Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[Schmelzer]

It simply doesn't matter where you think that stuff is coming from, or where you ran into it. Its source remains the same. Of course you get it secondhand from wherever, you don't know where it came from originally, you're a very ignorant person in the area of US politics and a couple of other areas, we know that, ok - that's how they play you, that's why informing you of the source is information, as I have always described it. And I have included, several times in the past, explanations of how I, or anyone reading your posts, spot these sources in the foolishness and bs you post - do you recall?

So, instead of arguing about the content of the argument itself, you spot its origin and add some swearwords in direction of the origin. This technique has a name, and the name is ad hominem.

And so the bubble closes.

I'm not in a bubble, I use information from different sources. You would be a source of information too if you would argue about the content. Without this, you are a weak source of information. You nonetheless remain a source of information, because you cannot avoid this. The main information is that you have no arguments about the content, given that you use ad hominems.

That is false. That is also your standard dismissal of information and argument you have been manipulated into dismissing - you interpret it as propaganda from some other side, and evaluate the entire matter as a propaganda fight between two sides attacking each other.

I dismiss only a very particular sort of "information and argument". Namely the information that the source of my information is rightwing.

I have provided you with specific descriptions of your common error, often with examples quoted from your posts, several times over your tenure here - most recently in post 693, right there above.
Briefly, you use "ad hominem" when the disparagement referred to is not a premise. That usage is incorrect.

What matters for the classification as ad hominem is that 1.) there is some argument about some content in the context, 2.) The argument is not about this content but directed against the source of the argument. If you have a modified version of "ad hominem" which excludes some sorts of disparagement directed against the source, your choice.

You also misuse it in the exact circumstances, situations, manner, and contexts, down to specific sequences of English words, that have characterized American wingnut media stuff for many years now. Not merely the same target, but the same approach, and even the same wording - all of it mistaken. That is information, for you to consider at your leisure for implications.

There is not one wrong-way driver, there are thousands of them.

Of course, for somebody who uses ad hominem as the main tool of argumentation, it is natural to use a very restricted version of the meaning of "ad hominem". The justification is also easy to get - all one needs is an understanding of such classifications as "logical errors", which should be avoided at any costs. The consequence is that one has to exclude from "ad hominem" all those cases where the argument may be sometimes fine and reasonable. I do not use "ad hominem" in such a way, but in the wide sense, where every attack against the source of the information in a discussion about some content is classified as ad hominem. The consequence is that sometimes ad hominem arguments are reasonable. And in such a case I may use them too. So, I sometimes ignore arguments by people already disqualified as cranks based on ad hominem arguments. Shared by all these ad hominem arguments in the wide sense is that they are weak. So, if I use it against a crank, I recognize this very well, and I know that to find an error in his argument itself would be much stronger - it is simply not worth my time.

A quite reasonable use of ad hominem is to point out that the source has a personal interest. This may be really important information, but it is nonetheless weak. Else, it would not make sense to hear the defendant in a criminal case, given that he obviously has an interest.

If you used it correctly, that might be plausible. If you used it incorrectly, but differently, making different arguments etc, that would not have the implications your actual usage has.
But when you post characteristic and quite specific errors of usage - including ones based on US wingnut misconceptions of "the left" in America, btw, which I agree is a frequent context for your misuse of "ad hominem" - shared reality does not explain them.

I admittedly use it in a wide sense. The consequence is, correspondingly, weak - your ad hominem arguments appear to be weak, not invalid one or so. I think my approach, which only decreases the strength of some arguments, but does this for a wider range of arguments, is superior to a restricted approach which rejects only a small class of "logical errors" completely but leaves the wider class completely unimpaired. This is because most of our everyday reasoning is plausible reasoning, and it is much more important to have easy ways to find expectations about the strength of arguments in comparison with ultimate yes/no decisions.

You do make claims about accuracy. You derive your entire justification for posting the bs put out by American corporate media manipulators from the supposed accuracy of your media observations. If you are wrong about what's in the media, you have no posting, no argument at all.

Of course, there is an implicit presupposition about some weak accuracy, else it would not be an argument at all. An explicit claim would have to contain some more information, thus, would have to claim higher accuracy than this minimal, presupposed accuracy. I would not make such additional claims about the accuracy.

 

[Schmelzer]

All you observed was a preponderance of bad news.
Interpreting that as indicating what you claimed about the underlying reality of climate change, both in its science and in its reporting as you did, was not observation, but your assessment. Your assessment was manipulated by American corporate interests. The visible manipulations you posted as your own arguments (such as your fantasy about grant funding and the influence of money on scientists, which you got exactly backwards exactly in common with American wingnut agitprop) have only one source. That source is not you. You've been played - obviously, flagrantly, and with only one doubt: are you being paid to post like that? If not - - - .

In a philosophical sense, there is no observation which does not contain interpretation, assessment. My evaluation of the news about climate change being overwhelmingly bad was not manipulated by any American corporate interests, the origin was the boring feeling that whenever one hears "climate" in the media one knows that what follows will be boring, because predictably bad. There always remains some faint hope that maybe this time, but it immediately evaporates.

About the money: My quite general point is that scientists in the modern world, where they have only short-term jobs via grants and have to look for new jobs every 1-3 years, have no scientific freedom but have to follow the last hype of the mainstream. This is certainly my argument - I have made it first in physics, against string theory, but apply it where it is applicable. It is not about the particular content which is the mainstream hype but predicts only that the mainstream hype can get large, even overwhelming support from the majority of scientists, even if it is not worth anything. It is simply a counterargument, namely that a "97% of the scientists support XYZ" is today not worth much, contrary to the past, where such a large support would have been a decisive argument.

