That some people are born better than others and they deserve more in life. It’s an incredibly appealing message.

If you think you’re exceptional, vote Gorgoiler ‘28!

> That some people are born better than others and they deserve more in life.

Isn't that simply factual human nature? If someone is tall, attractive, physically fit, hardworking, and intelligent, isn't it meritocratic for that person to accrue overall greater benefits/utility to their societal contributions compared to someone who is ugly, unfit, lazy, and stupid?

I wouldn't categorize that position as "far right" at all. I think the position you are trying to express is that the ugly/unfit/lazy/stupid should not be punished or abused by the government/laws/society just for existing. I would be surprised if you walked into an average MAGA rally and found a plurality of people who disagree with that.

Why would you ask someone to define a known concept that has been around for decades? It’s not like definitions are based on someone’s opinion.

Because they’re trolling, knowingly or unknowingly. There’s a presumption here that HN commenters can operate a search engine and read pages of text, and are therefore capable of basic research.

If they’re asking for a definition, it’s likely because they already know it and just want you to fall into a “gotcha” they can then divert discussion toward in their favor. It’s cheap theatrics.

You can't be unknowingly trolling as it requires intent. You could argue wilfull ignorance I guess?

At a quick glance, I found 10 definitions of far right that differ slightly. An assumption of malice here fails. Remarkably so.

You can miss me with that last part, because I have to assume malice on the part of those who try to steer discourse around vocabulary or policy nuance rather than acknowledge the binary reality of the question.

Vocabulary is what we have for textual discourse lacking other inputs, and clarification on terms is a basic and actual necessity of such. You say you "have to assume malice" and, in line with what I already alluded to, that requires malice.

It's not pedantic to ask that your statements be taken clearly and in the right context.

It's worth noting as well that in the context of inclusion, pointing out pedantry at all is going to exclude a group in the "common" understanding of exclusion.

Most importantly, this person is trying to understand your perspective and instead of trying to sway their opinion, you criticize them. One thing that the "far right" has accomplished recently is an understanding that everyone is a person and worth respect and voice. Which is evidenced by the countless videos displaying such behaviour and the ubiquitous response of blessing attributed to people with such inquisition in comment sections everywhere.

In stark contrast is the term uneducated and it's supposed link to intelligence. Don't they teach logical fallacies in college anymore?

I am actually not. I just don't know of any policies or promises of Trump that I would genuinely categorize as far right. Border control is not far right according to me.

First of all I dislike Trump and for sure have liberal views in lot of aspects. And say even if I have malice intent and I am a hardcore Trump supporter, comments like yours wouldn't have changed my mind. Assuming you want to change people's side, it is not the reply that would change it.

Definitions are often based on opinion. Definitions differ depending on many things.

Some definitions are not opinions.

The definition of "far right" is an opinion. Failing to define it in discourse will inevitably result in a lack of positive outcome.

According to Wikipedia, "Far-right politics ... are typically marked by radical conservatism, authoritarianism, ultra-nationalism, and nativism"

Digging into the page for radical conservatism, "Elements of ultraconservatism typically rely on cultural crisis; they frequently support anti-globalism – adopting stances of anti-immigration, nationalism, and sovereignty – use populism and political polarization, with in-group and out-group practices.[3][4][5][6] The primary economic ideology for most ultraconservatives is neoliberalism.[6] The use of conspiracy theories is also common amongst ultraconservatives.".

Trump is well-known for his populist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration, and pro-nationalist rhetoric. He has also promulgated conspiarcy theories such as the Obama birther conspiracy and claims of stolen elections.

As for authoritarian, Trump forms a textbook example of a personality cult. He frequently attacks existing institutions and an independent media, undermining trust in a free democratic process. He frequently issues positive messages about authoritarian dictators in other countries such as Bolsonaro, Orban and Putin.

Ah, yes. That well know impartial source of political facts, wikipedia.

>>Trump is well-known for his populist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration, and pro-nationalist rhetoric. He has also promulgated conspiarcy theories such as the Obama birther conspiracy and claims of stolen elections.

You can be patriotic and anti-immigration without being far right. I think the claims of a stolen election are yet to be properly investigated. I'd welcome a truly impartial look into all the covid postal vote shenanigans last time.

>>As for authoritarian, Trump forms a textbook example of a personality cult. He frequently attacks existing institutions and an independent media, undermining trust in a free democratic process. He frequently issues positive messages about authoritarian dictators in other countries such as Bolsonaro, Orban and Putin.

You can criticise institutions now? And I'm sure he'd be in favour of an indepenndent media if America had one.

Putin is a obviously a dictator. Bolsonaro and Orban not so much (especially Bolsonaro as he was, er, voted out which would seem to automatically disqualify him from being a dictator).

Political ideologies are defined by a cluster of stances that collectively form a narrative. Those stances may individually have some debatable justifications, but it's when they're taken together that it becomes compelling. It's not just "there's something wrong in our society", it's "there's an insidious dark force at work, it's brought us down from our glorious past, these groups of people are involved, violence against this threat is understandable, only a few men are strong and capable enough to lead us out of this..."

He's not said anything like this though:

"there's an insidious dark force at work, it's brought us down from our glorious past, these groups of people are involved, violence against this threat is understandable, only a few men are strong and capable enough to lead us out of this...".

A few examples...

For insidious dark forces, he alludes to the "deep state", talks about an "enemy from within", and uses phrases like "poisoning the blood of the nation".

For glorious past, there's the MAGA motto, and his narrative that political correctness and lefty lunatics have destroyed American exceptionalism.

For violence, he's repeatedly threatened violence against protestors to his rallies, defended or refused to condemn violence by his own supporters, and suggested that political opponents deserve to have violence inflicted on them.

For only a few men, his prodigious hyperbole about how he's the best at everything, and he literally describes himself as "I am your retribution" who will usher in a "new golden age". And again, he's generally praising of strongman authoritarians around the world

>> For insidious dark forces, he alludes to the "deep state", talks about an "enemy from within", and uses phrases like "poisoning the blood of the nation".

What about calling your political opponents "garbage" and "deplorables" and "fascists"?

>>For glorious past, there's the MAGA motto, and his narrative that political correctness and lefty lunatics have destroyed American exceptionalism.

Probably objectively correct.

>> For violence, he's repeatedly threatened violence against protestors to his rallies, defended or refused to condemn violence by his own supporters, and suggested that political opponents deserve to have violence inflicted on them.

Thank god the Democrats only have peaceful groups like Antifa and BLM. And it's not like Democrat supporters haven't tried to kill him twice. The Democrats are objectively the more violent party.

> What about calling your political opponents "garbage" and "deplorables" and "fascists"?

I condemn name-calling, but it is not the same as conjuring images of insidious dark forces.

> Thank god the Democrats only have peaceful groups like Antifa and BLM.

I condemn the violence of these groups. As do leading Democrats.

Not sure what you're trying to argue at this point. I've demonstrated a clear fascist narrative from Trump and all you've done is draw poorly conceived similarities.

LOL. You've come up with a couple of examples that apply equally to the Democratic Party.

But... they don't apply. For the reasons I gave :s

Yes, from your left wing perspective I can see why you might think that "It's different when we do it."

You can't see the difference in implication between "garbage" and "enemy from within"?

What about calling people "fascists" and "threats to democracy"?

It's telling that the only candidate to face assassination attempts was Republican.

Yes. Calling an individual a fascist is different to suggesting there are insidious dark forces at work...

Let me turn the question to you. At what point would a politician become far right? Have you ever seen a far-right politician?

I think if they actually advocate violence against minority groups, start genocidal wars, cancel elections etc.

I guess everyone is moderate in your book.