@Færd I'm not aware of having giving a definition. I described roughly how such a thing looks. I don't have precise definitions, and I doubt they exist. I mostly generalize from the examples I'm aware of. Also, to some degree, from how people tend to use the term.

@Xanne That's not socialism at all. That word gets abused all the time.

@Cerberus Calling Trump a Nazi is really not justifiable. What then would you call someone who actually behaved like a Nazi?

Exactly.

@Cerberus As did the Soviet Union. Two different political systems, both calling themselves socialist, but neither of them were. Not even remotely. Someone should copyright that word to stop it from being abused.

(That's not a serious suggestion, obviously.)

@FaheemMitha Well, I would say the SU was socialist to a considerable degree.

The Nazis did, for example, continue with the universal health care system that was originally introduced by Bismarck (I believe), which was also the first universal health care system in history. I also read that the reason Europe has universal health care is because the Nazis took it along with them when they invaded. I don't know about that last part. It would require serious research to determine its accuracy

Anyway, that's about as "progressive" as they got, I think.

@Cerberus Socialism is roughly defined as worker ownership of the means of production, so no. The Soviets (worker councils) for example were socialist, but as I understand it, they had no real power in Soviet Russia.

I'm obviously not that familiar with the Soviet model, though India was trying to emulate it for a while. But I never got the impression that the people running things were at all interested in letting workers own factories or the like. Or even getting a say in how they were run, any more than that happens in the US, for example.

They did have policies that are sometimes called "socialist".

Personally, I think that's an abuse of the term. But one problem with political words is that everyone tends to use it differently. Usually without bothering to attempt to define it.

@FaheemMitha Yeah I do not believe that last part is true.

@Cerberus Perhaps not. It does sound a bit far fetched.

I know that the Netherlands were (was?) invaded by the Germans in 1940. Was there a universal health system before that?

@FaheemMitha It depends on what you call universal.

Before the war, there were many organisations that functioned as health insurance for poor people. Many times, the government had tried to unify and nationalise those, but it was only under the German occupation that a breakthrough was achieved at last (probably because the Germans ignored various laws and consensus).

So you could say the German occupation accelerated things a bit.

It was one of many reforms in healthcare during the twentieth century.

Most leading to more better access to healthcare.

@Cerberus I see. That's interesting. But does the Netherlands now have truly universal health care? And is it single payer? And by universal I mean everyone is covered. If that's too vague, let's say single payer instead.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected (78): Word for people easily influenced by propaganda by Carlos Sun-Tana on english.SE

@FaheemMitha What is single payer?

I would say it is not 100% universal/free.

But, in general, people can go to the doctor without paying a lot.

I can explain the system if you like.

It's not as good as it should be.

@Cerberus Single payer means that just one entity pays for (and manages) health care, I think. Typically the govt. It's the standard model. See for example youtube.com/watch?v=u9x4cRWqPPM

So it's just one large pool of people, in practice.

@Cerberus I think calling Trump Nazi-like is fare game. The fact that it doesn't end (or hasn't ended) in gassing millions of people inside US borders is not because Trump and the cult around him are incapable of doing that. It's because the system in which they operate and the rest of the society (that fortunately happens to disagree with the reactionaries) is strong enough to mount effective opposition to those policies.

They would be able to carry what you call weak echoes of Nazism to much farther extremes if the conditions were more favorable to them; ie, if it weren't for the civil society and the rest of the political system. In fact, they're already posing a serious threat to US's (admittedly faulty) experience of democracy and liberalism.

The Nazis were, in essence, a people like any other. They were not from Mars. We shouldn't put it past people who show similar proclivities to be able to do similar things if they had the means and the power necessary.

@Cerberus Agreed.

@FaheemMitha They changed it here so that you need to have an insurance company. But those companies must accept anyone, and the monthly fee is somewhat regulated, around €100/month. And poor people can get €90 back each month.

@Cerberus The description in that video is not actually great. I think it's pssible to do better.

@Cerberus Doesn't sound ideal.

What video?

@FaheemMitha No, they changed it into a bureaucratic mess.

But, in practice, you can get normal healthcare for cheap.

If you need medical specialists or some medication, you need to pay those yourself, up to €360/year total, for all your medical-specialist costs. Above that amount, it's free.