My other general argument is that in such a case, one can nonetheless find out something about what the scientists really think, and where they simply follow political pressure. Namely, that one can often find a tendency in the bias. Assume there are two positions, A and B, with a continuum of intermediate positions, so that one can define some ordering by bias among them. X -> Y if X is more in favor of A, and against B, than Y. Then, one can often observe the following picture about the bias of different parts of the scientific texts: footnotes -> main part -> introduction/conclusion -> abstract -> title -> media presentation. Such a pattern is strong evidence that A is true and B a propaganda lie imposed by political pressure on the scientists too.

This is, BTW, one of the techniques developed to extract information from propaganda-influenced sources known as "reading between the lines" and developed in former communist states. In this sense, it is part of what I have learned during my childhood. But in this form, I have developed it by myself, maybe unknowingly repeating what other people have known too. We have seen how it nicely works in the discussion about child labor, by looking at the content of what you thought from the title would support your position, but what, in fact, supported my position.

You may argue that the situation in climate science is a counterexample to these ideas, given that all the funding for climate science is from sources prejudiced against AGW or so, that the state, as well as pro-green firms, play no role at all in such funding, and this worldwide. I don't think so. There is a large amount of money for science paid by the government, and especially the globalist parts of the governments are interested in AGW, simply because it leads to more international political regulation. There are a lot of industries interested in AGW too. I do not doubt that there are, on the other hand, also some industries which oppose AGW, as well as parts of the governments which oppose it. The question which side is more important here is an empirical question, and it would require a lot of time to research this. The result would be hardly a clear-cut one. Moreover, it would be no more than an ad hominem argument against one part of the scientific community. So, the necessary investment would be large, the expected profit small, so, sorry, I don't have the time to invest it in such research.

For the record, that slander of mathematicians is unwarranted. Lots of mathematicians are intelligent, adult, politically sophisticated citizens who have a basic clue in these matters. Many even use labels such as "integers", despite the obvious differences between the even and odd ones.

Nicely formulated try, but it fails. If mathematicians want to talk about all integers, they use "integer", if the difference between odd and even integers is relevant, they use "odd integers" and "even integers". No mathematician has ever started to argue that all integers have equal rights and none deserves to be named "odd", given the derogatory meaning of the word, but all have to be named "even".

Meanwhile, aside from the amusing prospect of setting that paragraph side by side with the author's praise of the deep thinking of Jonah Goldberg in his book "Liberal Fascism" (wherein liberals are revealed to be in reality fascists), or a diffident inquiry into how one would label the ideology of people who describe themselves as "National Socialist" while acting like this: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/american-nazi-organization-rally-madison-square-garden-1939/, there is a serious issue buried in there: it is difficult to perceive what one cannot name. If you can't use the word "fascist", you will have a much harder time recognizing fascism.

Of course, every populist knows that if one can use a popular derogatory word against the political enemy, this is extremely useful in election campaigns. Which is the obvious reason why you fight so much for your definition of fascism, which includes only those you hate, thus, Trump and Putin, but not Obama and Poroshenko.

You have a problem with my admiration for Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"? Nice try. The point of the book is not that "liberals are revealed to be in reality fascists", but that there are no political ideas proposed by the fascist movements which have not been shared by some of the left (progressives as liberals). This was shown by considering the content of what has been proposed by the fascists, and what has been proposed by the left. I like it, because it argued about the content. And this is your problem with giving a definition of fascism based on the content, a definition which would if applied correctly, classify Putin and Trump as fascist, but Obama and Poroshenko not. Whatever you propose as a distinguishing fascist content, you know I could easily take Goldberg to confront you with some nice quotes to ask you questions of the type "Oh, that means XYZ is a fascist, not?"

The point of your link to some American fascists is something I have not understood, please explain. "National Socialist" is the official name of the German Nazi movement, the name of the Party was "National Socialist German Workers Party", and "Nazi" is simply a shortcut of "National Socialist". So if one names oneself a "National Socialist", and if one is not completely incompetent, one openly identifies as supporting the Nazi movement. The link suggests nothing different, but a German-supported Nazi organization. One should not forget here that by naming the Nazis "fascist" we already follow such an extension of the meaning of "fascist", which was used by Stalin, but rejected by the Nazis themselves. But, in comparison to the actual situation, there was much more in common between Hitler and Mussolini, up to the greeting using the „Saluto romano“, and all the various movements of that time named "fascist", even if favoring different nations, almost all the time fought together against common enemies.

 

[pjdude1219]

You have a problem with my admiration for Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"? Nice try. The point of the book is not that "liberals are revealed to be in reality fascists", but that there are no political ideas proposed by the fascist movements which have not been shared by some of the left (progressives as liberals).

this reeks like a cow pasture. no the entire point of the book was just another attempt to show that nothing bad came from the right everything evil is leftist. the entire point of the book was to claim liberals are fascists

This was shown by considering the content of what has been proposed by the fascists, and what has been proposed by the left. I like it, because it argued about the content. And this is your problem with giving a definition of fascism based on the content, a definition which would if applied correctly, classify Putin and Trump as fascist, but Obama and Poroshenko not. Whatever you propose as a distinguishing fascist content, you know I could easily take Goldberg to confront you with some nice quotes to ask you questions of the type "Oh, that means XYZ is a fascist, not?"

the mental gymnastics you go through to reach your beliefs must be exhausting.

 

[iceaura]

So, instead of arguing about the content of the argument itself, you spot its origin and add some swearwords in direction of the origin. This technique has a name, and the name is ad hominem

1) I addressed the content. I have done that many times, and pointed directly to post 693 for a recent example.
2) That's not what "ad hominem" means. You are using the term incorrectly, as explained to you many times and described above.
3) Your particular, specific, errors in using the term - down to specific wording and approach and context and topic - match American wingnut errors. That is not, plausibly, coincidence.

I'm not in a bubble, I use information from different sources.

