Talk:Fascist (insult): Difference between revisions
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:Agreed that line ill-considered. Instead moved existing quote up to serve same purpose. Also made various other improvements. If you still think not neutral, please be specific with what exactly you object to. [[User:24.187.40.101|24.187.40.101]] 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
:Agreed that line ill-considered. Instead moved existing quote up to serve same purpose. Also made various other improvements. If you still think not neutral, please be specific with what exactly you object to. [[User:24.187.40.101|24.187.40.101]] 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
::There's a bias of the "fascist" epitet being used by libertines and/or left-inclined persons. That is more like a fact about the usage bias, not a bias of the article. I cannot find the citation, so I consider the POV-warning having timed out. <span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">''Said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] [[User talk:Rursus|☻]]''</span> 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==1960s use== |
==1960s use== |
Revision as of 14:14, 3 September 2007
Quote change
I have replaced the quote regarding Islamofascism with the quote from George Orwell, because the Islamofascism quote belongs on (and is duplicated on) that page. ElKabong
NEUTRALITY
It seems to me that there is a definite bias in this page against the right wing view point. There is also the line "Thus with both Bush and Clinton labeled fascists, Orwell's 1944 observation was alive and well." This is not a quote. It is not a fact. It is simply an opinion.
I would like the opinion of others before any action is taken.Bengaska 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed that line ill-considered. Instead moved existing quote up to serve same purpose. Also made various other improvements. If you still think not neutral, please be specific with what exactly you object to. 24.187.40.101 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's a bias of the "fascist" epitet being used by libertines and/or left-inclined persons. That is more like a fact about the usage bias, not a bias of the article. I cannot find the citation, so I consider the POV-warning having timed out. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
1960s use
The previous statement on use of "fascism" or "fascist-pig" as epithets in the 1960s was POV and propagandistic. The idea that anyone who believed in "ordered social discourse" was labelled a fascist is untrue - many liberals, communists and even anarchists believe in some kind of social order, but would not necessarily be included in this label. The specific actions which would classify someone as a "fascist-pig" would typically be those associated with extra-liberal repression such as the police violence seen at Kent State, Chicago and so on - somebody like Mayor Daley would be called a "fascist" because he violated what others took to be the right to protest, and thus shown himself to be authoritarian, intolerant and chauvinistic. The implication of the statement is that the kinds of repression carried out by the likes of Daley can simply be typified as a preference for "orderly discourse" rather than as authoritarianism or as the "intolerance, chauvinism" etc discussed at the top of the article. I have thus changed the article to be more precise.
I've also added some material explaining the possible analytical basis for the rhetorical use of "fascist" to refer to authoritarian, intolerant and chauvinistic people and institutions.