- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t know, it seems pretty simple nowadays. Are you a cunt who gives a shit about whether dudes want to bang dudes or dress like chicks? Do you wish to oppress brown or black people, like on purpose, in an exertive manner? Are you trying to subjugate women? Do you long for a country in which the rule of law is taken directly from fairy tales? Are you trying to institutionally establish a single in-group and several out-groups? You’re a fucking fascist, you deserve to have your shit kicked in.
They explain all these away as not that bad, or not what they want. Some examples:
Are you a cunt who gives a shit about whether dudes want to bang dudes or dress like chicks?
Conservative: No, I am for traditional gender roles and family values
Do you wish to oppress brown or black people, like on purpose, in an exertive manner?
Conservative: No, I just think that people should stay with their own kind.
Are you trying to subjugate women?
Conservative: No, I am for traditional gender roles and family values
Do you long for a country in which the rule of law is taken directly from fairy tales?
Conservatives: The US is a christian nation which means our laws should be based on the Bible
They’re going to weasel out of it, not just to stop discussion but also because it makes them feel bad that this is the outcome of their politics.
Have you seen this YouTube video of some black teenagers robbing a Guche bag store? Did you not learn about the immigrants with leprosy? Have you seen what they’re posting on Nextdoor?!! Drag queens are invading libraries and trying to turn these kindergartners gay, and this based traditional father isn’t going to take it anymore.
They spit on our veterans! They want to have sex with dogs! They are becoming radicalized by Shari Law and turning the big cities into No Go Zones with their Ground Zero Mosques! They are PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS LIKE IN THE BIBLE!
I saw it on Newsmax. They’re the only ones reporting on what’s in the vaccines.
Why aren’t you taking this seriously? Is it because of TikTok? Have the Chinese made you Woke?
That’s pretty on point. A lot of normal-brained people can’t comprehend the mind of the rightoid, but this is pitch-perfect.
Man… I am 69% sure this is top-shelf trolling to illustrate the evils of conservatism. But, I am genuinely not sure. If this is a troll, it’s very well done.
Check his post history. He is indeed being sarcastic. Sadly not all of his sarcasm gets interpreted as such.
Thank you for the investigation. Truly masterful performance. I almost down-dooted them!
Well most of those excuses are just reframing the initial thing to sound better. They’re all just “yes, but I don’t like you saying it like that.”
you deserve to have your shit kicked in.
But you won’t, because you’re ensconced behind an increasingly large and heavily armed mob of cops
Beautiful 👏
Excellent description. Saved for reference.
I’ve never understood the label. I’ve had to explain on a few occasions that no, you’re not trying to maintain traditional values. You’re just authoritarian.
Authoritarianism is the traditional value they’re trying to maintain
Speaking of traditional values, I still want to know what Southern Pride is if it isn’t glorifying the Confederacy.
So am a southerner, and have relocated, southern pride as in pride in the food, music, language/dialect, and culture all of which is heavily influenced by black people is very different than being one of the assholes flying a confederate flag and claiming the south will rise again.
I should add that I grew up in the 90s and witnessed the rise of black culture to the American mainstream so i probably view my enjoyment of southern things differently than someone 20 years older
What do you mean by culture though?
In my experience it tends to loop back to confederate flags and worshipping the rebellion, but I’m hopeful you have something else in mind.
Definitely not that, more swagger and smooth talking, chill and laid back, always spitting game. The best example I can give specifically is more or less the entire discography of Outkast and the culture it depicts.
that’s because fascism is not like other political views. it doesn’t come from thinkers, economists, sociologists or philosophers. it comes from maniacs doing maniacal shit. there is no “theory” to read on fascism. which is why the best academic text you find on it comes from its critics.
People don’t recognise fascism when it’s in front of their faces.
-
Huge military budget
-
weaponized, authoritarian police force with little oversight.
-
Nationalist habits like pledging allegiance regularly when young and national anthems when together.
-
a strong belief that they are the best nation on earth, often backed with religious certainly.
Bit like Russia then?
A bit? Exactly like Russia. They’re at the full blown invading neighbors stage.