You are in a bubble. You don't even know what the sources are, of your "information" about climate change and American racism and Trump and Clinton (among other issues, all sharing the feature that you have no personal familiarity or ground level information to defend yourself with).

You would be a source of information too if you would argue about the content.

I do. You refuse to recognize it. You also reject information from many other sources, because your bubble requires you to label it propaganda and discount it accordingly.
That's how you managed to exclude the information that the IPCC reports are biased against AGW findings of great harm, that they consistently downplay and underestimate the research-indicated risks of AGW. You excluded the fact that the Republican dominated US government is hostile toward AGW findings, and the financial pressure on US government funded climate science (as well as the corporate funded) is the exact opposite of your assumptions - the assumptions you used to discount the IPCC reports as biased, thereby getting the bias exactly backwards.

What matters for the classification as ad hominem is that 1.) there is some argument about some content in the context, 2.) The argument is not about this content but directed against the source of the argument.

No, that's not it.
I have explained all this to you several times, including a short summary above directly labeled for you. You can verify my explanation by consulting any good dictionary or usage manual. (This one's very good: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/344643.Garner_s_Modern_American_Usage)

If you have a modified version of "ad hominem" which excludes some sorts of disparagement directed against the source, your choice.

In addition, you are normally confused about the arguments at issue. You have been losing track of their "content" in the first place. I suspect you have developed a basic confusion about "content" itself - arguments have premises, conclusions, subjects, directions, forms, implications, etc, pretty clearly, but content? - the "content" of an argument is just the kind of vague and slippery notion you appear to need for concealment, quite often.

Meanwhile, I didn't make any choices about the meaning and usage of "ad hominem argument" or its shorthand "ad hominem". The compilers of dictionaries and usage manuals did. You are misusing the term. (And confusing yourself accordingly, as well as revealing your alliance with the US wingnut bubbleboys)

You may argue that the situation in climate science is a counterexample to these ideas, given that all the funding for climate science is from sources prejudiced against AGW or so, that the state, as well as pro-green firms, play no role at all in such funding, and this worldwide

Why would I argue in such confusion and incoherence?
More to the point: Why do you suppose you are unable to provide a reasonably accurate account of my actual arguments in that matter, or address any of my posting as it appears?

One should not forget here that by naming the Nazis "fascist" we already follow such an extension of the meaning of "fascist", which was used by Stalin, but rejected by the Nazis themselves.

Now your position requires that you suggest that the Nazis were possibly not fascist. That calling the Nazi government "fascist" is leftwing Stalinist "extension".
You offer as support the fact that the Nazis themselves rejected the term, that they didn't like to be called "fascist".
I'm not making this up.

Are you familiar with the term "reductio ad absurdum"?
- - - -

The point of your link to some American fascists is something I have not understood, please explain.

They called themselves "Socialist". That brand name sold better - it was good marketing tactics. They didn't want to be called "fascist". And yet there you are, calling them by their right name.
Why don't you call their heirs and descendants, the political faction they belonged to, the modern representatives of their ideology - it still exists, in fact it has recently acquired great political power, the son of a man possibly at that rally ( and certainly at related rally near that time and place) is the President of the US - "fascist"?

My evaluation of the news about climate change being overwhelmingly bad was not manipulated by any American corporate interests,

Yes, it was. Visibly. Reread it, if you don't believe me - your false claim and bs approach aligns specifically and perfectly.
Of course you do not care, remember, since pointing out that you are being manipulated by the media efforts of professional liars with a corporate agenda is in your world an "ad hominem", whereas evaluating media reports according to your estimation of their bias is how you extract information.
In fact, that's all the information you have.

This is, BTW, one of the techniques developed to extract information from propaganda-influenced sources known as "reading between the lines" and developed in former communist states. In this sense, it is part of what I have learned during my childhood. But in this form, I have developed it by myself, maybe unknowingly repeating what other people have known too. We have seen how it nicely works in the discussion about child labor, by looking at the content of what you thought from the title would support your position, but what, in fact, supported my position.

So an opportunity for you to figure out how you were going so consistently wrong was rejected, and instead you simply declared yourself to have been right. After all that (it was fairly detailed).
And in the process consigned to unaddressed oblivion the arguments you faced, as in so many threads, so thoroughly that you often claim I don't post any.

But you still have, right here, an opportunity to recognize one of the ways you're getting played, by the American corporate rightwing media professionals. Once they have you fooled into thinking - say - that the financial and political pressure on scientists is toward exaggerating the bad news of AGW, or Clinton is a warmongering psycho and Trump is a responsible businessman, or whatever,
once you are in the bubble, possessed of firm opinions and a frame for evaluation (you somehow acquired without real world information, which does not alarm you),
you will do all the work of interpretation and rejection and so forth for them. They know that.

And so does Putin.

 

[Schmelzer]

There was an attack by jihadists against the Shia enclave Fua in Idlib, which failed.

1) I addressed the content. I have done that many times, and pointed directly to post 693 for a recent example.

Sometimes you argue about the content. This, fortunately, happens. In this case, I don't accuse you of using ad hominem.

2) That's not what "ad hominem" means. You are using the term incorrectly, as explained to you many times and described above.
3) Your particular, specific, errors in using the term - down to specific wording and approach and context and topic - match American wingnut errors. That is not, plausibly, coincidence.

The claim that I "use it to refer to insults, labels, descriptions, and disparagements, that are not premises of arguments" is (as far as it makes sense at all) unjustified. I use it for insults, labels, descriptions, and disparagements which have the intention to discredit a source of an argument. If you think I use it differently, quote the incorrect use with a link to the source. Then we will see.
Given that the ad hominem discussion becomes meaningless without the consideration of a particular case where I claim ad hominem and you disagree, I have disposed some ad hominem discussion below (which are anyway only unsupported accusations).
As explained, it is not a coincidence that somebody who loves ad hominem arguments uses a nonsensical justification of some uses of ad hominems, and will be confronted by many different sides indepedently with the same accusation of using ad hominem arguments.

