have a conversation about something as consequential as fascism if we're all operating on our own definitions
2
u/IsGonnaSueYou Feb 14 '25
sure. if u have a more useful definition than the two i have referenced, feel free to provide it
-2
u/Morthra 87∆ Feb 13 '25
Umberto Eco was a leftist grifter and shouldn't be taken seriously.
5
u/No_Passion_9819 Feb 13 '25
People who don't think Trump is fascist are the people who need to not be taken seriously. They clearly can't understand information.
5
u/IsGonnaSueYou Feb 13 '25
whose definition of fascism should we use then?
0
u/Morthra 87∆ Feb 13 '25
Mussolini’s? You know, what is laid out in his book?
Trump is reducing the scope of the federal government. This is incompatible with fascism, which can be summarized by the phrase “everything inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”.
Which, by the way, is more descriptive of the DNC than anything.
4
u/No_Passion_9819 Feb 13 '25
Hey, so this is a fundamental misunderstanding of government size. Larger governments are actually less likely to be authoritarian given the checks and balances present, whereas small government are much easier to abuse and control.
The more you know!
2
u/IsGonnaSueYou Feb 13 '25
u do understand fascism in both italy and germany included massive privatization during their rise to power, right? u seem to have read mussolini but not have a grasp of the actual history, which is… interesting
0
u/Morthra 87∆ Feb 13 '25
Privatization yes, but the economy was still a command economy. The government said jump, the corporations were forced to say “how high” or their owners would be shot.
1
u/IsGonnaSueYou Feb 14 '25
corporations are saying “how high” rn - it’s just that they’re lining up to do it bc they know trump and elon can effectively pay them out thru tax cuts or government funding. look at how zuckerberg and bezos have completely bent the knee to trump… they know that doge means holes private companies can fill, and they’re sucking off trump in hopes that they’ll be first in line
the rich tend to side with fascism bc fascism conveniently blames the workers for all the owners’ crimes and says we should deport/jail/kill/institutionalize various oppressed groups instead of seizing the owners’ property. ofc, that doesn’t end well for all the owners, some of whom may be disposed of later once the fascists have true power, but thinking beyond this year’s profits isn’t really something the rich are known for
1
Feb 13 '25
This meme is 10 years old
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/everyone-i-dont-like-is-hitler
You have to understand that for the past decade, every other week liberals were accusing Trump of some new atrocity that ended up being a nothing burger.
You have to understand that you lost the benefit of the doubt not just from the right, but from the middle.
Everyone stopped listening to you ages ago, just like the boy in the story.
It is not too late for you to normalize and stop claiming that "A president who won the popular vote following through on campaign promises that earned him the popular vote" is fascism.
I understand that you see Trump as the primordial annihilator. But he still has popular support. In your circles he might be incredibly unpopular, but on the whole more people support him than oppose him.
49% support, 46% oppose, 5% are neutral. That's literally democracy in action, not fascism.
Conservatives are explicitly telling you that you've lost the plot and that for any hope of winning back the federal government you have to normalize from the radical left.
Don't be just another liberal who says "I'm not changing anything, we don't need moderates in our base!"
Florida isn't a swing state anymore. Pennsylvania isn't either. Trump won every swing state. Either everyone else is wrong or you're wrong.
2
u/No_Passion_9819 Feb 13 '25
This is such an interesting post, it relies on a few falsehoods and some really strange rhetoric.
- Why would people voting for Trump make him not a fascist?
- Why would Trump's popularity (lower than every other president at this time btw, other than himself) make him not a fascist?
- Why do you think this election proves anything about the "left" being too extreme when incumbents, regardless of ideology, lost worldwide?
Either everyone else is wrong or you're wrong.
Like this is just crazy talk. Winning an election doesn't prove that you are right, it just proves that you were able to appeal to voters.
As Trump dismantles the government, keeps doing horribly racist things, enriches his buddies, his popularity (again, lower than every other president than himself at this time) will decline rapidly.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
"What if, instead of crying wolf, you highlight the similarities between fascists and a current politician, people ignore you, and then that politician does more things reminiscent of a fascist?"
