« first day (1900 days earlier)      last day (213 days later) » 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 23:00

3:00 PM
I also don't know how great her power is within the party.
 
And a Holocaust denier to boot. What a weird fellow. Can't say I love the National Front, but if they move to the center and take their followers with them (which isn't assured), that can't be bad.
 
Well, in can be bad in the sense that it may allow them to win.
 
But would they stay in the center or just move back to the right?
 
Whereas, as an extremist party, they would never enter the centre of power.
@Adam Yes, that is also something we do not know.
 
It's like the Republicans here who have joined the Trump cult. Lindsay Graham, for example.
 
3:02 PM
I think PiS and Fidesz only became worse once in power.
Was she the conspiracy theorist?
 
After McCain died Graham did a 180 and became a sycophant or something.
 
I blame Orban for Fidesz' lurch to the right, and Poland is a very different kind of place from France.
@Cerberus No, he was the Senator from South Carolina who once touted himself as middle of the aisle but really is just a sycophant, as Adam sayts.
 
@Adam Oh, really? Before that, she was anti-Trump?
@RetractedAndRetired Hmm was there a Fidesz before him? I don't remember.
And, yes, Poland is very different from France.
@RetractedAndRetired Oh, a he, haha.
Those non-Latin names are so confusing.
 
@Cerberus Yes, but not really. But I mean that they followed the cult of personality, and given his beginnings, who would have thought that he could turn into such a fascist.
 
Yeah, it was not really expected.
 
3:07 PM
@Cerberus Ha! Originally, it was a boy's name, but for some reason (I blame analogous names), it became a girl's name.
 
But is he really a fascist?
@RetractedAndRetired Ah, good to know.
 
Other names did that, like Shelly and Kelly.
 
Hmm.
Beverly?
 
@Cerberus Unsure!
@Cerberus I don't follow Hungarian politics closely, but I thought the Soros-demonizing and clampdown on media were pretty fascistic.
 
I know it's a masculine name.
 
3:09 PM
Even Trump himself did a 180. He used to be pro-choice, pro-environment, etc
 
@RetractedAndRetired Hmm I would call those dictatorial, note exactly fascist: or how would you define fascism?
 
@Adam With that case, it's a man with no real principles to begin with.
 
@Adam Environment, even!
That's shocking.
 
@RetractedAndRetired Or morals, or... anything
He's a vacuum inside
 
A vacuum trying to suck up money as its main concern.
I would say fascism is a movement typified by the fasces, which symbolise power and violence.
 
3:11 PM
@Cerberus That's a good question. I see fascism as a state-consolidation of power based on nationalistic identity.
 
It's a bizarre feeling trying to adjust to having competent leadership at the federal level again, regardless of which way it goes politically.
 
That would seem a broad definition?
 
@Cerberus Yes, it needs refining, I'm thinking!
 
I feel violence and a leadership cult are the heart of fascism, but I agree that nationalism and purism are probably necessary concomitants.
I think a movement that does not glorify violence is not truly fascist.
 
But are all movements that glorify violence fascist?
 
3:13 PM
No, I think they also need to glorify power.
 
When did China stop being communist and start becoming fascist?
 
I don't really think China is fascist.
 
What's the difference?
 
I mean, you could say many states in history have had some fascistoid tendencies.
China does not glorify violence, in my opinion.
It commits it, but that is not glorification.
And it is nationalist, but most modern states have been nationalist since the 19th century.
 
The huge parades of their military might, their citziens threatening violence to anyone who opposes them or even dares say that Taiwan is an independent state doesn't constitute glorification?
 
3:16 PM
To a small degree, but there are so many countries that have military parades and that commit wars.
Fascism is more specific.
Not all military dictatorships are fascist.
 
I'm trying hard to see a difference. It seems wholly arbitrary to me.
 
It seems like the main difference is the style of government and not the approach
 
The other question too is if it is a meaningful distinction.
 
So would you call about half the world's governments fascist?
Or more?
 
I never took a census!
But if a government supports democracy, that would disqualify it from being fascist.
 
3:23 PM
OK fair enough.
What about countries that are democratic in name but whose governments use violence against political opponents, and who have military parades?
 
Is that ruling government's ideology based on the consolidation of an ethno-national identity?
 