I do. You refuse to recognize it. You also reject information from many other sources, because your bubble requires you to label it propaganda and discount it accordingly.

No, I recognize such cases. Unfortunately, this happens very seldom. Somewhere in the region of 10-20% of your posts. If my rejection of some information as propaganda is justified or not is another question, and in this case you are simply a defender of the propaganda in question, so your claim is (if not supported by a particular case, with particular information showing the claim was not propaganda) nothing but what is expected from you.

That's how you managed to exclude the information that the IPCC reports are biased against AGW findings of great harm, that they consistently downplay and underestimate the research-indicated risks of AGW. You excluded the fact that the Republican dominated US government is hostile toward AGW findings, and the financial pressure on US government funded climate science (as well as the corporate funded) is the exact opposite of your assumptions - the assumptions you used to discount the IPCC reports as biased, thereby getting the bias exactly backwards.

In an answer to a posting where I write "I do not doubt that there are, on the other hand, also some industries which oppose AGW, as well as parts of the governments which oppose it." This is certainly not what means "exactly backward", and is certainly not an exclusion of your information. So, this is simply yet another blatant lie.

Why would I argue in such confusion and incoherence?
More to the point: Why do you suppose you are unable to provide a reasonably accurate account of my actual arguments in that matter, or address any of my posting as it appears?

Because you only extremely seldom argue at all about the content. So, one has to make guesses about your position and has to base these guesses on your accusations. This is certainly not optimal, but nothing else remains, given your behavior. So, in your accusation above you have mentioned only those sources of funding prejudiced against AGW. Do you think there are no fundings prejudiced in favor of AGW or not? This remains hidden, I can only guess. But, given that I prefer to argue about the content, this is something I have to make a guess.

Now your position requires that you suggest that the Nazis were possibly not fascist. That calling the Nazi government "fascist" is leftwing Stalinist "extension". ...Are you familiar with the term "reductio ad absurdum"?

It is not my position which requires such things, this is simply information about the facts. I'm not dogmatic about some correct use of "fascism", and have demonstrated openness to other definitions of "fascism". I only object against the empty use of "fascism" as a swearword against all enemies without any base in any objective criteria.
Reductio ad absurdum? Established use of language is often absurd. What I actually use to name "fascist" is not based on logical purity. It is a compromise between your approach, accepting Stalin's use of "fascism" as a swearword for his political enemies where it was successful (he has also used it as a swearword against social democrats, which is forgotten now), which I accept simply because it was successful, and a more reasonable, neutral approach, where the self-description is what counts. (By the way, accepting does not mean that I use it myself. It means that I do not object if other people use it. Usually, I name Nazi supporters Nazis, not fascists, and Bandera supporters fascist. But I'm not dogmatic about this. Sometimes, in particular, in comparisons of both, I don't care about this.

They called themselves "Socialist". That brand name sold better - it was good marketing tactics. They didn't want to be called "fascist". And yet there you are, calling them by their right name.

There is no such thing as "right names". Names are nothing but conventions. Stalin's convention to name Nazis fascists was successful, so I do not object.

Why don't you call their heirs and descendants, the political faction they belonged to, the modern representatives of their ideology - it still exists, in fact it has recently acquired great political power, the son of a man possibly at that rally ( and certainly at related rally near that time and place) is the President of the US - "fascist"?

Because I don't like to call people names they don't like, without providing some objective evidence that they deserve the name.

Yes, it was. Visibly. Reread it, if you don't believe me - your false claim and bs approach aligns specifically and perfectly.

No. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof. Without a proof, this is yet another defamation.

Of course you do not care, remember, since pointing out that you are being manipulated by the media efforts of professional liars with a corporate agenda is in your world an "ad hominem", whereas evaluating media reports according to your estimation of their bias is how you extract information.

Don't forget, I accept even ad hominem as an in principle valid argument, simply a weak one. They could be made stronger if combined with evidence. Evidence would be a particular case of a lie by a particular source. But, given my own experience here with all your accusations against me, where I'm in the position to know very well that they are false, together with the fact that any such support is missed, your information contains zero bits.

As long as you don't support your ad hominems with evidence against the sources, they are not even weak arguments. They are only blabla, with the only information given being "I don't like these sources".

 

[iceaura]

There is no such thing as "right names". Names are nothing but conventions

Words have meanings. If you teach your parrot to claim it is not feathered, it remains covered with feathers. If the Republican Party in the US claims it is not fascist, it remains fascist.

Because I don't like to call people names they don't like, without providing some objective evidence that they deserve the name.

Deserve? You talk like somebody is passing moral judgment, by classifying ideologies and naming the taxa.
Meanwhile: that's one way you get played by professional American marketers. All they have to do is take advantage of your refusal to become informed - that is, acquire objective evidence - by designing propaganda that fits your ignorant presumptions.

Very few American fascists, and no national fascist politicians - the current ideology in control of the Republican Party - will ever accept or like being labeled accurately. And so if you wish to discuss American politics you are left with convoluted and detail-ridden invocations of "objective evidence" in a matter in which you are almost completely ignorant, almost completely lacking in objective evidence or the ability to recognize it -

net: you cannot recognize fascism, even in cases as obvious and almost comically stereotypical as Trump's ascendancy.

I only object against the empty use of "fascism" as a swearword against all enemies without any base in any objective criteria.

