On The 'Islamofascism' Misnomer...

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
The arguments so far in defense of the misnomer 'islamofascism'....

1. The term is a colloquialism, a newly coined term, and thus doesn't have to accurately derived from its components. We can use whatever terminology we goddam like. Colloquialisms are acceptable forms of language.

Firstly, in political / philosophical debate there is no room for ambigious colloquialisms. Anyone who doubts or disputes this should read the life of Socrates. Clarity of communication, including in definition of terms, is vitally important to political / philosophical debate.

Secondly, colloquialisms should at least best describe what they are symbolising, particularly in conjoined words.

2. 'Islamofascist' does best describe the people it is intended to symbolise. These people exhibit the characteristics of fascism.

The best way decide this is to break the new term into its component parts. As mentioned in the first part, clarity and accuracy of terms matters, especially with new terminology.

Islamo - Conjoining word to indicate those of the Muslim faith. Fits perfectly.

Fascism - To decide whether fascist fits we must look at the definition of fascism and see if it best describes the characteristics of these people.

Let's take the definitions from two sources.

Firstly Oxford University dictionaries:

fascism A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism. In ancient Rome, the authority of the state was symbolized by the fasces , a bundle of rods bound together (signifying popular unity) with a protruding axe-head (denoting leadership). As such, it was appropriated by Mussolini to label the movement he led to power in Italy in 1922, but was subsequently generalized to cover a whole range of movements in Europe during the inter-war period. These include the National Socialists in ...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O86:fas...fid=ency_botnm


fascism
/fashiz’m/

• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk

Secndly, Dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

The common factors in all these definitions are:

Authoritarian
Totalitarian
Hierarchical Structure
Nationalistic
Dictatorial

These characteristics are found in all definitions.

So do the people we are describing display these characteristics?

They are certainly authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical and dictatorial. But is this enough to deem them fascists? Are these characteristics exclusive to fascism?

No. They could as easily be describing other ideologies, Soviet Communism, Monarchism, Theocracy etc etc.

The characteristic that differentiates between other authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical and dictatorial ideologies and fascism is the nationalist element. All other characteristics are characteristics that could apply to many other ideologies.

Without the nationalist element it is hardly the best description to use the term fascist.

3. The nationalist element doesn't matter and besides, this form of Islam can be seen to be nationalistic as it is a warped form of Islam.

Well, no, they can't be seen as nationalistic. The essential element in nationalism is the nation state. The nation state is paramount to nationalism. A religion, no matter how warped or distateful to our moral code isn't a nation state, it is still a religion. That is a simple fact.

You could say that if you replace the nationalist element with the religious ideology of these people, you have fascism. Again, no you don't. If you remove the nationalist element, you are left with an authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical and dictatorial based on religious grounds. This, ladies and gentlemen, is theocracy, not fascism.



So, in conclusion. Creating words without reference to their etymological origins isn't good in political / philosophical debate and any new word has to accurately and best describe what it is symbolising.

Describing these people as fascist is reliant upon them fitting the criteria for fascism. Possessing some of the characteristics is not enough, as these are shared in common with other ideologies and so makes fascism not an accurate term to describe them.

Nationalism differentiates fascism from these other ideologies and as such it is essential that an element of nationalism is involved, else they could be as well described by other ideological terms.

Religious beliefs aren't nationalism, as it is fundamental that with nationalism the notion of the nation state is involved. Religious extremists that have no interest in the notion of the nation state aren't nationalistic. That these people wish to unite the world under their theocratic ideologies is clear evidence that the nation state is irrelevant to them.
 
Last edited:
Selective selection of definition disregards other definitions within that same dictionary. Don't pretend that there are not more than one. Also attempting to make a new word fit within the definition of another word is worthless considering it isn't that other word....

You can keep repeating it, and I can keep making the same counterpoint, but your "it has to mean exactly this to be valid" argument is weakened by the fact other conglomerate words created by others do nothing of the sort, and have been given as examples earlier but ignored by someone who clearly doesn't want to admit historical reference. Your position is weak, your argument is the repetition fallacy....

The main thrust of your argument is that this word does not exactly fit this other word and therefore cannot be used. It is a laughable argument based solely on "feeling" not the reality of other conglomerate words presented as example earlier. In each of those examples the word took parts of a definition of each of the past words, not the whole of them, and was able to come up with wonderfully descriptive new words based on that congolmeration. But heck, it's all good, we can't use "airship" because they don't float on water (the first defition of ship in the dictionary... we can't use any others according to the ultimate wisdom of AOI and his Etymology requirements on conglomerate word creation...)

