Talk:Fascist (insult)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Utterly useless page[edit]

This page has absolutely no reason to exist and seems to be a hotbed for political opportunists on both sides. It should me merged with the main article on fascism ASAP.Fleabag500 01:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I agree the more I read into it. This reminds me of the anti-ethnicity/nationality/group pages which end up succumbing to the same quarrels looking to influence the pages and the readers. OyMosby (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote change[edit]

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[edit]

mummmummmuummmuuum 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My opinion as an "other": Although the topic of using the word "Fascist" as an insult is an interesting concept that might be worthy of explication as a Popular Culture topic, this article veers way off the path in attempting to provide academic sources for a slur that is simply an undereducated and popular mis-use of the term. There is even a link that appears scholarly, but takes one to a page on a MMA wrestler. (Rolando Perez). If it were me, I would delete the questionable bias an unsubstantiated scholarship and explain the term framed as a popular culture slang with origins in the misunderstanding of a WWII political term. I can't believe we've talked about correcting this mess since 2006, and no one seems brave enough or feels important enough to FIX IT (including myself). I wish someone with a political science background would redact so much of this erroneous information. My 2 cents, YMMV. lbravo (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1960s use[edit]

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.

Use by Russia and Soviet Union[edit]

Should the Soviet/Russian habit of accusing people and governments of fascism when they don't agree with Kremlin's point of view on history or current politics be mentioned here? Examples: soviets called anti-soviet partisans of Baltic states and Ukraine fascist This article is a good example: Anti-Estonian sentiment. --Kyng (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. Merits consideration. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article also needs a mention of wartime usage by the Soviets, supposedly they are the ones who created the broad popular (mis)usage of "fascist" as an epithet for authoritarianism because they didn't want to label their enemies as Nazis (which is derived from National Socialist and thus sounds too similar to Soviet Socialist) or German (they didn't want to label the war as based on nationalism, in any case over a dozen nations contribued at least a thousand or more men to the Axis cause [in some cases a quarter to half a million men], and almost half the Red Army was non-Russian, making that perspective also senseless). I don't have even recollection where I read this, otherwise I would add the citations. (This is also why Bolshevik wartime posters used the term "Hitlerite"; they needed to get creative with their terminology but obviously this epithet had a much more limited usage especially once the war ended and Hitler was dead.) P.S. The Soviet usage became popularized in the West because Western intellectual elites uncritically adopted its usage in an effort to seem politically sophisticated. Historian932 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah[edit]

You guys on wikipedia are fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.236.228 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally bro... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.37.11 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How useless[edit]

I looked at this page to see whether it would be appropriate to use the term 'fascist' to describe the X (chi) organisation of Greece, whose raison d'etre was anticommunism, and modus operandi violence. Instead I get a whole lot of bleating about how the term 'fascist' is used inappropriately/unfairly, and no serious guidelines about when it should be used, in a a wider sense rather than just being applied to Italians with bundles of sticks (fasces). Bougatsa42 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indeed useless - at this phase, as it is really start level[edit]

It could be helpful to define "fascist" as an attitude of someone who uses (is going to use) power in a violent, antidemocratic way, opposed to rule of law, transparency and accountability. It seems, that the "modus operandi: violence" is the centerpiece of something being eligible to be called fascist. This makes one time "existing communism/socialism", also known as soviet-type government one of the examples, which may be confusing given that the soviet-communist (I mean by that not just Russia, rather all existing/once existed) socialist-communist governments/parties/ideologies hold "antifascism" among their core values, however this rhetoric does not prevent them from using very similar (e.g.: fascist) way of ruling once they get power. Basically all kinds of dicatatorships that rely on violence at will as opposed to rule of law and transparency and accountability seem to be more or less fascistic. That said, i agree with Bougatsa that the article at its present state gives hardly any guidence on the definition of the word, but what he was looking for might be here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Then again, Fascism as an insult-word would deserve a paragraph on the typical use of the word by (or inside) the soviet-type regimes, as connected to the use of the heroic story of sacrifice accomplished by the Soviet Union during the second world war (fighting the then nazi Germany) and these regimes being tied ideologically (and in most cases also economically and in a military and political sense as well) to the Soviet Union.

