Nick Fuentes Criticizes Trump

[canpakes]

1. Can you point to a reference for Schmo believing that abortion should be ‘free’?

2. Are you going with the claim that two people believing two different things have the same authoritarian viewpoint because they may both believe that the law should be adhered to?

Can you do any better than a false equivocation?

1. He said he is Canadian

2. So close. So close. They both have the same authoritarian viewpoint, yes. But its only because they have the same authoritarian viewpoint.

Alright, so you can’t answer either.

(1) No reference and (2) false equivalency it is, then.

[Whiskey]

1. He said he is Canadian

2. So close. So close. They both have the same authoritarian viewpoint, yes. But its only because they have the same authoritarian viewpoint.

Alright, so you can’t answer either.

(1) No reference and (2) false equivalency it is, then.

He said he is Canadian for godsakes. Are you saying he does not support legal abortion? Or, is it your point that he does not think the feds should have any authority on the matter?

On 2. Your equivalency thingy isn't workiing. They both agree that the feds should bring the abortion decision to the people across the land. Is that incorrect?


On your falsy equivelancy thing. Is it your point too that Fuentes and you and Schmo and Philo all agree that the feds can enforce fed laws and that good people obey?

Is this a shared ideology or whatever?

[honorentheos]

Pick any topic. Lets compare them. Is the authoritarian demand or command made with the same force just for a different outcome?

Play the ball here. Not the player.

Exactly, Culty. The methodology you propose is flawed. Rather, the ball is played by defining what authoritarianism actually is, and why it is not just the government asserting authority. That latter definition is what a bully would cry about when someone stands up to them or what a bad actor would claim is wrong when they aren't allowed to just do whatever they want to do. We went down this path before when you were confused about what populism meant as you may recall. Where the authority comes from, who has the ability to check it, and on what principals it is asserted all matter. Just having authority is a red herring argument.

So. Authoritarianism. Do you take issue with this definition?

https://sociology.plus/glossary/authoritarianism/

Definition:
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by concentrated power in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, who wield significant control without being constitutionally responsible to the public. In this system, individual freedoms are limited, and political opposition is either suppressed or strictly regulated. Authoritarian regimes typically rely on arbitrary decision-making, lack transparent governance, and have vague or limited legal boundaries governing the use of power.

Authoritarianism stands in contrast to democratic systems, where leaders are elected through fair and competitive processes, and checks and balances exist to regulate the exercise of political power.

Maybe start playing with that and see where it goes.

[Philo Sofee]

Interesting how all the internet Trumpian operatives can be activated simultaneously when a distraction is needed from the Epstein files.

It's their playbook. Protect the criminal in office no matter what. He can do no wrong, and NEVER allow him to face justice.

[honorentheos]

Pick any topic. Lets compare them. Is the authoritarian demand or command made with the same force just for a different outcome?

Play the ball here. Not the player.

Exactly, Culty. The methodology you propose is flawed. Rather, the ball is played by defining what authoritarianism actually is, and why it is not just the government asserting authority. That latter definition is what a bully would cry about when someone stands up to them or what a bad actor would claim is wrong when they aren't allowed to just do whatever they want to do. We went down this path before when you were confused about what populism meant as you may recall. Where the authority comes from, who has the ability to check it, and on what principals it is asserted all matter. Just having authority is a red herring argument.

So. Authoritarianism. Do you take issue with this definition?

https://sociology.plus/glossary/authoritarianism/

Definition:
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by concentrated power in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, who wield significant control without being constitutionally responsible to the public. In this system, individual freedoms are limited, and political opposition is either suppressed or strictly regulated. Authoritarian regimes typically rely on arbitrary decision-making, lack transparent governance, and have vague or limited legal boundaries governing the use of power.

Authoritarianism stands in contrast to democratic systems, where leaders are elected through fair and competitive processes, and checks and balances exist to regulate the exercise of political power.

Maybe start playing with that and see where it goes.

For Culty. So you don't have to search for it.

[Whiskey]

Pick any topic. Lets compare them. Is the authoritarian demand or command made with the same force just for a different outcome?

Play the ball here. Not the player.

Exactly, Culty. The methodology you propose is flawed. Rather, the ball is played by defining what authoritarianism actually is, and why it is not just the government asserting authority. That latter definition is what a bully would cry about when someone stands up to them or what a bad actor would claim is wrong when they aren't allowed to just do whatever they want to do. We went down this path before when you were confused about what populism meant as you may recall. Where the authority comes from, who has the ability to check it, and on what principals it is asserted all matter. Just having authority is a red herring argument.