You would first need to identify such instances. This you are not capable of - it would require information, including recognition of objective criteria possessed by (say) me.
You even object to my use of the term - which is not against all enemies (as was specifically and explicitly and in detail demonstrated to you with several examples and argument, in the past when you made and defended that badly mistaken presumption, but you do not register or remember such things - they bounce off your bubble), and with a solid basis in objective criteria of multiple kinds - as you have also had pass before your eyes, without seeing.
That is the context in which you claim I never argue content or present information or the like, btw - your inability to learn, remember, even see, when I did. When I do.

As long as you don't support your ad hominems with evidence against the sources, they are not even weak arguments. They are only blabla, with the only information given being "I don't like these sources".

They aren't premises of arguments. There's no argument involved, usually, when there is they are conclusions or consequences.
You are apparently confusing yourself by your misuse of "ad hominem". It's as if you called a bird a dog, and then later assumed it had four legs.

This is certainly not what means "exactly backward", and is certainly not an exclusion of your information. So, this is simply yet another blatant lie.

You got the bias exactly backwards, then and in the several other times I pointed that out, and you still do - look at the quoted sentence right here, your ridiculous fantasy:

You may argue that the situation in climate science is a counterexample to these ideas, given that all the funding for climate science is from sources prejudiced against AGW or so, that the state, as well as pro-green firms, play no role at all in such funding, and this worldwide [/qoute] Why would you have me arguing that the State plays no role in the funding? Because you have it firmly planted in your head that the State funding is biased toward exaggerating and promoting AGW. You got the bias exactly backwards, and you can't get it out of your head.
Note that I went into some reasonable detail a few times back, when you first went silly that way - the manner in which the US State funds climate science, the positions and affiliations of those in control, the specific controversies that have arisen, the actual consequences to climate scientists of this situation, the patterns of publishing and tenure and career influences, etc. You registered none of it, remember none of it, learned nothing.

Bubbleworld.

Which brings us back to Putin, and Syria, and Iraq - another situation in which terms such as "fascism" would come in handy.

 

[Schmelzer]

Words have meanings. If you teach your parrot to claim it is not feathered, it remains covered with feathers. If the Republican Party in the US claims it is not fascist, it remains fascist.

Yes, they have meanings, but by conventions. And the convention to name the Republican Party fascist may be popular in your personal bubble, but not in general.

Deserve? You talk like somebody is passing moral judgment, by classifying ideologies and naming the taxa.

Of course, you are doing this. Else, there would be no point for you to insist on naming Republicans fascists. Or to hate the funny joke of naming a book "liberal fascism". That you try to sell your moral accusations as if they were something objective is cheap. If there would be something objective behind it, you would simply give a definition, based on objective criteria for what is fascist. As I have done for my use of the word.

You would first need to identify such instances. This you are not capable of - it would require information, including recognition of objective criteria possessed by (say) me.

Given that you hide your criteria, I can, of course, only guess. But, given the evidence of your behavior, it is not that difficult. The main criterion is that it is your political enemy. Once, say, Poroshenko is not your political enemy, you don't name him a fascist, even if he cries "Sieg Heil", sorry, "Slava Ukraine" in his speech in the White House and makes the founding day of the SS, sorry, UPA (which was not as successful as the SS murdering Russian, Polish and Jewish civilians) a holiday in Ukraine. But Putin is, of course, a fascist. Ok, you name not all your enemies fascists, some of your enemies may be less evil in your opinion. But in all cases, these are simply cheap claims out of thin air, with no base in any objective criteria (or, if they exist, painstakingly hidden criteria).

But this approach is really funny. I repeatedly ask you to give the objective criteria you use to define fascism, you remain silent, and now blame me that I cannot recognize the "objective criteria" possessed by you.

They aren't premises of arguments. There's no argument involved, usually, when there is they are conclusions or consequences.

If you argue that I'm played by these evil sources to believe something, that something is the argument in question. Without something I'm wrongly made to believe by these evil sources, your talk about me being played by them would be meaningless.

But, ok, I think I got the point. Your "you are played by the rightwing propaganda" does not have any base, in reality, it is simply your preferred invention. Something like "goatfucker", as usually used, has nothing to do with a real belief that the one named that way had really had a sexual relationship with a goat, your "you are played by the rightwing propaganda" has nothing to do with any really existing rightwing propaganda really playing me about some real argument, it is simply an otherwise empty namecalling. In this case, it really makes sense to accuse me of incorrectly using ad hominem, once this is only empty name-calling, and the argument I thought is presupposed behind the "you are played by the rightwing propaganda" did not exist in reality.

Not? Then, please explain what it is what these evil sources distribute, if not some particular content, like ideas, arguments, claims, whatever? And explain to me what is the point of your presenting these evil sources as "playing me" or so, if not an argument that this content is somehow bad (wrong, evil).

BTW, naming a particular quote "a ridiculous fantasy" is nothing but namecalling, not an argument.

 

[iceaura]

And the convention to name the Republican Party fascist may be popular in your personal bubble, but not in general.

It's not a convention. It's an accurate labeling, classification, adjective. It's popularity is irrelevant.

Of course, you are doing this. Else, there would be no point for you to insist on naming Republicans fascists.

But there is - it's an important propaganda meme, and it is being enforced by repetition on the part of the Republican media manipulators. They have conned you, for example.
The deflection of the term, the attempted destruction of its meaning and prevention of its proper use, is part of the Republican taking of power - in the US, this has to be done by winning elections, and to do that they must obscure their actual agenda and ideology. They hide much more easily if there is no standard term for their ideology and agenda, and especially if it is difficult to connect what they are doing with what others like them have done in the past.
This is standard fascist politics - the big lie, marketed by overwhelming repetition.

If you argue that I'm played by these evil sources to believe something, that something is the argument in question.

Gibberish.
What you believe is not an "argument". The fact that you have been played by media operations you and only you describe as evil (my descriptions have been simply technical classifications: rightwing, authoritarian, corporate, American, media operations, etc.) is obvious, and I told you what makes it obvious.
Meanwhile: Your attempt to defend your wingnut-familiar misuse of the term "ad hominem argument", shorthanded to "ad hominem", has you spiraling into destruction of meaning in every related term - you are losing "content", "convention", and now "argument".