Declaring war on inantimate objects/conditions
REJECTION OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY AS A SHAM AND A FRAUD
After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces. Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.“yeah I read theory” - worst person you’ll ever meet
-
Ummm many fascists are disguised as intellectuals whose sophistry is only revealed by challenging their assumptions. There were a number of such people who came to rise in Nazi Germany and afterwards, and there are many who are their contemporaries
Fascism is a dictator who thinks they’re intellectually creative. Like any nutter or cultist who thinks they’ve found “the way” to do something that has been obfuscated by [insert things they claimed to be against as they climbed to power], but they’re the ones that have the real answer! They’re so creative that they do the same thing any authoritarian does: Eliminate critics, make bogeymen up, consolidate money and power, and always fear being overthrown.
Ummm many fascists are disguised as intellectuals
exactly… and if I put on a ninja costume, I do not in fact become an ninja.
Sorry but doesn’t make sense! There are people like Heidegger and Sam Harris who have partly useful contributions to intellectual and academic discourse, but their overarching worldview is authoritarian or fascism aligned. My point is: people multiclass all the time, and you cannot and should not underestimate your ideological opponents
I didn’t mean to say Facists are dumb… I mean some are, case in point Trump… but very definitely not all of them
However, being smart does not make any one an “intellectual” nor the source of any sound ideology
An intellectual is anyone who can utilize logic, reasoning, and critical analysis to probe ideas or help understand them. Moreover, a member of the intelligentsia is anyone who the ruling class in a society decides is worthy of membership. It’s not so simple as “that dude is only wearing a ninja costume” when someone can just say “yeah he’s a ninja, fuck you”.
Hmmm to me that is just anyone with common sense…
I was leaning more into a definition like this one (from wikipedia)
An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society, and who proposes solutions for its normative problems.[2][3] Coming from the world of culture, either as a creator or as a mediator, the intellectual participates in politics, either to defend a concrete proposition or to denounce an injustice, usually by either rejecting, producing or extending an ideology, and by defending a system of values.[4]
I mean, I use logic and reasoning and critical analysis to probe ideas… but I am certainly no intellectual… the ideas I probe are more in the tune of “how sweet can I make bacon candy before my mother will come back from the grave and smack me for having dessert for breakfast?”
The ninja comment was in reply to the “many fascist disguise as intellectuals” which I took to be there to argue that in fact fascists can be intellectuals which I reject… I mean Trump pretends to be a religious person and he could not be further from that as well. However, I did not mean to turn this into a heavy argument as this is definitely not my area of expertise… I would however claim that, in my limited knowledge, most fascists came to power on populist grounds and populism is almost the opposite of intellectualism
It’s easy to say Trump is dumb, and in a lot of ways he is.
But make no mistake, he knows his audience (poor desperate conservatives) well and is highly skilled at manipulating them.
I don’t buy much of it… I get your point but if Trump were actually “highly skilled” we would all be doomed. He has put his foot in his mouth so many times I am certain he has athlete’s foot in the throat by now.
The issue that his popularity is persistent has 2 main root causes:
-
A lot of his followers are really angry (justified or not) and they feel they finally can let it out
-
A lot of his followers are deeply deeply ignorant… functional illiterate people who feel identified in Trump (case in point) and who cannot understand an iota of nuance in most topics because they simply know so little about most stuff
-
Sorry, but what is it about Sam Harris that makes you say his overarching worldviews are fascist?
defending torture is a good start
I was legitmately unaware of this, not trying to stir shit:
For anyone else: https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-torture
Conservatism is a distinct political ideology that basically says not all change is for the better, nothing more–it’s in the name: conserve. This is a separate concept from authoritarianism, which is all about how power flows. It’s possible to be conservative and liberal at the same time if society is losing its liberal values.
US republicans are fascists through and through that wear a disguise of conservatism on select issues to convince people to relinquish their political power so that they can do whatever they want.
Sure, it’s theoretically possible, but I’ve never met a conservative anywhere who actually wants to conserve what they have today. In practice, they all want to go back to the past, and most prefer some kind of fictional 1960s past.