This is taken out of context with the other argument so you can pick and choose what counterpoints to answer in an attempt to ignore other counterpoints and it underscores the weakness in your argument by what you attempted not to present...

Etymology has never been an exactly perfect science, especially in newly formed words... This attempt to ignore the past, present an argument that a new word must match an old definition exactly, while ignoring secondary and tertiary definitions in an attempt to make it "not fit" notwithstanding you have simply not presented enough to show that this new word doesn't fit "enough". It doesn't fit "enough" to suit you, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a pretty good descriptive phrase that is entering the language regardless of your meaningless objection of how it doesn't exactly match what you want it to.
 
the point that seems to be overlooked here is this word was "newly formed" not so much for its accuracy in describing groups of people, but for the ability to create the desired emotional response to those people. You two can argue the etymological subtleties until the cows come home...but we all know that this word is being used for one primary purpose, and "accuracy and precision of communication" is not it.
 
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It is an attempt to sound smart without regard to historical as well as presented evidence... Especially when it entails actually ignoring defitions within the same dictionary that you are using that actually DO match...

It is a whiney little kid argument of "Hey! It doesn't mean what I WANT it to!"... I can picture you guys stomping your feet with clenched fists... Especially when it was shown that dictionary definitions actually do match it enough to make it more valid than other presented conglomerate words of the past....
 
Selective selection of definition disregards other definitions within that same dictionary. Don't pretend that there are not more than one. Also attempting to make a new word fit within the definition of another word is worthless considering it isn't that other word....

You can keep repeating it, and I can keep making the same counterpoint, but your "it has to mean exactly this to be valid" argument is weakened by the fact other conglomerate words created by others do nothing and have been given as examples earlier. Your position is weak, your argument is the repetition fallacy....

I repeat the points because you aren't addressing the points I made. You are simply saying etymology isn't an exact science and it doesn't matter if the term doesn't describe the entity, nor if it the best description.

Do you disagree that any conglomerated word must at least be the best description of the entity it symbolises and that the meaning of the contributory words must describe what is being symbolised?

Else why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some characteristics with conservatives after all. (Not a SM, analogy)

Do you disagree with the defining characteristics for fascism that I hightlighted from both sets of definitions, ie:

Authoritarian
Totalitarian
Hierarchical Structure
Nationalistic
Dictatorial

These are all characteristics defined in both dictionaries.

Do you disagree that if you remove nationalism from the equation, and are left with authoritarian, totalitarian, hierarchical structure and dictatorial, that these characteristics are also found in other ideologies, such as Soviet Communism, Monarchism, Theocracy etc?

Do you not see then that without the nationalist element it isn't possible to define as fascist, as the remaining characteristics are evident elsewhere?

Do you believe that a religion is a nation-state and if so, how?

This isn't a matter that the 'term' doesn't exactly fit the description of these people, it isn't even close, and there is already a far better term for them.

Simple as that.
 
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It isn't a matter of whether it PERFECTLY fits, it is a matter of whether it fits at all, and whether it the best term to describe the entity.

It neither fits nor is the best description of the entity.

 
Rubbish, I have specifically presented other words that use secondary and tertiary defitions when "matching" with another word in the new conglomeration. Saying that I don't present counterpoint doesn't make it true. Ignoring historical reference doesn't make you "more right" it just makes you look more childish...

Do you disagree that any conglomerated word must at least be the best description of the entity it symbolises and that the meaning of the contributory words must describe what is being symbolised?
Click to expand...

I do, and have presented myriad times how this word does encompass definitions of the previous words and that it does even better than previous historically accepted conglomerate words....

Pretending I didn't answer you once again doesn't make it so, it just makes your argument the repetition fallacy.


Else why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some characteristics with conservatives after all. (Not a SM, analogy)
Click to expand...
One could, and would, if the characteristics they share with conservatives were the ones that were being underscored....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It isn't a matter of whether it PERFECTLY fits, it is a matter of whether it fits at all, and whether it the best term to describe the entity.

It neither fits nor is the best description of the entity.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, we have presented how it does fit. We have shown how it is descriptive in the first definition, in the second and in the tertiary definition. This is far more descriptive than say "airship" was...

This is such total hogwash.
 
Each time you repeat it, and attempt to hide how it has been answered by attempting to ignore presented argument by changing threads to cover your lack, it makes you appear even more like a child thrusting his fists down and stomping....

