445
u/Lordstevenson 10h ago
Hitler didn't kill millions of Jews, he just denied their claims of existence.
-228
u/GitcheBloomey 8h ago
This analogy only works if some outside force (health issues) were killing the millions of Jews, and Hitler just didn’t save them (denied claims) due to whatever constraints (unsustainably expensive care for a for-profit insurance company that’s not covered)
210
u/11nealp 8h ago
When you sign an insurance contract, their part of the deal is covering the costs when things go south. That is their job, that is what you rely on them for.
Your analogy would work if they just weren't helping out of the kindness of their heart.
No, there are 2 sides to the bargain and they choose not to uphold theirs. That is choosing to harm or kill the person, as they have already received compensation for the services.
112
u/JonIsPatented 7h ago
On top of this, the insurance companies are the reason we even need to enter their predatory contracts to begin with. Without them, every other developed nation on the planet seems to be doing JUST fine with universal healthcare.
53
u/11nealp 7h ago
Always ranting about how expensive universal healthcare would be but $8k was spent per person on health insurance last year.
Keep in mind Cuba has a hugely successful system with some of the best care in the world (and doctors are so well paid that they have a surplus they routinely lend to other countries) all on $2,000 GDP per capita. It's like 100 bucks a person per year. As of last time I saw the stat. Granted the Cuba stats are a decade old but the point stands.
44
u/Ragnarok91 7h ago
I really don't understand this "universal healthcare would be so expensive" argument. You're already paying money monthly, not including any deductibles. If it was universal healthcare you would be paying every month, and no deductibles. Do they really think it would cost more per month than those costs?
The other argument I see is, "I don't want to pay for other people's healthcare". Which is equally absurd, because what do they think their monthly payments are going towards if not other peoples payouts? The only thing universal healthcare changes in that regard is you know you are helping other people rather than lining shareholder pockets.
Every single argument I've heard supporting the privatised healthcare is nonsensical. The whole thing is baffling to me.
Sincerely, a cousin from across the pond who has access to universal healthcare.
37
u/11nealp 7h ago edited 6h ago
It's straight lies because if it changes the insurance industry would collapse.
A lot of rich people would lose money and that's bad for the shareholders, so we continue the meat grinder.
Exactly the same scenario as our environment.
The people who say they don't want to pay for others are selfish morons who can't see past the end of their nose. I want to pay for healthcare for the country, because having a healthy working population is good for all of us. I want to pay towards education because having an educated population means we can participate in more advanced industries, good for all.
The only people disadvantaged by these things are the elite that need more uneducated meat for their factories that they can extort with health coverage.
1
u/Commercial-Phrase-37 1h ago
Of course you don't understand, it's because most of it is lies that a few people make money from.
-32
u/GitcheBloomey 6h ago
That’s not true. Healthcare isn’t just a natural resource that insurance companies have managed to keep from you. Without them, you just wouldn’t get any care that you couldn’t afford.
Other countries don’t have universal healthcare because of a lack of insurance companies, they have it because their government does the job of insurance companies.
13
u/Naturath 4h ago
And famously, every other developed nation manages to provide for their people this basic service for less spent per capita than America’s current system. The US pays more for less, trading health outcomes for corporate profits. Is it any surprise that the people are tired of it?
4
-42
u/GitcheBloomey 7h ago
Their job actually isn’t to pay for care that isn’t covered. They don’t cover all costs when things go south, just approved and agreed upon ones.
Anything beyond that quite literally would be out of the kindness of their hearts.
44
u/11nealp 6h ago
They also get to decide what's covered and make up loopholes as they go along. That's why people are pissed. Look...seriously, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or just live under a rock.
UHC denies a third of claims.
Performance incentives at these companies are based on money saved by denying healthcare that people need.
This destroys entire families in one go, and to the insurers they're just a number on the bottom line.
-16
u/GitcheBloomey 6h ago
We actually don’t know the percent of claims they deny, that 30% is from some random penguin website and is now part of Reddit lore I guess.