@FaheemMitha Yeah, by definition I meant those rough descriptions and extrapolation from examples. I think we can strive for more accuracy in what we mean when we say fascism, Nazism, capitalism, neo-liberalism, socialism, etc.

@Færd It's not about gassing people. Trump and the Republicans haven't (a) attempt to jail or otherwise stifle the opposition (b) don't really attempt to control/censor the media (c) do give interviews and press conferences like normal elected officials.

But the big one is dentistry: emergency care is probably covered like normal healthcare, but anything else is unregulated.

@Cerberus Certainly much better than India.

@Færd Just to clear, I wasn't really attempting a definition, and I'm not sure one is possible.

@Cerberus Unregulated? What are the implications of that?

@FaheemMitha To a large extent, which includes Trump himself and his cult and some important politicians, they're not doing those things willingly. And they are trying very hard to undermine those institutions that limit their power.

@Færd So, a fascist regime wouldn't behave like this.

@Færd I think you cannot treat a political movement as existing outside of its socio-political context. Besides, Trump hasn't written a book about how the entire Hispanic race ought to be eradicated by the government.

Just for the sake of concrete illustration.

@FaheemMitha We're not talking about a fascist regime. We're talking about Trumpism.

No, Trump is completely different from Nazism. It's a different ideology, and a very different manifestation.

@Færd Well, they're doing them, at least for now. When they behave differently, there's time to call them Fascist then. And no doubt they're attacking institutions, but that's quite common. The Democrats do it too. That's not sufficient reason for the Fascist label, at least to my mind.

@Færd To some degree, but the Nazis already propagated extreme ideology that has nothing to with Trump, and they already organised violence etc., before they were in power.

@Cerberus There are similarities. And they're trying to act much worse, and change the socio-political context accordingly.

@FaheemMitha It means you could be denied dental insurance by insurance companies (though this is rare), and the insurance fees are high, and they don't cover everything. So it's bad. Not entirely unregulated, but barely regulated.

If you want examples of Democrats ignoring institutions, one example is Obama trying to ignore the War Powers Act. Which is actually a US law. Forgetting about all the international laws he's broken.

@Cerberus The violence or threats of violence that you see from Trump is not without precedence either. White supremacy and ultra-nationalism has a rich history in the US.

@Cerberus Yes, sounds bad. How much does it cost to get a tooth filling? The lowest rate for the simplest filling, let's say.

@FaheemMitha The Democrats have their own faults, but today's Republicans are in a different ball park.

@Færd They're worse, agreed. And Trump has been driving things to new lows.

@Færd So would many different movements or ideologies. That doesn't make them Nazis.

@Færd ...but those are not Trump.

Including insanely dangerous actions like tearing up nuclear treaties. Just asking for trouble.

@Cerberus Only Nazis were and will ever be true Nazis.

But the Democrats are pretty terrible too. Look at Obama's record, for example.

@FaheemMitha Probably €20 or €30: those fees are regulated, so I could look it up.

@Cerberus They have changed for the worse.

@Cerberus Ok. If you could, I'd be interested. They're not regulated here, but I know what I pay.

@Færd Yes, and only some very extreme movements come anywhere close, in modern history.

@Færd Probably, so you might call those violent white-supremacist groups fascists (not quite Nazis). But they are not Trump nor the vice-president nor Kelly-Ann Conway, etc.

@FaheemMitha OK.

@FaheemMitha I'm not denying that. But you just cannot equivalate Obama, who for example had an active part in the Paris agreement, to Trump that's rushing the whole world to environmental catastrophe. Some other differences are just as stark.

@ tandarts.nl/tandartstarieven/2019 All the actions/operations with their maximum fees.

@Færd I'm not equating them. I'm saying the Democrats are terrible too. And stand for the same sorts of things as the Republicans do in the broad scheme of things. They just aren't as crazy.

> V71 Eénvlaksvulling amalgaam € 24,07

This would be the simplest filling.

@Cerberus Thank you.

You can ask me to look up whichever one you're interested in.

@Færd Agreed.

@Cerberus Trump would willingly and openly accept their support and surf their waves if it didn't threaten the legitimacy of his position of power in the system.

@Cerberus Actually, that's similar to India. Interesting.

I also think Trump is quite a bit worse than Bush junior internally (though, externally, Bush was far worse than Trump).