"But, but, but.... IT doesn't exactly match THIS one definition that I present even though it practically matches every other definition that YOU present!"...
 
Damocles said:
Regardless of that mm, the attempt to say it isn't valid because it isn't perfectly within the definition of another word is simply whiney silopsism...

It is an attempt to sound smart without regard to historical as well as presented evidence... Especially when it entails actually ignoring defitions within the same dictionary that you are using that actually DO match...

It is a whiney little kid argument of "Hey! It doesn't mean what I WANT it to!"... I can picture you guys stomping your feet with clenched fists... Especially when it was shown that dictionary definitions actually do match it enough to make it more valid than other presented conglomerate words of the past....
Click to expand...

I don't think that islamofascist is any more valid a term than sand nigger.

both are designed to create anger and fear in a target audience.

but if you want to use it...go for it.... I know why you do...and that is why I won't.
 
I've already told you that I don't use the word. I am simply arguing etymology. Words are a tool, this one is pretty precise in its design and it works. The attempt to say it isn't valid because it doesn't match the first definition in the OED is total rubbish, especially when presented with the fact that the word can be seen as descriptive of that definition at the same time it actually does match the secondary and tertiary definitions of the word in question....

If you want to argue whether it is appropriate to use the word at all, that actually does belong in a whole new thread....

In this one we argue descriptiveness and definition, in another we can argue the moral value...
 
Personally I would use the term that the muslims who are not terrorist have themselves coined...

Islamists
 
is this an etymology bulletin board or a politics bulletin board. the term is DESIGNED to stir emotions and cause fear and distrust. Islamofascist....sand nigger....dune coon....OOOOOOOOO.... scary nasty subhuman people..... let's go kill them!
 
Rubbish, I have specifically presented other words that use secondary and tertiary defitions when "matching" with another word in the new conglomeration. Saying that I don't present counterpoint doesn't make it true. Ignoring historical reference doesn't make you "more right" it just makes you look more childish...

I do, and have presented myriad times how this word does encompass definitions of the previous words and that it does even better than previous historically accepted conglomerate words....

Pretending I didn't answer you once again doesn't make it so, it just makes your argument the repetition fallacy.

Your argument summises to 'the origins of the words used bares no importance to creating a conglomerate word. It doesn't matter if the entity being described doesn't fit the contributing words or is the best description.'

Then why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some of the criteria for conservatives, obviously not the defining characteristics but who cares? We can define a word however we like.

In political and philosophical debate, accuracy of definition of terms is vitally important. Read up on Socrates if you don't understand the reason why.

We cannot just create conglomerate words without reference to the terms they derive from, it leads to ambiguity.


One could, and would, if the characteristics they share with conservatives were the ones that were being underscored....

The ones underscored? What do you mean by underscored?

We don't call them Islamoconservatives because a. they only share a few characteristics with conservatives, and not the most defining ones and b. there is already a term that accurately describes them... Theocrats.

In creating a term to describe these people, Islamofascism is weak, undescriptive and subordinate to a far better term... theocrats.
 
Right, but this thread is arguing etymology not appropriateness...

Does it present a picture of the meaning they are trying to get across? I present that it does, have shown why I think so, have even shown why and how it actually has a better match than previous conglomerate words... All the while I've been told that it can't mean what they present it to mean....

Now, I agree with you on whether the word should have been used by the President... I'll even agree with why it was created. I also agree that I wouldn't use it and have given the word that I would use and why...
 
Rubbish, we have presented how it does fit. We have shown how it is descriptive in the first definition, in the second and in the tertiary definition. This is far more descriptive than say "airship" was...

It only fits if you

A. Ignore the fact that they only share a few of the characteristics of fascism.
B. Ignore the fact that it is missing the characteristics that differentiate it from other authoritarian, dictatorial and totalitarian ideologies.
C. Ignore the fact that there is already an accurate term for their ideology...theocracy.

The term 'airship' at least is derived from words that define what it is.

 
AnyOldIron said:
Rubbish, I have specifically presented other words that use secondary and tertiary defitions when "matching" with another word in the new conglomeration. Saying that I don't present counterpoint doesn't make it true. Ignoring historical reference doesn't make you "more right" it just makes you look more childish...

I do, and have presented myriad times how this word does encompass definitions of the previous words and that it does even better than previous historically accepted conglomerate words....

Pretending I didn't answer you once again doesn't make it so, it just makes your argument the repetition fallacy.