Once, say, Poroshenko is not your political enemy, you don't name him a fascist,

The fact that you have to make up evidence out of nothing in order to present even the form of an argument should be a wake-up call for you. Poroshenko? wtf?

Ok, you name not all your enemies fascists, some of your enemies may be less evil in your opinion

Or more evil, but not fascist. Like some of the leftwing authoritarians I dislike so much, compared with some rightwing who have certain virtues of honor etc.
Thing is, in the US they are not a major issue - the US is sliding into fascism, not some leftwing hellpit. No sense focusing on the ineffectual and fringe.

BTW, naming a particular quote "a ridiculous fantasy" is nothing but namecalling, not an argument.

Of course. Which is why that - and anything like that - is not an "ad hominem".

Given that you hide your criteria, I can, of course, only guess.

Or read, one of the many times I've posted them.

I repeatedly ask you to give the objective criteria you use to define fascism, you remain silent

You've seen several, and apparently learned nothing. Your memory issues do not oblige me to do yet more repetitive work. Reread the threads containing discussion of the book "Liberal Fascism", if you feel the need for yet more repetition and reminders.
btw: That tactic, of demanding repetitive effort, of cycling through a series of demands for yet another repetition of something long settled in a discussion, is yet another characteristic you share with the wingnuts in the US. It seems to have spread from its effectiveness in creationist blockage.

Yes, they have meanings, but by conventions. And the convention to name the Republican Party fascist may be popular in your personal bubble, but not in general.

Gibberish.
We have the word "fascist", its meaning. We have the term "Republican Party", its meaning. "The Republican Party is fascist" becomes a meaningful sentence in English - as it happens, a true statement. It doesn't matter how "popular" the statement is - many true statements are unpopular, many popular.

Putin's government is fascist. There's another one. (It's not a rare ideology - it spread worldwide after WWII, including to the Middle East).

 

[CptBork]

So according to Schmelzer, if neo-Nazis in the US start wearing blue shirts instead of brown, and start calling themselves "racial realists" instead of "white supremacists", it's like the birth of a completely new, separate movement having no association whatsoever with the crimes of the past?

Hmmm maybe if I put on an expensive suit and start calling myself Prince Bork, I'll get big discounts wherever I go for lunch!

 

[Schmelzer]

So according to Schmelzer, if neo-Nazis in the US start wearing blue shirts instead of brown, and start calling themselves "racial realists" instead of "white supremacists", it's like the birth of a completely new, separate movement having no association whatsoever with the crimes of the past?

If some people wear blue shirts, call themselves racial realists, it is something new which has to be evaluated. Part of this evaluation may be that, say, 95% of them have in the past worn brown shirts and cried "Sieg Heil". (Following this way, I name Hatesh in Syria "Al Qaida".) Part of it may be to look at the details of the program of those "racial realists". If it contains, for example, proposals to eliminate low races or so. Following this way, I name most of the US-paid "moderate rebels" Islamic terrorists.

Answering "Else, there would be no point for you to insist on naming Republicans fascists."

But there is - it's an important propaganda meme,

Indeed, that's my point. You use "fascist" as a propaganda meme.

The problem of the remaining text is the old one - no definition of fascism, only some vague descriptions of particular forces you name fascist, and some you don't, even if you don't like them. Fine, you object against my "fascism means you don't like them", which was obvious polemics anyway. But the aim of this provocation has not been reached - a definition of other criteria, about the content of the meaning of "fascism", was not given.
Claims that Putin is fascist, but no criteria of what means being fascist, thus, no base to discuss this claim.

 

[iceaura]

Following this way, I name most of the US-paid "moderate rebels" Islamic terrorists.

See? you can do it.
Fascists don't have to name themselves. Fascism exists as a recognizable ideology, or anti-ideology (since purposeful rejection of coherence and reason in its governing principles is a feature).

Indeed, that's my point. You use "fascist" as a propaganda meme.

Except I don't. Obviously, I don't.
The list of those I have described as "fascist" is limited, and easily seen to be a coherent and well-defined taxon. You have discovered this every time you have tried to justify that repeated claim of yours.

Claims that Putin is fascist, but no criteria of what means being fascist

Denial - of my posts; of Putin's rightwing (corporate capitalist), ethnic myth-based, authoritarian, militaristic, ideologically incoherent, big lie employing and propaganda focused, power-focused, loyalty based band of brothers, etc etc, governance; of features of reality that are right in front of you - is not, as they say, a river in Egypt.

Russia has a fascist government, with a classic strongman head of State. China does not - yet (leftwing, State owns the land etc). Saudi Arabia does not - feudalism is not fascism (hereditary aristocracy is not corporate capitalist organization). I think Saudi Arabia is more evil than Russia - but it's not fascist, for visible and verifiable reasons. Both Saudi Arabia and China appear to have identifiable fascist political movements, nascent, within them - as America has had since the advent of the modern corporation made it possible, late 1800s - We have been down this road several times, with you learning nothing.

I have used the word only for a limited and specific set of people characterized by the appropriate political features and behaviors. Rightwing, authoritarian, ethnic myth-based, militaristic including paramilitary, corporate capitalist, power self-justified, etc. Essentially: government by organized crime in a corporate capitalist economy, enforced and militarized around a myth of a people or volk. And I have no money, or media operation, or propaganda effort of any kind, backing me.

The significant and visible American money, effort, lies, and media campaign surrounding "fascism" is all - all - provided by those who are fascist but do not want to be labeled fascist. They have good reason for this. And you suckered, as is your pattern.

Answering "Else, there would be no point for you to insist on naming Republicans fascists."