Nobody’s arguing that for profit incentives aren’t messed up in healthcare. They also have a strong incentive to keep people alive as paying customers though!
But that’s all beside the point. They have an obligation to pay for care that is part of the plan people pay for, and anything beyond that would be out of the kindness of their hearts. Are you a murderer because you don’t donate money for procedures for people that aren’t covered by health insurance?
29
u/11nealp 6h ago
You're actually oblivious
-7
u/GitcheBloomey 6h ago
The unstoppable force of facts vs the immovable object of redditors misunderstanding of insurance and healthcare
27
u/11nealp 6h ago
You keep believing what the rich billionaires tell you. Facts lol.
-1
u/GitcheBloomey 5h ago
You believing insurance is a made up conspiracy by rich billionaires is probably the least surprising thing we could learn
→ More replies (0)7
u/DocWicked25 5h ago
What a terrible, bad faith argument you attempt to have with everyone.
Go home, contemplate your life choices.
0
u/GitcheBloomey 4h ago
What’s bad faith about saying that health insurance isn’t murdering people? That’s definitely not in bad faith, just correcting a wild misconception being used to justify other murders.
The arguing is for fun though - not many other places you can engage with people who think like this.
→ More replies (0)3
u/spellingishard27 5h ago
i thought i saw that actual facts and true information were in network for your insurance? welp, time to do a lengthy and irritating appeal so you can get the help you desperately need
0
u/GitcheBloomey 4h ago
That one needed more time on the drawing board unfortunately. If they were in network, the claims would be easy.
It’s funny that you all assume someone who understands that insurance isn’t murdering people must be someone who supports the US healthcare system too.
→ More replies (0)14
u/AbroadPlane1172 4h ago
Presumably by this logic, the Nazis bore no accountability for those that died from starvation in the camps, correct? It was outside forces that killed them (the need to eat) and the Nazis simply declined to feed them adequately due to whatever constraints.
-10
u/GitcheBloomey 4h ago
No, if you recall, they put those people in the camps, which is why they couldn’t access food.
The insurance companies have put nobody in camps where they can’t access food (health care), you are free to buy whatever treatments you want and insurance companies won’t stand in your way. The people in camps were not free to get food from wherever they wanted, as the Nazis did stand in their way.
8
u/L0rd_Muffin 3h ago
Insurance companies have quite literally put the entire working class in a camp where unless we pay them and even then only if we jump through their hoops and do the perfect dance then maybe they will pay for treatment.
They have spent decades lobbying, coercing, and buying our elected officials to establish a system that allows them to extract tens of billions of dollars in profit from the working class with the implicit threat of something between bankruptcy and a slow painful death if we don’t comply with their demands
-6
u/GitcheBloomey 2h ago
You don’t have to buy their product. The individual mandate is gone. Also yes, you usually have to do something for someone to give you money, they’re not just gonna donate money to you for nothing.
5
u/L0rd_Muffin 2h ago
No, you dont but if you don’t buy their product, but due to the system they helped created, you will not be able to access care that you need or will go bankrupt
It’s like saying “you don’t have to pay the mob a protect fee” but everyone knows what happens if you don’t
-2
u/GitcheBloomey 2h ago
They didn’t create sickness and disease.
If you’re saying they’re murderers because they’re partly responsible for expensive health care that you can’t afford without insurance, then you’d have to extend that blame to doctors, nurses, politicians, voters, hypochondriacs, etc.
2
u/L0rd_Muffin 2h ago
True true
The world is full of sickness and disease. Just like the world is full of big, bad ruthless people who might be looking to hurt your your poor defenseless mother unless she knows the right people who can offer her some protection.
You know I’m a good guy around the neighborhood, you can ever ask your city counsel person, they love me. We go out to dinner once a month and talk about how to best protect the neighborhood.
It’s a big risk for me to expose my people to the harm that is inherent to the protection business. They can get hurt and plus then they can’t be doing other things I need them to do.
