History & Politics: Fascism

I’ve been hit with some absolutely insane hate speech from a foaming-at-the-mouth moderator, lonebadger6, who seems to be working in tandem with a few other mods and certain users, so I’m opening this thread to see if the site administration actually has the guts to deal with their own staff. We're talking about more than just insults; we're looking at blatant disrespect toward anyone with a differing opinion and a total hijacking of what the word "fascism" even means.

Basically, the moderator lonebadger6 decided to label everyone who opposes gender reassignment
as backward, primitive fascists.
His logic? He explained it like this: "I used those words on purpose,
because backward, primitive fascists usually whine that they're being called that
"just because they have a different opinion"—no, you're being called that because you
have backward, primitive fascist opinions."

And get this—every single one of us who called out this ridiculous outburst from a moderator
got slapped with instant bans.

After all that, a user named "north wind" posted this:
"Yeah, persecuting people and stripping them of their human rights based on physical,
genetic, sexual orientation, psychological, or mental traits, as well as
different beliefs and value systems—that is fascism."

I won't even dive into the endless trolling from northwind, which would probably cost me a hundred points here:
"What Smith and his crowd actually want to do to these people is: lock them up in prisons or put them
"in quarantine" (as if they're dealing with a contagion) or try to "brainwash" them
via psychiatry (if that were even possible!?) or restrict their movement or
forbid them from having sex with whoever they want or throw them into camps or
poison them or hang them or burn them."

Unchecked, the moderation team is actively backing these kinds of primitive outbursts.
It's rock bottom.

But let’s actually look at what fascism is, using some actual resources
from the internet:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Here is how one of the most respected dictionaries defines it:
political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for
a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Moving on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came
to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

I’m not going to paste the whole thing, but it’s blindingly obvious that fascism is a political philosophy
centered on the glorification of nation and race, and there isn't a single shred of connection between fascism and having a different opinion on gender reassignment.

It is crystal clear that fascism has NOTHING to do with the fact that I don't agree
with people doing whatever they want, it has nothing to do with gender reassignment,
and it has absolutely nothing to do with my views on anyone's sexual orientation.

There is zero connection between fascism and any of the things I just mentioned.
Not one.

The only person acting like a fascist here is the moderator lonebadger6, which is exactly what
Merriam-Webster defines as "dictatorial oppression of all who disagree with the dictator."

That is precisely what he is doing.

Since these posts haven't been sanctioned or removed by the site, it's a dead giveaway
that the administration agrees with the definition of fascism provided by
lonebadger6 and north wind.

Given that your definition is in total conflict with every single definition
of fascism found anywhere else in the world,
I’m asking you to open the website Forumpedia where you will find...
Start sharing those definitions and all that good stuff with us forum folks and anyone else interested.

Because if you think insulting, labeling, and tossing around the word "fascist"
at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion is perfectly fine, then that says everything we need to know about this forum.
In this specific instance, having a different take is totally legitimate. We aren't talking about Holocaust denial or debating whether people should kill dogs for fun; we're talking about some supposed "human right" that nobody actually has any claim to here.

I’m calling on the admin team to weigh in here without any of that wishy-washy nonsense like "we didn't
know," "you should have clicked the little button," or "you can't just start threads like that." None of that.

If a moderator is allowed to get personal and insult people just because they disagree
then I’ll take that as my green light to call him a backward, primitive fascist whenever I don't see eye-to-eye with him, and I expect zero penalties for doing so.

If I’m a fascist in his eyes simply because I’m against this, then he’s a fascist in mine because he’s for it.

Thanks.

There’s actually a brilliant way to make sure nobody labels you a fascist—though, let’s be honest, nobody has actually called you one yet, you just seem to have identified yourself as such... which I'll get into in a second...

