Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism?


smac97

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do we have any fascists here? Or are you saying the DezNat group has no fascists?

I suspect we have a few fascists here but they do not share their views. And no, I am not naming names and no, you are not one of them. The one I suspected most has not posted for a long time.

Even if I am wrong on that person I think it is statistically probable there are a few.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect we have a few fascists here but they do not share their views. And no, I am not naming names and no, you are not one of them. The one I suspected most has not posted for a long time.

Even if I am wrong on that person I think it is statistically probable there are a few.

What makes a person or views fascist?

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect we have a few fascists here but they do not share their views. And no, I am not naming names and no, you are not one of them. The one I suspected most has not posted for a long time.

Even if I am wrong on that person I think it is statistically probable there are a few.

I think <fascist> is a term that is thrown around far too glibly these days — like <racist> and <white supremacist> and <alt right> and <xenophobe> and <homophobe>. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, provoman said:

What makes a person or views fascist?

Fascism has a definition. Why is everyone demanding definitions for established words lately? Does everyone think we are allowed private definitions now?

I hate this post-fact world. :( 

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think <fascist> is a term that is thrown around far too glibly these days — like <racist> and <white supremacist> and <alt right> and <xenophobe> and <homophobe>. 

Abusum non tollit usum.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think <fascist> is a term that is thrown around far too glibly these days — like <racist> and <white supremacist> and <alt right> and <xenophobe> and <homophobe>. 

And "ecclesiastical abuse."

These have all become weaponized catchphrases, largely divorced from any inherent meaning or utility.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

And "ecclesiastical abuse."

These have all become weaponized catchphrases, largely divorced from any inherent meaning or utility.

Thanks,

-Smac

While the others try to define them out of existence using 1984 style wordplay.

Nope.  Some of these words have actual, you-can-find-it-in-the-dictionary meanings, but the issue here is that these words and phrases are being divorced from those meanings, and instead are being turned into weaponized catchphrases.

Words like "fascist" and "nazi" and "cult" and "bigot" get thrown around all the time online.  Such usage is not borne of accuracy, but of anger and malice and weaponization.  "Fascist" is often used not for its actual meaning, but for its weaponized one. 

"You're a fascist/nazi/bigot!" often really means "I dislike your sociopolitical opinion, so I'm going to throw a horrid-but-inaccurately-utilized label at you in order to deligitimize your position!" 

"You belong to a cult!" often really means "I dislike your religion, so I am going to apply to it a descriptor with a disparaging connotation in order to evoke fear and distrust and hostility against you!"

"Ecclesiastical abuse" often really means "A Latter-day Saint bishop said something that offended me, so I am going to go online and excoriate him so as to solicit sympathy for myself and foment antipathy against him and the Church!"

Gossip.  Backbiting.  Faultfinding.  These are not helpful in building the Lord's kingdom.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  Some of these words have actual, you-can-find-it-in-the-dictionary meanings, but the issue here is that these words and phrases are being divorced from those meanings, and instead are being turned into weaponized catchphrases.

Words like "fascist" and "nazi" and "cult" and "bigot" get thrown around all the time online.  Such usage is not borne of accuracy, but of anger and malice and weaponization.  "Fascist" is often used not for its actual meaning, but for its weaponized one. 

"You're a fascist/nazi/bigot!" often really means "I dislike your sociopolitical opinion, so I'm going to throw a horrid-but-inaccurately-utilized label at you in order to deligitimize your position!" 

"You belong to a cult!" often really means "I dislike your religion, so I am going to apply to it a descriptor with a disparaging connotation in order to evoke fear and distrust and hostility against you!"

"Ecclesiastical abuse" often really means "A Latter-day Saint bishop said something that offended me, so I am going to go online and excoriate him so as to solicit sympathy for myself and foment antipathy against him and the Church!"

Gossip.  Backbiting.  Faultfinding.  These are not helpful in building the Lord's kingdom.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yet there are real fascists, real racists, real bigots, and real instances of abuse but you and many others seem to generalize the abuse of the word to the general case.

You are destroying the value of the words as much as your opponents are with a knee jerk assumption that the use is abuse.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yet there are real fascists, real racists, real bigots, and real instances of abuse but you and many others seem to generalize the abuse of the word to the general case.

I agree.  But we do ourselves a real disservice when we blithely allow such loaded terms to be weaponized and misused.

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are destroying the value of the words as much as your opponents are with a knee jerk assumption that the use is abuse.

Except that I am not relying on knee-jerk assumptions.  And I am relying on and advocating for the value of commonly-held meanings/definitions, so I don't think its correct to say that I am "destroying the value" of such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But we do ourselves a real disservice when we blithely allow such loaded terms to be weaponized and misused.

Except that I am not relying on knee-jerk assumptions.  And I am relying on and advocating for the value of commonly-held meanings/definitions, so I don't think its correct to say that I am "destroying the value" of such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that allowing them to be weaponized to attack those who do not fit the description is bad but I believe many then overcorrect and fall off the other side of the horse.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that allowing them to be weaponized to attack those who do not fit the description is bad but I believe many then overcorrect and fall off the other side of the horse.

Fair enough.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Lloyd Christmas said:

If the exmormon reddit group contributed to this dialogue group I'm 100% certain that many DezNats would be born. Welcome to Twitter, the mother of DezNat. I follow them and applaud their effort in defending the faith. Never have I seen them do anything racist, homophobic, etc. 

