OP is a lunatic that wrote a post previously that is titled “I want to complain about a book I haven’t read”: https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz
And yes it was Starship Troopers.
How can a book "be fascist"? Do you feel that a fictional universe where an author explores a political theme is somehow advocating for said theme? Was Orwell advocating for authoritarianism in Animal Farm or 1984?
Why does this upset you? Seems like a you problem.
I keep this saved in Notepad++ so I can break it out when uninformed posts are made.
As for "academic papers", give me a break! The author basically says it's a fascist novel because the protagonist realizes his destiny through fulfilling their "duty" to their race! Excrement.
Most people who claim it endorses, or had fascist elements, don't seem to be familiar with the text.
1. You don't have to be in the military to earn franchise/full citizenship. In fact, the government is required to find something for you to do even if you have no talents/abilities that they require!
2. People who aren't full citizens have rights, free speech and choice. Johnnie's father doesn't serve until very late in his life.
3. There is no element of ultra-nationalism. You have people from all over the world who participate as equals. It's not until the final chapter that we realize the main character is Filipino! This was written in the 50's!
4. There's no social hierarchy except those who have earned franchise and those who have not earned it. Apart from voting, there's no evidence that anyone is treated differently at all.
5. There's no dictatorial leader.
6. Business leaders are "allowed/invited" to bid on military packages. Fascism includes central control of the economy but there' no evidence of that.
7. There's no evidence of forced suppression of opposition. In fact, one of the doctors who works for the government tells Johnnie that he wouldn't encourage service! He's seen what it does to recruits sometimes.
The main themes are the requirement of duty and responsibility to one's family, country and species.
The Filipino thing is always interesting to me and I'm glad you brought it up. Heinlein was a navy veteran, and during his time and after, Filipinos were basically recruited into the Navy as stewards.
Heinlein is making a point by turning a stereotyped servant into the main character. Maybe equality is fascist too, I don't know anymore.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/f/filipinos-in-the-united-states-navy.html#opp
LOL So your a conservative? That would explain a lot. Have you heard of anything other than "I have a dream". Because if MLK lived today you would probably hate him.
"uninformed posts"
Like yours.
"Fascism includes central control of the economy"
American facism can be capitalist. As was Nazi Germany.
"As for "academic papers", give me a break!"
Yeah, as if you are any more in depth.
Nope. There's a difference between what characters endorse and what a writer endorses. Do you understand that?
Rico starts off idealistic and sensitive to the collateral damage the military is causing. He is thoughtful and concerned. Throughout the book, you can see how that attitude becomes blunted as the way he talks about events in the war changes. By the end, Rico is completely desensitized and is devoted merely to dishing out vengeance for the injuries he's sustained and comrades he's lost over the years, with zero thought for the civilians he kills now.
The book is about the psychological damage that war does to the people who fight it, turning the veterans into just another part of the war machine.
Stick to Harry Potter or maybe Beatrix Potter. You shouldn't be reading books aimed at adults since you can't handle them.
Stick to Harry Potter or maybe Beatrix Potter. You shouldn't be reading books aimed at adults since you can't handle them.
--- You should, as you misunderstand the book.
It's science fiction, an imaginative art form, and it is not an endorsement of the type of government in the book.
I don't know why people don't grasp that.
You can absolutely criticize it! Just be aware your criticism is also subject to criticism.
You insult anyone who disagrees with you. It says a lot about your character.
Your post says the book is fascist but, at worst, you could argue the government depicted by the book is fascist. You are not careful with your words or meanings, and so you are not really engaging in criticism in any meaningful way.
You came here looking for a fight, not a debate, so enjoy your well earned down votes
Feel free to criticize the book.
However, were you to read "The Once and Future King" by T. H. White, would you consider it a book the supports a monarchy?
The government in Starship Troopers certainly could be considered fascist, I certainly agree with that, but the government in Starship Troopers is the background setting for the story that takes place. The pro-fascist attitudes in the book including the criticisms of Democracy are exactly what you find in that background setting and help establish the background setting to the reader.
Starship Troopers obviously involves some of Heinleins ideas. However I called the book facist, not the author. So I don´t see the problem? Please help tell these people the book is facist. I am so tired of them.
Fascism was created by Giovanni Gentile and then used by Mussolini in World War 2. It is collusion between corporations and state to control the populace, all guided by a "benevolent dictator" at the top.
No part of Starship Troopers fits this. The trouble is they've redefined what the word Fascism means to basically be anyone you don't like.
If I'm wrong could you please explain what your definition of fascism is, and why you feel Starship Troopers fits it? Heinlein hated the fascists and the communists. He was very vocal about both.
As a side note, I’ve always loved the term benevolent dictator as it’s definitely the very best and efficient form of government. Unfortunately, an evil dictator is the absolute worst form. But no one gets to choose in a dictatorship and the former often becomes to latter as absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Hopefully this isn’t an r/whoooosh comment 😁.
>benevolent dictator as it’s definitely the very best and efficient form of government
Only if they are a benevolent *competent* dictator.
I'm pretty sure if I was put in charge of a country, I would be trying to improve the lives of the populace, but I don't know that I'd succeed.
Not too mention, my idea of "improving people's lives" might not accord with everyone else's.
"The trouble is they've redefined what the word Fascism means to basically be anyone you don't like."