Do you want me to double down on my point here? People who would go so far as to ban gender-affirming medical procedures are fascists.
There it is.
If you find yourself fitting that description, well, that’s on you. That’s why your posts haven't drawn any fire; no one has come out and told you personally that you’re some backward, primitive fascist, you just volunteered for the role yourself—whether through your reports or this specific thread...
It’s like if someone said, "people who hate Black people and think they belong in Africa are racists"—if you feel targeted by that, you're really just tripping over your own feet.

And here is the clarification...

Defining fascism is honestly redundant because "fascist" is used so broadly as an insult these days. But it also holds up factually, since I haven't stumbled upon a more modern equivalent to fascists or Nazis. They were, after all, among the last groups to strictly prohibit gender reassignment surgeries. I couldn't even call, say, radical Islamist-Sharia groups that, because those procedures are performed quite regularly even in Saudi Arabia (where, for instance, homosexuality is a death sentence). Under Khomeini, Iran followed a path similar to Nazis and fascists, yet today they are actually among the world leaders in the number of gender reassignment operations performed... :/ Communists aren't much better either; in fact, the first successful operations were done in the Soviet Union. So, sorry, but damn, fascists remain the best comparison... 😢

As for you and those "permissions" you’re looking for, you already have them. Every time I or anyone else writes something that fits the literal or pejorative definition of "fascism," as in my example above, you are perfectly free to label such behavior (not just forum users) as such... It just doesn't include your little joke about having a "different opinion"... 🙂 You know, like when people are actually more liberal in Saudi Arabia than you are...

Best regards!

p.s. Oh, and next time you feel the urge to call someone unhinged, maybe wipe the foam off your own mouth first... 👍

lonebadger6 said:In reality...

Would you mind providing some actual data regarding gender reassignment procedures in the USA prior to World War II? I'm also interested—if you have it—in the number of applications filed versus those denied in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy during that era.

Thanks in advance!

I’d actually suggest finding a more appropriate corner of this forum for that—maybe a PM or a different thread—since the Democratic Party section isn't really meant for these kinds of debates, just specific grievances and disciplinary stuff. Thanks in advance!

Just to satisfy your curiosity (and maybe give you a head start on your Google searches if you're that interested), the first gender reassignment surgery took place back in 1930 right in Germany, where specialists were actually the first in the world to tackle it... Three years later, the Nazis seized power and by November 1933, transvestites were being sent to camps, leading up to a 1938 decree to completely "eliminate the phenomenon of transvestism from public life." Their fascist colleagues in Italy, naturally, followed suit quite faithfully. The USA and everyone else couldn't perform those operations because progress in that medical field was effectively frozen until the fifties, when things finally started moving again in Denmark.

Just a quick thought here. One big difference between the fascists back then and the ones we see today is that the old-school types didn't feel the need to hide what they were. They owned it. But nowadays? These people are so embarrassed by their own baggage that they just scream at the top of their lungs about how they aren't fascists. I mean, look, all these "-isms"—including fascism—tend to mutate as time goes on. So, maybe when someone calls a person a fascist today, it doesn't always fit that strict historical textbook definition. But honestly, the label definitely fits those who support various forms of pure hatred (you have to consider the context of the era they're operating in, I guess).

ruggedseal19 said:Just a quick point. One major difference between fascists back then and the ones today is that the old guard didn't hide their fascism. Today’s crowd is embarrassed by it, so they scream from the rooftops that they aren't fascists. Besides, every "-ism"—fascism included—tends to mutate over time. Because of that, calling someone a fascist today doesn't necessarily mean they fit the historical definition, but the label certainly fits those who support various forms of bigotry (provided you consider the era in which that bigotry occurs).

Signed.

To give a recent and drastic example of how easily people abandon what they claim to stand for: the Ku Klux Klan is a paramilitary group founded by people who unequivocally championed the ideals of Nazi Germany and actively promoted them during the war. We have a specific unit within the KKK wearing black uniforms, sporting "U" symbols on their caps, named after a notorious officer, founded on the very anniversary of the regime's rise, and they mark that date every single year. And yet... they will fight tooth and nail to explain that they actually have nothing to do with the movement or Nazi Germany! 🤦

Oh, yeah, just to add my two cents—this whole thing is nothing but pure trolling by that lonebadger6 moderator. They came flying in out of nowhere with this whole rant about gender reassignment, even though NOBODY had mentioned anything about that up to that point, and the topic of conversation wasn't even remotely about gender reassignment.

What we were actually hashing out was the push for gender ideology—or rather, how to stop it from being forced on us.
We were talking about Zeljka’s initiative regarding how they want to blur the lines between gender and sex, trying to sneak them in as two different things under the Geneva Convention.

So, basically, the moderator is just trolling by labeling anyone who opposes gender ideology as narrow-minded, primitive fascists, despite the fact that nobody was even talking about gender reassignment. And they're doing it with full-blown encouragement from certain forum members who are posting about gender ideology without any consequences, implying that those of us standing against it want to "poison, hang, or burn" someone.

Is this really considered acceptable on this forum?

I honestly find it mind-blowing that people who actively stir up conflict and insult their fellow users are even allowed to hold moderator positions here.

Jojček, you’ve really managed to dig yourself into a hole here 😁

Since when did it become your business if someone—whether they're a moderator or just another user—decides to comment on certain fascist views, especially when those views are so closely linked to the topic at hand? If you think it's off-topic, feel free to report it... but let me be crystal clear: neither I nor north wind have called you a fascist. You basically identified yourself through your own description, so that’s really on you. Did anyone actually address you personally? No. You claim you were talking about gender ideology, which means nobody even addressed you indirectly, 🙂 Di where exactly is the issue then? Is it just because someone accurately diagnosed the attitudes you usually keep tucked away at home? I'm not saying that's the case, but I don't see any other reason...

So, there you go, a perfectly clear explanation of why this qualifies as fascism, quite literally. We could get pedantic and call it "Nazism," and if you want to debate whether I should strictly use the term Nazi from now on, we can certainly have that chat... though there’s honestly no need, because as has been explained, "fascist" carries a derogatory weight that fully encompasses any kind of discrimination against those who are different. And those ideas regarding banning medical procedures, even the ones performed in Saudi Arabia, are undeniably discriminatory in nature.

And look, if you were under the impression that you can't call a Black hater a racist on this forum, then you've completely missed the mark.

lonebadger6 said:I would also suggest that you find a more appropriate space for this discussion—perhaps via a private message or by starting a specific thread elsewhere—as the Democratic Party section really isn't intended for these kinds of debates; its purpose is primarily focused on specific grievances and disciplinary actions. Thanks in advance!

Just to give you a quick summary—and perhaps to save you some time if you decide to do your own digging later—the very first gender reassignment surgery actually took place back in 1930, right in Germany. It was German specialists who were essentially the world pioneers in this field. However, things took a dark turn just three years later when the Nazis rose to power; by November 1933, transvestites were being sent to concentration camps, and by 1938, a formal decision was made to completely "eliminate the phenomenon of transvestism" from public life. Their fascist colleagues in Italy, naturally, followed suit quite faithfully. As for the USA and most other nations, they weren't even able to perform such procedures at the time—since progress in this specific branch of medicine was effectively halted everywhere—until things finally began to move forward again in Denmark during the 1950s.

Just as I suspected—to quote you:

That being said—and I suppose this is a matter of perspective—it actually holds up quite well, simply because I haven't been able to identify a more modern iteration of fascists or Nazis. They are, if I am being honest, essentially... The final one—I suppose. I wonder—perhaps it's a bit speculative of me to say—but which specific groups or organizations were the ones strictly opposing gender reassignment surgeries? I suppose there are several different perspectives to consider here.

So, if I’m following your logic correctly—and I might be misinterpreting here—it seems to imply that everyone was performing those gender reassignment surgeries back then, with the sole exception of Nazi Germany, which you're suggesting was the last entity to prohibit them.
In all honesty—though I realize this might be a bit of an oversimplification—Germany was actually the first to carry out those operations, and they were also the ones who initially moved to ban them. As for the other countries, they didn't really have much of a choice in the matter; they couldn't exactly permit or prohibit such things when they weren't even involved in the process themselves... I guess you could say they simply lacked the standing to intervene.

Nowadays—and I suppose you might even agree—it seems far too easy to slap a "fascist" label on anyone who dares to disagree with a particular set of beliefs or a specific worldview. It’s become a bit of a reflex, hasn't it? We see it everywhere—people calling Markićka a religious fascist, or labeling Trump as a fascist, or claiming that Assad is a fascist because of his actions against Trump. Then there is the accusation that Soros is some kind of liberal fascist, or that anyone standing against mass immigration is automatically a fascist. From Putin and Orban to certain American politicians—according to Frljić—to the concept of Islamic fascism... the list just goes on and on.
It seems we have reached a point where everyone is being labeled a fascist—it’s almost inevitable at this stage. But I suppose if the label is applied to absolutely everyone, then the term itself loses all its weight, doesn't it? If everybody is a fascist, then, by definition, nobody actually is. Do you see what I mean?
I suppose it might be wise—perhaps even necessary—to refrain from slapping these labels on things quite so hastily.

Look, if we've agreed to be super picky about using slurs—just so I don't have to keep repeating myself from earlier posts—then fine, I can easily swap it out for "backwards, primitive Nazi."
But there’s honestly no point, since "fascist" is just the standard term used in these online circles... whereas "Nazi" is what you hear more often in the real world. In American English, this is just how things have settled...

I actually agree with you that labels get tossed around way too easily. But you're making a logical leap by assuming that because people overreach, it means they aren't always justified when they call someone out 😉 This specific situation is probably the perfect example of why. It’s basically the equivalent of someone saying "Black people are worthless and should all be kicked back to Africa" and then throwing a tantrum because someone called them a racist. Of course, I should mention that nobody personally attacked the OP, but we can't control which parts of a discussion people happen to see themselves in. Finding those lines is incredibly difficult in most cases, that much is true... but in this instance, there's really nothing to debate:

If someone were to discriminate against a minority group—specifically a physically disabled one—by blocking medical procedures that could help both their physical health and their peace of mind, especially when even the most backward places on the planet like Saudi Arabia perform those procedures regularly, then yeah, sorry, that person is a fascist. Or a Nazi. That’s pretty much a core part of their whole deal.

Sure, there’s another issue at play here. You can always argue that it wasn't actual fascism, but just pure ignorance or lack of education, and it's definitely wrong to label someone a fascist just because they're uninformed. However, the problem with this specific topic is that links were posted right around that time that allowed anyone to look up the facts and learn whatever they needed to know.

Look, I’m all for gender reassignment. Hey, if someone's happy, they're happy.

But I can't help but wonder about this specific rhetorical trick where, as soon as a debate splits into two camps, one side just jumps out and yells: "If you don't agree with [Insert My Opinion Here], then you're clearly a fascist."
I mean, logically speaking, the other half of the room shouldn't feel targeted by a statement like that, right?

So, let's get specific—could the opposition just fire back with: "Oh, so anyone advocating for gender reassignment is actually just a liberal fascist?"

From what I can see, everyone here just takes any random OPINION—yeah, you heard me, an actual opinion—and immediately screams "fascism!" Like, seriously? In a functioning democracy, people are supposed to be allowed to say what they think. But hey, maybe we aren’t living in a functional democracy anymore. Clearly, we aren't.

Look, if someone thinks gender reassignment is unnatural, wrong, or just plain messed up, that is their right to believe. Period.

And besides—I haven't seen anyone actually suggesting a total ban on these surgeries, have you? Where is this being proposed? Who is even calling for that?

Alright, enough with the trolling. No, having an opinion doesn't automatically make it a right, and watching people double down on that logic is becoming honestly pathetic...

"If someone thinks Black people are scum that need to be sent back to Africa, that's their right." No, it really isn't (unless you just keep it to yourself).

My favorite part is when the trolling starts with this delusional idea that any brainless nonsense popping into someone's head counts as an "opinion" protected by "free speech." It doesn't, and it hasn't ever, anywhere on this planet...

Anyway, the OP already got their answer, and since the Democratic Party isn't exactly a forum for this kind of debate or for people trolling just because they're offended, I'm out. Peace. If the supermods feel like stepping in, whether it's for darkotter35 or me, they'll say so if they think something needs to be added.

You still haven't actually answered me—who even is this person, and where did they supposedly suggest banning gender reassignment surgeries?

It’s the same deal in real life—whoever sets the rules gets the final say on how things wrap up.

That’s why I’m asking what the actual ground rules are, just so I know how to navigate this whole debate without flying blind.

lonebadger6 said:Alright, enough with the trolling. No, not every single opinion someone holds is a "right"—it’s actually becoming a tragicomically delusional way of looking at things.

"If someone thinks Black people are scum that should be kicked back to Africa, that's their right." No, it isn't (unless they just keep it to themselves).

My favorite part is when the trolling starts with this totally insane idea that any stupid thought popping into someone's head qualifies as an "opinion" protected by "freedom of speech." It doesn't. No, it absolutely does not. Not here, not anywhere on the planet.

Maybe take a second to look up what "anywhere on the planet" actually means. In the US, freedom of speech is almost absolute—for instance, Nazi parties are perfectly legal over there, and waving Nazi symbols or voicing those views is totally allowed by law. You can even be a member of the Ku Klux Klan and hold the opinion that Black people are subhuman, and it's still legal. Basically, you can say almost anything there. We aren't the USA, but I just want to smash this myth that "every opinion someone has falls under freedom of speech anywhere on the planet." Take New York City, for example (I've got family there, so I know how things work)—in certain mosques, they openly preach about how to properly kill non-believers (meaning anyone who isn't Muslim), all while being shielded by some minority rights law or freedom of speech regulation. So, yeah, freedom of speech is a super broad, elastic concept and it varies wildly from one country to the next.

My post just got nuked because I called an interlocutor a liberal fascist over this thread:

..basically—I called them a liberal fascist.
If there isn't actually anything wrong with what I said, then where's the issue?

crimsonjackal63 said:My post just got nuked because of what this guy said in this thread:

I’m calling them a liberal fascist.
If there isn't a problem, then what exactly are we even talking about?

Did you seriously press the wrong button there? 🤔

crimsonjackal63 said:My post just got nuked. Apparently, some guy took issue with what I wrote over at this link:

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It seems like we often get caught up in the noise of the moment, chasing after the latest trend or reacting to some sudden shift in the market. We tend to forget that true stability comes from patience. I know, I know—it sounds a bit cliché. I'm probably just being overly cautious here. But honestly, looking back at how things have played out in the US economy over the last few years, there's a pattern. People panic, they sell, they regret, and then they try to jump back in once the dust settles. It's a cycle. I try my best not to be part of that cycle, though I'll admit I've slipped up more than once. I'm a work in progress. Ryan Vaughn7 made an interesting point earlier about how much influence social media sentiment has on these fluctuations. It’s true. A single viral post can send a shockwave through a sector before anyone has even had their morning coffee. It makes you realize how fragile that sense of "certainty" really is. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble. Just some thoughts while I sit here with my coffee. It's easy to feel like you have everything figured out until the wind changes direction. Let's see where this goes.

I’d go as far as calling them a liberal fascist.
If there isn't an actual problem, then what exactly am I looking at?

It’s basically just cardboard at this point.