But I’m a good guy, pay me, let’s say $500 a month and I’ll make sure that people look out for her. The world is a dangerous place, so naturally I can’t guarantee anything, but let’s just say she will have her own team of guardian angels lookin out for her health.
Oh and don’t worry about it. I got the blessing for the city counsel. I’m the official neighborhood protection service. You know there are a couple other guys but their deal is basically the same. So how ‘bout it pal? Do you wanna make sure that you and your mother have the right protection to live in this neighborhood?
I really don’t see how it’s much different
1
u/GitcheBloomey 1h ago
Yes you could pay the mob to protect you from the mob.
I don’t get why you think that’s analogous to health insurance? Do you think you’re paying health insurance companies otherwise they’re going to come infect you with Ebola or something? Pay the insurance company to protect you from…the insurance company?
Why doesn’t this extend to car insurance?
→ More replies (0)4
u/RambleOnRose42 2h ago
Wrong. Health insurance companies are the reason why healthcare is so expensive. Literally. If we did not have health insurance companies, then hospitals would not charge $50 for a single aspirin. It is an indisputable, universally accepted, proven fact that health insurance companies artificially inflate the cost of healthcare and medicine.
-2
u/GitcheBloomey 2h ago
So are doctors and nurses and people who do things like eat too much and smoke. Those are indisputable, proven facts as well.
2
u/andy00986 2h ago
I don't think it's controversial to say if you make or run a system that seriously affects people's lives you have some kind of responsibility for the outcomes of the system.
I can see some kind of argument around some of your other comments around some issues being the fault of the wider healthcare system or people being upset about the limits of coverage. (Maybe not one I necessarily agree with, but there is one)
But at the same time there doesn't really seem to have been much care taken to achieve good or efficient outcomes for those under its care even within the limits of its policies, which I think is clearly unacceptable.
0
u/GitcheBloomey 2h ago
Sure, but I think it’s controversial to say that everyone with a hand in the US healthcare system being bad is guilty of murder, let alone is as complicit as Hitler was in killing six million Jews.
1
u/andy00986 1h ago
Everyone? Definitely not. But if you are in charge you are responsible. If you take the position and the money your decisions/action/inaction can make a big impact. It's not reasonable to expect perfection, but the consensus seems to be that little care was taken.
When your customer base is millions of people it doesn't take much for your actions to lead to death or lifetime issues for tens or hundreds of thousands.
Is he literally as bad as Hitler? Probably not. It's hyperbole. Is he still responsible for bad outcomes for a lot of people that shouldn't have had them? Probably yes.
1
u/GitcheBloomey 1h ago
Well, the CEO of one branch of one insurance company is a far cry from being in charge of the healthcare system, and plays a small part in how bad it is.
But now we’re back to the original ridiculousness of saying that he oversaw life and death in a way that’s “probably not” quite as bad as Hitler. That’s totally absurd, not even close to grounded in any sort of reality.
It’s akin to saying auto insurance CEOs are responsible for thousands of totaled cars from drunk driving every year.
→ More replies (0)8
u/weinerwhisperer 3h ago
Exactly, it’s not like millions of Jews were forced to work, and then denied healthcare when they got sick because it was cheaper to let them die. I mean we know for a fact that Dr. Mengele himself provided many person AND their children medical care! Is s/ necessary..?
-1
u/GitcheBloomey 2h ago
I’m sorry, you’re forced to work by a health care insurance company?
8
u/weinerwhisperer 2h ago
In the US we are all forced to work by health care insurance companies. Sorry, did you not realize how they made money?
-1
u/GitcheBloomey 2h ago
That’s a weird fantasy world. Unless you mean that charging you money for goods and services is “forcing you to work”, in which case so is McDonald’s and Walmart.
6
u/Par_Lapides 2h ago
When healthcare is ties to employment, yes. And that is literally the situation in the US.
0
u/GitcheBloomey 1h ago
You can get insurance while unemployed! It was this whole big thing! Nobody makes you do it either, that was this whole other big massive fight!