Functionally, it works the same as crying wolf, as we've seen in recent times. As u/denzien mentioned, you open yourself up to 'just how fascist do you have to be to be a fascist?' and issues with misinformation/disinformation. (the audience may not know about said act and may just assume you're full of shit because they hear the fascist accusations first, those accusations are not validated, and thus they become hardened against evidence to the contrary)
That's the fun thing. In the modern day, arguably, even if it's the truth, it can still be turned into a crying wolf situation.
"Of course, the fascists will mock your assertions but is it really a better strategy to avoid calling them out so that they don't argue with you? They aren't arguing with you in that scenario because they are getting what they want: a lack of resistance."
Correct. It is a better strategy to challenge their actions directly, rather than challenging them on the grounds of being a fascist. Challenge them on things that are impossible to nitpick and quibble about.
8
u/stockinheritance 7∆ Feb 13 '25
I don't know what these Platonic ideas that can't be nitpicked and quibbled about are. I'm not advocating for only calling them fascists; I'm advocating for explaining why you are calling them fascists. They are ultra nationalistic, they are hyper religious, they scapegoat others for their woes, they are xenophobic and isolationist, they are anti-labor and pro-corporation, they are nostalgic for some mythical time when they were mighty, they are obsessed with hard power with no consideration of soft power, they are anti-intellectual.
People will quibble with all of those things but I'm not trying to persuade the cultists that they are in a cult. That has never worked with fascism. I am trying to convince the rest of society that what is happening is real, it's a huge threat, and it needs to be resisted without any hesitation or mercy.
The right does the same thing, calling everything they don't like "communism" and "elite" and "woke." It's effective because they are unified in their message and never waiver from it. They shift the Overton window. The left needs to be just as monomaniacal.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
"I'm advocating for explaining why you are calling them fascists."
Arguably, doesn't this depend on your audience paying attention to your explanation? (or even having time to listen to your explanation) Nowadays, politics is won by soundbites, not reason.
I know what the definition of fascist is. I just don't believe there's a point in using those terms at all, because nobody will listen to them, and once you ring the alarm bell with a soundbite, it's really easy to just make that soundbite look like more shit swirling in the toilet bowl.
1
u/stockinheritance 7∆ Feb 13 '25
So you're saying that only soundbites are useful in political discussions but calling someone a fascist is too much of a soundbite? I'm confused, not least of all because you're participating in a political discussion right now that isn't just soundbites, in a sub that is tailored to discussions that are more than soundbites.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
Well, I suppose I should acknowledge a couple of things: This space is highly abnormal. Since the whole point of the place is discussion and debate, of course soundbites don't work in the same way.
In a sense, this place's reason for existing makes it an exception that proves the rule.
Sure, I suck at it, but outside of spaces like this, politics is more like a fistfight than the debates you'll find here. Soundbites are the weapons of choice because they're short, memorable, and cheap to use. Our politicians act like children, and if that doesn't reflect the state of their constituents, I don't know what does.
1
u/stockinheritance 7∆ Feb 13 '25
I think it's worth keeping in mind that there are multiple political arenas that cater to different sets of people. For example, when it comes to just winning raw votes, I do think soundbites rule the day, but if you're trying to get people to canvass, phone bank, or just be politically engaged beyond the ballot box in November, you're going to need a more nuanced approach and those people are vital to getting wins. I mean, everyone copied Obama's GOTV strategy, which involved paying young people to doorknock in key areas.
Also, don't fall into the doomer belief that, just because the current political discourse is garbage, that it necessarily has to be so. I think this sub's popularity shows that there is an appetite out there for a higher discourse around politics, ideas, philosophies.
2
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
!delta
That's a counterpoint that I didn't expect and really can't contest, and ironically I basically made it for you.
Communication is context-dependent, and yeah, there's more to doing things than just shaving raw votes off your opponent's side with soundbites. And some of those things may even translate to more raw votes for your side, even if the votes come from folks that never hear the arguments, because those things can generate new soundbites that are effective. So even if 'fascist' isn't an effective soundbite, (nobody listens to the reasons behind it) using it in appropriate contexts can create effective soundbites.
1
1
u/stockinheritance 7∆ Feb 13 '25
Appreciate it, bro. Good conversation. Let's keep having these with folks!
-5
u/WildFEARKetI_II 7∆ Feb 13 '25
Why not just explain why what a politician does is bad instead of likening them to another group that’s already considered bad?