Of course, I don't go to super-cheap dentists because I'm not insane.

@FaheemMitha Hmm.

Did I say equivalate!

Would you say incomes in your circles are similar to Western incomes?

@Cerberus My circles?

Whatever they are.

If so, then you're paying a comparable amount.

@FaheemMitha That level of craziness is a determining factor in whether I would call them Nazi-like or not.

@Færd You did. I assumed you meant something like "equate" and proceeded accordingly.

@FaheemMitha I'm glad you did.

@Færd He also accepts support from televangelists, but that doesn't make him one.

@Færd That's up to you. But like I said earlier, I wouldn't call the Republicans Nazis and a fortiori not the Democrats either. None of them are nice people, that's for sure.

@FaheemMitha Nobody called them Nazis.

@Færd Well, Nazi-like.

Or fascist, if you prefer. And I would prefer.

I just don't get why you would want to use a term like Nazi for Trump when so many people disagree with it: it only causes unneeded controversy. An issue over language may distract from the real issue. As it happens all the time in American politics, unfortunately.

Yes, there are some similarities, but you might just as well call Trump an absolutist, a monarchist, a Chinese reactionary.

Personally I'd avoid the term Nazi because (a) it's too specific, referring as it does to a political party that was in power 12 years, and (b) in modern Western circles it's mostly used as a term of abuse.

Not really a useful term to use in discussion.

And c) it is not correct enough in my opinion.

@Cerberus That too, of course. But I was just talking about employing the term in discussion in the first place.

@Cerberus If there were enough similarities, and those concepts invoked in people's minds what I wanted them to, I would, yes.

I'd prefer to use the term fascist, which is relatively precise and well-understood.

Neither term is widely used in India, however.

It's very simple. Similarity does not mean equivalence.

One sees terms like "communalism" and "Hindutva". The latter is the specific RSS brand of fascism, I think.

You don't like my simile, you don't use it.

I think we had a discussion a while ago in this room about calling abusive language "violence". I think a) that inflates the term, b) it distracts people from the real issue, c) it may derail the conversation, and d) it may even cause confusion in statistics, because now you can't easily look up physical violence any more, if it's all grouped under violence together with abusive language.

@Cerberus Agreed.

@Færd Effective communication means using terms whose meaning all parties can agree on.

@FaheemMitha I'd willing to use it wherever I found it a close enough description.

@Færd Then why not call him those things now, instead of Nazi-like?

And it's best to avoid emotionally loaded terms like Nazi. It's 2020, and Hitler died 75 years ago, but it's hard to find someone on this planet who knows what that term means, and doesn't have an emotional reaction to it.

@FaheemMitha I think we all agreed that there are some similarities. You just don't think they're strong enough for you. That's okay. I'm not forcing you to use my simile.

Yeah, I don't think they're strong enough.

@Færd Yes, there are similarities. I was pointing out the differences. Which to my mind are important, probably crucial.

Why use that term when so many better terms exist?

I think if one sees fascism, it's relatively clear. We have it here, for example. As I said, already.

Nationalist, authoritarian, anti-democratic, disrespecting the rule of law.

@Cerberus For example.

@Cerberus There are a million other possible similes that I'm not using. I don't have to answer for each and every of those.

Indeed, you do not.

A friend of mine called the Dutch PM a fascist.

Which basically makes the word an empty shell.

It's like crying wolf.

That should be understood as an insult, I think.

@Cerberus "CHAINA"

Whatever it is, it is a very bad choice of words, because it is inaccurate.

Lovely night here, not too cold, and not damp

If you're going to use "fascist" as a meaningless insult, like "cocksucker", you're basically making it harder to describe and identify actual fascists.

@M.A.R. Who is that?

@Cerberus Well, degrading use of the word, yes.

Let's say Trump succeeds in undermining the elections and relies on gangs on streets to stay in power. Just a hypothesis. Would he have come close enough to fascism to be called a fascist then?

Inflating its meaning.

Or Nazi-like?

Not really?

Maybe.

Let's say the gangs kill many people on the streets. What about then?

@Færd Well, that would be bad, but surely it's what he does in power that would earn the term fascist.

@Cerberus Oh I'm just mocking Trump's obsession with the word

And if gangs come out to support him, presumably they wouldn't be under his control or directed by him.