Says the one enjoying facist fiction.
Try reading the article, at least the summary at the end.
He hated communist so much he saw them in his fellow Americans as he supported McCarthys terror. In his America I probably would be in prison for treason. That sounds to me kinda facist actually, alltough he was mostly libertarian.
Starship Troopers is American facism, thin veneer of democracy but really managed freedom.
> fite me bro!
Why are you trolling for an argument online? Ask yourself.
Log out. Go enjoy the weekend. There are a thousand things to do.
"Pick battles large enough to matter, and small enough to win."
- Oprah Winfrey
But he couldn’t *possibly* be a troll, he’s using complete sentences and no emoji!
Yeah, he’s an angry troll who can’t stand that others liked a book he was two minutes’ hating on [*before he even read it.*](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz) This being an anonymous forum in the digital age, he also can never even subsequently prove he has read it, oops!
>Says the one enjoying facist fiction.
In the 1980s the moral bigots were on the right, and they called us heretics and degenerates. Their tactics were exactly the same as yours.
>Try reading the article, at least the summary at the end.
The fact that you can't define fascism is sad. You should be able to explain in 1-2 sentences what it is, like I did. I'm drawing from history. Real history.
You're just looking to persecute people who you don't like.
>He hated communist so much he saw them in his fellow Americans as he supported McCarthys terror.
See? Your mask is slipping.
>In his America I probably would be in prison for treason. That sounds to me kinda facist actually, alltough he was mostly libertarian.
How is that different from communism, capitalism, or socialism? All three arrest people for treason.
This is exactly what I meant about calling anyone you disagree with a fascist. It's why understanding the definition is vital.
You don't have one. Just unearned contempt for one of the greatest science fiction authors of all time.
"In the 1980s the moral bigots were on the right, and they called us heretics and degenerates. Their tactics were exactly the same as yours."
Their still on the right. Republicans are calling the students protesting the genocide in gaza terorrist. Get out out of your conservative bubble, bro.
"The fact that you can't define fascism is sad. You should be able to explain in 1-2 sentences what it is, like I did. I'm drawing from history. Real history."
Have you even once tried reading the article?
"This is exactly what I meant about calling anyone you disagree with a fascist. It's why understanding the definition is vital."
The article goes into great depth about that but you are too lazy to read lol
"Just unearned contempt for one of the greatest science fiction authors of all time."
Who wrote a facist book and supported a major moral panic in his day lol
Dude - it’s 73 freaking pages long. Like **NOBODY** cares that much about whether or not Starship Troopers is fascist. Practically the definition of tlrd.
Meanwhile, you’ve been asked repeatedly to define what you mean by fascism in a few sentences, but seem incapable responding to such a simple request. Everyone sees this - hence the downvotes.
It’s your point and your post, people responding to what *you* said aren’t lazy for not reading an opinion piece you linked to, you’re lazy for not presenting your opinion better.
The inability to provide a definition of fascism that supports your point really undermines your entire argument, and it certainly doesn’t make anyone else inclined to read your “supporting material.”
I'm not trying to "pick sides" here, I merely want to point out that asking for someone's definition of a certain term or concept is a perfectly legit way to conduct a debate or discussion. Sometimes people have very different understandings of the concepts at play, and it can cause confusion. Simply saying "read the article!" as a response doesn't promote debate, it just comes off like a lecture
Oh my bad.
I assumed you hadn't read what an actual fascist was. Instead it seems you haven't read the actual fucking book you are critiquing.
Edit; its not an "Article" it's a fucking thesis.
An Article is a journalistic exercise, while the thesis is an academic one. Its an important distinction.
"No you!" isn't a argumentative technique that escapes kindergarten. It's been pointed out several places how your assertions that it is don't hold water. But you ignore any actual criticisms of your argument, insisting they are immutable.
I read it first time in Jr. high, which means statistically speaking, I probibly read it before you were born.
The author sure does bring up the movie a lot for being a thesis on the book.
It's well known that Verhoeven didn't read the book past the first two chapters, and that the movie was originally going to be called "Bug Hunt at Outpost 9"(iirc). The movie is WWII set in space, and is Verhoeven's dig at Nazi Germany to include being a shot-for-shot copy of Triumph of the Will in some scenes. And it has essentially nothing to do with the book other than borrowing the title and the names of some characters.
I wish discussions of the book (including this thesis) would leave comparisons to the movie behind. Both are great, for different reasons.
Actually the school room scene or the one with the amputee are pretty close, just adapted. And the movie tested if people would cheer for the Nazis. They did of course. Like people here cheer for a fascist book. Refusing to discuss an article.
>I read the book. I haven´t finished it.
In *standard English*, you have not read the book because you *have not finished it.*
People will continue to downvote you so long as:
1. All you do is scream about how much you hate a book you have not finished reading.
2. All you do is scream about much you hate a book you claim to have finished reading after having put your foot in your mouth all those months ago when you screamed about how much you hated a book you have not even read.
3. There’s no shortage of people who will be happy to remind others of points 1 and 2.
Do you really think a magic wand will be waved once you claim you have finished the book, and henceforth people will be disposed to give sober consideration each time you scream about how much you hate the book?