94.66.137.166 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fascist (insult). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This really should be merged with the main Fascism article[edit]

Use of fascist as an insult does not really deserve its own article. It should be a small section of the main Fascism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.210.183 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Totally agree. ShimonChai (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fascist (insult). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump[edit]

The page currently says:

...said that Trump either does not hold and even is opposed to several political viewpoints that are integral to fascism

Which is sourced to this:

Every one of them stated that to be a fascist, one must support the revolutionary, usually violent overthrow of the entire government/Constitution, and reject democracy entirely. In 2015, none were comfortable saying Trump went that far. [1]

[*Curb Your Enthusiasm*].

I won't add any tags to the existing wording per NPOV, but the current content seems a bit outdated now; maybe move the word "2016" from "a 2016 article" to "stated that in 2016"? After the insurrection a couple major sources have recommented on this comparison: [2] [3] [4].  Nixinova   T   C   07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the American politics subsection[edit]

The subsection titled "American politics" refers exclusively to the use of the term by conservatives, despite the fact that Donald Trump was referred to as fascists elsewhere in the article. I am requesting an edit to move the information pertaining to Trump to this subsection, because currently there appears to be a left-wing bias here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.67.170 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2022[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fascist (insult) → Fascist as a pejorative – Since this page isn't for disambiguation, it shouldn't be structured with a parenthetical. "Fascist as a pejorative" is already used in the Fascism article for the subsection summarizing this article. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 00:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move. The parenthetical does serve to disambiguate, from Fascist which redirects to Fascism. O.N.R. (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess what I was trying to say is that the insult "Fascist" isn't disconnected from the actual term "Fascist". This article is about a specific usage of the term, not a different term altogether. The classic disambiguation example is the set of articles for Mercury, which all describe different things that happen to have the same name: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). This article is obviously a different case, being more similar to a summary style child article if anything. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From this perspective, the article should be moved, as User:BappleBusiness is saying that the pejorative is a subtopic of fascist/fascism. However, much of the article seems to demonstrate that the pejorative has not much to do with actual fascism and is, as Orwell said, pretty much meaningless. —  AjaxSmack  02:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Though "fascist" (the pejorative) is used much more broadly than "fascist" as a reference to the actual ideology, I think there's still a clear semantic connection between fascist-as-ideology and fascist-as-insult. I think most people using "fascist" as an insult today are striving to draw a serious (even if misguided) comparison between their target and fascism, in contrast to cases like Ass (insult) where the insult has largely become semantically unmoored from its initial referent. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Solution looking for a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marxists[edit]

I have made a BOLD edit to remove the section on Marxist opinions. It was, in short, bad. There was one source for the entire first paragraph, and the second only had sources on the last sentence. My edit may have been a drastic measure, but Abbie Hoffman saying something once in a radio interview isn’t enough for a mention, nor is the obvious OR about state monopoly capitalism. Either there are sources for the claim that Indian/Iranian/Iraqi Marxists say Hindutva/the Iranian regime/Iraqi Islamist insurgents is/are fascist and they’re not given (NPOV violation) or there aren’t and it’s not notable (NPOV violation). The Christian Post and Indian Express articles were exact copies of each other, anyway, and I’m not sure either of them are RS for this specific purpose. The section title didn’t even match its content! I think the section should be rewritten from scratch, if “Marxist opinions on fascist as a pejorative” is a notable topic (which it might well be). 2001:1970:5E26:5A00:1908:DF01:D6F6:BCFF (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ustasha[edit]

