153
Russian warships will arrive in Havana next week, say Cuban officials citing ‘friendly relations’
(www.denverpost.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
153 points (100.0% liked)
news
23555 readers
813 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sure does though.
Of all the definitions of fascism, Paxton’s would fit Russia the least of them.
You haven’t read it. It’s really obvious. Fuck off.
Wrongo.
Righto.
Let me tell you something about the book you haven’t read but are citing like the wanker you are.
Half of it is a description of why even Franco’s Spain shouldn’t be considered fascist.
But you, the wanker, haven’t read it and you don’t know that. You don’t know the book you’re citing is explicitly about drawing boundaries and lines to delineate fascism from other forms of bourgeois dictatorships, militarism, and other forms of authoritarianism.
You fucking wanker. You haven’t read the book. Haha and you’re being all “wrongo” smug about it.
The problem with citing works you blatantly have not read is that many people here have.
And those of us who actually have read a book think you’re an idiot.
Let me remind you that Robert Paxton has now reached a point where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism in the US and that under Trump the US was fascist in a way it wasn't before and after. So the idea that his definition and understanding of fascism is an inherently very narrow one is just pointless.
Robert Paxton argued that fascism comes from a specific confluence of events in which the traditional elite relies on a radical right wing to maintain their power due to having lost legitimacy or needing power to suppress the left, forming a coalition between traditional stake holders in the state (Like capitalists, clergy, nobility, what have you. In the Russian case this would be the capitalist class who bought out the state during the shock doctrine) and right wing nationalism which tends towards a mass movement character. This movement co-opts the popularity of the movement into a suppression of "actual democracy" (Really liberal bourgeois dictatorship of course) and maintains power by balancing the powers of the coalitions. This movement then either decays into generic "authoritarian" rule under the traditional elite, or is increasingly radicalized towards genocidal redemptive violence.
Russia of course decayed into oligarchic fascist rule by the traditional power brokers.
This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric), that we voted fascism out, but that Genocide Joe is not fascist?
Yes. He does. Which is why I think it's not useful to say that his definition of fascism is uniquely restrictive. I have a suspicion that my interlocutor, given their focus on Francoist Spain was actually thinking of Stanley Payne who does have a very restrictive definition of fascism that specifically excludes francoism... because he is a francoist. I'll address your other bigger point because it is actually worth addressing, I just saw this first.
You’re lying again.
Here’s a link to the article you cited but didn’t link because you’re such a dishonest fucking hack.
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652
Paxton hasn’t changed his opinion AT ALL you fucking liar. He didn’t magically make his definition of fascism more broad and inclusive like you are dishonestly presenting here.
He applied his exclusive definition and pointed specifically to inciting public violence to work along side his political movement. How does that apply to Putin you dishonest hack?
In what sense at all has Paxton “reached the point” of changing his definition as defined in that book you haven’t read when finally removing his resistance to calling Trump fascist in light of specifically Jan 6th?
You’re pretending Paxton has shifted to a broad and inclusive definition of fascism and he absolutely has not you liar. If you had read anatomy of fascism then you wouldn’t have claimed what you just did.
You’re such a fucking hack, man.
Read the article you’re citing.
Read the book you’re citing.
You fucking wanker.
No I don't think I have pretended that Robert Paxton sat down and decided to fully rewrite his work during the Trump years, that would have been dishonest. But that his own interpretation of what is considered fascist is broad enough to include Trump but not any previous US president, and that this constitutes a lack of rigor that he has adopted in part out of his own political opinions on Trump becoming sourer through his reign. Which is evident when you compare his first article and his second article.
I think you're just mad that I have demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about.
This is a fucking lie though. Paxton explicitly argued against equating Trumpism with fascism even in the article where he calls Trump a fascist and if you had read the book you cited and then pretended to have read you would understand why he called it an anatomy of fascism.
You are a hack.
No it isn't. He also in the same breath where he points out that Trumpism has differences to traditional fascism point out htat Trump has differences to traditional fascism, but clarifies without making a distinction that the label is not only right but necessarily applied. It's also of course right before he makes a specific comparison and equivalence between the fascist french veterans storming the parliament and the US protestors storming the capitol on January 6th.