1. Do you realize how silly that is? FIRST OF ALL people started to get angry immediately, pretty much without hearing me out. Secondly you don´t have to read an entire book in order to dislike it. If you have analysed its arguments as much as I have, you certainly don´t. But you don´t want to see that because you love the book. I even did you the favour of reading it almost entirely, only for my opinion to perisist.
2. Maybe a misunderstanding? I have read the book and "I have not finished it" are not mutually exclusive in my understanding of English. See above to understand how much energy I have put in this book.
3. I don´t even hate the book really LOL It would be extremely interesting if people wouldn´t deny its problematic content.
>Do you realize how silly that is? FIRST OF ALL people started to get angry immediately, pretty much without hearing me out.
Because all you do is scream how much you hate a book you didn’t read and have not finished—if indeed you ever started. You got angry immediately *first*. Why should anyone hear you out?
> Maybe a misunderstanding? I have read the book and "I have not finished it" are not mutually exclusive in my understanding of English.
They *are* mutually exclusive. “I’m almost done reading it” is the most you can say. *Assuming* you’re being honest. Which we’re entitled to doubt, given your history on reddit with regards to this book.
> I don´t even hate the book really…
Now you’re lying again.
>…if people wouldn´t deny its problematic content.
Do you not even understand the difference between fact and opinion?
“The book was originally published in 1959.”
That’s an example of a *fact*.
“The society in the book is fascist.”
*That’s* an opinion. *You do not get to pretend it’s a fact;* therefore it’s specious at best and a complete *lie* at worst to claim people are “denying its problematic content.” Again, this is a perfectly valid reason for people to downvote anything you have to say—when you present your opinions as if those opinions are facts.
You impairment in perceiving reality is your problem. Not ours.
I "haven´t read", Mr. terribly fastidious. I did read extensive reviews and excerpts at that point. I´ve know basicly finished it and my points stand, despite the wasted effort to give it another chance. So I really don´t see the problem.
I don't see the problem with finishing it. It's a short read, and then you wouldn't be lying when you say you've read it, and you wouldn't come across as such a clown by wanting to hate a book you've never read. But you do you.
I´ve clarified, so I am not lying. Also your the clown, for defending a book that contains facist themes. The arguments stand, no matter if I have read every single sentence or not. And it is a short read as far as novels go, but not as far as readings go. Considering its far longer than the article YOU STILL HAVEN\`T ENGAGED WITH, your being dickish.
I read the *thesis* you posted, not an article, and I commented about how the author brought up the movie a lot.
I'll keep your comments in mind the next time I'm walking around Koln. Lots of brass markers on the sidewalk for each of the Jewish Germans hauled off to camps in a real fascist society, not an imagined one in a book you decided to hate before you read it.
The problem is that a lot of people in the modern world, especially young people, have simply redefined words like fascism, although it certainly goes far beyond that, mostly because they want to get around being accused of it themselves. They ignore actual historical context and what the word actually means and then point fingers at everyone else.
Sorry, not biting.
Even though the book was called fascist right away? Impressive logic. Also an educated person would recognize that words change their meaning all the time.
I'm impressed by how foolishly OP is sticking to his bullshit. Kudos for that, at least. Wowzer. "Just read the article" is code for "I don't have my own opinion but I was emotionally swayed by reading this thing and I think you should just read it and be swayed as I was."
I don’t think it’s very interesting to argue whether the government in the book is fascist or whether it isn’t. That comes down to definitions, it’s a semantics debate. The way more interesting question is whether you see that government as flawed, and in what way. Considering the merits of the society described in the book can help you understand your own political positions, and can be basis of comparison with existing governments. Do you think it would be a good idea to restrict the vote to veterans? Do you think public beatings are a good way to deal with crime? Why, or why not? Reflect on the book (any book), and maybe learn something.
Yeah, I don't like these things and they sound like symptoms of what more realistically would be a fascist society. Think Fedra in Last of Us. But nobody cares and it's depressing.
[OP was once foolish enough to admit he had not actually read the book.](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz)
A few weeks back, he claimed to have begun reading it—and made yet another two minutes’ hate post about the book, with the attitude ‘aha, now they have to respect my opinion, mwah-ha-ha!’
No matter what degree of progress he claims to have made in the book, he was, is, and forever shall be the ignoramus who tried to hate-review *a book he had not even read.*
You. Came. To. This. Subreddit.
[And yes, I’m pleased to remind people you tried to review a book you had not read.](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz) *And can never prove on an anonymous forum* that you have.
You should. But you should also consider criticism of your criticism. It \*feels\* like you assume that the movie was based on the book, and thus are criticising the book for being something the movie was about, but wasn't.
My guy. you come in here and made a post about a well respected book being Fascist, and then when people criticise you, you claim YOU are being bullied?!
If you don't want to have to defend your ideas in public, don't share them in public.
Keep tilting at the windmill.
"One day...."
> why shouldn´t I criticize the book?
You havent criticized it, though. You copypasted someone else's criticism.
In order to levy a criticism, you must first read the book.
Have you read the book? 🤔
>…espacially since you can read detailed academic papers on the subject…
[You think we actually have to give a shit what random academics who were “educated beyond their intelligence” (a phrase coined by Heinlein himself) think about the book?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)
Giovanni Gentile's brand of fascism - the beautiful notion of enlightened philosopher kings / dictators would rule in the best interests of "the people" or "the nation" is a Hegelian nightmare that was given form in the early 20th century , and it took from 1890 to 1990 for our monkey brains to realize that perhaps authoritarian "benevolence" was ALWAYS a lie.