I have been WP:BOLD and removed the vast bulk of the Serbia section added by Franjo Tahy in the past year because most of it doesn't pertain to the use of "fascist" as an insult, but almost exclusively discusses several uses of the adjacent (but distinct) term Ustasha, often sourced to tabloids from Croatia and Serbia reporting on the day-to-day mudslinging between the two country's politicians. This article is about the use of the term "fascist" as a pejorative, not the term Ustasha. As such, I have retained the one instance where the "fascist" epithet is used and properly referenced/attributed. Otherwise, the section as Franjo Tahy has constructed it is a glaring, textbook example of WP:COATRACK, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, using primary sources about unrelated events to string together a single over-arching narrative. One notable example: "...holds [the] belief that the "vast majority of Croatian nation are Ustaše" and thus fascists." This is blatant WP:OR and but one example of the issues with the section as Franjo Tahy wrote it. The source this passage is attributed to doesn't mention the use of the term "fascist" in this context, yet Franjo Tahy found it appropriate to go beyond the source and insert "and thus fascists" in order to justify its inclusion in this spurious and poorly constructed section. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Ustashas, in terms of their ideology are fascists. In practice,there is no any relevant distinction between them. If you think there is some, please explain it. Secondly, in some cases when Serbs want to insult Croats they do not even use the term ustasha, but use the fascist label directly like Jelena Karleuša did here. Therefore, they are used interchangeably and in essence both terms mean the same. Since this usage s not limited only to Yugoslav wars but, as you wrote yourself, is also in practice today by "mudslinging between politicians" your revert is inappropriate and comes down to censorship/mitigation.
Also, in response to your accusations, I would like to point out that I did not quote tabloids, I mostly quoted Croatian newspapers such as Večernji list, Jutarnji list, Slobodna Dalmacija and Novi list, which report factually correct and stick to journalism standards. I might have to distance myself from Index.hr which I did quoted, because I see that Wikipedia describes them as tabloid, although I did not know that and I generally considered them to be reliable source. My mistake for that.
All in all, I believe that Serbian usage of fascist/ustasha label deserves its own paragraph in the article the way it was before you deleted it and I will seek third opinion. Franjo Tahy (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. The Russia-Ukrain section is fine with “Neo-Nazi” and “Nazis” and aren’t using the direct word “fascist” but these are all meaning the same thing. Also the sources are news articles. Why are they yellow press journalism? B92 is yellow journalism now? It seems like prime examples of provocative fascist name calling that tha article is talking about. They seem like fair examples unless all these sources are not RS? @Peacemaker67: any clue if calling one a Ustasa is akin to calling one a neo-Nazi or fascist? You seem to have experience in Valkan WWII matters like this so if you have the chance to chime in, it would be appreciated. I restored what was deleted by a random IP as it didn’t seem like a strong enough argument to remove sourced content. If the consensus is to keep it all temoved from the article then I will follow consensus. Honestly the whole article is basically a coatrack and could continue to become one for every country. OyMosby (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I will say is that the Ustashas had fascist ideology. I really don’t know about the use of fascist as an insult that might equate with Ustasha. Why mince words when Ustasha is more pejorative? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The ladder would be more pejorative. So seems synonymous. I don’t think the question is if Fascist means Ustashe but the other way around. Much like the Russia-Ukraine section in the article stating “Nazi” and “Neo-Nazi” as examples of fascist as an insult. I would think calling someone a Ustashe (Croatian Fascists) would we a fascist themed insult as well which the article seems to be scoped around. Also the sources state “fascist” as directly used as insults towards Croats or Croatia the country as well. Seems straight forward. I don’t think it fails the tick boxes for fitting in the article as some others originally raised concern about. OyMosby (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67 I can agree with you that being called ustasha is worse than Fascist, as ustashas were worse than fascists. After all Jews who fled from ustasha terror fled to fascist Italy.

Now, when it comes to the matter in question, I believe that there is no single valid argument in the world for this article to have a section about Russo-Ukrainian case, but not have a section about Serbo-Croatian case. The only reason I could think of is convenience of Russo-Ukrainian case due to ongoing War in Ukraine which is a hot topic these days. Other than that, the purpose of using fascist/ustasha insult for Croatians by the Serbs is completely the same as it was in Putin's pretext for Invasion of Ukraine. And both terms fascists and ustasha are used interchangebly. The examples of it are listed in the paragraph, and if necesary, I can provide even more examples. Franjo Tahy (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about Serbian paragraph[edit]