That’s the tricky part about conservatism. If their values never change, they are eventually left behind by progress and they become reactionaries. Unfortunately, people just keep accepting their use of the label “conservative” when it stopped fitting them decades ago, which is a convenient cover for the more reprehensible ones.
They don’t describe themselves this way, but you could accurately call modern Hungarian liberals conservatives, as post-Soviet Hungary was a lot more liberal than it is today.
I think you could call most all liberals, conservative. Liberalism has been the main driving force in the US for decades. To be liberal is to try and conserve that liberalism. For example, voting for Clinton in 2016 felt pretty conservative. “Continuing the Obama years with something as similar as possible seems the best of the alternatives right now” is inherently a conservative decision. Alas.
deleted by creator
Conservatism is a distinct political ideology that basically says not all change is for the better, nothing more
Based on what? Conservatism’s roots go back to royalists after the French Revolution. Conservatives were the American colonists who objected to the war of independence calling it treason against the crown. It’s not about change in a general way, it’s about resisting democratic movements and preserving autocratic rule.
It’s possible to be conservative and liberal at the same time
Liberalism is an offshoot of Conservatism that favors empowerment of the economic elite and institutions over kings and politicians. It’s economic totalitarianism instead of political totalitarianism. These become indistinguishable when the economic elite capture the body politic.
US republicans are fascists through and through that wear a disguise of conservatism
This is backwards. The disguise is the thing that turns conservatism info fascism. It’s the dressing up of conservative totalitarianism with nationalism, religious fundamentalism, racism, and other forms of identitarianism.
I like the idea of conservatism, but not the way it is executed… Like why aren’t these people for conservation of the environment, or actually financially conservative? All I’m noticing is greed, and corporate corruption.
Because by “conserve” they mean conserve the status quo.
Rich people stay rich poor people stay poor and anyone who tries to change that is a commie.
Rich people *get even richer and poor people *become even more poor.
The status quo can include trends, it doesn’t necessarily mean a static state. “If the status quo is me getting [richer, more powerful, more control], then that’s the one I want.”
I.e. conservation of momentum not velocity
It seems useful to note that the EPA was signed into law by Nixon. We have fallen a long way since Reagan took office.
The EPA was the idea of the progressives who seemed to have some momentum toward eventually achieving it. The conservatives (and their polluting corporate benefactors) were threatened by it. So, Nixon co-opted it while conservatives were still in power with the purpose of making sure it was ineffective. They achieved that.
You’ll notice that when conservatives have power, they castrate the EPA and make sure it does not affect any of their benefactors. The Dem neo-liberals usually bend a little toward the progressives and will re-instate some of the EPA’s power when the Dems are in charge, but it’s never enough to undo whatever damage the last GOP administration did. This is because neo-liberals are conservatives. (They aren’t as conservative as Republicans, but they are conservative by every international standard.)
Do not give credit to Nixon for the EPA. Like everything else ever done by a conservative, it was an act of self-serving deception. Nothing good in all of human history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
In the US: regulatory capture is a such a bipartisan effort you can call it non-partizan unironically.
I totally agree that conservatives and conservatism don’t get the credit. However, it’s a pretty stark contrast with the situation today where progressives are only marginally capable of bullying the Democrats. Today’s Republicans consider cooperation with progressives to be political suicide.
True. We really have devolved, haven’t we?
They only thing they want to conserve is their capital/social status.
Conservatism has been those things many times and in many places. It’s traditionally moderate liberalism. Conservatism in the US today is regressivism wearing a conservative hat for branding. Were the Nazis socialists? No, but it was in their name. Are conservatives conservative? No, they’re authoritarian regressivists, because the goal isn’t to be conservative. It’s to be anti-progressive. But the conservative hat gives it recognizability and credibility.
Yes! Been calling them Regressives for a while
I see the lightbulb flickering!
Assuming the post was made in earnest - the poor guy is so close to getting it. Just let yourself start with your last sentence buddy, and think out from there.