@Færd It's not about being the worst that makes one a fascist, but about certain more specific aspects to an ideology, I should say.

@Cerberus I agree. I see a trace of some of those aspects in Trump's cult.

@Færd So, possibly, depending on other things as well.

@Færd Yes, traces.

But, to me, the resemblance has to be specific enough, and it should not resemble other movements/ideologies.

@Cerberus Okay then. I think we all (or anybody who could have a say in the situation) should take that horrific possibility seriously and not put it past him and his followers to do such things.

I mean, would you call Mao a fascist?

That's why I dare to use strong words to describe those people.

I would say he was worse than many fascist régimes. And Mao had some fascist tendencies. But I'm still not sure I'd call him a fascist.

@Færd I agree that we should be on our guard.

@Cerberus He's already very well described in other terms. There's no fututre for Mao.

@Færd But I'm not sure that helps, instead of naming more specific threats, as you have just done: I think that works better, at least for me.

Okay. I'm happy with this level of agreement.

Partly because I'd end up repeating myself if I wanted to clarify further.

Fun!

If you had merely said, there are some similarities between Trump and Nazism, I would probably not have objected.

The possibilities in the future do play a role in my using such strong labels as "Nazi-like".

I intend to sound alarming with that.

That's all.

I just don't think big words, language wars, really help.

But portraying specific, dangerous scenarios does help.

@Færd The future has many possibilities. We should not get ahead of outselves.

It could be argued that most régimes in human histories have had some similarities with Nazism.

Some more, some less.

Oppressing freedom of speech and minorities, using violence, etc.

Those are very common.

@FaheemMitha And we should not underestimate tangible dangers.

Using street gangs for coups d'état.

@Færd I wasn't suggesting that we should. But use terms when the apply, and not before.

The Athenian democrats launched countless devastating wars, and they would massacre the entire population of rebellious islands.

Also, none of us live in the US, and we couldn't do much even if we were. We're just spectators.

Most of their population had no civil rights.

Etc.

As to street gangs in America: I'd be more afraid of rebellious police corpses, if Trump should try to overthrow government.

(Corps?)

I think he will never get any organised support from the army, though.

@FaheemMitha If you see a worsening trend, it's called precaution to think ahead and alarm people about it.

@Cerberus Yeah that's another part of the problem.

I don't know if armed militias are any less dangerous tho.

Much less dangerous.

@Færd Sure, but we're rather poorly geographically positioned to do something about it. Being in India, Iran and the Netherlands.

Actually, there is relatively little one can do about govts. Which is part of what makes them so dangerous.

We talk about many things in here in which we don't have an immediate say.

Why not. It's fun to try to understand the world.

You may end up making a small or big impact somewhere sometime.

Absolutely!

If not here and now.

Trump might be reading this.

Hahaha

There is a Dave in the room; who knows who he really is.

He could be bored in hospital.

Mr President I wish you nothing but a speedy recovery.

Please reconsider those sanctions.

There you go.

@Færd ROTFL

@Færd Okay, I'll think about it.

Oops.

Damn you might be him.

Only you're too smart to be him. So no.

Why do you think I said all that stuff.

Yeah that makes perfect sense now.

And you were right, now that I think about it all again.

Trump's not so bad.

@Færd Good, good.

Trump won't put all of you in concentration camps, don't worry.

Just block the visas.

@Cerberus Definitely not. He's the kindest, smartest man in the history of the earth.

Funny. This is familiar behavior for me.

We try to be cautious like that on the phone, in groups were we don't know everyone, etc.

Because you don't want to ruffle the wrong feathers.

Yeah, must be annoying.

I'm pretty careless on social media. It gives me the frights sometime when I think about the ways what I say could be used against me.

@Færd What, in Iran? And you mean generally?

Then better not use your real name.

Not just about Trump, presumably.

@FaheemMitha Yes, if you are too provocative, you're in danger.

@Cerberus That's what I do on Twitter.

But all my friends and presumable some other folks know who I am.

@Færd Can't it still be traced back to you?

But fortunately I'm not followed by many poeple. So it's not very likely.

@FaheemMitha Very easily.

@Færd Would that involve the cooperation of Twitter?

@FaheemMitha Not necessarily. It would take one informant who knows who I am.