Your argument summises to 'the origins of the words used bares no importance to creating a conglomerate word. It doesn't matter if the entity being described doesn't fit the contributing words or is the best description.'
Click to expand...


Rubbish again. I have shown how the original words are descriptive of the terminology and why I think so.

Then why not call them Islamoconservatives? They share some of the criteria for conservatives, obviously not the defining characteristics but who cares? We can define a word however we like.
Click to expand...

I already stated that a person wanting to underscore those similarities could and would use that term. This really does underscore that you don't actually read my responses, you assume what they are and simply keep repeating this nonsense because you cannot comprehend my answers as you haven't READ THEM....

In political and philosophical debate, accuracy of definition of terms is vitally important. Read up on Socrates if you don't understand the reason why.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason we have presented how these two terms brought together are actually descriptive of the idea presented....


We cannot just create conglomerate words without reference to the terms they derive from, it leads to ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Which is why we have used the previous terms and shown how they are descriptive... I have to keep repeating this because, as I have found out, you don't ACTUALLY READ responses and thus have no comprehension of the actual presented ideas that have gone before....

One could, and would, if the characteristics they share with conservatives were the ones that were being underscored....

The ones underscored? What do you mean by underscored?
Click to expand...


In the creation of the word they use the terms they believe are descriptive of the ideas they are presenting. They wouldn't use Islamopacifist, they aren't underscoring their "pacifist" nature... (if it existed) they use fascist because they are underscoring the similarities in that word... You know the ones I presented earlier that you have proven you simply haven't read and present no salient argument against.... Those ones.


We don't call them Islamoconservatives because a. they only share a few characteristics with conservatives, and not the most defining ones and b. there is already a term that accurately describes them... Theocrats.
Click to expand...

Once again, Theocrats is not accurate enough. I have already mentioned that we are not fighting a war on Theocracy and in fact the US and Britain both support a Theocratic government in exile... Can you figure out which one it is?


In creating a term to describe these people, Islamofascism is weak, undescriptive and subordinate to a far better term... theocrats.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is a subset of the "Theocrat" that is underdescriptive... Using solely "theocrat" would present the idea that we are fighting all theocrats and we are not. It is necessary to separate this group from other theocrats... I have already answered this one as well, you simply present another instance where you prove you don't actually read responses you just assume and end up looking the ass because of it.
 
from my perspective, all those who continue to use the word ISLAMOFASCIST do so for the purpose of inciting fear and distrust and anger.... it really is nothing more appropriate than calling them sand niggers at a KKK meeting.

I am fine with Islamist.... or Islamic extremist...or Wahabbist... or Islamic theocrat.... I know what those words mean and I feel no need to use made up words when better - REAL -words are more descriptive.

the ulterior motivation for using islamofascist is clear.
 
Does it present a picture of the meaning they are trying to get across?

Depends if the meaning is rhetorical or actual.

If they want to attach the negative connotations fascism rightly gained across the C20th, then the meaning is presented.

If it is meant as an accurate political definition of these people, then it creates ambiguity and is innaccurate.

I present that it does, have shown why I think so, have even shown why and how it actually has a better match than previous conglomerate words... All the while I've been told that it can't mean what they present it to mean....

See my above. If they mean to attach the connotations of the term fascism, then it does.

If it is meant as an accurate term used in political arenas, then it is ambigiuos, innaccurate and subordinate to a term far better suited, theocrats.

Hence, using the term 'Islamofascist' is entirely rhetorical, designed to create pathos.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Rubbish, we have presented how it does fit. We have shown how it is descriptive in the first definition, in the second and in the tertiary definition. This is far more descriptive than say "airship" was...

It only fits if you

A. Ignore the fact that they only share a few of the characteristics of fascism.
B. Ignore the fact that it is missing the characteristics that differentiate it from other authoritarian, dictatorial and totalitarian ideologies.
C. Ignore the fact that there is already an accurate term for their ideology...theocracy.
Click to expand...


It only doesn't fit if you actually

A. Ignore the secondary and tertiary definitions presented in the same dictionary you used..
B. Ignore the fact in historically presented words created in much the same way this specificity is not present and in fact this word fits more precisely than most.
C. Ignore the fact that theocracy is actually the less accurate term and that I have actually presented why... (Again proving you don't actually read the fricking answers!)

The term 'airship' at least is derived from words that define what it is.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. If we go by your requirements, using only the very first definition presented in the OED, it cannot be used because the airship doesn't float on water....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top