• LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No you didn’t. Go back through that list and actually address each point, rather than throwing out a few examples that have little to do with anything I said.

    Again, I agree that stuff is bad, but it’s not fascism. Fascism is a specific far-right ideology with specific hallmarks, it’s not just ‘shitty policy I don’t agree with’.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It wasn’t a Gish gallop. It was a simple list of the hallmarks of fascism, with examples for each. It was stupidly easy to do, and it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          > it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.

          your framing is fallacious. of course there are differences between the republicans and democrats in rhetoric and policy, but both of them are fascist.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            your framing is fallacious.

            How, exactly? Your point was both sides are fascist. I disagreed, with the counterpoint that fascism means x, providing examples of republican fascism, and asking for examples of democrat fascism.

            I’m challenging you to back up your original thesis. That’s literally how debate works.

              • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Restating your original incorrect thesis does not explain anything.

                ‘They’re both fascist.’

                ‘No they’re not, and here’s why, with examples. Please prove your point.’

                ‘Yes they are.’ <— this is not proof.