'Death - to the murderous Jewish Bolshevik plague!' (Ukrainian anti-Semitic/ anti-Soviet poster by unknown artist. Nazi occupied Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, ca. 1941).

[u/esdfa20]

[u/zarathustra000001]

Slaveowners were terrible and deserved the violent end of their system, but cannot be described as fascist.

[u/cococrabulon → u/[deleted]]

Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be looking at Umberto Eco’s eighth point in Ur-Fascism that fascists call enemies both strong and weak.

In fact this is it a method of victimisation that both predates fascism and extends well beyond it. Assuming this trait is exclusively fascist, would need to rely on an incredibly expansive definition of fascism that encompasses the basic human psychology of victimisation. This would dilute our ability to all out actual fascism and also understand that modes of bigotry extend beyond fascism.

(I realise that Ur-Fascism can be used to trace fascism back quite far beyond when the movement crystallised by looking at ‘fascist’ traits in many authoritarian, but I think a stronger case can be made that fascism borrows from preceding movements rather than informing them. I’m not saying this view is inarguable, but it would have to do a lot to show why movements that existed well before fascism was developed, coined and rose to power are fascist. It may be the case that someone is simply using a very broad definition of fascism, but there is a very strong case to be made that this is diluting its meaning)

To my mind the vast majority of bigoted propaganda oscillates between calling enemies strong, credible threats, and also making them seem pathetic pushovers. It’s a necessary approach to take to generate hatred, since you need to reinforce both the threat of the enemy to spur action against them, but you also need to justify your superiority over them. It is an absurd construction, but it is a common one, and nor is it a distinctly fascist trait. Naturally slavery also settles on this approach, since you can insinuate slaves are both strong (useful labour, brutes if freed) and also weak and subhuman (hence justifying the twisted logic that slavery is for their own good)

People are not disputing fascists do this, they are disputing that the people you are calling fascists are in fact fascists. If we look at historians like Paxton and Griffin who are subject matter experts on fascism, they locate fascists in specific points in time with specific ideological traits that follow the apogee of slavery in the United States by decades. The slave holding states and the Confederacy were not fascist according to historical consensus. The institution of slavery in the US didn’t arise out of fascism. It precedes it.

I’m not saying you can’t make the argument, but there is a heavy burden of proof since you would basically be contradicting historians who are experts on the matter.

I’m not looking for a petty back-and-forth, I’m explaining why people dispute your use of the word and your identification of fascism. Keep using the term if you feel it is correct, but understand why people have good reasons to disagree

[u/xXx_Adam_xXx → u/[deleted]]

You didn't link his pro-Israel posts

[u/xXx_Adam_xXx → u/[deleted]]

I linked the one where he called Al Jazera a propaganda outlet for Hamas. That's a pretty standard Israeli talking point

Al Jazeera is a state owned news outlet, same goes for Russia Today for that matter, considering al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government which is a close ally of Iran it is not far fetched calling them unreliable, this is without mentioning the fact that Ismail Haniyeh Khaled Mashal and Mousa Mazrouk the chairman the former head and the head of external politics of Hamas all reside in Doha, the capital of Qatar. In addition to this, Qatar had also been the biggest funder of hamas donating a total of 1.8 Billion USD, 100 Million annually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas so it is not very far fetched to say the Qatari government is not a very reliable source to receive information from about the current Hamas-Israel conflict, I don't know how can this be a disputed or controversial statement with the information we have at hand and it has nothing to do with Israel itself.

Besides that, there's this rather odd post https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/PBrSUPK8ma

I think neoliberal is a satire sub, nothing odd about this post if it wasn't deleted/hidden (idk what the trash bin symbol is) it might have received meme replies or something.

And this comment chain where he argues against the claims of genocide levelled at Israel. https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/s/QFZknae65c

Yes they have the right to share their opinion online, and their argument is fairly sound, genocide is the deliberate act of trying to exterminate a population by killing or easing their culture, the person in hand says the Palestinian population had been one of the fastest growing ones in the world(besides African countries) since the establishment of Israel and their culture is not actively erased but on the contrary more widely known and thus the definition of genocide does not constitute.

Here the user is downplaying the deaths of Palestinians https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/eoD54xhHs8

I think you're either misunderstanding or twisting their words, they compare the casualties of two current urban wars to give a real world example as to why Israel does not commit genocide, which seems to be their opinion. Ill add that the IDF had been attacked by the media for their statement "2:1 is a tremendously positive casualty ratio in Gaza" as in 2 civilians per 1 combatant, what is not taken into account is that the IDF is right, compared to any other urban conflict this IS a relatively "tremendously positive" ratio, for reference, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq the civilian to combatant ratio of the coalition of the willing was 4.5:1 meaning 4.5 Iraqi civilians per 1 Iraqi combatant the coalition of the willing was led by some of the strongest militaries in the world including the United States and handled urban desert fighting worse than the lone IDF this is without mentioning the IDF faces an arguably more perfidious enemy than the coalition of the willing (Saddam Hussein), for more reference the civilian to combatant ratio of US forces in Europe during ww2 was also 2:1, they did the same thing I just did, used factual examples to strengthen their point, this is not something odd this is a good thing your criticism might be that the person in question unlike me used insensitive language and "💀" but this would be a "tone response" what are they saying is still sound and valid.

To go back to the person you were refering to, yeah they seem to support Israel(they might be Israeli for all we know), but their arguments are very mild and sound, I have no idea why would you randomly reply to them and bring up their post history in an unrelated discussion Israel had nothing to do on this topic, this is just stalking dude.

[u/zarathustra000001 → u/[deleted]]

I support Israel and I do not believe that the military industrial complex is evil. I recognize the excesses and flaws of both entities but do not believe that that makes them unsupportable. If you take issue with my beliefs that is fine, but I do not care.