Hmmmmm Fascism?

October 11, 2004 9:48 PM

Dave Neiwert's Part IV on American (pseudo) Fascism is a must-read
posted by crasspastor (47 comments total)

Really interesting read.

Maybe that Time-traveller guy was right about the civil war that is about to erupt when Bush steals another election. I feel sorry for you guys down there.
posted by Quartermass at 11:06 PM on October 11, 2004

Neiwart's consistently good and his ongoing current series on the rise of Pseudo-Fascism in America, as well as his original series on Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism (available at the same site), are excellent, excellent reads.

Anyone who thinks "it can't happen here" is willfully delusional (in many senses, it already has- America is hardly a stranger to racism, institutionalized eugenics, heavy handed government suppression of dissent, and excessive Nationalism).

Anyone who thinks that we shouldn't be at least a little worried about warning signs of it happening here, what with the unstoppable Weirmacht, and the enormous nukular arsenal that America possesses, is utterly dangerous.

If we wait until a full-fledged expression of an American fascism is plainly evident, it will be far too late.
posted by hincandenza at 11:56 PM on October 11, 2004

Defining American fascism.
posted by acrobat at 3:01 AM on October 12, 2004

When mainstream cultural coherence declines, and anomie and identity confusion become more common, active seeking for exemplary dualist involvements is one possible solution to immediate psychic pain.

There's a lot of sociology speak in the quotes he employs, but the above quote (from Dick Anthony and Jerome Robbins in their essay "Religious Totalism, Violence and Exemplary Dualism: Beyond the Extrinsic Model") seems to accurately describe the distictive, contemporary American dynamic.

I don't think any of it could happen without the unique American perception of God, which seems to this post-christian European queer to be the driving force behind the need for 'movement conservatives' to exclude some groups from acquiring their inherent human rights. That shit doesn't stick so well over here, I'm glad to say.

UPDATE:
So far, the sky ain't fallen in.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:48 AM on October 12, 2004

Fourteen Defining Characteristics of historical Fascist Regimes :

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

5. Rampant sexism.

6. A controlled mass media.

7. Obsession with national security.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

9. Power of corporations protected.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

14. Fraudulent elections.


An hour's work or so should be sufficient to document that every one of the above trends are on the rise, and sharply so during George W. Bush's rule, in contemporary America.
posted by troutfishing at 5:00 AM on October 12, 2004

The problem with calling it "fascism" is that it pushs the argument to the fringes, where no one but the Kool Aid drinkers will believe it (me among them).

Critics of the radical rightward government should take a cue from Frank Luntz and express the issue in a manner more likely to be persuasive.

Americans worry a lot more about their declining civil liberties and government intrusions on privacy than they do "the rise of fascism." It's even an issue in which the right and left can have common ground -- there are rabid libertarians on both sides.
posted by rcade at 5:45 AM on October 12, 2004

Tend to agree, rcade. Then again, it's too tempting when this stuff just writes itself:

A Newsweek poll shows that 17 percent of Americans expect the world to end in their lifetime. To Karl Rove and company, that 17 percent is otherwise known as "the base."

Arabic for "the base" is, of course, al qaida.
posted by gimonca at 5:52 AM on October 12, 2004

Truly amazing. A reinterpretation of current events that utterly ignores American history. If it is not what passes for contemporary radicalism, then it must be fascist or pseudo-fascist. Even if it was the status quo in the US for 3/4ths of its history!

I could make the argument that leftism in the US is far closer to fascism than is the right. For example: who is breaking into the campaign offices of the other party and physically assaulting election workers in an organized fashion?

A typically fascist thing to do.

Who riots in the street, breaking the windows of its enemies and those they hate?

A typically fascist thing to do.

Who wants to enfranchise criminals?

A typically fascist thing to do.

Whose speech is littered with *actual* invectives? Not "code words" or "implied" hatred, but actual words of hate, like "Nazi" and "fascist"?

A typically fascist thing to do.

And who, and this is an important point, is becoming rabidly anti-semitic?

A typically fascist thing for the left to do.

Lastly, I would like to add that "militancy" is not fascist, as such, but "militarism" certainly is. At least the left doesn't yet have the snappy uniforms and paraphenalia that the Nazis did. Perhaps it is what the left needs, their final descent into the truth, the surrender to the realization of the monster they have become.
posted by kablam at 8:48 AM on October 12, 2004

who is breaking into the campaign offices of the other party and physically assaulting election workers in an organized fashion?