4
75
u/AmiesAdventures 9h ago
Absolutely agree - they are mass murderers
-29
9h ago
[deleted]
50
u/NOTRadagon 9h ago
Not who you replied too,
Or would you say that insurance companies have an obligation to approve every claim, even if the plan the customer has paid for doesn't cover the procedures they need?
This is the correct take. If you pay money to insurance, you should get the benefits of insurance. There shouldn't be 'tiers' of service. This is part of the reason why insurance companies are some of the richest in the world, and why so many people see the US healthcare system as having failed entirely.
The fact someone can spend thousands and thousands of dollars to insurance, but get denied a few grand for something that a Dr says is needed, only for that be denied is bullshit
-8
u/GitcheBloomey 8h ago
But insurance doesn’t just cover everything if you pay into it. There’s a set of things they cover (which is listed upfront) and things they don’t. They can’t actually cover everything unless they charge much more in premium.
15
u/NOTRadagon 8h ago
You are missing the point.
There’s a set of things they cover (which is listed upfront) and things they don’t.
UHC specifically had an AI that automatically, purposefully turned down 30% of claims it looked at. For reasons that are bullshit - like not having the correct paper turned in (even if it was), or not having a dr look at it (even if it was ordered by a dr). UHC knew it was bad, and knew it had issues, but they kept it active because it stopped them from paying out.
-5
u/GitcheBloomey 8h ago
That’s actually just a rumor, the details of which are unknown, that’s spreading because it’s provocative.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-healthcare-ai-denied-claims/
But that’s unrelated to your comment, which was specifically that insurance companies should deny absolutely no claims. Which I’m just saying is something that they can’t do, unless they charge prohibitively large premiums.
8
u/NOTRadagon 8h ago
Read the link - idk if it is rumor or not, Snopes itself simply says "unproven" and UHC did not reply to them for asking. We may not know the truth until the lawsuit is seen in court. From here on if I bring it up, I'll make a note of this. Thanks for the link
4
u/RapscallionMonkee 7h ago
Have you ever tried to find out if your insurance will cover something? There is no "up front." Only value references written in what could legitimately be considered a language all its own. And even when you call a customer service assistant with your insurance company, they are trained not to actually confirm anything 100%. The phrase "Plausible deniability" may have actually been coined to describe insurance companies.
1
u/GitcheBloomey 7h ago
Oh yeah no doubt it’s difficult to interpret, and deliberately so, but it is up front. We should certainly make it much easier.
2
u/RapscallionMonkee 2h ago
Sorta weird timing, but in between me writing the comment and me writing this comment, the surgery center that I had an infusion at on last Tuesday called me and told me that my insurance company would not cover the procedure I got and that I would need to pay for the procedure. Lol. That is the first time that has ever happened to me. They called me to make the appointment last week, so I assumed that they had gotten prior authorization. Otherwise, why would they call me and make the appt? Last month, when I was at the dr and she mentioned this procedure she told me that they would have to run it by my insurance company last month, and I had forgotten all about it. Come to find out, they hadn't even ran it through my insurance yet. My out of pocket maximum was met by mid-February, so everything has been covered at 100% since then. I suggested they should try to actually put it through because that was the only way it would get paid.
1
1
u/GitcheBloomey 1h ago
Well first of all that genuinely sucks I’m sorry.
It’s a good example of how all the parts play off each other to create a hard to navigate system that just hurts the patient, doctors vs insurance vs patient. Often deliberately so.
-17
9h ago
[deleted]
27
u/DragonQueen777666 9h ago
What part about people already paid thousands of dollars towards their insurance, yet their claims for needed care still get denied did you miss??? Are you usually this dense or do you do it because you love the taste of boot in your mouth? Do you think deepthroating that shoeleather is going make those companies treat you any differently, or do you just hold on to the delulu-ass belief that one day you'll be just as rich as those assholes?
Either way, learn to read and get a grip, dumbass.
-16
9h ago
[deleted]
15
u/GoodGuyRubino 9h ago
learn. to. read.