The point of that has been carefully explained to you several times. It's an important factor in American politics - the big lie operation, the massive rightwing corporate propaganda campaign that has been in full swing in the US for decades, has taken over a major political Party and gained dominant power in government. The destruction of meaningful vocabulary, the impeding of political reason, is central to it. You are apparently incapable of absorbing or comprehending this explanation - you have never acknowledged its existence, argued against it, shown any sign of having read any of the several repetitions of it.

And that is just one of the many aspects of a central fact: you are blind to fascism. You can't see it coming.

And so there will be a continuing blind spot in your description of military events in Iraq and Syria. You will continue to provide insight and perspective on what you can see - such as the misery and tragedy and bad motivation and ass-covering of US behavior, as it flails in the cesspit it dug for itself and jumped into, say, even though you must alter it somewhat to assign blame to Democrats in the US - but you cannot do the same for Russia or Assad's government at all. They have no Democrats to provide a lightning rod for your judgments.

 

[Schmelzer]

See? you can do it.
Fascists don't have to name themselves. Fascism exists as a recognizable ideology, or anti-ideology (since purposeful rejection of coherence and reason in its governing principles is a feature).

Of course, I can do it. Because I have some criteria for how to name. I have given them and given an example how to apply it. This was never in question. My problem was that you have refused to give any definition. But, it looks like you have finally given up this stupid behavior and started to specify the meaning of fascism. Fine. It was a hard job to reach this. So, let's see:

Denial - of my posts; of Putin's rightwing (corporate capitalist), ethnic myth-based, authoritarian, militaristic, ideologically incoherent, big lie employing and propaganda focused, power-focused, loyalty based band of brothers, etc etc, governance; of features of reality that are right in front of you - is not, as they say, a river in Egypt.

Fine, some progress. Let's see how it applies to various politicians,

                                Putin       Obama   Trump   Poroshenko
rightwing                        ++-         ---       ++-      +++
corporate capitalist            +             +        +          +
ethnic myth-based               -              -        -        +++  
authoritarian                    +-           -         +-          ++
militaristic                     +-         +-         +          ++
ideologically incoherent         -          +         +         -
big lie employing               -              +       +           +
propaganda focused              -              +         +        ++
loyalty based band              +-            ?         +        ++ 
of brothers governance

I'm sure your evaluation will give very different results, the greatest difference probably about Putin, given that your picture is that of the Western anti-Putin propaganda. But I think I can at least hope for some agreement about Poroshenko, not?

Anyway, some comments: Putin is politically centrist, with some right-wing shift, given his support for the church, family and so on, but the opposition in the Duma is left (communists) as well as right (LDP). Russia is multinational, and ethnic-based Russian nationalism is a clear enemy, outside the system. Putin has, of course, done a lot for the military, out of necessity (there was, essentially, a state of civil war when he started, and it was clear after bombing Belgrad that the Cold War against Russia is not over at all. But essential parts of militaristic ideology fail completely, even actually he names the West "partners", and given that he has reached some necessary key results, the military budget goes even down. A main theme in the Russian political discussion is that there simply is no ideology, many think there should be one. I have not seen any big lie, and I see also no focus on propaganda. Loyalty played a big role initially when there was a need to fight the oligarch rule and the state was corrupted completely by these oligarchs. So, when Putin started, there were, after a short time, a lot of people from Piter in power positions in Moscow. But all those who speculate about Kremlin power games consistently fail, and some of those considered by many as coming from other factions are today in strong positions. (Today I have read, for example, a theory that for the first attempts to remove Putin from power 2002 the person prepared to replace him was Shoigu. Not sure how serious this information is, but it fits into many others in the Russian government hated by many because considered as pro-Western or as remains from Yeltsin time or so but which remain in their positions, simply because they are competent (Nabibullina).

Whatever, why it would make much sense to name those who share this quite arbitrary list of properties with a common denotation remains beyond my understanding.

Russia has a fascist government, with a classic strongman head of State.

In the Western propaganda picture, of course.

The destruction of meaningful vocabulary, the impeding of political reason, is central to it.

The destruction of vocabulary is much more popular on the left side, known as political correctness. And the naming of anything even moderately right-wing "fascist" is part of this destruction. Of course, those on the right defend themselves against this.

Regarding Syria, one can easily classify the whole Baath Party tradition (secular Arab nationalism) as fascist if one likes. They have, BTW, not even a problem with this. And one of the local parties fightings on the Syrian side is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party with a quite open reference to the Nazis in name and flag. The antisemitism (a quite misleading name for this, given that Arabs are also Semitic, but I do not object to established names with a clear meaning) makes fascist traditions very popular in all the Arab world.

 

[iceaura]

The destruction of vocabulary is much more popular on the left side, known as political correctness.

That's very minor in the US - not even in the same order of magnitude as the rightwing operations. There's nothing on the left, for example, anywhere near equivalent to the book "Liberal Fascism", or the media efforts to classify the Nazi Party as leftwing - overt and flagrant corporate funded direct attacks on the meaning of the word "fascism".

And the naming of anything even moderately right-wing "fascist" is part of this destruction.

Which does not happen in American media generally - or in these threads here. American media is bullied into avoiding that word even for entities as clearly fascist as Trump's Republican Party.

I'm sure your evaluation will give very different results, the greatest difference probably about Putin, given that your picture is that of the Western anti-Putin propaganda.

My biggest differences, if I'm deciphering correctly, are about Obama, where you err in both directions - that can be attributed to ignorance. He's rightwing, corporate capitalist, authoritarian, ideologically coherent, not big lie or propaganda focused, not militaristic, and not loyalty based. About Putin you err in one direction, as expected from your well-established bias - missing the ethnic myth, the ideological incoherence, the loyalty base, and the focus on propaganda including the big lie.
You also failed to include enough plus signs for Trump - degree matters - and somehow you managed to overlook the ethnic myth base of Trump (? ! how?).