I hate the name of the community is US Authoritarianism when there’s so much fascist rise in EU
And for extra lols the dude in the meme should be asked what he thinks are “normal” right wing policies
People in here acting like authoritarianism is somehow inherent to conservatives but not to progressives. Authoritarianism is a problem. Conservativism is a relative political position, meaning there will always be conservatives on one side of the Overton window, wherever it currently resides.
Eh, depends on what you mean by “conservative” and “progressive”.
Authoritarianism is the defining characteristic of the right. The right consolidates wealth and power. The left is egalitarian, and is focused on ensuring that wealth and power is shared more evenly. There is no such thing as “auth left”.
If you use “conservative” as a synonym for the right and progressive as a synonym for the left, then there is no such thing as “auth progressive” - you are just using incorrect terminology to talk about different flavors of rightism.
Now if you mean “conservative” as “resistant to change” and “progressive” as “advocates of change” then that’s a completely different thing… but the language is STILL messy, because many who call themselves “conservative” are actually advocates of change in favor or more authoritarianism while those who call themselves “progressive” are also advocates of change, but generally in a leftward anti-authoritarian direction… which once again leads us to “auth progressive” being a contradiction.
Auth left is when progressives are willing to force their ideals on others, whether those ideals are social or fiscal. Forcing people to conform to your ideology is not a trait inherent to either side of the political aisle. For instance, the cultural revolution was a progressive authoritarian movement where wealth and power was stripped by force from people. If you really wanted to, you could make an argument about whether that was justified or not, but no matter how you spin it, it’s authoritarian.
Auth left is when progressives are willing to force their ideals on others, whether those ideals are social or fiscal.
No, that is not how any of that works. See the tolerance paradox.
the cultural revolution
…was rightist.
no matter how you spin it, it’s authoritarian.
Correct. Rightism is authoritarian. You keep describing rightism while trying attribute it to the left. This is usually the result of blindly accepting Tankie (extreme right) propaganda without taking the time to consider the actual definitions and requirements of leftism and leftist terminology.
Authoritarian: “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.”
So freedom and tolerance is the opposite of authoritarianism. And yes, the paradox of tolerance means that it doesn’t work to be completely tolerant because then the intolerant will eliminate or overrule the tolerant.
The conclusion from this is that some level of authoritarianism is required to enforce some level of freedom, which are inherently conflicting. That’s why it’s a paradox.
So are you saying that use of force, when justified by the paradox of intolerance, is not right wing? Or are you saying that even progressive movements have elements of rightism?
No. By your own listed definition, authority and authoritarian are different terms. You can have an authority without authoritarianism. You are conflating terminology, and I’m starting to suspect you are doing so in bad faith to perpetuate the tiresome “both sides” fallacy.
You can’t have an authority without some level of authoritarianism.
I am an authroity in electrocuting myself with car batteries, I can say with perfect authority backed by experience that it hurts like a motherfucker. Wheres the fucken authoritarianism in that statement, sure theres some amount of absolutism in that I am assuming that everyone or atleast most people find electrocution of that type painful. But thats why we have peer review and consensus, get a couple other dumbfucks who arced their car batteries and we’ll find what the consensus is.
Authority is fully seperated from authoritarianism, they simply share a vague as fuck root concept.
From who by who? Every law strips wealth and power from somebody. Don’t want people to murder each other? Ypu have to take power from murderers and finance that intervention with public coffers, putting a burden on everyone.
You’re oversimplifying what authoritarianism is and what the gradations of “force” are.
Yes I am simplifying it to make a point, since some people in here don’t seem to understand the concept. To elaborate a little more along those simplified lines; Every law is authoritarian. More and stricter laws are more authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a matter of extent. Some is necessary, but too much is bad, and it doesn’t matter if the bad authoritarianism is enforcing left or right wing ideals, it’s bad either way.
But yes authoritarianism usually refers to the point at which it is excessive and bad. That point can be hard to determine though because it is a subjective term. A good example would be covid. At what point did mandates become authoritarian? Or at what point WOULD they have been authoritarian? The answer to that varies by an incredibly wide margin depending on who you ask. Some say that two weeks to slow the spread or stopping flights from known covid hotspots was an overreach. Others were willing to round up unvaccinated and put them in camps.