Example?
posted by clevershark at 9:00 AM on October 12, 2004

There is a whole lot wrong (and some right) with kablam's comment, but let me pick on this:

And who, and this is an important point, is becoming rabidly anti-semitic? A typically fascist thing for the left to do.

First, how is "the left" becoming "rabidly anti-semitic," and second, how is this "an important point?" (Part of me thinks this is absurd, anti-semite being a label slapped on anyone who even briefly considers Israel or its policies in a less-than-flattering light, and part of me is genuinely interested.)
posted by uncleozzy at 9:05 AM on October 12, 2004

for 3/4s of u s history, many black people couldn't vote ... for a good part of american history, native americans were shot or starved off their lands ... for a good part of american history, the poor were exploited ruthlessly and carelessly

is that the status quo you're talking about?

let's see ... has there been organized breakins and assaults on one party ... not that i've heard of ... riots in the streets? ... some violent protests here and there but no real noticable riots ... if enfranchising criminals is fascist, what would you call creating them with draconian and ridiculous drug laws? ... whose actions are littered with actual hate? ... how many anti-gay crusaders have been killed by gay people? ... how many conservative white republicans have been shot unarmed by the police or dragged behind pickup trucks? ... and what's more anti-semitic? ... questioning israel's policies or encouraging them to go full blast so armageddon can happen and the prophecies be fulfilled? ... gives a whole new meaning to the words "burnt offering unto the lord", doesn't it?

kablam, you're full of crap
posted by pyramid termite at 9:09 AM on October 12, 2004

Part of me thinks this is absurd, anti-semite being a label slapped on anyone who even briefly considers Israel or its policies in a less-than-flattering light,

It's a classic political technique: question the government at war-you're unpatriotic. Question recieved wisdom on race-you're a racist. Both right and left do it. It's a way of dismissing criticism & dissent.
posted by jonmc at 9:11 AM on October 12, 2004

who is breaking into the campaign offices of the other party and physically assaulting election workers in an organized fashion?

Example?

Last week, in Orlando, Fla., approximately 60 union protestors stormed and ransacked the local Bush-Cheney headquarters causing considerable damage and injuring one campaign staffer, who suffered a broken wrist.

posted by dhoyt at 9:19 AM on October 12, 2004

well, kablam proves the right-wing agenda is working.
posted by caution live frogs at 9:25 AM on October 12, 2004

"the left" is the bogeyman of the right... it apparently includes everything that isn't registered as a Republican, no matter whether there is an internal cohesion to the group or not.

As such, a Democrat = an anti-globalisation protester = a Shining Path guerilla. And evidently if you're critical of Israel's dismal human-rights record you must be a rabid anti-semite... if one conveniently forget that Arabs and Jews are both Semitic peoples.

If we need an example of the right's view of "the left" as an enemy to be dealt with harshly one needs only look at kablam's post.
posted by clevershark at 9:30 AM on October 12, 2004

Let's see how this looks:

"the right" is the bogeyman of the left... it apparently includes everything that isn't registered as a Democrat, no matter whether there is an internal cohesion to the group or not.

As such, a Republican = Christian/patriot = dangerous Nationalist gun-nut. And evidently if you're critical of Palestine's dismal suicide-bombing record you must be a racist imperialist....


And so on.

Mirror images, people. Mirror images.


Btw, clevershark, you asked for an example and you got one. Any response?
posted by dhoyt at 9:43 AM on October 12, 2004

"the right" is the bogeyman of the left... it apparently includes everything that isn't registered as a Democrat, no matter whether there is an internal cohesion to the group or not.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:46 AM on October 12, 2004

Damn you dhoyt!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:46 AM on October 12, 2004

I've really enjoyed Niewert's series on fascism. The earlier entries are quite worth reading, too.

As I wrote on my blog, one of Niewert's most significant points is that American fascism, if and when it truly arrives, will look uniquely American, that is, it will not have many of the accoutrements which we associate with European fascism, each of which had a specifically German, Italian, or Spanish flavor. When American fascism comes, it will ride upon a tide of perverse, seemingly innocuous Americana, such as corny country tunes about putting boots in people's asses, books by Connecticut-bred, chardonnay-slurping attack-blondes charging disloyalty, a veneration of firearms which borders on the fetishistic, and the attempted whitewashing of historical crimes, just to cite a few possible examples.