So. Authoritarianism. Do you take issue with this definition?

https://sociology.plus/glossary/authoritarianism/

Definition:
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by concentrated power in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, who wield significant control without being constitutionally responsible to the public. In this system, individual freedoms are limited, and political opposition is either suppressed or strictly regulated. Authoritarian regimes typically rely on arbitrary decision-making, lack transparent governance, and have vague or limited legal boundaries governing the use of power.

Authoritarianism stands in contrast to democratic systems, where leaders are elected through fair and competitive processes, and checks and balances exist to regulate the exercise of political power.

Maybe start playing with that and see where it goes.

honorentheos, fair enough on pulling out the textbook definition, it's solid for what it is. But let's not mix apples with hand grenades here. I'm talking straight-up authority, the kind where folks on both sides of the fence want the feds to step in and call the shots on abortion (or whatever hot-button issue). One side says "make it illegal top-down," the other says "keep it legal top-down." Same mechanism, different flavor.

You sliding into authoritarianism feels like shifting the posts a bit, 'cause that's a whole regime thing, unchecked power, no accountability, the works. My point wasn't about that. it was the shared expectation that authority gets wielded from on high to enforce an outcome. We actually line up there: authority exists, it's neutral ground, and people grab it for their preferred endgame. No red herring, just calling it like it is.

Where do you see the daylight between you and Fuentes on that?

[canpakes]

Alright, so you can’t answer either.

(1) No reference and (2) false equivalency it is, then.

He said he is Canadian for godsakes. Are you saying he does not support legal abortion? Or, is it your point that he does not think the feds should have any authority on the matter?

Trying to move the goalposts - or trying to shift the subject - is certainly a habit of yours. : D And it’s not like folks don’t see it.

You said this:

So you dom’t know? Okay. i’ll tell you. Schmo thinks the feds should make abortion free and legal in Every state. Fuentes says the feds should make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Point to where Schmo said that abortion should be free.

Can you not do this? You just made it up?

On 2. Your equivalency thingy isn't workiing. They both agree that the feds should bring the abortion decision to the people across the land. Is that incorrect?

If your argument is authoritarianism, and this is your best reference to build a comparison, then you’ve never left the starting gate.

On your falsy equivelancy thing. Is it your point too that Fuentes and you and Schmo and Philo all agree that the feds can enforce fed laws and that good people obey?

Is this a shared ideology or whatever?

And you think that folks agreeing that people should follow the law is showing that they share the same authoritarian tendencies?

I mean, this is such a poor argument that I’m kind of enjoying watching you skewer yourself on it. Maybe you should repeat it a few more times.

[honorentheos]

honorentheos, fair enough on pulling out the textbook definition, it's solid for what it is. But let's not mix apples with hand grenades here. I'm talking straight-up authority, the kind where folks on both sides of the fence want the feds to step in and call the shots on abortion (or whatever hot-button issue). One side says "make it illegal top-down," the other says "keep it legal top-down." Same mechanism, different flavor.

Government has authority by definition. To govern is to assert authority of some kind in some manner over someone by someone. The history of the west has not been defined by changes in the existence of authority being wielded by government. Rather, what defines a system is what I said earlier. What matters is where the authority comes from, who has the ability to check it, and on what principles it is asserted.

Complaining about government having authority as a general concern is usually an indicator someone didn't like a bigger kid showing up on the playground and laying down the law. You could say that is what others are doing when they complain about Trump's actions and it could be true. But that is exactly why we, in the former-and-maybe-one-day-once-again western liberal democracy known as the United States of America are supposed to give f's about rule of law, institutional procedures, the consent of the governed, and balance of power between branches of government, and limits on power.

So when you say,

You sliding into authoritarianism feels like shifting the posts a bit, 'cause that's a whole regime thing, unchecked power, no accountability, the works.

you are suggesting that our definition of authoritarianism we agree to should include those? Or you are saying including those is shifting the argument? If the former, I think it's in the definition provided but open to see how you'd amend it to better include them. If you think it doesn't apply in discussing the subject here and very much makes a difference between how Nick Fuentes wants to see power and authority used to create a world that benefits a few at the expense of the many compared to claims a system of government can and MUST be able to interfere with individual preferences where those actions violate the principles and laws of the society being governed when those systems are intended to be democratic rather than autocratic.

So, I stand by the claim that is the ball.

https://sociology.plus/glossary/authoritarianism/

Definition:
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by concentrated power in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, who wield significant control without being constitutionally responsible to the public. In this system, individual freedoms are limited, and political opposition is either suppressed or strictly regulated. Authoritarian regimes typically rely on arbitrary decision-making, lack transparent governance, and have vague or limited legal boundaries governing the use of power.