Being Deznat would mean going to Twitter which is only marginally better than Outer Darkness.

Link to comment
On 9/12/2019 at 11:26 AM, The Nehor said:

Yet there are real fascists, real racists, real bigots, and real instances of abuse but you and many others seem to generalize the abuse of the word to the general case.

You are destroying the value of the words as much as your opponents are with a knee jerk assumption that the use is abuse.

Which is why I asked you for examples of fascists on this board — so we could better understand you when you use that term. You said you don’t mean me. I didn’t expect you did, but thanks, I guess, for the faint praise. Then, you spoke of some, including one who hadn’t posted for a long time, but wouldn’t name any, and you surmised there must be others lurking around here. Not very clarifying, since, if they remain unidentified, there is no way for us to assess your meaning.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is why I asked you for examples of fascists on this board — so we could better understand you when you use that term. You said you don’t mean me. I didn’t expect you did, but thanks, I guess. Then, you spoke of one and wouldn’t name him or her. You surmised there must be others lurking around here, not very clarifying, since, if they keep themselves hidden, there is no way for us to assess your meaning.

I meant that it is probable that a few are here just because of the number of people here. I only ever suspected one other poster and even my suspicions are not enough to share.

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

No one here is saying it does. That’s a straw man argument. 

I have seen actual fascists defended using that very defense on this board. Perhaps not in this thread explicitly though some comments here flirt with the idea that fascists and racists are a mythical construct. It is a particularly fleshy and animated straw man if it is one.

Link to comment

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Being Deznat would mean going to Twitter which is only marginally better than Outer Darkness.

I have never understood why anyone would expect a site named “Twitter” to have much value. Do they not know what that means?

”a small tremulous intermittent sound (as of birds)

2a: a light silly laugh : GIGGLE

b: a light chattering

3: a trembling agitation”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twitter

Saying someone was twittering when I grew up was derogatory, essentially calling them an airhead, idiot, twit.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I have never understood why anyone would expect a site named “Twitter” to have much value. Do they not know what that means?

”a small tremulous intermittent sound (as of birds)

2a: a light silly laugh : GIGGLE

b: a light chattering

3: a trembling agitation”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twitter

Saying someone was twittering when I grew up was derogatory, essentially calling them an airhead, idiot, twit.

 

I don’t think it was conceived originally as a political, intellectual or philosophical platform. I could be wrong, but I recall the initial purpose was to say what one is doing at the moment. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think it was conceived originally as a political, intellectual or philosophical platform. I could be wrong, but I recall the initial purpose was to say what one is doing at the moment. 

Yes, but even so the idea that twittering was something someone would admit to doing...people would be insulted if they were so described in the past in my community. Books I read described harmless, but mentally deficient and overly talkative individuals as twittering. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, but even so the idea that twittering was something someone would admit to doing...people would be insulted if they were so described in the past in my community. Books I read described harmless, but mentally deficient and overly talkative individuals as twittering. 

That’s certainly ironic, if not predictive! 😆 

Link to comment
On 9/12/2019 at 10:22 AM, The Nehor said:

Fascism has a definition. Why is everyone demanding definitions for established words lately? Does everyone think we are allowed private definitions now?

I hate this post-fact world. :( 

Yes it does, and does antifa use the definition or has antifa created its own "private definition". Beating people, using weapons against people, assaulting people with pad locks, because one either disagrees with the victims sociopolitical beliefs sure seems like of people promoting fascism; yet beatings and/or assault to oppress or silence victims are the common practiced tactics of antifa.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, provoman said:

Yes it does, and does antifa use the definition or has antifa created its own "private definition". Beating people, using weapons against people, assaulting people with pad locks, because one either disagrees with the victims sociopolitical beliefs sure seems like of people promoting fascism; yet beatings and/or assault to oppress or silence victims are the common practiced tactics of antifa.

I am going to throw my hands up a little now in frustration since you are trying to create your own private definition of fascism.

First off, the tactics you want to use to call Antifa fascist are not explicitly fascist. They are used by all kinds of movements from authoritarian states to some forms of anarchy so throwing the fascist label back at them is dumb.

Antifa is also not a universal organization. There is no governing group. They are too anarchic. They are militant. Some groups that use the name Antifa use violence. Some use vandalism. Some use digital harassment. They mingle with peaceful counterprotesters and Their targets are usually fascists, racists, and far and alt right groups. Their membership consists of anarchists, communists, socialists, and even a few market socialists. Generally they believe the Nazis would have failed in Germany if people had taken to the streets and beaten up the brownshirts. I kind of agree with them there.

I admit to sympathy with their goal of beating up Nazis and racists and white nationalists as I think they could use a little bit of pain since those people indiscriminately dish out a lot of pain and fear. Hiding behind the law while hurting others disgusts me. That being said at the same time I am generally opposed to vigilante violence and believe Antifa is counterproductive to its stated aims. I am also not convinced their violence is all aimed at the right people for their goals. They should stop and I support law enforcement efforts to stop them but they are not fascists and I reserve the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists. They have killed no one and only caused a few injuries. Acting like they are the biggest threat in America right now is pure stupidity and overwrought hysteria.

Antifa does fit the definition of being terrorists though but I would not throw that label around because I am guessing you are unwilling to label the terrorists on your own side as terrorists. Wouldn’t want you to be biased.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...