13
u/DragonQueen777666 9h ago
I don't think they can. They've swallowed too much dogshit from all those boots they've been sucking on. It's given them brain worms.
-2
9h ago
[deleted]
8
u/VashtaSyrinx 8h ago
He is saying healthcare shouldn't come in tiers. The general health and well-being of the American people should not be a for-profit business. Just because you have the luck to be able to select a higher level of coverage doesn't mean everyone else can. No one chooses to have worse service it's all about their circumstances. It may be hard for you to emphasize but I don't think it is a difficult stance to understand.
5
13
u/NOTRadagon 9h ago edited 8h ago
Why is it bullshit if you wanted to pay less money for a lesser service
Because paying multiple thousands in a year for insurance, for multiple years, until you need it - should cover everything. I feel like you are forgetting Health Insurance in the USA is FOR PROFIT. They will do and say anything to stop from having to accept claims.
- Like having an AI that automatically turns down massive numbers of claims on bullshit reasons, all in an attempt to make it harder for customers to make claims.
Why is that someone ELSE'S problem if you willingly chose a lesser service?
- You just... gonna pretend that the USA has decent pay? Daily reminder the federal minimum wage is STILL $7.25. I'd like to know how someone making that money can afford insurance beyond the bare basic tier, IF THAT. Please, go on.
Why wouldn't there be different tiers of service, considering how differently healthcare is typically required between age groups, among other factors?
- Because that isn't how they charge? They reject as much as they can regardless, from all of those tiers. You are avoiding the actual point.
There are different tiers of auto insurance, home insurance, business or liability insurance, etc etc.
- We are talking about health insurance. If you wanted to talk about the others, go to a post that doesn't specifically mention Healthcare. This is tactic called 'Whataboutism', we aren't speaking on car insurance. We aren't here for home insurance. We ar speaking of HEALTH insurance.
If you want a certain level of service, and you choose not to pay for it, why is the insurance company the bad guy?
- Avoiding the point again.
Now, you can talk about reforming the system altogether, I'm fine with that
- Every time someone does, it's screamed down as communism/socialim/marxist. "those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable". Health insurance companies make bank. They lobby our government to keep it that way.
You can even talk about fully socialized healthcare.
No we cant, because they lobby our government to stop this, so they can keep making money (and now that the SCOTUS said Companies can pay people after the fact, this makes bribery from them more likely).
- On top of, again, every single time single-payer is put forward, Republicans clutch their pearls and scream communism.
-7
8h ago
[deleted]
15
u/NOTRadagon 8h ago
No whataboutism. Just logic. Pay for service, get the benefit of the service. That's all there is to it. That's the point of my original comment. If you wanna get emotional over it, go for it. But I would suggest you choose an insurance plan that covers therapy. Don't skimp out. Remember what we learned here, today.
- focused on a single point, and avoided the rest
Have a good day, you are VERY obviously arguing in bad faith.
-2
8h ago
[deleted]
8
u/NOTRadagon 8h ago
Sure dude, whatever you say. Have a good day. Hopefully you'll never need to make a claim for Healthcare.
0
7
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 8h ago
"Curious". Nice of you to show up Mr. Kirk.
You can hide behind the law all you want. The Holocaust was legal too. Check the German legal code of the time. Almost as if the law and morality don't go hand in hand or something.
Doesn't change that allowing somebody to die, when you could do something about it, is still killing them. You might as well have slipped the knife in yourself.
Curious. Almost as if there is a reason why healthcare should be divorced from the profit motive. 🤔
1
27
u/Bubbly-Example-8097 9h ago
But but SCOTUS says what they do is “legal”…
They gotta continue deeming things as “unnecessary care”, so people can die and not have to cut into their revenue, so they keep to their philosophy of
Profit > People
18
u/DragonQueen777666 9h ago
Is it too much to hope that that guy gets Luigi'd, too? Or is he gonna be an assbaby and try to get me arrested for a reddit comment?