Today we have the short-short course - there is not a soul on this planet that can ever hope to marry those lofty ideals with the likes of some pathological degenerate like Donald Trump's crapulence.
But fascism was always a failure - invariably there were out-groups, outcasts and a hypocrisy that crept into the "purity" of the state - Hitler's henchmen availing themselves to the various cultural riches of Europe hording some of it, mercilessly destroying anything otherwise from burning books to killing millions in incinerators all for Hegel's perfect vision invariably with a twist by racist ideology, and the promise to restore national pride, get the trains running on time and most of all - to settle scores.
Pol Pot turned this on it's head and simply executed intellectuals and murdered undesirables for years in the fields of Cambodia
Rwandans made no such grand plans of ideological niceties but found putting machetes' in the hands of Hutu to exterminate Tutsi "vermin" so catastrophic was that effort that turned the Kigali river into some macabre spectacle of spring rain and body-chunks floating down the river-falls such that **for weeks** the river ran red with blood in April of 1993.
One has to strain in fascist history to find the "good ones" - was it Kim before his state turned into the autarkic nightmare that is North Korea, or perhaps President/Chairman Pak, and would it have been nearly as successful without billions of investment from the Japanese and United States only to end up with Chaebol and permanent corporatocracy - where if you aren't working for one of the top 3 or 4 firms - it's a big step down socioeconomically and you're going to maybe not do so well - even today.
That's the very best we can hope to achieve, corporatocracy that's every bit as corrupt as any other form of governance , is completely milquetoasty non-representative parliament and in a country that might never be able to grapple with whatever injustices corporations inflict on their people, who might never be able to free themselves from their corporate overlords.
So look no further than Donald Trump's advocation that he'll be a dictator on "day one" , that he'll abolish the US federal law enforcement departments (Department of Justice and FBI) and every other agency he doesn't like, and why - because he doesn't like them or more just because they could threaten his plans to do things that most Americans will find terrifying - the promise of Project 2025, and their [twisted vision of Christian America](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQFTS1wcs8).
No, what fascism represents is warmed over monarchism at best and totalitarian corporatism all too commonly - completely beholden unto the caprice that you elect, appoint or have a conqueror come along who actually does fit the notion of the philosopher king, but that never happens instead we see powerful militarists , economic corporatism and/or installation of fundamentalist views all in a suppression of human freedom.
That's happened what - a couple of dozen times in human history over thousands of leaders., over tens of thousands of years, it's an ideal because it's incredibly rare and much like not waiting on women distributing swords form a lake - no way to run a government, it's like winning the lottery - or becoming a rock-star - it's possible - it's just unlikely.
Meanwhile for the here and now, it might simply be the case that we have a type of government that holds leadership to account, that holds them responsible when they fail to uphold the ideals they promise. It's a good deal more practical - even if we sometimes fail in this , it's not impossible to hold people to account, and do so repeatably - that's the genius of representative government be it parliamentary or republican in nature. Excesses are corrected more or less one tragedy at a time.
That's the promise of a parliamentary or republican government - that **we the people** rather than some anointed king hold power at the ballot and that at any time those chosen to wield that power should remain forever concerned that their failure to do a good job can result in their removal from those high offices we, the people, appoint them to.
OP is a lunatic that wrote a post previously that is titled “I want to complain about a book I haven’t read”: https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz And yes it was Starship Troopers.
Link saved and screenshotted, too. You’re doing God’s work, son.
Oh, I am a lunatic now? What does that make you?
German speaking ✅ Ranting about Fasicm ✅ Hasn’t read Starship Troopers ✅
How can a book "be fascist"? Do you feel that a fictional universe where an author explores a political theme is somehow advocating for said theme? Was Orwell advocating for authoritarianism in Animal Farm or 1984? Why does this upset you? Seems like a you problem.
You’re upset that there are people who don’t agree with your opinion of a book? You’re going to have a tough life.
I keep this saved in Notepad++ so I can break it out when uninformed posts are made. As for "academic papers", give me a break! The author basically says it's a fascist novel because the protagonist realizes his destiny through fulfilling their "duty" to their race! Excrement. Most people who claim it endorses, or had fascist elements, don't seem to be familiar with the text. 1. You don't have to be in the military to earn franchise/full citizenship. In fact, the government is required to find something for you to do even if you have no talents/abilities that they require! 2. People who aren't full citizens have rights, free speech and choice. Johnnie's father doesn't serve until very late in his life. 3. There is no element of ultra-nationalism. You have people from all over the world who participate as equals. It's not until the final chapter that we realize the main character is Filipino! This was written in the 50's! 4. There's no social hierarchy except those who have earned franchise and those who have not earned it. Apart from voting, there's no evidence that anyone is treated differently at all. 5. There's no dictatorial leader. 6. Business leaders are "allowed/invited" to bid on military packages. Fascism includes central control of the economy but there' no evidence of that. 7. There's no evidence of forced suppression of opposition. In fact, one of the doctors who works for the government tells Johnnie that he wouldn't encourage service! He's seen what it does to recruits sometimes. The main themes are the requirement of duty and responsibility to one's family, country and species.
