So like, “left” and “right” come from the French assembly

And where people sat

No one in that assembly was in favor of executing the king

To say that overthrowing the king was not a left wing position, however, would be an etymological fallacy

Because the strict definitions of these things shift to fit the current political environment

Maybe in 100 years, there will be some sort of nationalism that isn’t fascist

Right now, that is not the case

Their campaign to take over Europe and the world is literally the antithesis of isolationism

By that logic the United States in the 30s-early 40s would be fascistic because they were isolationist

I didn’t say that was the only definition

GG @Platinum Spark, you just advanced to level 14!

I said that was one of the defining characteristics

Certainly the fascists in the US wanted the US to remain isolationist

But I don’t think being a conquering power is exclusive with isolationism

Because it still means you’re not negotiating or participating in the international community

No, the US was isolationist because they didn't want to be embroiled in WWII

There are different reasons for becoming isolationist, and it is not synonymous with fascism by definition

And I am arguing by the definition and not an incorrect interpretation of it

You cannot be isolationist and fight every country around you.

Yes the US was isolationist and the liberals dragged the US out of isolationism

The fascists in the US (silver legion) wanted the US to remain so

Sticking to an old dictionary definition is an etymological fallacy

The modern usage of “nationalist” is synonymous with fascist

Conquering everyone is isolationist

It’s acting totally unilaterally

But that was just one aspect. You can throw that one out if you disagree

I'm going to respond to this in about 2 hours

Sure take your time.

Mobile isn't exactly the optimal debating device

Haha no rush, you can dm too if it gets crazy here

Ok so first off I'm going to have to object to the term "entomological fallacy" itself, because this is something that has an entirely subjective an nebulous basis. Words are made to have very explicit meaning and are often tied to an expansive history, like the word "fascism" in the context here referring to an ideology that first came around in the '20s (so essentially what you were referring to earlier). Nationalism in and of itself is an ideology centered simply around the support of your nation's interests. Fascism, on the other hand, involves an authoritarian government or regime that forcefully suppresses people, along with a complete rejection of democracy and a lack of individual rights; the only thing that is intrinsically shared with nationalism is the support for the nation and the view that your nation is superior, though this varies in degree as well. Nationalism often does lead into Fascism but it also does not, like with the United States in WWII (and even though there may be fascists in the United States, this does not mean that the United States itself was a fascistic society or even that the majority of people were). With this in mind, to synonymize the two is fallacious as there are very clear criteria in the definition of the word "fascism" in order for something to be counted as such. The conflation of these two terms you engaged in prior is actually an example of another fallacy, that being a false equivalency.

Note that I am not giving any positive opinion towards either thing though, I am opposed to both.

The term left and right are totally dependent on context and public perception. Something considered radically left in US could easily be considered right or center in Sweden.

And it wasn't liberals that pushed the US away from isolationism, it was mostly the work of progressive and those two things are very very different.

Shit, I forgot about that as well. Political spectrums vary from country to country, so reporting of another countries political dynamics will likely have the politics of that country applied to it.

*realized I said "entymology" instead of "etymology" lol

Also, isolationism has a very specific definition as well, that being a policy that involves a country not involving itself with affairs with or between other countries. Quite literally the opposite of the Nazis.

So, an etymological fallacy is relying heavily on the derivation of a word rather than its current usage

I really think that’s what you’re proposing here.

But nationalism, remember is devotion to the “nation” not to the “state”

What I am opposing is the usage of a definition that does not belong to a specific term simply because of popular use.