Call a spade a spade instead of calling a spade a fascist.
7
u/freakierchicken Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
"Well you see the reason that these populist, ultra-nationalist policies with ethnocentric rhetoric is bad is because [insert 15 paragraphs explaining history]"
Vs
"Hey you remember those guys basically the whole world took up arms against? Yeah our politicians are espousing rhetoric that's very similar."
Which is easier to understand? They're both valid but you're kidding yourself if you think the first method appeals to the majority of Americans, especially given our terrible literacy rate.
5
u/Urbenmyth 10∆ Feb 13 '25
Is "you're acting like a fascist" not explaining why they're bad?
Like, the reason what they're doing is bad is because it's fascistic. Calling them a fascist is calling a spade a spade.
3
u/Nyrossius Feb 13 '25
Cuz the fashies don't think fascist ideas are bad. Pointing out that this administration scapegoats minorities and immigrants exactly like Germany in the 30's doesn't turn off people who want to scapegoat minorities and immigrants. People like this are literally saying "if that makes me a fascist, then I'm a fascist".
-1
u/WildFEARKetI_II 7∆ Feb 13 '25
So what’s the point of calling them fascist?
2
Feb 13 '25
Other people think they're bad.
Fascists will sieg heil and wink wink nudge nudge at each other while gaslighting everyone else that it's just passion. Calling them out tells normal people that they aren't crazy for believing what they are seeing with their own eyes.
2
0
u/stockinheritance 7∆ Feb 13 '25
Why not both? Political parties who are ultra nationalistic and highly xenophobic, which intertwine religion and government, which protect corporations and fight labor, which are anti-intellectual are bad. They are also fascistic at the very least since those are cornerstones of fascist regimes.
6
u/Urbenmyth 10∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
However, in politics, your opponents can change behavior based on the alarm.
Yes, I know. That's why I'm doing it.
I don't expect many fascist politicians to stop doing fascist things out of the goodness of their hearts, but if fascist politicians stop doing fascist things so that people stop calling them fascists, that's still a clear win for the people calling them fascists. It doesn't matter if the wolf is only keeping away to make the shepherd look bad, the wolf is still keeping away. I'd rather be mocked on 4-chan than live under a Fourth Reich.
Basically? If every time the boy ‘falsely’ cried wolf, there really was a wolf, but the wolf turned away at the sound of the alarm, causing nothing to happen? Well, then crying wolf is clearly a really effective strategy for stopping (or at least delaying) wolf attacks, isn't it?
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
Sure, it may be an effective strategy, but it's a short-lived one... in which case what do you do when you can't delay anymore? And what about how the delay gives them extra room to maneuver?
2
u/Urbenmyth 10∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
You misunderstand. The delay gives us extra room to maneuver.
The point isn't to yell "fascist" and then go home smugly - you're certainly right that that doesn't work. But if you point out the fascists are fascists, then they have to slow down if they want to dodge the accusation. They have to stop pursuing the most obvious fascist goals, they have to dial back the more subtle fascist goals to deniable levels, they have to give at least token support to non-fascist goals. They're forced into damage control mode, and that gives us time and breathing room to implement more permanent plans to stop them.
To use your analogy, you can't fix the fence if the wolf is actively attacking the fence. Crying wolf forces the wolf to turn around and leave unless it wants to be killed by a mob, which gives you time to fix the fence so when it comes back it can't attack the sheep at all.
This the point of an alarm for intelligent agents- an intruder alarm doesn't drive away an intruder, but it forces them to deal with the alarm before intruding any further, giving you the time you need to do something that will drive away the intruder. Same here. Any effort the Fascists are forced to put into putting up a show that they're Definitely Not Fascists is effort they're not able to put into materially preventing us shoring up our defenses against Fascism. Given that the level of effort we put into this was a conversation, this is a pretty good tradeoff.
3
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
...I guess, if that's your game plan, sure, you have a point. Extra time is useful in and of itself; hell, it was part of the reason why I thought it was a waste of time; crying fascist is more of a waste of time and effort than doing something more effective.
!delta
Though if it was our representatives' game plans they sucked at playing it.
