Can we get some definitions here?

As Socrates taught us, defining your terms is of the upmost importance when having an argument.

I know that it is not very practical to define every term when discussing things on ATS.

But lately I have become frustrated with some bombastic claims being made without proper definitions going along with them.

What do I mean?

Everything situation I am about to outline I have actually seen here on ATS.

Well say someone says anyone who believes this russia crap about Trump is a moron we should ignore.

Well what do we mean by believes russian crap about Trump? I believe that Trump had people on his team that had or attempted to have connections to russians. Does that mean I should be ignored?

But the importance for these definitions increases with the harshness of the criticism being made.

For example, if I say anyone who wants to focus on Hillarys crimes are idiots, ok not that big of a deal. But if I say anyone who focuses on Hillary and possible crimes she may have committed is a "traitor" that must be fought? This seems much more serious.

So does that mean anyone who remotely has an interest in Uranium One, or the paying of the dossier is a traitor to the country? With such serious allegations, there should be a clear definition of exactly what that poster think makes someone a traitor.

The most extreme examples are when physical harm is suggested.

Remember the whole "can you punch a nazi" debate that was on ATS and elsewhere. As many of us said, one of the huge problems with this is how do peple define nazis. because all sorts of people starting gettung attacked in the name of fighting nazis.

Then there was even this gem on ATS.

I will quote so as to not be accused of misinterpreting.

"the requirement for a just prosecution of war against the fascist may indeed result in the deaths of some Trump supporters, but not all by any stretch of the imagination, because not everyone who voted for the man did so because they were fascists.

Many did, but not all. "

If you are going to suggest the death of people is necessary, the least you can do is give a precise definition of who needs to be killed.

I dont think that is asking too much.

a reply to: Grambler

You might bold the specific definition request portion for those who skim (which is pretty much everybody).

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Grambler

You might bold the specific definition request portion for those who skim (which is pretty much everybody).

Good point.

Nice!

I think if everyone could just define "Facist" and "Nazi" correctly, it wouldnt really apply to 99% of applications, thereby reducing these BS arguments based off misguided buzz words

Yeah, and another thing.

Maybe, just maybe, when someone suggests that it is necessary to start killing political rivals supporters, we ought to take a step back, instead of starring that post, or making excuses for how that actually could be interpreted in a way that is not so bad.

Just a suggestion.

Because I was reading this yesterday and it's very funny and vaguely related to your post:


Extract from Plato’s Republic: On That Which is Correct Politically
By MARK PAGLIA




GLAUCON: Now that we have determined the nature of justice, education, and proper governance, is it finally time for us to go home?

THRASYMACHUS: We have left out the most pernicious evil that can be visited upon a citizenry.

GLAUCON: Warfare? Lack of investment in marble infrastructure? Converting all programs for the commonweal into block grants?

THRASYMACHUS: No, I speak of political correctness, the greatest scourge we know of, aside from plague. And pestilence. And those other things you mentioned.

SOCRATES: What do you mean when you speak of that which is correct politically?

THRASYMACHUS: You know, politically correct. It’s when something is… politically correct.

SOCRATES: A politician may decry a deleterious policy in front of the populace, and yet still vote for it. Or a politician may make nonsensical promises that are yet popular enough to ensure their election. Is this what you mean by “politically correct”?

GLAUCON: Or perhaps doing the bidding of your wealthy patrons, to ensure their continued support?

THRASYMACHUS: No, I mean like how I don’t think we should let any Thebans into Athens because they’re all criminals, and I don’t think different races should mix, but I can’t just say that because it’s politically incorrect.

GLAUCON: It’s also super bigoted. And what do you mean about races mixing? Aren’t we all Greek?

THRASYMACHUS: You see? I can’t say it because it’s not politically correct.

SOCRATES: You claim that you cannot say it, and yet you just said it. Therefore, it is not true that it cannot be said.

THRASYMACHUS: Well, okay, yeah, you can say it, but then everyone will censor you.

SOCRATES: Has any official censor of Athens levied a fine upon you for saying this?

THRASYMACHUS: No. Do we even have censors? Or is that something the Romans do a few centuries from now? I always get ancient cultures mixed up.

GLAUCON: What’s a Roman?

SOCRATES: Who then is in a position to punish you for indulging in bigotry?

THRASYMACHUS: Okay, maybe I’m not punished, but everyone in the agora will say that I’m racist and that I shouldn’t say insulting things about Thebans.

SOCRATES: Well, as I have already established in our rather lengthy dialogue, one cannot trust the opinion of the masses.

THRASYMACHUS: Thank you. Finally, someone understands how the most oppressed people in Athens are the wealthy male Athenian landowners.

SOCRATES: But in this case it sounds like those who object to your statements have no power over you. It is as if you are the one in a position of privilege, and yet you are driven to pretend that you are not.

GLAUCON: Can we just leave this jerk and go home, Socrates? We’ve been talking for hours.

SOCRATES: In fact, it is as if you know that you are wrong, and yet rather than seek that which is right, you complain whenever others point out how wrong you are.

THRASYMACHUS: Look, if I just admit I’m wrong, can we drop it?

SOCRATES: This returns us to our original topic of the nature of justice. Now, you will recall that the distinction between—

THRASYMACHUS: Please make him stop.

GLAUCON: I can’t. This is all your fault.

THRASYMACHUS: I regret being a literal sophist.

Trump wasn't supposed to win the election, Russia had both sides covered. That is the way it goes. The rich give money to both sides in politics, that way who ever wins is indebted to them. Same with Russia. If we dig deep enough we will find where there was money going to Hillary from Russian interests, maybe not from Putin who disliked her, but from some of the businesses there that wanted something from our government. That is normal nowadays, and giving contributions from foreign countries is directly interfering with the election and it does create a situation where the politicians are indebted to the foreign country.