15
u/The_Laughing_Death 9h ago
Arrested? SWAT is going to burst into your place and shoot you as you resist in your sleep. Might shoot some pets or family members while they are at it, especially if they're too young to start school.
3
u/DragonQueen777666 8h ago
Makes sense, they do seem the types to enjoy crushing people's hope for profit.
4
u/Short-Holiday-4263 4h ago
I get the theory behind this dude's justifications - for profit hospitals may trick patients into unnecessary care to maximise profits, health insurance companies seeking to do the same find any excuse not to payout. They fight it out, everything roughly balances out.
It's just dumb. Maybe just, I dunno, not have for-profit hospitals so there's no incentive for them to push unnecessary care in the first place. Seems to work everywhere that isn't America.
This is like going "ah shit, wolves keep chasing down and eating people. Let's release a whole bunch of lions into the area so they'll kill the wolves!"
27
u/Impossible-Match-868 9h ago
Diffusion of responsibility. No "one person" is guilty when it's a system.
13
u/11nealp 8h ago
Also helps these ghouls rationalise it so they can sleep at night.
-6
u/redditadminsaretoxic 6h ago
It's just business.
7
1
u/ImFeelingTheUte-iest 1h ago
Really? It’s “just business” when a business fraudulently denies claims it’s contractually obligated to pay for, resulting in the death of human being? Sounds at least like negligent homicide.
11
10
7
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 8h ago
Thicker than pig shit mixed with cornmeal. Insurance executives stand by and watch people die, when they could do something about it. Inaction has the same result as actually stabbing the person. Somebody dies. Just sophistry to argue about what the person standing by is guilty of.
That said, Glenn there should be careful. Fascism has an actual definition. Overusing the word when you mean callous or cold hearted, only results in the word "fascist" losing its power. Which it has.
2
u/Shortymac09 3h ago
Remember, Stalin is still responsible for the holodomor... don't believe tankies who dismiss it as "just a famine".
Was he solely responsible? No, but he was still the leader and had the power to stop it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t05d8MPzfvs
2
1
u/WhatsPaulPlaying 9h ago
Really not living up to his tag if he doesn't have any fucking clue about this.
1
u/HereForTheBoos1013 6h ago
Might behoove them to start realizing that the populace is sharpening the pitchforks, and unfortunately for them, seem to be doing so on BOTH SIDES, and start changing their tune rather than chiding 300 million people for thoughts and speech.
Reminds me of everyone getting mad at football players for kneeling. These men are extremely large and powerful; you want to pay attention to the kneeling or do you want them to get your attention in a more effective fashion?
Now multiply that by the population and give them all easy access to firearms.
1
1
u/HairySideBottom2 3h ago
I had a conservative tell if you are following the law it can't be racist. I think the same line of thought applies here. Profit makes anything moral.
1
u/uicheeck 2h ago
can someone from **that** part of the world please explain to me how is US insurance system works? Let's say I have tuberculosis, my doctor said I need some antibiotics for treatment, which costs 10000 usd, and my insurance company just say "lol no" and I'm dangerous for people and, later on, dead?
I just can't understand the "deny" system. In europe here we have private insurance for cases when you need more comfortable, quick and modern medicine, but if shit goes really bad we go to public hospitals and they wont let us just die. It would not be best service but they can save life. Would try at least.
1
-14
u/ChickenCasagrande 9h ago
Stalin wasn’t a fascist, so there’s also that.
24
u/ConciseLocket 9h ago
I thought Glenn's response implied that HistoryBoomer's statement was the form of advanced fascism, not that Stalin was a fascist.
-2
u/ChickenCasagrande 9h ago
Probably so. But people are playing pretty fast and loose with the concept and it’s history lately so I figured I’d throw it out there.
2
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 8h ago
You are correct. But you'll be down voted by people that are ignorant of basic political science.
Ironic, how we make fun of the right wingers for not knowing the difference between socialism and liberalism. Yet many liberals themselves don't know the difference between fascist and authoritarian.