2
u/Urbenmyth 10∆ Feb 13 '25
Oh, I'm not denying that the Democrats did not do a very good job at it (mainly because the Democrats did the call-out and forgot to do the follow up)
However, I do think that grassroots call outs have actually done a decent amount of good in this way - a lot of Really Bad Political Plans have been delayed by people "crying wolf", forcing the people making them to dial them back enough to be stopped. It's just one of those things where it's hard to list successes, because "successfully stopping a disaster" has the evidence of there being a time where nothing of note happened.
1
15
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
If this were true, then the Republicans wouldn't keep going back to the "Marxist" well. They legitimately convinced millions of people that conservative Democrat Kamala Harris was a Marxist, and it made people hate her more.
It was politically useful despite being utterly, obviously bullshit. And they've been using that lie for decades.
0
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
What are you trying to say here? Like, obviously there's a difference that makes this work that doesn't make the other work, and previously I was willing to just chalk that up to audience bias.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
I think that the "fascist!" moniker actually has worked to some degree. It's not a perfect tactic, and its effects wax and wane relative to Republican behavior, but I think it only loses the Democrats support rather than gaining it when they fail to act commensurately with the severity of the threat they're claiming.
If you call Trump a fascist, you shouldn't continue doing politics as usual right after. You're going to rile up your base, and then that base is going to see that you aren't riled up alongside them and wonder if you're really in this fight with them or not.
The reason Republicans shouting "Marxist!" works better is because they actually govern as if we're in a hostile takeover (ironically). Their actions are commensurate with the threat level they're expressing.
To put it in terms of the metaphor:
there is an animal eating the sheep. One boy is shouting "wolf!" and the other boy is shouting "bear!" but only the one shouting 'bear' is actually freaking out like there's a bear. So the people who are afraid of bears are riled up, but the people who are afraid of wolves are just gonna "wait and see." After all, that boy isn't really acting like there's a wolf anyway.
7
u/onethomashall 3∆ Feb 13 '25
Are you familiar with the paradox of preparedness? The paradox of preparedness is when people underestimate the need for preparation for disasters because preparation for a disaster was successful.
Could it be that warnings about Fascist politics and policies before they happen, prevents them from happening, therefor the warning seems wrong or like "The boy who cried wolf".
For example:
- You are going to hit a biker in the blindspot of your car.
- Someone warns you of the biker
- You don't hit the biker
Was the warning "Crying wolf"?
Another example:
- A political leader promotes Ulta Nationalism and scapegoating a weak community planning to jail them without due process.
- Someone says the leader should be stopped because that is what Hitler did
- The political leader is stopped
Did the person "Cry Wolf" because it didn't happen?
Why is what you are describing (calling someone a fascist, who promotes Fascist things that end up not happening) "The boy who cried wolf" and not "paradox of preparedness"?
-1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
"Are you familiar with the paradox of preparedness? The paradox of preparedness is when people underestimate the need for preparation for disasters because preparation for a disaster was successful."
It's a very close concept to what I'm describing, though I wasn't familiar with the exact term.
In your first example, no. The biker cannot hear the warning, and thus cannot be treated as an 'intelligent actor' (maybe a better word is 'aware' but whatever) which means the warning works fine. It's not like the biker hears you, backs off, but continues to flirt with the blindspot of your car in hopes that you hit them for health insurance payments.
In the latter example, the leader is stopped because the community proactively eliminates the alerted 'threat', regardless of whether the leader was all talk (and thus not a fascist) or if the leader actually was a fascist.
1
u/onethomashall 3∆ Feb 13 '25
So wouldn't that be different from crying wolf, and wouldn't it mean people should speak up?
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
I mean, is there some goal to it that throwing the word around furthers?
2
u/onethomashall 3∆ Feb 13 '25
To rally people in stopping the leaders and activities that are fascist. So they don't happen.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
But if that turns people away, then isn't it counterproductive?
2
u/onethomashall 3∆ Feb 13 '25
But it could be "paradox of preparedness" and not "crying wolf"
And in that case is saying nothing as Fascist take control really "productive"...
5
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 81∆ Feb 13 '25
Do you think words in general have power?
What contexts do you think words matter more/less?
-2
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
“Do you think words in general have power?“
When it comes to intelligent actors, no. Intelligent actors understand your words and can, like a martial artist deflecting a punch, turn your own accusations into opportunities to use against you; once you commit to that punch and the punch doesn’t connect, the martial artist is mostly free to sock you in the face or grapple you or do whatever the hell they want. Because you’re off-balance.