@Færd Oh.

But there are many people like me. So they go for bigger fish first.

I'm not that important.

So I can bask in my unimportance and feel less in danger when I swear at so and so.

But I shouldn't be too careless.

So for example the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo shootings was a while ago. Khamenei reiterated how shameless those irreligious Westerners are.

But he never condemned the shooting. Just blamed the caricaturists.

I really wanted to react to what he said. But I was afraid for my own life.

@Færd I assume they don't bother too much with due process in Iran.

In that sense, and that sense alone, "Je suis Charlie" too.

@FaheemMitha Not much.

@Færd Not here either. At least, not currently.

Yeah. But we've got different problems too.

Yours is more like a democracy in crisis. Ours has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

Yours is more Nazi-like, if you don't reproach me for using the term carelessly.

(just joking)

@Færd Well, the RSS is fascist, yes. But I've said that already, repeatedly.

@Færd We're hoping the crisis ends. Right now it's not looking too good.

Hmm

@FaheemMitha So you don't object to using the N word for the RSS?

That's favoritism.

@Færd I said fascist, not Nazi.

As I said already, I don't think the Nazi word is helpful.

Alright, alright.

I might use it as shorthand slang, depending on the context, to get someone's attention. But it would be abusive usage.

And that's not happened yet.

Also, people in India don't seem to know who the Nazis were.

That's not far from the way I use it. It's about marketing, partly.

Then again, they probably don't recognize the term fascist, either.

But we've dragged that convo long enough.

I should go get some stuff done.

Talk to y'all later.

Sorry to hear things are so bad in Iran. Do you not see a way back to a parliamentary democracy?

@Færd I should play the Faerd here: you never know when they will become so strict as to go after everyone. One day, with Chinese software, it may happen.

So be careful.

@Cerberus Do the dentists have good technique. Is it comfortable when they work? And how are the hygienists?

@FaheemMitha They are all strictly regulated and must have full degrees. They should be comparable to doctors.

I'm sure some dentists exist that are bad.

But they're generally good.

@Cerberus Sure. I was talking about your personal experiences.

@FaheemMitha My personal experience is good, though I seldom go.

I've seen my current dentist only once.

Or maybe twice.

Before that, a decade or so went by without seeing a dentist: mine had died.

@Cerberus Don't you get a cleaning from a hygienist twice a year?

@Robusto I probably should...

I just never think about it.

@Cerberus That's why Android passed the law of calendar reminders.

@Cerberus That's a long time.

Teeth and eyes are things not to scrimp on.

@Robusto Quite so. And other body related stuff deserves attention too.

Yeah, it's not so much scrimping as just forgetting.

One thing is that, last time, my dentist wanted to pull one of my wisdom teeth because there was a hole in it.

She said she didn't fill holes in wisdom teeth.

But my friend's dentist does.

And I really don't want to lose any teeth if I can help it.

So I'm indecisive.

@Cerberus Do they fit in your jaw, or are they only partially irrupted?

Mine didn't fit, and so I had them out.

@Robusto They fit well enough.

It's just that she says she can't reach it well enough to fill the hole.

That's loser talk.

And she probably thinks wisdom teeth are no good and should be removed at the first sign of trouble.

What kind of a hole? A cavity?

Yes, a cavity.

Dental caries?

I think so.

Get a second opinion about that.

Hmm perhaps I should.

I feel awkward about doing so...

I should probably get my dentist to give me the scans she took of my jaws?

So that I can pass those on to another dentist.

If they're more than a year old, they'll just want to take some fresh ones.

@Cerberus Wisdom teeth are hard to keep clean and tend to develop problems, so dentists tend to pull them. I still have 2 of mine. The other two were pulled because an abcess developed under one of them, so they both had to go.

That was a long time ago. But if you want to keep the tooth regardless, a dentist should respect your wishes.

@Robusto Ah, OK, thanks!

They are older.

@FaheemMitha Yeah, I don't know: I think I can keep mine relatively clean.

An abscess is a sign that you can't reach them or that they press against something they shouldn't; but a mere cavity?

@Cerberus Cavities lead to abscesses.

@tchrist: I set my new clock on auto-DST and it seems to be holding the time correctly now. I tried the same on the old one and it lost TWO hours!

@Robusto Hmm.