Insults are not a substitute for an argument.
The incitement of public violence is explicitly makes Trump a fascist, to Paxton, and that’s entirely consistent with his book that you pretended to have read and means you were a dishonest hack to present this as though Paxton’s definition of exclusions and attributes is somehow some washy “fascism is a vibe” thing.
That’s not his definition at all, he’s all about line drawing, and he likes bright lines.
And citing books you haven’t read and then pretending to have read them and then saying “I proved I know what I’m talking about” when all you’re proving is that you haven’t read the book you pretended to have read is what makes you a fucking wanker and a hack.
I don't know how to respond to this except to say you're just not arguing with anything I've said, and in the process you've said a lot of stuff that's not true and quite obviously so?
In other words, turned out I fucking knew what I was talking about and you didn't. Which of course I already knew
Reddit moment
dude just log the fuck off
I'm not logging off explicitly out of spite. I didn't give a shit about this beyond saying "Cringe" until the pile on started. In other words, reddit moment #2
Keep posting through it, definitely the better coping strategy
Lmao you're mad
about as mad as you are, yes.
I think you're madder tho. I just read thru all the comments and I'm as annoyed with you as I am with all redditors who wnader in here.
Especially with how Not Mad you took the time to say you were. You're responding to everyone to tell them you're Not Mad, I'm just responding to you.
You should really log out. You're talking about spite and stuff, that's a bad coping mechanic.
I don't know, I think it's pretty fair to say "Reddit moment" to a gendered slur. But you obviously seem to think those are fine and good
No I think that was the one normal reaction you had
yeah i've been down this road before, you aren't doing anything. nothing you will say will change anything. You've already labeled yourself as a subject of mockery, so just fucking leave and let them forget your name so you can just go on. Also just change this stupid opinion of yours.
comrade i am trans don't tell me shit. you're using that card specifically to try to escape your well deserved criticism.
No, I am using that card specifically because it's not actually okay to use gendered slurs about others. Even if you are a woman. I did however remove it because I realize that citing gendered language as a problem is not my place to say to a trans person, especially given that I realize that I am quick to use "Guy" about an unknown gender so it would be hypocritical. The criticism of the slur I feel is still valid. Don't use that kind of language.
Also I'm not gonna leave because you tell me. My opinion is correct, and a bunch of people being wrong at me isn't gonna change anything. If "Many people are disagreeing at me" was a thing that changed opinions, none of you would have migrated over from reddit, you would have just maintained your reddit opinions. Instead you just kept the attitude to arguing.
okay okay okay i did not use a slur camillepagliacci i called you the british name for a pussy
you can be correct somewhere else and just not sit here exposing how much of a damn annoying 'right' person you are
you ain't helping yourself in any way, just go
in other words, you used a gendered slur. Please don't be cute about this.
You don't get to call me a slur and then act like you're doing me a favor.
i don't care at all lmao you are deflecting from the fact you are taking an ultraleft position on literally something as easy as 'cuba getting supplies and sovereignty back with the help of russia' and going 'cringe dude'
lmfao you're really trying to find any solid ground and honestly its my bad for giving any, you seem to be out of it
Honestly through this whole thread you've given me nothing but the vibe of being a smug cracker sooooooooo I dunno why you're surprised you're getting called this, that, and the third by people slightly-less-principled.
"You shouldn't be surprised people use gendered slurs about you"
Maximum reddit.
I mean, she's a chick; so I don't begrudge her the right to reclaim. It might not fly here, specifically; but I'm not finna begrudge her that because be damned if I'd let some cracker police my speech. And fuck off with your pithy "reddit moment", "reddit moment", "maximum reddit" liberal-assed "flag on the play" debate-referee bullshit. Pot, kettle, rim me. Serious people address content, not tone, you fuckin yankee hack.
Reddit moment
Says the person with an account named after a pedophile.
No you're gonna leave because you're being a debate pervert and your username is sus as fuck.
What slur did you post
Chunt but the h is silent
i said the b word