Both conservatives and progressives can be authoritarian. Fascism though is by definition right wing.
I agree with both of your points, but it seems that many people in here do not agree that progressives can be authoritarian. A ridiculous and potentially even dangerous concept in my opinion.
Imma be real with you, your messaging and vibe sounds like you’re worried about something like you see youtubers screaming about, like “woke” becoming law and having to call people by the right pronoun or go to jail. The only other people to use “authoritarian left” are usually terrible right-wing grifters and so-called centrists that use any opportunity to attack efforts by progressives.
So if you wanted to make your messaging connect better you need to be a lot more specific without being afraid to have a clear and tangible idea in your mind what exactly you’re talking about.
People always want to put me into one of the categories, give me a label, but I don’t really see the need for that. I’m not trying to be on a “team”, I’m just having a discussion. So many interactions on the internet (and politics in general) become a game of identifying which group you belong to and then saying either amen or completely ignoring the ideas or nuance that I enjoy discussing. It’s unfortunately rare to find a good discussion since most people are here to circle jerk about this or that. I think the most important thing is to maintain open discourse so we can freely exchange ideas and learn. That’s what I enjoy on lemmy, the only reason I’m here. Circle jerks are tiresome, boring, and only stoke anger, sow more discord between people, and make real progress harder. They contribute to making our political environment a zero sum game when it doesn’t need to be.
Everyone knows political discourse is really toxic, that’s why when you’re imprecise and hand-wavy about issues people will assume what your position actually is.
You mean it’s confusing if I use examples that aren’t consistent with a single political ideology? That’s exactly the point. My position is simply that Authoritarianism is not limited to a single political ideology, that it can come from either side. That’s it. That’s my position. You can call out conservatives for some bad things and progressives for other bad things, and both of them for authoritarianism if they do it.
Then give some damn examples, otherwise you’re just saying stuff and leaving room for people to ASSUME what you’re trying to say.
Thought you were going to make a point about tankies and the worship of self-described socialist dictators, but then you dropped that idea and just went off about the overton window and that kinda pulled your comment in two different directions and that’s probably as much a reason for it not doing well as the fact that like… nobody asked. We know authoritarians exist, but this particular POST is about right-wing conservatism.
Read through some of the other comments and it’s not so clear that people believe that progressives can be authoritarian. My point is to separate the two concepts. Authoritarianism is one concept and conservatism is a separate one. You CAN have both at the same time, but conservatism also exists without Authoritarianism, just like progressivism can be authoritarian.
Well I think it’s because we do have a concept of leftwing authoritarianism already, but it’s not called progressivism, it’s called being a Tankie. I see the similarities in that if fascist is the extreme of conservatism then Tankie is the extreme of progressivism but that isn’t really the case seeing that extreme progressivism is most of the time Anarchism.
Tankies are right-wing, though. They are nothing more than right-wingers who have co-opted leftist terminology. Wolves in (very poorly made) sheep’s clothing, if you will.
Well yeah you aren’t exactly wrong, but if we are talking about the very basic ideas of “progressive” and “conservative”, Tankies are basically authoritarians with the vineer of being left wing. They in the end go against basically everything they think they stand for, but those are basically the people who are pointing to when people go “well the communist are just as bad!”
It’s honestly rather stupid
The same thing happens on the conservative side, with libertarians being less authoritarian. But now we are headed towards a political compass type of political perspective, which is good for discussion but doesn’t necessarily give an accurate depiction of where the power currently resides or how it fits into the Overton window.
I do agree that it ends up looking like a political compass, which for your average person makes it easier to understand. However this kind of discounts that to be authoritarian is also to give up many of the things that make left ideology left. Meanwhile libertarian ideology tends to naturally devolve back into feudalism.
So how do you instill progressive values without compromising them? It seems like the only tool of the true left, at least how you’ve defined it, is gradual cultural change, because any exertion of pressure is authoritarianism. This would apply to things like social pressure as well. If someone gets yelled at in public for not wearing a mask, that’s authoritarianism and antithetical to leftist values. Or if a teacher loses their job for not using a student’s preferred pronouns, that’s authoritarianism. You can argue about if its justified or not, but that’s a separate issue.