But I think I can at least hope for some agreement about Poroshenko, not?

I have no interest in Poroshenko, know nothing about him, haven't seen anything linking him to Iraq or Syria, and regard his entire presence here as you posting irrelevance for concealment.

My problem was that you have refused to give any definition. But, it looks like you have finally given up this stupid behavior and started to specify the meaning of fascism. Fine. It was a hard job to reach this

This is the first time you have acknowledged what I have posted several times before. If you are congratulating people for finally extracting what should have appeared many posts, threads, and discussions ago, congratulate me for apparently cornering you.

Regarding Syria, one can easily classify the whole Baath Party tradition (secular Arab nationalism) as fascist if one likes.

Except for the corporate capitalist part, which they seem a bit shaky on if I recall Bremer's changes to their standard organization in Iraq correctly. The ethnic myth aspect seems uncertain, as well - I'm not familiar enough to establish an absence.
You have some point you wish to make?

 

[sculptor]

Based on the path this thread has taken o'er the recent few pages:
One may be left to assume that there has been little progress in/of/from recent military events in Syria.

 

[billvon]

So according to Schmelzer, if neo-Nazis in the US start wearing blue shirts instead of brown, and start calling themselves "racial realists" instead of "white supremacists", it's like the birth of a completely new, separate movement having no association whatsoever with the crimes of the past?

Yep. And if they have a "final solution" for the problems of Muslims and immigrants, I am sure it's just a really good solution. Not like that other one.

 

[iceaura]

One may be left to assume that there has been little progress in/of/from recent military events in Syria.

Mea culpa. I've put enough into the digression, point taken.
Not sure how the political stuff is going to be separated from the military stuff, in the closing days of Assad's re-establishment. Or how Trump's headless military is going to develop policy, squatting on the oil field surrounded by competing frenemies (or the reverse, in Trump's case: enemiends? The association with enema seems appropriate) of the US as they are. Can we buddy with Putin, Erdogan, and our Sunni jihadist terrorizers of Iran, at the same time? Will throwing the Kurds under some local analog of the bus work again? I suppose it depends on what Putin wants.

 

[sculptor]

After Saudi Sunnis did 911 it seemed crazy to fight their wars for them.
Something seems to have remained unsaid.

 

[Q-reeus]

After Saudi Sunnis did 911 it seemed crazy to fight their wars for them.
Something seems to have remained unsaid.

???? Please, actually study this: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
Do point out any serious errors of fact there that would in any way undermine that devastating indictment. And it's far from a one-off. For just one further instance of many....
Nobody, in over a year now, was game to post a reply to this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/uss-liberty-incident-50th-anniversary.159507/
Gee, I wonder why.

 

[CptBork]

???? Please, actually study this: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
Do point out any serious errors of fact there that would in any way undermine that devastating indictment. And it's far from a one-off. For just one further instance of many....
Nobody, in over a year now, was game to post a reply to this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/uss-liberty-incident-50th-anniversary.159507/
Gee, I wonder why.

Since you've already convinced yourself that there's no possibility of the Liberty sinking being an accident, no one's interested in arguing with you about it. Go argue with the people who intercepted the Israeli air force's communications- they're the only ones in a position to know whether you're full of shit or not, and apparently they disagree with you. Same deal with the 9/11 gobbledygook, go find an engineer who designs skyscrapers to withstand near-supersonic jumbo jet impacts and argue it with them, if you can actually find such a person. Your post here is off-topic.

 

[Q-reeus]

Since you've already convinced yourself that there's no possibility of the Liberty sinking being an accident, no one's interested in arguing with you about it. Go argue with the people who intercepted the Israeli air force's communications- they're the only ones in a position to know whether you're full of shit or not, and apparently they disagree with you.

As to who is full of shit, why not critique all the verified points raised in the article linked to there? Because you can't and must know it. Israel did it in 1967, and again in 2001. As for the particular point re intercepted communications (Liberty crew could not have since the Israeli's deliberately jammed all their available frequency channels!), compare the lying Israeli version vs US intelligence analyst Steve Forslund's one, about half-way down here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html
And that is just one among many similar articles I could furnish all corroborating direct knowledge by IDF, before attack commenced, that USS Liberty was for sure American. Hell even Haaretz gave it space:
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/but-sir-its-an-american-ship-never-mind-hit-her-1.5492908
But easy to just say 'gobbledygook' in reply. Such an easy formula.

Same deal with the 9/11 gobbledygook, go find an engineer who designs skyscrapers to withstand near-supersonic jumbo jet impacts and argue it with them, if you can actually find such a person.

As to exactly how and why the twin towers and building 7 collapsed that day is very far from clear-cut. And even copious evidence of Thermite residues, melted and still molten steel in the wreckage, is very far from being the main clincher amongst many issues pointing the finger squarely at Israel and it's US and elsewhere, Zionist/globalist Jew partners. Go ahead - actually critique the many damming points raised in that WikiSpooks piece. Of course as for that USS Liberty slaughter event, you will again be unable to do so. Easier to just assert '9/11 gobbledygook'. As if that should impress.

Your post here is off-topic.

Do tell. Many posts here are strictly speaking off-topic. Mine was actually quite relevant given 9-11 was the long pre-planned 'Catalyzing event' - 'a new Pearl Harbor'. Set to usher in, apart from draconian domestic power-grabs such as 'Patriot' Act, the long pre-planned endless 'War on terror'. That 'amazingly' just keeps devastating all of Israel's regional enemies i.e. everyone not Jews. Including Syria of course. Look up 'Yinon plan & Greater Israel'.
Would you happen to be an Israel-firster Zionist Jew by any chance?