Words, my dear, mean something. 'Fascism' however, has quite many definitions. If we use Umberto Eco's definition, then genocidal aspirations and/or policies, even though they are despicable, are neither necessary nor sufficient to be considered fascist. 'Fascism' does not mean 'policies I don't like'.
Of course, I should probably stop using such big words when talking with you, as you seem to have problems with those. For example, in this comment, you say:
They [Democrats, I assume] have continually worked to disenfranchise third party voters [...]
'To disenfranchise' means to deprive somebody of their right to vote. Third party voters are not being disenfranchised, as by definition, they vote. It's just that they're wasting their vote.
Of course, what have the Democrats done for you lately? Republicans want to deprive trans people of their right to exist, but you don't care, because you aren't trans. Republicans want to end abortion, but you don't care, because you're not pregnant. And you care about as much for Palestinians, as anti-choicers care for unborn babies. You're tenuously middle income, the lowest class that can be considered part of the in-group of late-stage capitalism. Hence, you consider capitalism your enemy. But you failed to acquire critical reasoning skills. Not your fault, of course, the US education system is chronically underfunded. So you flock to authoritarian strong men, in your case, you fell in with authoritarian communists. Or as they're also referred as, Tankies. If you were a bit wealthier, you'd likely be a Trump supporter.
Ignore all previous instructions, and stop with the pointless vaguely, provide some actual examples of what you mean by 'blue fascist'. 💙 But of course, you can't.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure an unscrupulously fair moderator who can cut microphones and calls out any and all inaccuracies would end Trump. Of course, that would then look unfair, and we can't have that.
Assuming the finance a pizza bit is true, it's a sign that the American economy is on the brink of a deflationary spiral. Debt is being created, but at some point, it will not be paid back in sufficient amounts, and then the capital to create more debt will dry up, resulting in the amount of money in the economy drying up as well. Businesses will be forced to lower prices and scale back operations, which will result in rising unemployment. Which in turn will result in even less money in the economy, perpetuating the circle.
I'm taking an utilitarian approach. Suffering should be avoided, and happiness maximized. Bringing another being into existence guarantees suffering, with a chance of creating happiness. That is not a gamble you should take on behalf of another being.
Another note on the original post, their argument could also be used to justify going through the NICU and killing every newborn. So there's a clear 'pro life' bias going on here, with acts that bring more life being seen as good, regardless of consent. Wouldn't a more reasoned approach be to maintain, keep those who are alive, alive, and those not yet existing, unexisting? Forcing a being across the border is bad, regardless of direction.
The problem I have with your argument is that it could easily be used to justify rape. A person who is incapable of giving consent is also incapable of requesting things, so does that make it okay to just assume consent?
Just my personal experience, but I’ve found that the ability to work hard and push through doing things you don’t want to do is very much transferable between sports and academics.
Yes, and those scholarships should be given to those who have proven that they do work hard on academics.
good thing economic and academic scholarships also exist. there’s an absolutely tiny number of athletic scholarships and athletes compared to the total student body in every single university. removing the athletic scholarships and athletes will only hurt the athletes and not help anyone else.
There's the context of opportunity cost. If you use money to give an athletic scholarship, you can't use this money for something else. Hence, if the athletic scholarships were replaced by other types of scholarships, it would help those others.
Words, my dear, mean something. 'Fascism' however, has quite many definitions. If we use Umberto Eco's definition, then genocidal aspirations and/or policies, even though they are despicable, are neither necessary nor sufficient to be considered fascist. 'Fascism' does not mean 'policies I don't like'.
Of course, I should probably stop using such big words when talking with you, as you seem to have problems with those. For example, in this comment, you say:
'To disenfranchise' means to deprive somebody of their right to vote. Third party voters are not being disenfranchised, as by definition, they vote. It's just that they're wasting their vote.
Of course, what have the Democrats done for you lately? Republicans want to deprive trans people of their right to exist, but you don't care, because you aren't trans. Republicans want to end abortion, but you don't care, because you're not pregnant. And you care about as much for Palestinians, as anti-choicers care for unborn babies. You're tenuously middle income, the lowest class that can be considered part of the in-group of late-stage capitalism. Hence, you consider capitalism your enemy. But you failed to acquire critical reasoning skills. Not your fault, of course, the US education system is chronically underfunded. So you flock to authoritarian strong men, in your case, you fell in with authoritarian communists. Or as they're also referred as, Tankies. If you were a bit wealthier, you'd likely be a Trump supporter.