I think a great many governments have such ideologies?
I think dictatorial, nationalist, and fascist are distinct things.
 
But the ones that do, who glorify their military strength, who use violence against political opponents, does that equation add up to fascistic lookings?
 
I would say not.
 
so what's missing?
@Cerberus Yes, this isn't being disputed!
 
3:30 PM
It has to be about the central ideology, it has to be centred around the glorification of violence and power—which is distinct from the gross abuse of violence and dictatorship.
 
But couldn't you say that actions which resemble parties with that central ideology could be said to be fascistic?
 
The Soviet Union, for example, was highly militaristic, dictatorial, nationalist, totalitarian: but it was not fascist.
@RetractedAndRetired Maybe you could say they have some fascist tendencies?
 
@Cerberus (Which is, btw, what I said wrt Orban's actions: fascistic)
 
Ah, OK, maybe I missed the Greek suffix!
 
@Cerberus Is this only because the central message of the Soviet Communist Party was economic?
 
3:32 PM
Well, the ultimate one.
@RetractedAndRetired Yes: the central message was not the glorification of violence and power.
I think all dictatorships abuse power, but they usually don't glorify it that much.
The weak are worthless.
 
What about modern Russia?
 
They might as well die, or we should kill them all en masse.
Killing people can be glorious. We must worship good killers.
Those are things I would call most specifically fascist.
 
Who then falls under that category?
 
@RetractedAndRetired Fascistoid tendencies, like most semi-dictatorships, but still far removed from a true fascist state, despite Putin's Jugend...
@RetractedAndRetired Hard to say.
IS glorifies violence.
 
@Cerberus I think if we're not including actual fascists, aka Mussolini's party, the definition isn't accurate.
 
3:36 PM
But the centre of its ideology is God, not the nation.
@RetractedAndRetired You mean my definition would exclude Mussolini?
If so, then I agree with you.
 
Yet, his party was the National Fascist Party!
 
Fascists don't have to be all Nazis.
 
I mean, they were literally Fascists.
 
Quite!
> Hence, the Doctrine's Weltanschauung proposes the world as action in the realm of humanity – beyond the quotidian constrictions of contemporary political trend, by rejecting "perpetual peace" as fantastical and accepting Man as a species continually at war; those who meet the challenge, achieve nobility.[139] To wit, actual idealism generally accepted that conquerors were the men of historical consequence, e.g. the Roman Julius Caesar, the Greek Alexander the Great, the Frank Charlemagne and the French Napoleon. The philosopher–intellectual Gentile was especially inspired by the Roman Emp
@RetractedAndRetired I think this is part of the essence of fascism, the core belief that "Man as a species [is] continually at war; those who meet the challenge, achieve nobility".
> Gentile defined Fascism as an anti-intellectual doctrine, epistemologically based on faith rather than reason. Fascist mysticism emphasized the importance of political myths
 
And those myths are used to bolster the beliefs in the superiority of that particular nation.
 
3:48 PM
Quite!
 
I think one missing element is that these beliefs have a historical context, and that polities like China (or Japan a hundred years ago) developed similar positions through convergent evolution.
 
I think Japan was probably quite fascist around 1940.
 
Otherwise, I would still fall back on Russia and China being fascistic, and growing ever more so.
 
What if you compared China with the Roman Empire?
Was the RE fascistic?
 
@Cerberus In the general sense, I would agree, though it developed its beliefs independently of the European 19th century philosophies.
@Cerberus Is this an example of "literally so", since the lictores carried the fasces?
It would be an anachronism to call it such, though. But the hallmarks are all there, depending on the time in question.
 
3:52 PM
@RetractedAndRetired Yes, very true.
@RetractedAndRetired Maybe!
I guess what I am looking for is a definition that restricts fascism.
 
That's very fair. I was definitely playing loose with the term with Orban.
 
Because I don't want it to apply a large swathe of states.
I overlooked your -ic.
But I have to go now, let's continue this interesting discussion later!
 
Of course, vale!
 
Vale!
 
@Cerberus Whenever you come back, I just realized that your definition would include Vikings, Assyrians, and the archaic Greek city states. Is fascism then just a return to and renewal of ancient ideologies?
(Probably even better fitting than the Roman Empire)
 
4:26 PM
Wikpedia gives the definition of fascism as:
> far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
By that definition, China would not be fascist because it's not far-right, even though it uses forcible suppression of opposition and has a strongly regimented society.
So I guess the question in regards to the Roman Empire is: do you consider it far-right?
 