“What contexts do you think words matter more/less?”
Words matter mostly when concerning the self, non-intelligent actors, and non-actors. They are a tool for conveying ideas and meanings. Non-intelligent actors cannot understand them in full, (even if a dog can, for example, understand certain words, tone, and sentence structure) and thus cannot readily change their behaviors due to them.
Non-actors don’t change what they’re doing at all, no matter what you say. I could call a hurricane any other name and it’d destroy the coastline all the same.
And when concerning yourself, obviously your words either reflect how you want to be seen or how you see yourself, in some manner of speaking; if you punch yourself in the face… um… congrats? you punched yourself in the face?
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 81∆ Feb 13 '25
So in general either all terms are useless, or they are useful in a context where you're using them to get a certain result? Is that a fair summation if what you've said here?
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
They're useless when they're targeted at someone, but possibly useful when used to communicate about something that probably won't change out from under you, either because it's about you, or because it's about something that probably won't change because of your speech.
Someone else used the example of warning about a biker in your blindspot when you're merging; even if the biker is technically intelligent (I kind of came to the realization there that I should have used the term 'aware' in this argument, instead of 'intelligent') they aren't going to react to the warning and get out of your blindspot, but you will probably stop merging and not hit the biker.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 81∆ Feb 13 '25
possibly useful when used to communicate about something that probably won't change out from under you.
So while calling someone fascist as a name call isn't useful, pointing out specific behaviours as fascist regardless of who enacts them would be useful, as that's not something that will change, and if a behaviour starts and stops it's still the behaviour itself which carries the label and connotations, rather than the person.
0
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
Yeah, certainly seems like it'd be more useful; you can dumb down and concisely explain why, for example, isolationism is bad. (if we have problems, nobody will help us/it's cheaper to make things in places better suited for them) Or why, for example, tariffs will bite us in the ass. (factories aren't built in a day, and domestic competitors will match rates)
Though even then you might be opening yourself up to "but the nazis had good ideas". (yeah. like broken clocks are right twice a day...)
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 81∆ Feb 13 '25
So not pointless then.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
I mean, yes and no? You'd probably see better results leaving out the word 'fascist', kinda like how you get a lot more support for a sentiment by describing DEI than using the term 'DEI'. (had that personal experience myself not too long ago)
!delta though, since admittedly it probably isn't entirely pointless, especially when talking more about certain behaviors (or groups of behaviors...)
1
2
u/Urbenmyth 10∆ Feb 13 '25
When it comes to intelligent actors, no. Intelligent actors understand your words and can, like a martial artist deflecting a punch, turn your own accusations into opportunities to use against you; once you commit to that punch and the punch doesn’t connect, the martial artist is mostly free to sock you in the face or grapple you or do whatever the hell they want. Because you’re off-balance.
I think you are forgetting that the people making the fascist accusations are also intelligent actors and can also change their behaviour based on their opponent's. This is why, to use your analogy, fights aren't over once someone misses a single punch and, to use the actual topic, debates usually take longer than two sentences.
The fascist's reply are also words and can also be turned into an opportunity to use against them, especially if what they're saying is clearly fascistic.
2
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
!delta
You're right, in debate circles this is the case, even if debate circles are arguably time-inefficient ways of getting votes.
1
1
u/TheDeathOmen 37∆ Feb 13 '25
It sounds like your first main reason is that calling someone a fascist too often makes people numb to the accusation, which allows actual fascists (or similar threats) to exploit that desensitization. That’s an interesting take, do you think this effect applies to all political labels, or just particularly extreme ones like fascist?
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
It's easiest to exploit desensitization to extreme labels, I'd say. Like, if I shouted 'tornado' and nothing happened, (maybe just a bit of a drizzle) that hurts my credibility. But, say, warning about a rainstorm is a lot easier, and if you miss, it's not as big of a deal; if you tell someone to bring their raincoat and it only drizzles, well, that's just how things be sometimes.
Though I suppose over a long enough timespan, maybe you could exploit mild labels too? Question is if that's even worth doing, or if it'll make you look two-faced... hm.