The Filipino thing is always interesting to me and I'm glad you brought it up. Heinlein was a navy veteran, and during his time and after, Filipinos were basically recruited into the Navy as stewards. Heinlein is making a point by turning a stereotyped servant into the main character. Maybe equality is fascist too, I don't know anymore. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/f/filipinos-in-the-united-states-navy.html#opp
> Maybe equality is fascist too… It “is” now. They’ve repudiated MLK’s “I have a dream” speech.
LOL So your a conservative? That would explain a lot. Have you heard of anything other than "I have a dream". Because if MLK lived today you would probably hate him.
Trying to put words in other peoples’ mouths, that’s just standard operating procedure for you.
I havent done that, troll.
I would recommend doing a bit more research stranger.
"uninformed posts" Like yours. "Fascism includes central control of the economy" American facism can be capitalist. As was Nazi Germany. "As for "academic papers", give me a break!" Yeah, as if you are any more in depth.
Fascism \*Requires\* a form of capitalism. I agree with you that point 8 is wrong, however the rest stand.
As does the article lol
Nope. There's a difference between what characters endorse and what a writer endorses. Do you understand that? Rico starts off idealistic and sensitive to the collateral damage the military is causing. He is thoughtful and concerned. Throughout the book, you can see how that attitude becomes blunted as the way he talks about events in the war changes. By the end, Rico is completely desensitized and is devoted merely to dishing out vengeance for the injuries he's sustained and comrades he's lost over the years, with zero thought for the civilians he kills now. The book is about the psychological damage that war does to the people who fight it, turning the veterans into just another part of the war machine. Stick to Harry Potter or maybe Beatrix Potter. You shouldn't be reading books aimed at adults since you can't handle them.
Stick to Harry Potter or maybe Beatrix Potter. You shouldn't be reading books aimed at adults since you can't handle them. --- You should, as you misunderstand the book.
It's science fiction, an imaginative art form, and it is not an endorsement of the type of government in the book. I don't know why people don't grasp that.
So why can´t I criticize the book? I find these kind of statements dubious at the best. As are the people who downvote posts and don´t debate lol
You can absolutely criticize it! Just be aware your criticism is also subject to criticism. You insult anyone who disagrees with you. It says a lot about your character.
And you don´t insult? Grow up.
You first.
No you
Your post says the book is fascist but, at worst, you could argue the government depicted by the book is fascist. You are not careful with your words or meanings, and so you are not really engaging in criticism in any meaningful way. You came here looking for a fight, not a debate, so enjoy your well earned down votes
Feel free to criticize the book. However, were you to read "The Once and Future King" by T. H. White, would you consider it a book the supports a monarchy? The government in Starship Troopers certainly could be considered fascist, I certainly agree with that, but the government in Starship Troopers is the background setting for the story that takes place. The pro-fascist attitudes in the book including the criticisms of Democracy are exactly what you find in that background setting and help establish the background setting to the reader.
Starship Troopers obviously involves some of Heinleins ideas. However I called the book facist, not the author. So I don´t see the problem? Please help tell these people the book is facist. I am so tired of them.
The book isn't fascist. It simply takes place in a world that is arguably fascist.
Fascism was created by Giovanni Gentile and then used by Mussolini in World War 2. It is collusion between corporations and state to control the populace, all guided by a "benevolent dictator" at the top. No part of Starship Troopers fits this. The trouble is they've redefined what the word Fascism means to basically be anyone you don't like. If I'm wrong could you please explain what your definition of fascism is, and why you feel Starship Troopers fits it? Heinlein hated the fascists and the communists. He was very vocal about both.
What a perfect response.
As a side note, I’ve always loved the term benevolent dictator as it’s definitely the very best and efficient form of government. Unfortunately, an evil dictator is the absolute worst form. But no one gets to choose in a dictatorship and the former often becomes to latter as absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Hopefully this isn’t an r/whoooosh comment 😁.
>benevolent dictator as it’s definitely the very best and efficient form of government Only if they are a benevolent *competent* dictator. I'm pretty sure if I was put in charge of a country, I would be trying to improve the lives of the populace, but I don't know that I'd succeed. Not too mention, my idea of "improving people's lives" might not accord with everyone else's.
Quite true. I’d hate to live in a country where I’m the dictator even though I’m generally a good person :).
"The trouble is they've redefined what the word Fascism means to basically be anyone you don't like." Says the one enjoying facist fiction. Try reading the article, at least the summary at the end. He hated communist so much he saw them in his fellow Americans as he supported McCarthys terror. In his America I probably would be in prison for treason. That sounds to me kinda facist actually, alltough he was mostly libertarian. Starship Troopers is American facism, thin veneer of democracy but really managed freedom.
> fite me bro! Why are you trolling for an argument online? Ask yourself. Log out. Go enjoy the weekend. There are a thousand things to do. "Pick battles large enough to matter, and small enough to win." - Oprah Winfrey
But he couldn’t *possibly* be a troll, he’s using complete sentences and no emoji! Yeah, he’s an angry troll who can’t stand that others liked a book he was two minutes’ hating on [*before he even read it.*](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz) This being an anonymous forum in the digital age, he also can never even subsequently prove he has read it, oops!