Authoritarianism stands in contrast to democratic systems, where leaders are elected through fair and competitive processes, and checks and balances exist to regulate the exercise of political power.

[Whiskey]

honorentheos, fair enough on pulling out the textbook definition, it's solid for what it is. But let's not mix apples with hand grenades here. I'm talking straight-up authority, the kind where folks on both sides of the fence want the feds to step in and call the shots on abortion (or whatever hot-button issue). One side says "make it illegal top-down," the other says "keep it legal top-down." Same mechanism, different flavor.

Government has authority by definition. To govern is to assert authority of some kind in some manner over someone by someone. The history of the west has not been defined by changes in the existence of authority being wielded by government. Rather, what defines a system is what I said earlier. What matters is where the authority comes from, who has the ability to check it, and on what principles it is asserted.

Complaining about government having authority as a general concern is usually an indicator someone didn't like a bigger kid showing up on the playground and laying down the law. You could say that is what others are doing when they complain about Trump's actions and it could be true. But that is exactly why we, in the former-and-maybe-one-day-once-again western liberal democracy known as the United States of America are supposed to give f's about rule of law, institutional procedures, the consent of the governed, and balance of power between branches of government, and limits on power.

So when you say,

You sliding into authoritarianism feels like shifting the posts a bit, 'cause that's a whole regime thing, unchecked power, no accountability, the works.

you are suggesting that our definition of authoritarianism we agree to should include those? Or you are saying including those is shifting the argument? If the former, I think it's in the definition provided but open to see how you'd amend it to better include them. If you think it doesn't apply in discussing the subject here and very much makes a difference between how Nick Fuentes wants to see power and authority used to create a world that benefits a few at the expense of the many compared to claims a system of government can and MUST be able to interfere with individual preferences where those actions violate the principles and laws of the society being governed when those systems are intended to be democratic rather than autocratic.

So, I stand by the claim that is the ball.

https://sociology.plus/glossary/authoritarianism/

Definition:
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by concentrated power in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, who wield significant control without being constitutionally responsible to the public. In this system, individual freedoms are limited, and political opposition is either suppressed or strictly regulated. Authoritarian regimes typically rely on arbitrary decision-making, lack transparent governance, and have vague or limited legal boundaries governing the use of power.

Authoritarianism stands in contrast to democratic systems, where leaders are elected through fair and competitive processes, and checks and balances exist to regulate the exercise of political power.

hono, you’re swinging that textbook like it’s a sledgehammer, but you’re hitting nothing but air. I’m talking straight-up authority: both sides itching for the feds to lock in their vision, say on immigration—build a wall or open the borders. Same tool, different mechanical prints. You keep ducking into authoritarianism, like I’m painting anyone a tyrant. That’s you dragging the goalposts from hell to breakfast.

We both nod that government’s gotta wield power to get crap done. So why the dodge? Your sociology.plus lecture is slick for a seminar, but it’s off-topic. I’m not whining about authority, I’m saying both sides lean hard on it. You don’t fight that, so why the tap-dance? Lets agree, both sides want the feds to call the shots on immigration, infrastructure, or military spending. Pick one. Yes or no? Say no, show me where either side wants the feds to sit it out. Stop hiding behind “authoritarianism” to duck the point.

[Whiskey]

He said he is Canadian for godsakes. Are you saying he does not support legal abortion? Or, is it your point that he does not think the feds should have any authority on the matter?

Trying to move the goalposts - or trying to shift the subject - is certainly a habit of yours. : D And it’s not like folks don’t see it.

You said this:

So you dom’t know? Okay. i’ll tell you. Schmo thinks the feds should make abortion free and legal in Every state. Fuentes says the feds should make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Point to where Schmo said that abortion should be free.

Can you not do this? You just made it up?

On 2. Your equivalency thingy isn't workiing. They both agree that the feds should bring the abortion decision to the people across the land. Is that incorrect?

If your argument is authoritarianism, and this is your best reference to build a comparison, then you’ve never left the starting gate.

On your falsy equivelancy thing. Is it your point too that Fuentes and you and Schmo and Philo all agree that the feds can enforce fed laws and that good people obey?

Is this a shared ideology or whatever?

And you think that folks agreeing that people should follow the law is showing that they share the same authoritarian tendencies?

I mean, this is such a poor argument that I’m kind of enjoying watching you skewer yourself on it. Maybe you should repeat it a few more times.

Catch up.