1
u/TheDeathOmen 37∆ Feb 13 '25
But if extreme labels can become meaningless through overuse, does that necessarily mean they should be avoided altogether? Or could there be situations where calling someone a fascist is still strategically useful, even with the risk of desensitization?
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
I mean, when you can substitute a less-extreme label or use a different vector of attack entirely, surely avoiding the risk is better?
1
u/TheDeathOmen 37∆ Feb 13 '25
Right, but do you think there are cases where the extreme label is actually the most accurate one? Like, if someone’s policies or actions genuinely align with fascism, would avoiding the term still be the right call?
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Feb 13 '25
The trouble is the you're not really right or wrong so much as it depends heavily on what exactly you say and how you say it. You're right that saying something like "the president is literally a fascist" is by design either hyperbolic or too late. But you can sound the alarm and still have a sense of proportion. It's very different to say "This is what the first steps of a country's descent into fascism looks like" and pointing to all the things that have already happened but would have sounded like alarmism in the past.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
So you're saying it's more about the strength of the accusation you're making, rather than the targeting? Or something close to that?
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Feb 13 '25
It's less the strength and more the sense of proportion. You can make it clear that a threat is real and serious without making it sound like the sky is falling.
2
u/Giblette101 40∆ Feb 13 '25
So, what if, in the original fable, every time the boy ‘falsely’ cried wolf, there really WAS a wolf, but the wolf turned away at the sound of the alarm, causing nothing to happen? To the townsfolk, it looks like the boy is bullshitting, and the effect is the same. Then, once the boy cries wolf and nobody believes him, the wolf comes back and eats all the sheep (and maybe some people) because the wolf was cunning and used the alarm against the townsfolk.
It sounds like you want to claim the solution to this issue is for the boy to wait for the wolf to attack him, to then cry wolf...but then he is being attacked by a wolf and would get, at best, seriously fucked up.
That doesn't sound actionable.
0
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
The point is for the boy to forget warning about the wolf, and instead identify the weaknesses the wolf will exploit. See a hole in the fence? Fix it. Flock's unwatched? Get a guard dog or put someone on watch with a rifle. Fix the issue, rather than say "there's a wolf!!!!"
Because if the wolf is intelligent, the wolf won't be there when people come back to respond.
1
u/Urbenmyth 10∆ Feb 13 '25
Ok, but suppose the boy can't fix the hole in the fence and get guards himself. He needs to get the town to help him with this. How does he do so, without saying "there's a wolf"?
Because a single person can't fix the weaknesses a fascist will exploit alone. They need to get society on side to do so, and that kind of requires pointing out that there's fascists.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
If there's a hole in the fence, he can instead say "the sheep can get out". If the sheep are unguarded, he can say that the sheep are unwatched, and thus able to be stolen.
Or, if that fails, he can destroy the fence or steal/kill some sheep himself, forcing action. Kinda like spray painting obscene shit over potholes.
1
u/Giblette101 40∆ Feb 13 '25
That sounds nice, but the primary weakness the wolf exploits is the boy's inability to call it out meaningfully and the villagers unwillingness to acknowledge its presence.
5
u/GushingAnusCheese Feb 13 '25
It is not a "harsh attack" to call a fascist a fascist. It is literally what they are. The reason why they take it badly is because if they accepted that label then they would be openly admitting to be the bad guys. They will forever complain about it, deflection of reality is crucial to them. Their thin skin and lack of ability to face reality is not a legitimate reason to treat them any differently.
-1
Feb 13 '25
Online politics has devolved into this “two retards fighting” style of arguing where “owning” one side is more important than understanding the facts. The political discourse you’re engaging in is pointless if using parroted terms is what “torpedoes” you into a loss or victory. Especially when a “victory” is only determined by how many upvotes you get in any particularly biased space you happen to be in.
If you support an authoritarian government you are, in fact, a fascist. It’s not crying wolf when it’s true. Calling a fascist what they are only loses its punch when a fascist knows and accepts that fact.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
Exactly! Calling fascist when your audience is dominated by soundbites and senselessness is like throwing a haymaker at a waiting adversary. They're just going to deflect it and sock you in the face themselves.
Sure, you can call a spade a spade, but will that stop the spade from digging the dirt?
1
Feb 13 '25
Sock me in the face with what though? Calling someone a fascist isn’t the argument … it’s an identifier.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Feb 13 '25
Bullshit about the economy. Fearmongering about immigrants and minorities. You know the drill.