That's not to say that fascism is here, or very nearly here, though I think the U.S. is obviously closer to it than we were in Jan, 2001.

kablam:
I could make the argument that leftism in the US is far closer to fascism than is the right.

You could also make the argument that the moon is made of barbecued ribs. But that argument would (also) be wrong.

For example: who is breaking into the campaign offices of the other party and physically assaulting election workers in an organized fashion?

Like this? That would be Republicans.

Whose speech is littered with *actual* invectives? Not "code words" or "implied" hatred, but actual words of hate, like "Nazi" and "fascist"?

And who, and this is an important point, is becoming rabidly anti-semitic?

A typically fascist thing for the left to do.

If it's such an important point, surely you could give us some examples?
posted by Ty Webb at 9:52 AM on October 12, 2004

Btw, clevershark, you asked for an example and you got one. Any response?

As I wrote before, "the left" is the bogeyman of the right... it apparently includes everything that isn't registered as a Republican, no matter whether there is an internal cohesion to the group or not.
posted by clevershark at 9:58 AM on October 12, 2004

All us rabidly anti-semitic Jews on the left. Darn us all to heck.
posted by Ptrin at 10:05 AM on October 12, 2004

Whose speech is littered with *actual* invectives? Not "code words" or "implied" hatred, but actual words of hate, like "Nazi" and "fascist"?

you guys are a hoot.

if fascist is a hate word then so is marxist. or feminazi.

good grief. points very well taken.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:17 AM on October 12, 2004

As I wrote before...

So--that's your analysis of sixty protesters storming/ransacking the Bush-Cheney offices?

Really?
posted by dhoyt at 10:21 AM on October 12, 2004

Damn those protestors getting out of hand because of massive electoral fraud in Florida in the 2000 and 2002 elections and indications, possibly, of more of the same in 2004.

They should pursue legal action!......errrr.....ummm.....Jeb Bush's state gov. apparatus seems to be in on it.

Well, they should just be good citizens!.....quiet, passive.

Bend over citizens, this won't hurt a bit. Your anger is counterproductive and will only incriminate you.
posted by troutfishing at 10:40 AM on October 12, 2004

And yet another potentially interesting discussion turns into divisive partisan bickering.

Special thanks to troutfishing, qimonca, kablam, dhoyt and as always Steve At Linnwood, for aiding and abetting the destruction of an interesting conversation.

The article was interesting, I'm looking forward to reading the rest of his articles.
posted by mosch at 10:42 AM on October 12, 2004

mosch, i was going to write, "what mosch said," but then i realized "divisive," "partisan," "bickering," and "aiding and abetting" are probably hate words, and i didn't want to condone your fascism and your obvious, blinding hatred for The Right...ummm, i mean The Left...i mean...fascist!!!!

in any event, if america is marching toward even a "uniquely american" brand of fascism, most folks seem to be like that dude who fell off a ten-story building: as he kept falling, people on each floor heard him say, "so far, so good...so far, so good...."
posted by lord_wolf at 10:52 AM on October 12, 2004

Last week, in Orlando, Fla., approximately 60 union protestors stormed and ransacked the local Bush-Cheney headquarters causing considerable damage and injuring one campaign staffer, who suffered a broken wrist.

The registrar of Washoe County is Daniel Burk. "An official of the Republican Party" came to his office one day with a small group, he says. The official asked how to launch a "full-scale program for challenging voters who come to the polls."

State Rep. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, told the Detroit Free Press in July that the GOP would fare poorly in this year's elections if it failed to "suppress the Detroit vote."

Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a state investigation of voting irregularities in the city's March 2003 mayoral election. Critics have charged that the tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which could suppress their turnout in this year’s elections.

not a specific rebuttal to any intimidation by the AFL-CIO, which is disputable based on local sources, but just a broader look at the bigger picture of intimidation.

compare the AFL-CIO "protests" with the 2000 election "protests." action -> reaction. sad to see, but it happens. big stakes + crooked game = no justice, no peace.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:58 AM on October 12, 2004

Special thanks to troutfishing, qimonca, kablam, dhoyt and as always Steve At Linnwood, for aiding and abetting the destruction of an interesting conversation.