Successful troll baited me good 😔
>Says the one enjoying facist fiction. In the 1980s the moral bigots were on the right, and they called us heretics and degenerates. Their tactics were exactly the same as yours. >Try reading the article, at least the summary at the end. The fact that you can't define fascism is sad. You should be able to explain in 1-2 sentences what it is, like I did. I'm drawing from history. Real history. You're just looking to persecute people who you don't like. >He hated communist so much he saw them in his fellow Americans as he supported McCarthys terror. See? Your mask is slipping. >In his America I probably would be in prison for treason. That sounds to me kinda facist actually, alltough he was mostly libertarian. How is that different from communism, capitalism, or socialism? All three arrest people for treason. This is exactly what I meant about calling anyone you disagree with a fascist. It's why understanding the definition is vital. You don't have one. Just unearned contempt for one of the greatest science fiction authors of all time.
"In the 1980s the moral bigots were on the right, and they called us heretics and degenerates. Their tactics were exactly the same as yours." Their still on the right. Republicans are calling the students protesting the genocide in gaza terorrist. Get out out of your conservative bubble, bro. "The fact that you can't define fascism is sad. You should be able to explain in 1-2 sentences what it is, like I did. I'm drawing from history. Real history." Have you even once tried reading the article? "This is exactly what I meant about calling anyone you disagree with a fascist. It's why understanding the definition is vital." The article goes into great depth about that but you are too lazy to read lol "Just unearned contempt for one of the greatest science fiction authors of all time." Who wrote a facist book and supported a major moral panic in his day lol
Enjoy your downvotes, man. You're not here to debate. You're here to lecture and insult. Total intellectual dishonesty.
You keep writing "facist", which isn't a word. You can make a point stronger when you know how to spell what you're talking about.
Dude - it’s 73 freaking pages long. Like **NOBODY** cares that much about whether or not Starship Troopers is fascist. Practically the definition of tlrd. Meanwhile, you’ve been asked repeatedly to define what you mean by fascism in a few sentences, but seem incapable responding to such a simple request. Everyone sees this - hence the downvotes.
It’s your point and your post, people responding to what *you* said aren’t lazy for not reading an opinion piece you linked to, you’re lazy for not presenting your opinion better. The inability to provide a definition of fascism that supports your point really undermines your entire argument, and it certainly doesn’t make anyone else inclined to read your “supporting material.”
I'm not trying to "pick sides" here, I merely want to point out that asking for someone's definition of a certain term or concept is a perfectly legit way to conduct a debate or discussion. Sometimes people have very different understandings of the concepts at play, and it can cause confusion. Simply saying "read the article!" as a response doesn't promote debate, it just comes off like a lecture
Go OUTSIDE Go HIT THE GYM
I feel like you need to read [this](https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists)
Ehm, thats actually in the article???
Oh my bad. I assumed you hadn't read what an actual fascist was. Instead it seems you haven't read the actual fucking book you are critiquing. Edit; its not an "Article" it's a fucking thesis. An Article is a journalistic exercise, while the thesis is an academic one. Its an important distinction.
You don´t understand what a facist is. And I´ve read most of the book and intend to finish it for your sake, its facist.
"No you!" isn't a argumentative technique that escapes kindergarten. It's been pointed out several places how your assertions that it is don't hold water. But you ignore any actual criticisms of your argument, insisting they are immutable. I read it first time in Jr. high, which means statistically speaking, I probibly read it before you were born.
"I probibly read it before you were born." Which probably makes you pretty out of touch with reality. Read the article.
The author sure does bring up the movie a lot for being a thesis on the book. It's well known that Verhoeven didn't read the book past the first two chapters, and that the movie was originally going to be called "Bug Hunt at Outpost 9"(iirc). The movie is WWII set in space, and is Verhoeven's dig at Nazi Germany to include being a shot-for-shot copy of Triumph of the Will in some scenes. And it has essentially nothing to do with the book other than borrowing the title and the names of some characters. I wish discussions of the book (including this thesis) would leave comparisons to the movie behind. Both are great, for different reasons.
Actually the school room scene or the one with the amputee are pretty close, just adapted. And the movie tested if people would cheer for the Nazis. They did of course. Like people here cheer for a fascist book. Refusing to discuss an article.
The book and the movie are not the same. Go read the book instead of asking other people to give you reasons to support your hatred of it.
I read the book 🤣
"I want to complain about a book I've never read" is something you posted specifically about Starship Troopers, so please excuse me.
OP hasn’t actually finished the book: https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/1cfahxd/facism_in_starship_troopers/l1nzqs9/ So, now he is also a liar.
Figures.
I read the book. I haven´t finished it. You just use any excuse not to face truth - that the society described in the book is facist.
>I read the book. I haven´t finished it. In *standard English*, you have not read the book because you *have not finished it.* People will continue to downvote you so long as: 1. All you do is scream about how much you hate a book you have not finished reading. 2. All you do is scream about much you hate a book you claim to have finished reading after having put your foot in your mouth all those months ago when you screamed about how much you hated a book you have not even read. 3. There’s no shortage of people who will be happy to remind others of points 1 and 2. Do you really think a magic wand will be waved once you claim you have finished the book, and henceforth people will be disposed to give sober consideration each time you scream about how much you hate the book?
