On 02/05/2017 12:07 PM, jim bell wrote:
think Razer, who was completely unwilling to define
the difference between a mere conservative, and a
"fascist", is displaying the same kind of obscure
inconsistency in meaning.
>Whatever jackass. While the left or so-called left debates the
ethics of Nazi punching the Right is cheering the potential
legalization of killing protesters who block roads. GO FUCK
YOURSELF. You're just more proof to the world Libertarians are
>I'll write this down ONE MORE TIME DUPLICATING THE
RECORD because you're too fucking STUPID to look it up;
>Fascism cannot be conservative, using "American Tradition" as a
benchmark, because conservatives understand that some things,
such as the internet, did not exist at the time the US founders
wrote the constitution and they MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR MODERNIZATION
in the documents and laws regarding it.
First, I did a search of my mailbox for "Fascism cannot be conservative", which presumably would find any prior CP comments that you made containing this. I found nothing. I then did a search for "Fascism cannot", and I still found nothing. You claim you are "duplicating the record". I don't see that.
"Fascism and it's idea of TRADITIONALISM would eliminate the
internet because it 'interferes' with those documents.
Sorry, but this sounds like a wacky assertion. A broad cross-section of the public in virtually every country supports the use of computer and networking technology, even extremists in all areas of political thought. Indeed, a few years ago I read an article which explained that religions and churches were early adopters of the Internet, a fact which would not automatically be expected.
So, I think you are misusing and misrepresenting the idea of "traditionalism" and how it would apply to the use of technology.
Further, historically the application of the US Constitution to the First Amendment (which literally only referred to "speech" and "the [printing] press", the only forms of communication that existed in 1789) has been smoothly been expanded to include the telegraph, the telephone, radio, television, fax, the Internet and email, texting. I am not aware of any substantial minority of people who:
1. Believe that the First Amendment doesn't cover those newer methods. Or even more extremely,
2. Believe that such newer methods of communication should be shut down.
If your working definition (or, at least example) of a "fascist" is a person who wants to completely shut down the Internet, I doubt whether this collection of people exceeds more than 1% of America's population. And I suspect that such a tiny minority would contain people from all parts of a political spectrum, not merely people you would refer to as "fascists".