The article touched on aspects of strong-arm tactics. Kablam mentioned it cuts both ways. Someone asked for an example, and I provided the link. I don't see how that's derailing. Strange you ommited clevershark's name, as s/he was first to introduce the trite left v. right "bogeyman" analogy.

In any case, yes it's an interesting article, and yes, bully-tactics & hate-speech cut both ways.
posted by dhoyt at 11:08 AM on October 12, 2004

dhoyt, at least as far as the umbrella group was concerned the events in fl. did not take place as planned and did not have the impetus of a larger group behind them. in fact the same group ran peaceful protests in many different places around the country on the same day. the fl. situation was the only one that went violent. so no it doesn't qualify as a fascist event per se.

on the other hand if the national orginzation behind it had dictated that the events should unfold nationwide the way they did in fl. then that could be an indicator of a fascism.

the folks in fl. who broke the law should have to deal with the consequences. but what took place has no bearing on Mr. Neiwert's points in his articles.
posted by filchyboy at 11:35 AM on October 12, 2004

The link is extremely interesting thanks crasspastor. My skin-deep sensation is that we'll see more and more examples of questionable double standard applications, almost ritual abuse of logical fallacies by partisan pundits, more and more and more propaganda

I wonder how the average "citizen" of any country will be able to counter these "waves of data" coming from political, religious, corporate organizations without the help of years long completely not partisan education and at least some preparation on recognizing and understanding emotions and emotional abuses.

Let me re-link to one statement of President Bush that sent shivers down my spine (and before the next right wing pundit steps in, let me point out it wouldn't have made any difference if the statement was made by Kerry or Clinton or who cares who) text of full statement

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

That phrase is, I guess, a perfect synthesis of the times coming : either you take "our" stance or you're the enemy.
posted by elpapacito at 11:36 AM on October 12, 2004

dhoyt: it almost seems as though you read a different thread than I did. In the thread I read, Kablam boldly jumped over the line when he called the left 'rabidly anti-semitic'.

What you did was far subtler, when you were asked: 'who is breaking into the campaign offices of the other party and physically assaulting election workers in an organized fashion?' you responded with an article on the actions of a group of Union workers.

This would be akin to answering charges of systemetic intimidation from the Republicans by pointing at this guy.

Both are examples of embarassing partisan violence, but neither were organized or encouraged by the parties in question. Implying otherwise is disingenuous, as popular and fun as it may be.
posted by mosch at 11:40 AM on October 12, 2004

Yes, this is such an "interesting conversation."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:50 PM on October 12, 2004

I could make the argument that leftism in the US is far closer to fascism than is the right. For example: who is breaking into the campaign offices of the other party and physically assaulting election workers in an organized fashion?

I think the key phrase here is "organized fashion." There is no proof that the events in florida were part of any organized Democratic or Leftist campaign of violence or intimidation. Besides, the given example is easily balanced when one references intimidation of Florida's black voters.

Who riots in the street, breaking the windows of its enemies and those they hate?

I suppose you refer to the WTF riots that occured years ago, not any recent protests that were a lot larger? A teenager in a black bandana is not the "left"

Who wants to enfranchise criminals?

What? I don't even understand what you're trying to say with this one. Florida's voter policy is deeply flawed and this is well documented. It's kind of strange to assert that the fascist impulse is to encourage more voters.

Whose speech is littered with *actual* invectives? Not "code words" or "implied" hatred, but actual words of hate, like "Nazi" and "fascist"?

Oh, man. So if Rush says FemiNazi, that's okay. Or if Coulter accuses all democrats of committing treason, (a capital offense) that's okay. The speech of both parties is littered with questionable terms and phrases, you just choose to only indict the party you disagree with.

And who, and this is an important point, is becoming rabidly anti-semitic?

Again, what are you talking about? The "left" does tend to question Israel's policies, as they should. How does this lead to anti-semitism? Your premis is about a million miles from reaching your conclusion, dude.

Steve: I'm glad you're enjoying it.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:04 PM on October 12, 2004

I suppose you refer to the WTF riots that occured years ago, not any recent protests that were a lot larger?