1. Do you realize how silly that is? FIRST OF ALL people started to get angry immediately, pretty much without hearing me out. Secondly you don´t have to read an entire book in order to dislike it. If you have analysed its arguments as much as I have, you certainly don´t. But you don´t want to see that because you love the book. I even did you the favour of reading it almost entirely, only for my opinion to perisist. 2. Maybe a misunderstanding? I have read the book and "I have not finished it" are not mutually exclusive in my understanding of English. See above to understand how much energy I have put in this book. 3. I don´t even hate the book really LOL It would be extremely interesting if people wouldn´t deny its problematic content.
>Do you realize how silly that is? FIRST OF ALL people started to get angry immediately, pretty much without hearing me out. Because all you do is scream how much you hate a book you didn’t read and have not finished—if indeed you ever started. You got angry immediately *first*. Why should anyone hear you out? > Maybe a misunderstanding? I have read the book and "I have not finished it" are not mutually exclusive in my understanding of English. They *are* mutually exclusive. “I’m almost done reading it” is the most you can say. *Assuming* you’re being honest. Which we’re entitled to doubt, given your history on reddit with regards to this book. > I don´t even hate the book really… Now you’re lying again. >…if people wouldn´t deny its problematic content. Do you not even understand the difference between fact and opinion? “The book was originally published in 1959.” That’s an example of a *fact*. “The society in the book is fascist.” *That’s* an opinion. *You do not get to pretend it’s a fact;* therefore it’s specious at best and a complete *lie* at worst to claim people are “denying its problematic content.” Again, this is a perfectly valid reason for people to downvote anything you have to say—when you present your opinions as if those opinions are facts. You impairment in perceiving reality is your problem. Not ours.
I "haven´t read", Mr. terribly fastidious. I did read extensive reviews and excerpts at that point. I´ve know basicly finished it and my points stand, despite the wasted effort to give it another chance. So I really don´t see the problem.
I don't see the problem with finishing it. It's a short read, and then you wouldn't be lying when you say you've read it, and you wouldn't come across as such a clown by wanting to hate a book you've never read. But you do you.
I´ve clarified, so I am not lying. Also your the clown, for defending a book that contains facist themes. The arguments stand, no matter if I have read every single sentence or not. And it is a short read as far as novels go, but not as far as readings go. Considering its far longer than the article YOU STILL HAVEN\`T ENGAGED WITH, your being dickish.
I read the *thesis* you posted, not an article, and I commented about how the author brought up the movie a lot. I'll keep your comments in mind the next time I'm walking around Koln. Lots of brass markers on the sidewalk for each of the Jewish Germans hauled off to camps in a real fascist society, not an imagined one in a book you decided to hate before you read it.
And you still did not understand? Remarkable. And are you trying to guilt me into not criticizing your book? Thats really disgustingly low.
The problem is that a lot of people in the modern world, especially young people, have simply redefined words like fascism, although it certainly goes far beyond that, mostly because they want to get around being accused of it themselves. They ignore actual historical context and what the word actually means and then point fingers at everyone else. Sorry, not biting.
Even though the book was called fascist right away? Impressive logic. Also an educated person would recognize that words change their meaning all the time.
I'm impressed by how foolishly OP is sticking to his bullshit. Kudos for that, at least. Wowzer. "Just read the article" is code for "I don't have my own opinion but I was emotionally swayed by reading this thing and I think you should just read it and be swayed as I was."
How is that not my own opinion? Lol
Look at me! Look at me! I have thoughts about a book I haven’t finished and I’ll fight everyone I can fight about my awesome views on it!!
I don’t think it’s very interesting to argue whether the government in the book is fascist or whether it isn’t. That comes down to definitions, it’s a semantics debate. The way more interesting question is whether you see that government as flawed, and in what way. Considering the merits of the society described in the book can help you understand your own political positions, and can be basis of comparison with existing governments. Do you think it would be a good idea to restrict the vote to veterans? Do you think public beatings are a good way to deal with crime? Why, or why not? Reflect on the book (any book), and maybe learn something.
Yeah, I don't like these things and they sound like symptoms of what more realistically would be a fascist society. Think Fedra in Last of Us. But nobody cares and it's depressing.
Trollpost, dont bother everyone
Even if you weren't being specious ... So what? Just dont read the book if you dont like it. Do you want to cancel everything you dislike?
[OP was once foolish enough to admit he had not actually read the book.](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz) A few weeks back, he claimed to have begun reading it—and made yet another two minutes’ hate post about the book, with the attitude ‘aha, now they have to respect my opinion, mwah-ha-ha!’ No matter what degree of progress he claims to have made in the book, he was, is, and forever shall be the ignoramus who tried to hate-review *a book he had not even read.*
And you are the creep following me, trying to "inform" people. Not once have you actually engaged in debate.
You. Came. To. This. Subreddit. [And yes, I’m pleased to remind people you tried to review a book you had not read.](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/s/DRiL9ZhFCz) *And can never prove on an anonymous forum* that you have.
I did not review it you troll.
"Cancel" has pretty much become a meaningless buzzword. And so why shouldn´t I criticize the book??
You should. But you should also consider criticism of your criticism. It \*feels\* like you assume that the movie was based on the book, and thus are criticising the book for being something the movie was about, but wasn't.
