>I’m not convinced you understand what fascism truly is and why it’s so dangerous. It’s not just things we don’t like politically – it’s a specific far right ideology that always leads to genocide.
You just keep giving me examples of how you don’t actually understand what fascism means.
I don’t agree with Biden either. I’m farther left than most democrats. But there’s a vast difference here, and you’re either being wilfully ignorant or divisive on purpose. I’m not able to take you seriously until you address the points in my other comment.
No you didn’t. Go back through that list and actually address each point, rather than throwing out a few examples that have little to do with anything I said.
Again, I agree that stuff is bad, but it’s not fascism. Fascism is a specific far-right ideology with specific hallmarks, it’s not just ‘shitty policy I don’t agree with’.
It wasn’t a Gish gallop. It was a simple list of the hallmarks of fascism, with examples for each. It was stupidly easy to do, and it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.
> it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.
your framing is fallacious. of course there are differences between the republicans and democrats in rhetoric and policy, but both of them are fascist.
How, exactly? Your point was both sides are fascist. I disagreed, with the counterpoint that fascism means x, providing examples of republican fascism, and asking for examples of democrat fascism.
I’m challenging you to back up your original thesis. That’s literally how debate works.
>I’m not convinced you understand what fascism truly is and why it’s so dangerous. It’s not just things we don’t like politically – it’s a specific far right ideology that always leads to genocide.
the absolute irony
You just keep giving me examples of how you don’t actually understand what fascism means.
I don’t agree with Biden either. I’m farther left than most democrats. But there’s a vast difference here, and you’re either being wilfully ignorant or divisive on purpose. I’m not able to take you seriously until you address the points in my other comment.
>I’m not able to take you seriously until you address the points in my other comment.
i did. you just didn’t like it.
No you didn’t. Go back through that list and actually address each point, rather than throwing out a few examples that have little to do with anything I said.
Again, I agree that stuff is bad, but it’s not fascism. Fascism is a specific far-right ideology with specific hallmarks, it’s not just ‘shitty policy I don’t agree with’.
>I agree that stuff is bad, but it’s not fascism.
wrong.
No u.
Since we’re apparently at that level of discussion now.
> Go back through that list and actually address each point,
don’t be petulant.
Don’t be reductive.
# Don’t be reductive.
# Don’t be petulant.
>Go back through that list and actually address each point
literally demanding i deal with a gish gallop.
no.
It wasn’t a Gish gallop. It was a simple list of the hallmarks of fascism, with examples for each. It was stupidly easy to do, and it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.
> it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.
your framing is fallacious. of course there are differences between the republicans and democrats in rhetoric and policy, but both of them are fascist.
How, exactly? Your point was both sides are fascist. I disagreed, with the counterpoint that fascism means x, providing examples of republican fascism, and asking for examples of democrat fascism.
I’m challenging you to back up your original thesis. That’s literally how debate works.
>How, exactly?
i explain in the second half of the comment. i don’t want to spoil the anticipation for you.
>That’s literally how debate works.
i’m not here to debate.
>You just keep giving me examples of how you don’t actually understand what fascism means.
someone should take your keyboard and replace it with a mirror
So you don’t have a reasonable argument, then. Ad hominem is a weak escape hatch.
it’s not ad hominem. it’s tu quoque.
Tomato tomahto. Attacking the person rather than the point is weak.
i’m saying that you don’t understand the topic, and you’re telling me the same thing. that’s hardly attacking the person.
I linked the actual definition and asked you for evidence to support your point, which you haven’t provided.
If you know so much more than me, please prove me wrong. Personal attacks don’t make you seem like you know what you’re talking about.
>>I linked the actual definition and asked you for evidence to support your point, which you haven’t provided.
yes, i did. you just don’t like it.