The WTF riots? Count me in.
posted by euphorb at 1:14 PM on October 12, 2004

Are we an island of reason here on meFi? Or are we playing our own part in this new Amerifascification? Many of the political front page posts hook people in to write comments based on an element of outrage over some injustice or intolerable action. I'm grateful for the education that an ideology can slip down a dangerous path.
posted by stevis at 1:14 PM on October 12, 2004

Ha ha. WTO. Ain't nothin' wrong with a little wrastling riot.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:17 PM on October 12, 2004

i think most people want whats best. and i think we don't accomplish much when we demonize each other.
posted by glenwood at 2:41 PM on October 12, 2004

i think most people want whats best.

I think that's right, but the question is: how do you achieve what's best? In my experience, the left (for the most part) believes in reasoning together to achieve equitable solutions. The right (for the most part) believes that they already have the solutions, and thus can achieve what's best only by destroying anyone who disagrees.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:14 PM on October 12, 2004

i think most people want whats best.

It's the people who want what's worst that we're worried about.

Very intriguing series. And cause for alarm, to be sure, although he's dead-on that the overuse of "fascist" as useless epithet obscures the exact nature of fascism. While I think that he describes a juggernaut that's been in the making for the last 30-odd years, American-style fascism won't ever really take root. The reason? There's only so long you can commit wide-ranging psy-ops on your own populace before you hobble your entire country. Fascism is a dead end. Granted, you can wreak a whole lot of havoc under fascism, but it always implodes, it always self-destructs. We're still in an open society, and granted, the democratic ideal isn't exactly flourishing nowadays, but there's no way that the foaming idealogues could actually achieve any of their fever dreams. Witness Iraq.

Then again, we're not exactly dealing with rational thinkers here.

Could it be that, per the Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone on Republicans, that a certain portion of the population needs fascism? That without liberals to demonize, fags to abhor, traitors to denounce, a "strong leader" to fawn over, an apocalypse to wait for, the "base" would find their lives woefully incomplete? (In much the same way that without "red state rubes" to snort at/fear, a certain portion of the population wouldn't feel superior?) I personally feel that the Republican apparat can't survive much longer -- hate and venom are way too taxing, and there's only so long you can contradict objective reality and get away with it, especially in an open society -- and that the Democratic apparat, with its more Huxleyean feel, will be the new paradigm, but maybe there will be people that always tremble in fear and hatred of "the liberals" and pray fervently that Jesus W. Bush will deliver them from evil.

Man, peoples is fucked up.

On preview: Ty Webb, to call the maniacs currently streamrolling the Republican Party the "right", or to think they have any actual interest in solving any problems, is to do a disservice to plenty of thoughtful conservatives who are more and more horrified by what's happening to their party. What we're seeing is a movement that found its man, and this is their big push. This has nothing to do with the traditional foundations of the Republican Party and everything to do with power for its own sake.
posted by solistrato at 3:25 PM on October 12, 2004

Could it be that, per the Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone on Republicans, that a certain portion of the population needs fascism?

I think some part of the population, regardless of their political beliefs, could use some psycoanalysis (to learn how to control emotions by rationalization, rather then be controlled by them..primarily by fear) and a far better (in terms both of quality and quantity) education. For instance I introduced myself to informal logic out of personal curiosity late in my life : today I find myself regretting the fact I didn't receive any hint of its existence when in high school, as it's a powerful enlightening instrument, expecially when trying to understand political debates and discussion.

In my experience, schooling plays an incredibly important role in one person life, if not the most important as it affects for better or worse all the decisions we're going to take during our life ; I guess better education for the masses could have prevented the outbreak of fascism, nazism and communist governments as the propaganda used to maintain popular support to those kind of governments is (relatively) easily defused and exposed as a fraud by any moderately well educated person.
posted by elpapacito at 4:27 PM on October 12, 2004

solistrato nails it again (although I'm less hopeful about the future). [/cheerleader]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:47 PM on October 12, 2004

Ty Webb, to call the maniacs currently streamrolling the Republican Party the "right", or to think they have any actual interest in solving any problems, is to do a disservice to plenty of thoughtful conservatives who are more and more horrified by what's happening to their party.