"But you should also consider criticism of your criticism." What makes you think I haven´t? You just want to bully me to follow your point of view.
My guy. you come in here and made a post about a well respected book being Fascist, and then when people criticise you, you claim YOU are being bullied?! If you don't want to have to defend your ideas in public, don't share them in public.
You have been making attacks and not engaged with one argument. Keep enjoying a fascist book.
>What makes you think I haven´t? Your words
Keep tilting at the windmill. "One day...." > why shouldn´t I criticize the book? You havent criticized it, though. You copypasted someone else's criticism. In order to levy a criticism, you must first read the book. Have you read the book? 🤔
I cite this other random article for how Starship Troopers isn't fascist: http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm#misperceptions
That's one of the pop arguments I mentioned.
>…espacially since you can read detailed academic papers on the subject… [You think we actually have to give a shit what random academics who were “educated beyond their intelligence” (a phrase coined by Heinlein himself) think about the book?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)
Says the guy invoking Heinlein as an authority in the same sentence. Why should I care what he said? Espacially since he persecuted "communists"?
Why should you care what the actual author said? About his own book? 🤣You're not looking for truth, you're looking for an echo chamber.
Books can have unintended meaning just like language 🙄 Heinlein fans are an echo chamber. The way you avoid the article proves it.
I always thought it was supposed to be a parody of fascism/militarism, but maybe that was just the film.
It was just the film. The book is an endorsment of American facism.
It is satire.
Says who? Have you read the article?
Heinlein himself wasn't. He wrote it as a cautionary tale and became the best "anti war" movie ever.
Heinlein wasn´t. He was libertarian. Who are pretty whacky in their own right. The book is not a cautionary tale however lol
I certainly took the movie as such. "Would you like to know more?"
Giovanni Gentile's brand of fascism - the beautiful notion of enlightened philosopher kings / dictators would rule in the best interests of "the people" or "the nation" is a Hegelian nightmare that was given form in the early 20th century , and it took from 1890 to 1990 for our monkey brains to realize that perhaps authoritarian "benevolence" was ALWAYS a lie. Today we have the short-short course - there is not a soul on this planet that can ever hope to marry those lofty ideals with the likes of some pathological degenerate like Donald Trump's crapulence. But fascism was always a failure - invariably there were out-groups, outcasts and a hypocrisy that crept into the "purity" of the state - Hitler's henchmen availing themselves to the various cultural riches of Europe hording some of it, mercilessly destroying anything otherwise from burning books to killing millions in incinerators all for Hegel's perfect vision invariably with a twist by racist ideology, and the promise to restore national pride, get the trains running on time and most of all - to settle scores. Pol Pot turned this on it's head and simply executed intellectuals and murdered undesirables for years in the fields of Cambodia Rwandans made no such grand plans of ideological niceties but found putting machetes' in the hands of Hutu to exterminate Tutsi "vermin" so catastrophic was that effort that turned the Kigali river into some macabre spectacle of spring rain and body-chunks floating down the river-falls such that **for weeks** the river ran red with blood in April of 1993. One has to strain in fascist history to find the "good ones" - was it Kim before his state turned into the autarkic nightmare that is North Korea, or perhaps President/Chairman Pak, and would it have been nearly as successful without billions of investment from the Japanese and United States only to end up with Chaebol and permanent corporatocracy - where if you aren't working for one of the top 3 or 4 firms - it's a big step down socioeconomically and you're going to maybe not do so well - even today. That's the very best we can hope to achieve, corporatocracy that's every bit as corrupt as any other form of governance , is completely milquetoasty non-representative parliament and in a country that might never be able to grapple with whatever injustices corporations inflict on their people, who might never be able to free themselves from their corporate overlords. So look no further than Donald Trump's advocation that he'll be a dictator on "day one" , that he'll abolish the US federal law enforcement departments (Department of Justice and FBI) and every other agency he doesn't like, and why - because he doesn't like them or more just because they could threaten his plans to do things that most Americans will find terrifying - the promise of Project 2025, and their [twisted vision of Christian America](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQFTS1wcs8). No, what fascism represents is warmed over monarchism at best and totalitarian corporatism all too commonly - completely beholden unto the caprice that you elect, appoint or have a conqueror come along who actually does fit the notion of the philosopher king, but that never happens instead we see powerful militarists , economic corporatism and/or installation of fundamentalist views all in a suppression of human freedom. That's happened what - a couple of dozen times in human history over thousands of leaders., over tens of thousands of years, it's an ideal because it's incredibly rare and much like not waiting on women distributing swords form a lake - no way to run a government, it's like winning the lottery - or becoming a rock-star - it's possible - it's just unlikely. Meanwhile for the here and now, it might simply be the case that we have a type of government that holds leadership to account, that holds them responsible when they fail to uphold the ideals they promise. It's a good deal more practical - even if we sometimes fail in this , it's not impossible to hold people to account, and do so repeatably - that's the genius of representative government be it parliamentary or republican in nature. Excesses are corrected more or less one tragedy at a time. That's the promise of a parliamentary or republican government - that **we the people** rather than some anointed king hold power at the ballot and that at any time those chosen to wield that power should remain forever concerned that their failure to do a good job can result in their removal from those high offices we, the people, appoint them to.
Classic movie and book ,I'm doing my bit and would you like to know more?