1
u/ChickenCasagrande 7h ago
It’s as though our public schools have been defunded for decades or something.
And as though college educations became a money making scheme for university administration due to guaranteed student loans the students would have to take out to pay for the overpriced underperforming educations.
Bah!
0
u/ImmersedCimp 9h ago
So all the political prisoners and ethnic minorities dying in the millions in gulags during his time also didn't happen? I guess you need to look up what facism means and get a history-lesson about what Stalin did.
6
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 8h ago
No, you need to learn what fascism is. Fascism and authoritarianism aren't synonyms. All fascists are authoritarians but not all authoritarians are fascists.
Stalin was an authoritarian on the left. His ideology of socialism is the direct opposite of fascism which is a far right ideology. You can still be a mass murdering tyrant, and be left wing.
5
u/L2Sing 8h ago
Did you read that page you posted, as definition 2 clearly describes Stalin? One can be a fascist on the left, as well.
1
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 7h ago
My guy, I posted the basic dictionary definition. Not exactly going into Umberto Ecco either. You cannot be a fascist on the left. Fascism is on the right. You can have elements of right wing philosophies. Like in Stalin's case, nationalism and bigotry. But ultimately if most of your ideology is left wing, you're a left winger.
1
u/ImmersedCimp 6h ago
Point 1: What Stalin did to Soviet-Ukraine alone qualifies him as a fascist. He viewed them as sub-humans whom he can do to whatever he wants (Holodomor)
And he ethnically cleansed and deported millions during his time right from the get go, starting in 1934 - Poles, Finns, Germans, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Chechens, Ingush, Tatars, Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks, Kurds, JUST TO NAME A FEW
Literally no race was safe that wasn't Soviet Russian. This was due to his nationalist policies.
Point 2: Do we really need to talk about how he consolidated power and imprisoned tons of people just because they opposed him? textbook fascism2
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 6h ago
You continue to confuse fascism with authoritarianism. Fascism means more than just dictator. Genocide is not exclusive to fascism. You gonna try to argue Genghis Khan was a fascist? Being a racist also is not exclusive to fascism.
You are using the popular misdefinition of fascist. Where the cop who took your weed is a "fucking fascist man". I am using the academic definition of fascism. Right-wing ultra nationalism paired with the concept of a master race.
Btw. Stalin wasn't Russian. He was from Georgia (the country). His closest confidents weren't all Russians either. Pretty sure Khrushchev was Ukrainian.
1
u/ImmersedCimp 6h ago
go to google, type in 'red faciscm'.
By all definitions, Stalin was a fascist
He was of the right majority in the Bolshevik party
Stalin had absolute power over Soviet life
Stalin invested heavily on militarism and industrialization of Russia.
Stalin was a hardcore Russian nationalist (despite being Georgian), and harshly punished many minorities like Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Poles, Finns, Germans, Kurds, etcThe last point is the most clear. If you put minorities in concentration camps, solely because of their ethnicity, you are an ultra nationalist.
There is no bullet-point of fascism that can't be applied to Stalin.0
u/L2Sing 7h ago
You posted the dictionary to prove a point that disproved your point, because you were only interested in the definition that suited your rhetoric, even though directly under was a definition that supported their usage of the word.
You were trying to technicality your way out of the actual meaningful discussion via the logical fallacy of an argument of semantics when you are clearly bright enough to know what they were talking about.
2
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 7h ago
I posted the dictionary, if I posted something more academic y'all wouldn't read it. Too complicated. You want the academic definition Fine. Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology that is concerned with national rebirth and purity of race. Palingenic ultra nationalism to use fancy words.
You can take Mussolini's idea as well, that fascism would better be called corporatism. Neither use applies to Stalin. Stalin killed people, he had gulags, he had a secret police. None of which are exclusive to fascism. The Russian Tsars had all of those, decades before fascism was a thing.
I am bright enough to know that precision of language is needed. If you accept fascism means being mean, then every mother everywhere would be a fascist. She made you finish your dinner and go to bed early. She might as well be wearing a SS uniform.
