Five Republican Characteristics That Define F*****m, Not Authoritarianism: We generally recognize power plays by republicans as at least authoritarianism, but there is a place where...

woodguru

We generally recognize power plays by republicans as at least authoritarianism, but there is a place where actions and strategies cross over into sheer f*****m...these things we are seeing say it as clearly as it gets...
...Rejecting democracy in favor of a strongman depends on galvanizing popular rage (everyone out to get me/us?)
...Popular rage draws on a nationalism based on a supposedly superior race or ethnicity (white or christian nationalism?)
...That superior race or ethnicity is justified by social Darwinist strength and violence, as exemplified by heroic warriors (subway choker?)
...Strength, violence, and the heroic warrior are centered on male power

These are the essential elements of f*****m...not that hard to see.

https://www.alternet.org/reich-trump-republicans-five-f*****m/?utm_source=123456&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14807

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

woodguru wrote:

We generally recognize power plays by republicans ... (show quote)

There are five characteristics that identify the F*****t left, as well:
1. They are all Satan worshipers
2. They host parties featuring pit bulls eating kittens and puppies.
3. They are ALL active members of the Klu Klux Klan.
4. Their basic problem is that they resent conservatives for marrying all the prettiest women.
5. They are all completely unable to tell the t***h from falsehoods.

And THESE are all EVERY BIT AS TRUE as the list that YOU provided.......which is to say NOT AT ALL.....except my number 5. That DOES seem to be accurate.

pegw

woodguru wrote:

We generally recognize power plays by republicans ... (show quote)

I never heard if alternet. com. So I fact checked it. It has a mixed degree of t***hfulness and is rated far right by Media Bias, AllSides and Ad Fontes. However, this doesn't make this particular post untrue.

BIRDMAN

woodguru wrote:

We generally recognize power plays by republicans ... (show quote)

We have a F*****t dictator as president piss pants

woodguru

RandyBrian wrote:

There are five characteristics that identify the F... (show quote)

And there is the difference between unhinged Magadonians and the left...what I posted was a reality that has held true for every f*****t regime in history, and those are the way the hard MAGA right is evolving in a way that is easy to see once it's pointed out

woodguru

pegw wrote:

I never heard if alternet. com. So I fact checked it. It has a mixed degree of t***hfulness and is rated far right by Media Bias, AllSides and Ad Fontes. However, this doesn't make this particular post untrue.

What makes a post "true" has to do with looking at every point and assessing whether that is happening...and it has gotten beyond early stages to where it's harder to see to where it has become much more obvious to see.

woodguru

BIRDMAN wrote:

We have a F*****t dictator as president piss pants

List the things we can see in ways that stay relevant to facts and not rhetorical talking points...

I listed five

woodguru

pegw wrote:

I never heard if alternet. com. So I fact checked it. It has a mixed degree of t***hfulness and is rated far right by Media Bias, AllSides and Ad Fontes. However, this doesn't make this particular post untrue.

I always thought they were a bit to the liberal side in terms of a slight spin, but typically they do a pretty good job of sourcing stories or referencing sources, something right wing rhetorical lies never attempt to do, right wing spin is referenced by "everybody knows....", to which Magadonians like to think they know things the left doesn't.

BIRDMAN

woodguru wrote:

List the things we can see in ways that stay relevant to facts and not rhetorical talking points...

I listed five

You List BS

woodguru

BIRDMAN wrote:

You List BS

Says the person listing BS...can you actually read and apply what you are reading and understand that it is the way things are? Of course not

BIRDMAN

woodguru wrote:

Says the person listing BS...can you actually read and apply what you are reading and understand that it is the way things are? Of course not

I am s**k of blame white people by lefty lunatics.Even a person with a small little brain knows what the problem is

BIRDMAN

woodguru wrote:

Says the person listing BS...can you actually read and apply what you are reading and understand that it is the way things are? Of course not

Can’t handle the t***h can you You’re Lefty’s idea just collapse when the t***h comes out

woodguru

BIRDMAN wrote:

I am s**k of blame white people by lefty lunatics.Even a person with a small little brain knows what the problem is

Oh, the poor persecuted white people rhetorical babbling

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

woodguru wrote:

What makes a post "true" has to do with looking at every point and assessing whether that is happening...and it has gotten beyond early stages to where it's harder to see to where it has become much more obvious to see.

Are you familiar with the tests for t***h?

There are 3 main classic tests to which any system or statement that makes a claim to t***h should be subjected as a preliminary requirement. These are:

1. logical consistency (rational thinking) -is what is being claimed logically consistent or are there obvious contradictions?

2. empirical adequacy -is there any evidence to support what is being claimed?

3. experiential relevance – does it work in real life?

To the above, epistemologists generally agree that 2 additional tests should be added to complete the t***hfulness investigation: the test of undeniability and the test of unaffirmability:

4. Undeniability- test for t***h

5. Unaffirmability –test for falsehood

The first 3 tests deal within a worldview system. The final 2 deal with a system outside of itself.

Undeniability. To understand undeniability consider the notion of one’s existence. While one’s existence cannot be logically proven it is nevertheless undeniable from an existential point of view. That means one cannot deny his/her existence without affirming it at the same time. The classic example for this is the student addressing his professor “how do I know I exist?” and the professor’s reply: “Whom shall I say is asking?”. Undeniability therefore is clearly a test for t***h.

Unaffirmability is a test for falsehood. This basically means that just because something can be stated, it does not necessarily follow that the statement is true. “I cannot speak a word of English” may be passionately stated but it cannot be affirmed at the same time for while saying it, one is actually speaking several words of English. Therefore the statement is false.

If the law of non-contradiction clearly applies to reality (as well as in courtrooms all over the globe) and a certain worldview is plagued by contradictions then that worldview as a system is false.

BIRDMAN

woodguru wrote:

Oh, the poor persecuted white people rhetorical babbling

That’s exactly what I figured that’s all you got Whiteys no good.Your blinder than a bat.At least 15 Black people are shot a weekend every weekend by Black people where I live