That's why I said "for the most part." I know that there are responsible conservatives who respect democratic processes, but those conservatives are unfortunately not in control of the Republican Party right now, and haven't been for some time.

I believe, however, that the nutballs currently in control of the GOP do have an interest in solving problems, thie thing is that, rather than seeing democratic processes as a means toward arriving at equitable solutions, they feel that they have a monopoly on God's Truth and thus see democratic processes as an annoying hindrance to them applying this Truth.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:55 PM on October 12, 2004

At least the left doesn't yet have the snappy uniforms and paraphenalia that the Nazis did. Perhaps it is what the left needs, their final descent into the truth, the surrender to the realization of the monster they have become.

I can't wait for November 3. Not only will all of the political commercials on television cease, but I'll be celebrating another four years of Bush-Cheney leaders in the White House. I'll also be faced with another four years of whining from my fellow Bay Area residents.

You know, I'm sick of the more conservative mefi's (and conservative pundits) stirring the pot with inflammatory statements and then claiming that they're being shouted down for having unpopular beliefs. Yes, I know that many of the more liberal mefi (and pundits) throw around some pretty flame-y statements, but that's no fucking excuse. You have an unpopular opinion that you want people to consider? Try using logic and reason to explain your position. It's the only way you're going to get anyone here to listen to and consider your point of view. Yes, the blue skews left. That's all the more reason to present your point logically. Yes, you are facing an uphill battle getting people around here to concede that you might have a valid point. . Again, all the more reason to present a well reasoned arguement.

I am open to changing my mind if someone presents a convincing argument. Call me a communist and smugly tell me that you can't wait till 11/03/04 so that you can laugh in my face because George Bush is going to win? It doesn't matter what you say after that, because you've already convinced me that you're a douchebag who isn't worth listening to.
posted by echolalia67 at 6:12 PM on October 12, 2004

"There's only so long you can commit wide-ranging psy-ops on your own populace before you hobble your entire country. Fascism is a dead end. Granted, you can wreak a whole lot of havoc under fascism, but it always implodes, it always self-destructs." - Well, the Soviets comitted psy-ops on their populace for the better part of a century.
posted by troutfishing at 9:35 PM on October 12, 2004

Better to read this than to live it,
It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis
posted by euphorb at 11:06 PM on October 12, 2004

echolalia67: Do you often call people you are physically talking to names like "douchebag?" Is that a real difference between a liberal and everybody else, that a liberal can call people names like "Nazi" and "douchebag", just *after* chiding them for being illogical and inflammatory?

If you make a habit of doing that on the street, you will get your nose broken. And no, I'm not threatening you, I'm pointing out the fact that if your parents didn't teach you that simple fact, then you are in a sorry state.

Think about it. In the past 10 years, how many democrats have even stood on the floor of congress and called republicans, or what republicans proposed "Nazi" or "fascist" or "racist"?

And yet, with very few exceptions, republicans don't call democrats or what democrats proposed names. And it's NOT because what they propose is reasonable. Some of it is offensive and authoritarian and even totalitarian, thieving, criminal, cruel, and downright awful. It's because republicans were raised to NOT call people names without expecting to get their nose broken.

Ironically, again, it seems to be democrats who get violent at times like this. Physically attacking as well as being offensive and hate-spewing. Is this what liberals stand for? Is this why liberals are losing so much? Why that if they lose this election, they are effectively out of government for another two years?

Sure, Metafilter is left-leaning. But the easiest way to tell is by the amount of hate speech used. You could go back through hundreds of posts and see the same pattern: a liberal-leftist asserts something, then someone more conservative refutes it. And then, the liberal-leftist responds with a hate-filled personal invective. They don't even seem to be aware *either* that they have done it, *or* that it is hate speech. And then when called on it, they use the same basic argument as:

"Calling you a 'nigger' isn't hate speech, because you are a nigger!"

All I'm asking is to pay attention in the future when a liberal-leftist poster uses hate speech. And know that it is hate speech, not logical, and it does anger, just like other hate speech. And that it really is no different than calling an African-American a "nigger."

Is it okay to use hate speech, when you really, truly do hate someone else, and you want to hurt them?
posted by kablam at 8:51 AM on October 14, 2004

Are you serving any refreshments at your pity party, kablam?
posted by rcade at 3:27 PM on October 14, 2004