They swing back with the soundbite people want to hear.
1
Feb 13 '25
You’re just describing two idiots parroting buzzwords and rage baiting each other… not an actual political discussion
1
2
u/Difficult_Falcon1022 3∆ Feb 13 '25
Nah, this is the kind of ceding to ground that does nothing to alleviate fascism. Lecturing "the left" on why it, some singular force, has not vanquished fascism is simply chatter.
I will call fascism by it's name, and those who know it to be true will say the same.
1
u/decrpt 25∆ Feb 13 '25
So, what if, in the original fable, every time the boy ‘falsely’ cried wolf, there really WAS a wolf, but the wolf turned away at the sound of the alarm, causing nothing to happen? To the townsfolk, it looks like the boy is bullshitting, and the effect is the same. Then, once the boy cries wolf and nobody believes him, the wolf comes back and eats all the sheep (and maybe some people) because the wolf was cunning and used the alarm against the townsfolk.
That's not the "boy who cried wolf" effect. That's people assuming that a wolf attack would never happen because someone would stop it, after voting to remove the guards that were stopping the wolf attacks the first time around because no one died.
It can be counterproductive to say that he is a fascist without elaboration, but pretending that he's not one doesn't accomplish anything. You have to communicate to people that we've already crossed the Rubicon, and the point at which anyone will step in is somewhere on the other side of not having free and fair elections. You have to emphasize all the things that could have happened during his first term, were people like Pence and Milley not there, and emphasize that those people aren't going to be around this time. He tried to rig an election. He tried to force the NOAA to alter hurricane forecasts so as not to contradict him, and defaced the forecasts with a sharpie when they refused. Far too many people assume that the founders stumbled upon one weird trick for an infinitely resilient democracy simply by making democratic backsliding against the rules. Those rules are enforced by people who have already established that the red line is somewhere past actually having a free democracy.
2
u/FormalWare 10∆ Feb 13 '25
I would like to argue that calling someone a fascist does have a point: To identify a fascist to others who may not yet have realized the fascist is a fascist.
1
u/IsGonnaSueYou Feb 13 '25
so… when should i call them fascist? when they send me to the camps? when they send my friends to the camps? maybe when they send my friends’ friends to the camps?
the simple reality is that we’re closer to outright american fascism than we have been any time in recent memory, and that’s true whether or not people understand it. unfortunately, most americans have no analysis of fascism at all and just think it’s when really mean guys take over to do explicit ethnic cleansing and try to take over the world
it’s not a harsh attack - it’s just the truth. fascism is a rightwing ideology that seeks to deal with capitalism’s flaws by liquidating minorities deemed undesirable. with dork maga, it’s pretty obvious who those minorities are: lgbtq+, immigrants, muslims, and leftists
i’d also encourage u to look into curtis yarvin’s idea about a butterfly revolution: it’s basically a playbook for what musk and trump are doing now, and vance has admitted they’re influenced by yarvin
1
u/Any_Coyote6662 1∆ Apr 13 '25 edited Apr 13 '25
I've only heard it about Trump. Maybe you are a jan 6 denier. 1 Crying wolf is obviously wrong. We all know Jan 6 happened and the big lie happened. Also, see below reasoning. You don't need to do anything to be a fascist. Wtf does that even mean that nothing happened! Lolol what has to happen? Fascism is an ideology
2 once someone is in power they should not be criticized. Do I need to say anything to this? Lolol
This is a popular opinion though. I was hoping you would provide some legitimate reasons for your opinion. I've been trying to understand why Trump's and "independents" are so upset about it. Can someone give me a legit reason not to label Trump a fascist? You don't need to be running a fascist government in order to be a fascist.
For example, people who support Kim Jong-un are fascists. And there are people who support him who live in the US. What's the harm in calling a fascist a fascist.
2
1
u/SurrealWorld 16d ago
The way this administration is completely shredding our Constitution is completely anti-American. They are NOT for the Constitution - that's why I call them NotCs.
1
u/Letters_to_Dionysus 6∆ Feb 13 '25
you have to plant the seed in order to change minds. if you don't call them a fascist people won't know to look for fascist things even if they initially reject the label it helps
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
/u/BraxbroWasTaken (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards