Denmark has legalized same sex marriage!

[No Water No Moon]

I'm not dumb enough to pretend those two are perfect, but socialism at least has some good intentions behind it. Fascism is impossible to polish.

You cannot be so dense; even 20^th century versions of Fascism had at least some good intentions behind them and if you don't realise that then you have a very clouded perception of reality.

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

[Dyakovo]

You cannot be so dense; even 20^th century versions of Fascism had at least some good intentions behind them and if you don't realise that then you have a very clouded perception of reality.

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

Is there a bad way?

Seriously though, I believe his point was that fascist are capable of doing good things, or at the very least doing things that are meant to be for the greater good.

[The Darwinian People]

You cannot be so dense; even 20^th century versions of Fascism had at least some good intentions behind them and if you don't realise that then you have a very clouded perception of reality.

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

One, I said some.

Two, I said intentions.

Three, I could easily say, in whatever sarcastic manner you demand, "The US allowed the wholesale rape and slaughter of village to go unpunished in a good way." and it would make any argument I make about the USA's intentions any more valid.

[The Darwinian People]

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

Is there a bad way?

Seriously though, I believe his point was that fascist are capable of doing good things, or at the very least doing things that are meant to be for the greater good.

No; what I obviously meant is that I completely agree with everything any Fascist regime has ever done.

[No Water No Moon]

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

Is there a bad way?

Seriously though, I believe his point was that fascist are capable of doing good things, or at the very least doing things that are meant to be for the greater good.

It's a fair argument. Looking at both sides of the current American political 'spectrum', you get the feeling both sides are trying to do what they think is better for America, and the same logic obviously applies with more... extreme... political ideologies.

On the other hand, I'd kind of expect someone to explain what was good about their idea of fascism, and how it avoided the problems with which the ideology has seemed so intrinsically connected, before I could really entertain the idea that there was a 'good fascism'.

[No Water No Moon]

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

One, I said some.

Two, I said intentions.

Three, I could easily say, in whatever sarcastic manner you demand, "The US allowed the wholesale rape and slaughter of village to go unpunished in a good way." and it would make any argument I make about the USA's intentions any more valid.

And, if we were talking about the US allowing rape and slaughter of a village to go unpunished, I would say that that was a bad thing - but I'm not sure how it connects.

[SaintB]

Good for Denmark! Sadly this means that the US is falling farther and farther behind in that whole Land of the Free thing.

You actually buy that line? We've been the land of the oppressed and the home of cowards who hide behind political and religious ideals to keep from having to fix it.

[Dyakovo]

One, I said some.

Two, I said intentions.

Three, I could easily say, in whatever sarcastic manner you demand, "The US allowed the wholesale rape and slaughter of village to go unpunished in a good way." and it would make any argument I make about the USA's intentions any more valid.

And, if we were talking about the US allowing rape and slaughter of a village to go unpunished, I would say that that was a bad thing - but I'm not sure how it connects.

So if a country has done bad things then that means everything thing they did or tried to do was bad?

What a simplistic view you have...

[The Darwinian People]

Is there a bad way?

Seriously though, I believe his point was that fascist are capable of doing good things, or at the very least doing things that are meant to be for the greater good.

It's a fair argument. Looking at both sides of the current American political 'spectrum', you get the feeling both sides are trying to do what they think is better for America, and the same logic obviously applies with more... extreme... political ideologies.

On the other hand, I'd kind of expect someone to explain what was good about their idea of fascism, and how it avoided the problems with which the ideology has seemed so intrinsically connected, before I could really entertain the idea that there was a 'good fascism'.

But which race? Does there exist a German race? Has it ever existed? Will it ever exist? Reality, myth, or hoax of the theorists?
Ah well, we respond, a Germanic race does not exist. Various movements. Curiosity. Stupor. We repeat. Does not exist. We don't say so. Scientists say so. Hitler says so.

- Benito Mussolini


That is how you avoid the problems that Fascism has, apparently, been intrinsically linked with; by standing up to people who corrupt our ideology.

[Zaras]

You cannot be so dense; even 20^th century versions of Fascism had at least some good intentions behind them and if you don't realise that then you have a very clouded perception of reality.

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

If you honestly think that there's any good intentions behind official promotion of eugenics and "superiority" of people based on arbitrary notions like race, belief in idiotic Social Darwinism, stamping out of opposition, dictatorial cult of personality rule, genocide and discrimination against entire ethnicities, rabid nationalism, expansionist imperialism and fetishising violence and warfare, you have a lot of nerve to accuse me of being dense.

If fascists might do good, that's in SPITE of their ideology ("fascists doing good" in itself is just rich; the only person I can think of who did enough good was Perón). There is nothing good inherent within fascism.

[No Water No Moon]

And, if we were talking about the US allowing rape and slaughter of a village to go unpunished, I would say that that was a bad thing - but I'm not sure how it connects.

So if a country has done bad things then that means everything thing they did or tried to do was bad?

No, but if a country (not sure how we got onto country from ideology, to be honest) has a policy of ignoring crimes against civilians (which is what I'm getting from the bizarre response about villages - I admit, I could be reading that wrong) - then that is a statement of intent, and thus, their intentions are flawed. Possibly, fatally flawed.

[Dyakovo]

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

If you honestly think that there's any good intentions behind official promotion of eugenics and "superiority" of people based on arbitrary notions like race, belief in idiotic Social Darwinism, stamping out of opposition, dictatorial cult of personality rule, genocide and discrimination against entire ethnicities, rabid nationalism, expansionist imperialism and fetishising violence and warfare, you have a lot of nerve to accuse me of being dense.

If fascists might do good, that's in SPITE of their ideology ("fascists doing good" in itself is just rich; the only person I can think of who did enough good was Perón). There is nothing good inherent within fascism.

I invite you to take a look at the German economy in the 1920s and then in the 1930s...

[No Water No Moon]

It's a fair argument. Looking at both sides of the current American political 'spectrum', you get the feeling both sides are trying to do what they think is better for America, and the same logic obviously applies with more... extreme... political ideologies.

On the other hand, I'd kind of expect someone to explain what was good about their idea of fascism, and how it avoided the problems with which the ideology has seemed so intrinsically connected, before I could really entertain the idea that there was a 'good fascism'.

But which race? Does there exist a German race? Has it ever existed? Will it ever exist? Reality, myth, or hoax of the theorists?
Ah well, we respond, a Germanic race does not exist. Various movements. Curiosity. Stupor. We repeat. Does not exist. We don't say so. Scientists say so. Hitler says so.

- Benito Mussolini


That is how you avoid the problems that Fascism has, apparently, been intrinsically linked with; by standing up to people who corrupt our ideology.

Mussolini apparently didn't like scientists, and didn't believe there was a 'German' race. Not sure how that equates to 'but there's a good fascism'.

[Zaras]

If you honestly think that there's any good intentions behind official promotion of eugenics and "superiority" of people based on arbitrary notions like race, belief in idiotic Social Darwinism, stamping out of opposition, dictatorial cult of personality rule, genocide and discrimination against entire ethnicities, rabid nationalism, expansionist imperialism and fetishising violence and warfare, you have a lot of nerve to accuse me of being dense.

If fascists might do good, that's in SPITE of their ideology ("fascists doing good" in itself is just rich; the only person I can think of who did enough good was Perón). There is nothing good inherent within fascism.

I invite you to take a look at the German economy in the 1920s and then in the 1930s...

Yah, sure, and Mussolini made the trains run on time, except he didn't. Did all that economic stuff in any way close to make up for how much evil the Nazis perpetrated? No. No it didn't and to argue otherwise is foolish.

I cited Perón because he's the only one I can think of who did enough good for his own means to at least almost make up for his own fascism-fanboy idiocy. Franco, Mussolini and the whole lot are evil, murderous pricks first and foremost. That's a terrible argument to try and use against someone who points out the obvious fact that fascism, as an ideology, as a whole, is inherently evil.

[Dyakovo]

So if a country has done bad things then that means everything thing they did or tried to do was bad?

No, but if a country (not sure how we got onto country from ideology, to be honest) has a policy of ignoring crimes against civilians (which is what I'm getting from the bizarre response about villages - I admit, I could be reading that wrong) - then that is a statement of intent, and thus, their intentions are flawed. Possibly, fatally flawed.

Your decision to fixate on Nazi Germany's anti-semitism...

[No Water No Moon]

If you honestly think that there's any good intentions behind official promotion of eugenics and "superiority" of people based on arbitrary notions like race, belief in idiotic Social Darwinism, stamping out of opposition, dictatorial cult of personality rule, genocide and discrimination against entire ethnicities, rabid nationalism, expansionist imperialism and fetishising violence and warfare, you have a lot of nerve to accuse me of being dense.

If fascists might do good, that's in SPITE of their ideology ("fascists doing good" in itself is just rich; the only person I can think of who did enough good was Perón). There is nothing good inherent within fascism.

I invite you to take a look at the German economy in the 1920s and then in the 1930s...

I think the discussion starts wandering into a very grey area when the justification for genocide is that it's good for the economy.

[Divair]

Oi, this is a thread concerning same sex marriage, not fascism. Start a separate thread for that, please.

[The Darwinian People]

Indeed. The Third Reich gassed Jews in a good way.

If you honestly think that there's any good intentions behind official promotion of eugenics and "superiority" of people based on arbitrary notions like race, belief in idiotic Social Darwinism, stamping out of opposition, dictatorial cult of personality rule, genocide and discrimination against entire ethnicities, rabid nationalism, expansionist imperialism and fetishising violence and warfare, you have a lot of nerve to accuse me of being dense. You cannot be dense enough to pretend there's anything *good* about fascism.

If fascists might do good, that's in SPITE of their ideology ("fascists doing good" in itself is just rich; the only person I can think of who did enough good was Perón). There is nothing good inherent within fascism.

Ending class conflict, ending the 'short-sightedness' and corruption associated with Liberal democracy, the creation of a master race (that is, not a promotion of any existing one but a conscious effort to better mankind), ending organized crime, promoting real egalitarianism and meritocracy, glorifying righteous violence (that is, war intended to bring lasting peace instead of destabilization and subjugation), reforestation and compulsory veganism.

[Dyakovo]

I invite you to take a look at the German economy in the 1920s and then in the 1930s...

Yah, sure, and Mussolini made the trains run on time, except he didn't. Did all that economic stuff in any way close to make up for how much evil the Nazis perpetrated? No. No it didn't and to argue otherwise is foolish.

I cited Perón because he's the only one I can think of who did enough good for his own means to at least almost make up for his own fascism-fanboy idiocy. Franco, Mussolini and the whole lot are evil, murderous pricks first and foremost.

Where did I claim that the good done by the fascists out-wieghed the bad?

[The Darwinian People]

Oi, this is a thread concerning same sex marriage, not fascism. Start a separate thread for that, please.

It is connected; they have suggested that a fascist is incapable of respecting human rights which includes the right to marriage.

[Divair]

Oi, this is a thread concerning same sex marriage, not fascism. Start a separate thread for that, please.

It is connected; they have suggested that a fascist is incapable of respecting human rights which includes the right to marriage.

So please start a thread about fascism & human rights.

[Nall]

I personally believe in same sex marriage, 1. because it is none of my business to tell someone that they can or cannot marry anyone they choose and 2. the government and the church should have no power in telling people they cannot get married

[Zaras]

If you honestly think that there's any good intentions behind official promotion of eugenics and "superiority" of people based on arbitrary notions like race, belief in idiotic Social Darwinism, stamping out of opposition, dictatorial cult of personality rule, genocide and discrimination against entire ethnicities, rabid nationalism, expansionist imperialism and fetishising violence and warfare, you have a lot of nerve to accuse me of being dense. You cannot be dense enough to pretend there's anything *good* about fascism.

If fascists might do good, that's in SPITE of their ideology ("fascists doing good" in itself is just rich; the only person I can think of who did enough good was Perón). There is nothing good inherent within fascism.

Ending class conflict, ending the 'short-sightedness' and corruption associated with Liberal democracy, the creation of a master race (that is, not a promotion of any existing one but a conscious effort to better mankind), ending organized crime, promoting real egalitarianism and meritocracy, glorifying righteous violence (that is, war intended to bring lasting peace instead of destabilization and subjugation), reforestation and compulsory veganism.

Bullshit. Fascism did not end class conflict, it merely used its own state apparatus to start violence on behalf of one class against the others. It is just as corrupt as liberal democracy but its lack of "short-sightedness" is irrelevant since their long plan was evil, the master race thing is not in any way shape or form an effort to better mankind but merely a way for them to beat down everybody else (not a promotion of any existing one, ROFLMFAO. Holocaust. Glorious Aryan race.), fascism is inherently opposed to egalitarianism or meritocracy since its whole point is that some people are somehow more fit and supposed to rule everybody else and your argument about "righteous violence" is just divorced from reality.

Saying that that somehow is balanced by ending organised crime and doing some environment shit is like saying that, y'know, Ted Bundy was a serial killing shitstain, but damn was he charismatic.

And I'm going to go ask a mod if we can split off this entire thing for its own thread now.

[No Water No Moon]

No, but if a country (not sure how we got onto country from ideology, to be honest) has a policy of ignoring crimes against civilians (which is what I'm getting from the bizarre response about villages - I admit, I could be reading that wrong) - then that is a statement of intent, and thus, their intentions are flawed. Possibly, fatally flawed.

Your decision to fixate on Nazi Germany's anti-semitism...

I didn't fixate on Nazi Germany's anti-semitism.

I responded to this: "You cannot be so dense; even 20th century versions of Fascism had at least some good intentions behind them and if you don't realise that then you have a very clouded perception of reality."

...by picking something most people would agree was a fairly searing indictment of "20th century Fascism".

I don't think it's 'dense' for people to be very cynical about 20th century fascism. I don't think being wary is evidence of "a very clouded perception of reality".

Indeed, I'd argue exactly the opposite. I'd say that it would require VERY good evidence to the contrary, to offset wariness about the problems that seem to associate themselves with Fascism.

That's not a dense or clouded view. That's looking at 20th century Fascism (as mentioned in the post I replied to) and trying to see just how 'good' the 'intentions' were, and asking whether 'hey, but the trains ran on time' is actually an equal intent value to 'and Jews aren't real people, anyway'.

[The Darwinian People]

I personally believe in same sex marriage, 1. because it is none of my business to tell someone that they can or cannot marry anyone they choose and 2. the government and the church should have no power in telling people they cannot get married

The second one depends, of course. I'd say that, whilst neither should deny an adult citizen the right to marriage, the should be able to deny that right to people (children, primates etc.) but I assume that's what you meant, anyway.