Well, the essence of Fascist “logic” is Psychological Projection (i.e. accuse others of doing what you yourself do), so it makes sense that what Fascists accuse anti-Fascists of turns out to all be the kind of actions and motivations Fascists do and have.
The funny bit is that they genuinelly believe every individual accusation they put forward and don’t put 2 and 2 together and figure out they’re accusing others of acting like Fascists.
IMHO, it’s because people imagine that others in their heads have motivations and reason like they themselves do. So if for example somebody puts forward a criticism of a racist statement or act, coming from the point of view of “passing judgment over a group of people entirelly based on their race is a prejudiced generalisation and hence unfair and wrong”, the Fascists (and other kinds of Racist) will read it as “that other person is against this race and in favour of a different race” because in they imagine the other person has similar motivations and reasons like themselves and hence the “different race preference” seems to a Fascist/Racist to be the most logic explanation for the criticism of that other person.
You presented a lot of reasons why this or that person might believe this or that thing, but what about people who believe things because they match what they’ve observed?
Aren’t there maybe some people whose basis for knowledge is that they’ve seen things?
Like, a given accusation of the form “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” can be analyzed in terms of motivations, and it can be seen as a reflection of your enemy’s active projection processes. But … the accusation can also be evaluated as true or false, based on evidence.
Let’s not forget that “claims of fact are either true or false” angle alongside all the others we consider the accusations from.
Ask any criminal lawyer, police officer or psychologist if what multiple people say they saw of the same event ever matches to the detail.
Anybody who ever dealth with witnesses knows that what people “see” is to a great extent what they expect to see.
(In your example - “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” - what exactly led that observer to believe the perpetrator was antifa? That small and simple sentence of yours is not objective and already includes drawing conclusions based on the observer’s own assumptions)
People are already interpreting things when they see something and usually store into memory their interpretation of things, unless we’re talking about one of the rare individuals with perfect photographic memory.
There is a big long running discussion about Subjectivity and Objectivity in Phylosophy and so far most people think Human Beings are incapable of being completely Objective.
Well, the essence of Fascist “logic” is Psychological Projection (i.e. accuse others of doing what you yourself do), so it makes sense that what Fascists accuse anti-Fascists of turns out to all be the kind of actions and motivations Fascists do and have.
The funny bit is that they genuinelly believe every individual accusation they put forward and don’t put 2 and 2 together and figure out they’re accusing others of acting like Fascists.
IMHO, it’s because people imagine that others in their heads have motivations and reason like they themselves do. So if for example somebody puts forward a criticism of a racist statement or act, coming from the point of view of “passing judgment over a group of people entirelly based on their race is a prejudiced generalisation and hence unfair and wrong”, the Fascists (and other kinds of Racist) will read it as “that other person is against this race and in favour of a different race” because in they imagine the other person has similar motivations and reasons like themselves and hence the “different race preference” seems to a Fascist/Racist to be the most logic explanation for the criticism of that other person.
You presented a lot of reasons why this or that person might believe this or that thing, but what about people who believe things because they match what they’ve observed?
Aren’t there maybe some people whose basis for knowledge is that they’ve seen things?
Like, a given accusation of the form “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” can be analyzed in terms of motivations, and it can be seen as a reflection of your enemy’s active projection processes. But … the accusation can also be evaluated as true or false, based on evidence.
Let’s not forget that “claims of fact are either true or false” angle alongside all the others we consider the accusations from.
Ask any criminal lawyer, police officer or psychologist if what multiple people say they saw of the same event ever matches to the detail.
Anybody who ever dealth with witnesses knows that what people “see” is to a great extent what they expect to see.
(In your example - “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” - what exactly led that observer to believe the perpetrator was antifa? That small and simple sentence of yours is not objective and already includes drawing conclusions based on the observer’s own assumptions)
People are already interpreting things when they see something and usually store into memory their interpretation of things, unless we’re talking about one of the rare individuals with perfect photographic memory.
There is a big long running discussion about Subjectivity and Objectivity in Phylosophy and so far most people think Human Beings are incapable of being completely Objective.