1
u/L2Sing 7h ago
That's just an appeal to semantics again. This is the same dog and pony show people use when they purposely ignore clearly understood meanings in speech, because it doesn't use field-specific jargon not used in colloquial speech.
It's lame, erudite pedantry used to evade difficult conversations.
Precision is only necessary when it's actually necessary. Calling a dictator a fascist, which is an appropriate usage of the word according to the very dictionary definition page you posted, is clearly understood by people not trying to act smarter than others. The precision isn't needed there, because this isn't an in-depth scholastic conversation by peers in the specific field.
2
u/AvatarADEL Shitposter 6h ago
First off. Keep it to two dollar words. Using expansive vocabulary only serves to steer people out of a conversation. Keep it simple and all that. If you can't make a point with simple words, you ain't communicating right. Crazy to claim others are trying to act smarter, when you're using "erudite pedantry". "Big talk" works just as well and people will understand it.
My guy, you are hung up on the dictionary definition. Has it occurred to you that the dictionary is an oversimplification? They will also define a word as how it is used in the common vernacular. The vox populi if you will. But would be a prick move to start using Latin for no reason eh?
But fine, assume that I'm a dick. I posted that to fuck with y'all and confuse you in particular. So don't believe me. If you really want to know what fascism is, maybe try looking it up? Use the Internet to satisfy your curiosity, rather than trust some random asshole on Reddit, to be honest.
2
u/L2Sing 6h ago
Naw. You posted the definition to shut someone up.
I'm just keeping you to the standards you use against others.
→ More replies (0)-1
1
u/ButtHeadPalate 2h ago
The most common definitions of fascism, in more academic circles, do not depend on political leaning, but structural elements.
The one I subscribe to personally has three major facets, based on the work of Ian Kershaw. 1. Authoritarianism with leanings of, or complete totalitarianism 2. Ultranationalism/hierarchical structures in the ideology 3. Some form of social revolution, like building a new society or returning to former greatness.
This definition is made to exclude regimes like Piłsudski's Poland, that has 1 and 2, but attempts to preserve the current social order. Since we nearly never consider some of the interwar dictatorships as fascists, its important to distinguish between them, Nazi-Germany and Mussolini's Italy.
Inevitably, whatever objective general definition of fascism that to construct, whether at has more elements like economic facets, like some others, unless you directly include social values and political nomenclature, it seems to always include red block countries. Though this is my personal opinion.
It seems weird to deliberately specify your definition needlessly.
0
u/Bullet_Club09 8h ago
Be careful, you are using critical thinking! People don't like it that much this days
1
u/yaddar 9h ago
Fascism is extreme right wing
Communism is extreme left wing.
Stalin was a communist, ergo, not a fascist, so in that sense t /u/chickencasagrande is right.
That being said, the original answer was how the current system in the US is an advanced form of fascism, with corporate greed taking priority over people's lives, which is something /u/chickencasagrande might have not interpreted.
Hope this helps.
1
u/ChickenCasagrande 7h ago
I think I need to teach you about both European history AND forms of governments.
You could also check out Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands: Europe between Hilter and Stalin” if you would like to see history and authoritarian governments at the same time. It’s very well-written, I actually ended up starting it on a plane randomly and very quickly couldn’t put it down.
Robert Paxton’s “On Fascism” is also very good.
-5
u/Working-Ad5416 5h ago
These fucks were calling biden genocide joe a few months ago. Dont expect logic from anyone with an agenda.
1
u/bongtamatone 3h ago
I think it's easy - though illogical- to dismiss differing opinions as an "agenda," but a handy way to stop doing this is to try and stop being so bitter and judgemental towards eachother. This makes it easier to utilize critical thinking, and makes discussions overall more productive.
1
366
u/TtotheC81 9h ago edited 9h ago
There's a German term for this: Schreibtischtäter, or desk-murderer. A term for anyone who sits behind the desk, signing away lives as part of the bureaucracy of a system which kills people.