Should this article have its own "Serbian" paragraph the way there was before recent edits? Franjo Tahy (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. The deleted paragraph, based on dubious sources and claims, looks like it was written in some yellow press paper and has very low importance for Wikipedia. 24.135.116.243 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you dear contributor with IP adress from Serbia. Franjo Tahy (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Franjo, I deleted the whole section as it is pretty much POV and SYNTH. Please do not add it again. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted RfC, I expected comments from non-biased people, not bunch of Serb contributors brigading against stuff they do not like. Franjo Tahy (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I do not even care anymore. If noone else cares, then I don't care either. For all I know, the fact remains that Serbs stigmatise Croatians as both fascists and ustashas in their media and elsewhere when they want to dehumanize them and antagonise. They did it during the wars 1990's, and it is common occurance even nowadays, and there were examples from everyday life in the discussed paragraph. So go ahead and do what you want. Franjo Tahy (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Franjo Tahy: I agree that multiple sources provide such evidence. I don’t see why it is in entirety “POV” and “SYNTH” as these are insulting examples that sadly occurred. Similar tactics used by Croatian nationalists labeling Serbs “Chetniks” or both labeling Bosniaks “extremists”. It would be helpful if we all could work towards what would in consensus be deemed a better general section? I see that IPs are popping up by coincidence in these type of situations parroting buzz words which isn’t helpful in getting to the bottom of things. However be careful not to swat away editors by insinuating they are biased. Although it is suspicious that the IP contribution history is specifically only for edits on this article and another for this talk page……..It leads to a domino effect of back and forth insults that are not necessary. Hell, the article itself is about insults being hurtful. OyMosby (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First question is; is this article supposed to cover just the word 'fascist' or also its other far-right equivalents? If just 'fascist', then section links to Ustaše#Modern usage of the term "Ustaše" and Chetniks#Derogatory usage in the 'See also' section would suffice. If it should include other far-right equivalents, then it might as well cover usage of 'Chetniks' who were no less collaborators with Axis and espoused a far-right ideology not dissimilar to Ustashas'. –Vipz (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to repeat my two points which are seem to be getting ignored. Firstly, when Serbs want to talk derogatory about Croats, they don't exclusively use term ustasha, they use the term fascist interchangeably with ustasha. As an example, we can take Slobodan Milošević's son Marko, when he was recorded talking with his mom Mira. He commented his Croatian dentist like this:
-"[He is] ustasha. You know how he talks. [He is] just like Tuđman. With his lips pressed like this and his eyes out. All feminized in fascist sense...".
Secondly, ustashe were fascists - in its generic sense. If we were to make special case about ustashe (for whatever reason) and take into account strictly Mussolini's original fascism, then we'd have to do the same with nazism which is also somwehat different from fascism and makes its own variant. This opens a pandora's box.
Then one could pose a same question about the ongoing War in Ukraine and usage of fascist label there? The article contains reference to Putin's accusations about Right sector and Azov allegedly being neo-nazi. -This is also not fascist, but nazi. Howcome is this acceptable?
To conclude, this whole discussion of making a distinction between terms ustasha and fascist is based on a wrong premise and it is been repeating ever since it started. Franjo Tahy (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OyMosby Sorry, I lost my cool when stuff I wrote was constantly deleted for half-baked arguments and people wouldn't listen when I tried to reason. Franjo Tahy (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This matter appears reliably sourced and relevant to the topic. However, since the details are obviously contentious, they should not be WP:COATRACKed at this article. This article should neutrally mention that "fascist" has been used as an insult in Croatia-Serbia relations and leave the details to some other article. Sennalen (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is WP:COATRACKed. Didn't we agree that first and foremost ustashas were fascists, and secondly that in certain cases they don't even use word ustasha, but word fascist? The matter fits 100% in what this article is about. Franjo Tahy (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few sentences are warranted, but this article doesn't need every example or so much detail about the memorial site. Sennalen (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay, go ahead and propose what would you remove from the paragraph.
Imagine if Russians would one day come up with the argument for Russo-Ukrainian case: "We did not claim Ukrainians were fascists, we claimed that they are banderovites which is adjacent (but distinct) term." Franjo Tahy (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added several tags to article[edit]

I've added several tags to the article, including {{POV}}, {{Too few opinions}}, {{tone}}, and {{OR}} because the article appears to rely heavily on synthesis and currently reads as a critique of the use of the term fascist as an insult. The article should be rewritten to give due weight to those who believe that the use of "fascist" is proper as an insult; for example, the section on the United States includes no reference to Antifa. This article needs a significant rewrite. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascist_(insult)&oldid=1216339793"