No contributions from either party should come from other nations or individuals or businesses that are not American. Citizens only should be giving contributions. I know these contributions go to the media, the advertising budget would be way down. That is why the media wants to stay with Democrats, they spend more to support their profits.

Media is extremely bias as of late, competing for the money from the campaigns and Democrats actually spend more now.

Collusion caused by more campaign bucks by Hillary, much coming from other nations and citizens of other nations, actually interfered with the election somewhat. I do not think we should be allowing this.

We should start to force consideration of common sense in politics.

Equally important here, especially for the people most obsessed with "fascists" these days, is:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Define "fascist".

Now explain how that isnt the bulk of these Identity Politick / SJW / BLM / Antifa types (that is its about pointless even mentioning their ilk for one side but not the other).

Or describe how Marxists arent Communists and how they're better for humanity than Fascists.

Because this ZOMG ITS TEH FASCISTS mania from followers of Marx is quite bizarre and played out at this point.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Equally important here, especially for the people most obsessed with "fascists" these days, is:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Define "fascist".

Now explain how that isnt the bulk of these Identity Politick / SJW / BLM / Antifa types (that is its about pointless even mentioning their ilk for one side but not the other).

Or describe how Marxists arent Communists and how they're better for humanity than Fascists.

Because this ZOMG ITS TEH FASCISTS mania from followers of Marx is quite bizarre and played out at this point.

Similarly important is for people who see Marxists and Communists and Lefties everywhere, is that really, there's virtually no Marxists or communists, and what is called a 'lefty' in American politics is actually somebody on the center-right.

These definitions are terribly important too.


However, there are actual fascists around. We can spot them with their swastikas and salutes and white supremacy. And the people who defend actual fascists, are themselves de facto fascists.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I will define a fascist.

fascist - noun - a person who needs to be killed that disagrees with me. Can be changed to suit my needs at the time.

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Equally important here, especially for the people most obsessed with "fascists" these days, is:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Define "fascist".

Now explain how that isnt the bulk of these Identity Politick / SJW / BLM / Antifa types (that is its about pointless even mentioning their ilk for one side but not the other).

Or describe how Marxists arent Communists and how they're better for humanity than Fascists.

Because this ZOMG ITS TEH FASCISTS mania from followers of Marx is quite bizarre and played out at this point.

Similarly important is for people who see Marxists and Communists and Lefties everywhere, is that really, there's virtually no Marxists or communists, and what is called a 'lefty' in American politics is actually somebody on the center-right.

These definitions are terribly important too.


However, there are actual fascists around. We can spot them with their swastikas and salutes and white supremacy. And the people who defend actual fascists, are themselves de facto fascists.

Yes those definitions are all important, you wont here disagreement from me there.

But I think when we get to the point were people are suggesting KILLING people in those groups, at that point these definitions become all the more important.

I generally agree with you. You can't have a solid debate, inquiry or opinion on anything without clear meaning as to what is being discussed. However, I am realistic and most times that is not going to happen on here because it is way easier to sling one liners with no substance and rack up stars than to make an effort in your posts. I'm glad not everyone on here takes that approach though.

originally posted by: Grambler
Yeah, and another thing.

Maybe, just maybe, when someone suggests that it is necessary to start killing political rivals supporters, we ought to take a step back, instead of starring that post, or making excuses for how that actually could be interpreted in a way that is not so bad.

Just a suggestion.

I am pretty sure that calling for the mass killing of large groups of society is against not just against the terms and conditions of ATS but the terms and conditions of being an adult that has the right to an opinion.

a reply to: Butterfinger

I had went through a long exchange with a member about a simple concept of innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent , Its a reverse onus law that does exist in certain applications like customs . The guilty until proven innocent was Natzi in nature and the member finally admitted to agreeing with it as far as Trump was concerned . The mere accusation was good enough for them without the evidence . Having that kind of a ideology embedded into their mind leaves little room for discussion ... A big issue on the left side of the spectrum but also a issue on the far right .

Yea OP knowing the distinctions of meanings is a hard page for all sides to get on but one that is important . Its probably the biggest issue that we lack good understanding of . take the latest antifa pro-pedo stance with the sign.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Its one of the important reasons why we should hesitate to call for the death or violence or other extreme actions of force in the first place.

Punch a nazi may sound reasonable to the peson saying it.

But the next person that comes along and agrees with that, may define nazi as a trump supporters.

Now its ok to punch trump supporters.

And we now see that in the extreme; saying that many trump supporters will have to be killed in order to fight fascism.

Now the person saying that is clearly extreme, you will have that.

But its the defense of that person, the down playing of that claim that gives you a look at how truely dangerous it can be.

So thats why I am saying, dont hide behind vague definitions or deflections; if you are calling for the death of people, at least do us the courtesy of clearly defining who needs to die. ]/b]

Indeed, there is an active thread on ATS right now where the poster is saying the values and rights of Conservative Americans must be upheld at ALL costs, with the strong implication that people should be killed for disagreeing.

And yes, I agree absolutely, that sort of talk needs to just stop.

originally posted by: Painterz
Indeed, there is an active thread on ATS right now where the poster is saying the values and rights of Conservative Americans must be upheld at ALL costs, with the strong implication that people should be killed for disagreeing.

And yes, I agree absolutely, that sort of talk needs to just stop.

PM me the thread O would like to read it.

And implications, while they can be damning, are a little less clear than announcing the needed deaths of people.

In other words, saying "i will use deadly force to protect my 2nd amendment if necessary" is a far cry from saying "A lot of Hillary supporters will need to be killed to protect my second amendment"