4:50 PM
@Adam Far-right is itself an illegitimate category, I would venture.
In the same way that North Korea is a "democracy," states can position themselves wherever they want, but the scale itself is fiction.
I get Cerberus' point that we shouldn't toss labels easily, but sometimes a label hides what's actually going on inside.
 
5:07 PM
True. I'd rather see a description of political stances than a label. For example, what is considered "far-left" here in the US isn't viewed that way in Europe.
 
 
3 hours later…
8:31 PM
In general, I like to think that labels are a great place to start but a bad place to stop. They give a quick first impression, but if any nuance is needed, the picture needs more color and detail.
 
This is probably only something I care about, but the terrible fake Latin in Elder Scrolls Online never ceases to irk me.
Example: There's a player house you can purchase with in-game gold or crown points (which are purchased with real money) called Domus Phrasticus. According to its description, it used to belong to someone called Phrastus before he disappeared (and now it can be yours, nevermind who are you actually buying it from if it isn't him).
But domus phrasticus? Really, Zenimax? As a AAA game studio that makes millions from games, you think they could afford one Latin translator.
@JoonasIlmavirta People can get super hung up on labels, both in not wanting to stray from what they think is appropriate for the label and also just in wanting everything labeled.
When I was a teenager in the 90s it felt like everything went the reverse direction; it was "don't label me" or "I don't want or need a label".
 
8:53 PM
@Adam I don't really like the unconditional "don't label me" message. There are a number of labels you could attach to me, some more and some less justifiably. But if someone wants to know or understand me, then they should be able to look beyond those labels and adjust their first impressions.
As with many other things, the thing that troubles me in the label discussion is lack of nuance and middle ground.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta I'm not really against labels per se, and they are helpful as a starting point as long as a person doesn't define you purely by the label.
 
@Adam Exactly.
 
I'm also fine with with there simply not being a label for something.
 
@Adam That is unfortunately common. It is weird, though, how people can pour money in a project and not have anyone check the language.
@Adam That happens pretty easily. Then you can try to quickly describe it by giving some labels near it and underlining that they only point in a general direction.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Most other players probably don't care (or even know, for that matter). I'm sure I'm a very small minority in this case.
 
9:01 PM
What is language itself if not a set of labels?
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Interesting way to look at it.
 
@Adam It's not entirely unlike what I was taught in an introductory class to linguistics. There is more to a language than its vocabulary, but words themselves are hard to describe as anything substantially different from labels.
 
9:24 PM
@Adam Unless I'm mistaken, it's not supposed to be actual Latin. It's used to bring up the idea of empire, since all those with Latinate-sending names are Imperials.
That's how I took it, at least.
 
@RetractedAndRetired You're not wrong; it's really just a pet peave for me.
 
@Adam Pet peaves are my pet peeves. ;P
 
O Dei boni
lol
 
Estne infantem pulchrum meus my beautiful baby?
 
9:39 PM
@JohhanSantana What case do you want it to be in? Nominative, accusative, or something else?
 
Infantulum est, reor
 
@JohhanSantana Are you trying to ask if that baby is your beautiful baby, or ask if your baby is beautiful?
 
I'm trying to state that My baby is beautiful.
Well, I think that would be Infantulus meus est pulchrus?
I believe the accusative form is wrong here since it's not performing an action ?
Infantulus pulchrus meus
 
Your baby is the subject, so you want that in the nominative, and then have your adjectives both agree with that.
Ahh, you got it
 
@Adam yay!
Novus pater sum!
 
9:52 PM
@JohhanSantana Congrats!
 
😬😬
It's been a crazy week. 😅
 
I bet! Are you going to teach your child Latin once they start to speak?
 
@Adam I really want to
 
@JohhanSantana Congrats, Johhan! You could say infans bellus meus.
 
10:19 PM
@RetractedAndRetired ty! That's an easier way to remember. Pulchra seems a bit different from Spanish Bella/o = beautiful
 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 23:00

« first day (1900 days earlier)      last day (213 days later) »