This is literally the question that liberal democracy seeks to answer. “What is the nature of just government?” The answer so far, is more or less to give people individual liberty and mechanisms for political self determination. Then, ostensibly, laws reflect consensus rather than rogue authority.
I like the way you put that. So maybe “Authoritarianism” as a noun should be defined as the point at which individual liberty is over ridden and/or where laws do not reflect consensus. As opposed to authoritarianism as an adjective…
I’m not an expert on the application of political philosophy for societal change. I’d say that is something you should look into from anarchist literature as many scholars have done deep into the application of left wing ideology without authoritarianism.
Though I’m also a bit confused on what you mean by “authoritarianism”. From your examples the first is an interaction between two people about public health and the other is someone not following a rule about respecting protected characteristics and being punished by it. I don’t think those would be classified as “authoritarian” unless the definition of authoritarian is “receiving backlash for my actions which can harm others”
I’m looking at authoritarianism as a spectrum, where someone can force their ideals unto someone else to some varying degree of force, and that is a concept that is politically agnostic, at least in the sense of right and left, conservative and progressive. Some conservatives hold conservative values but do not believe that they have a right to force those values on others, and some progressives believe so strongly in their values that they are willing to force them on others. My point is that ANY force used on others so that they conform to your ideals is a form of and some degree of authoritarianism. The point I disagreed with was that authoritarianism is strictly characteristic of right wing, conservative politics. It’s a weird world view that doesn’t align with reality in any practical way, and persisting in that world view is ignorant at best and extremely dangerous at worst because extreme authoritarianism of any flavor leads to immeasurable suffering as we’ve seen many times over the years. Ie, Chinese cultural revolution versus nazi Germany, both disastrous authoritarian movements, but coming from very different political ideals.
That said, laws are meaningless without authority to back them, so some level of authoritarianism is also NECESSARY in any government or social contract. This is a critical point to my entire rant here. You can’t eliminate authoritarianism if you want to have a functioning society, but it needs to be very very limited.
What a dense, stupid motherfucker. Smacked in the face by a sledgehammer of truth that screams at him at full volume, and STILL he cannot grasp the damn thing.
It totally reads to me as someone making a point to connect conservatism and fascism, but surprisingly, some searching reveals that he’s a conservative pundit at the National Review so yeah he’s dense and thinks he’s being clever but only actually pwning himself.
Look, conservatives suck but theyre not fascists. Calling everybody to the right of you fascist waters down the meaning of the word.
Heres a good take by Umberto Eco on what makes fascism distinct from other political movements: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism
It’s hard because, yes you are right, but when can you start calling somone a fascist? Do you have have to wait for them to actually start rounding you up and putting you in prison, or can you point it out early in order to avoid the complete fascist takeover?
I guess my point is that, once a group is actually fully fascist, you will no longer be allowed to call them that.
Yeah good point
Not saying that you’re wrong per se, but where would you put Trump in this context? They are very well going in this direction… And they are not turning back.
I think Trump has some of the fascist traits Eco points out, like xenophobia and appealing to a frustrated middle class. But he is thoroughly lacking in other fascist traits, like (1) the syncretic neo-pagan mysticism and (2) the idea that the state should always be at war, that the state should encourage all citizens to die a hero’s death.
So I’d call him authoritarian, christian nationalist, and stupid. But not fascist.
War, you mean like the war at the southern border?
Fascism is a movement led by a cult of personality with no clear direction, but get people to follow with maniacal views and populist energy against a false premise of a target in an “Us V Them” ideology.
Example: “They stand for everything we don’t stand for. Also, they told me you guys look like dorks!”
“Trying to define fascism is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."
-Ian Kershaw
But yes, Christian Nationalism, oppressive legislation on civil liberties, exploitative economic systems designed to further widen wealth inequality, and support for militant police conduct are all symptoms of fascism.
Are you willing to vote for an obvious criminal who commits election fraud, commits insurrections, extorts foreign governments, and sells top secret documents to adversarial nations? Then you are a fascist.
that’s not what fascism is.
