This is what fascism looks like

[Mountain Man]

Tons of communist countries did that too, were they fascist? No, of course not (fascists actually despised communists). Sure, suppression of free speech is part of fascism, but it's part of authoritarianism/totalitarianism in general, of which fascism is just one example.

Except that's not the definition of fascism. Again, fascism may have involved suppression of speech, but it was also extremely militarist and nationalist (not the case here) and was also quite conservative in regards to sexual mores, which is exactly the opposite of this edict.

So... it's fascist, but it's not fascism? Is that what you're saying?

[Psychic Missile]

That is exactly why we have the freedom of speech, to protect even offensive speech. The people I mentioned are just run of the mill Conservatives, yet they were prevented to speak. And that is the problem, who decides what speech is allowable. Shut down Hitler today, and Heather MacDonald tomorrow. To the left Milos Yiannopoulos is as dangerous as a Hitler. No, I don't want you or the Government deciding what speech is acceptable.[

They were prevented because they want to promote policies that will cause real harm to social minorities. How do you expect people to respond when a speaker is given a platform near them to possibly advocate for, in ultimate effect, their death? By the way, the government already decides what speech is acceptable through the famously nebulous "obscenity" exception.

Yes, there are a lot of sheep in those countries, but I am an American.

Doesn't change the fact that there's no doom and gloom there. You're worrying about nothing.

Thankfully I live in a country where a man can rise as high as he chooses according to his merit.

That's certainly not the USA.

[seer]

They were prevented because they want to promote policies that will cause real harm to social minorities. How do you expect people to respond when a speaker is given a platform near them to possibly advocate for, in ultimate effect, their death? By the way, the government already decides what speech is acceptable through the famously nebulous "obscenity" exception.

First Psychic, I have no idea what you mean about the obscenity thing, porn is everywhere. And are you just daft? No one is calling for anyone's death, main stream conservative thought does no such thing. See that is exactly why we don't need people like you or Antifa deciding what speech is acceptable or not. And lets be clear the majority of those who were protesting the speakers I was referencing were privileged white kids. Whether you see it or not Psychic you and people like Antifa and the Communists are on the same path that the Fascists were on in the early days of book burning.

Doesn't change the fact that there's no doom and gloom there. You're worrying about nothing.

Ok, so your side prevents freedom of speech and you say there is nothing to worry about? Forgive me if I don't trust your judgement on this.

That's certainly not the USA.

It certainly is. I know a number of people who started out dirt poor and are now very well off. They did this mostly in the construction trades. Took a risk, started their own businesses and worked 14 hours a day in the early years. The US is still one of the top countries for Economic Mobility: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-scott-winship.

[Sparko]

Take an extreme and hypobolic example: imagine that Hitler is coming to speak at your college in the early 1920s about the dangers of the Jewish people. Would it be fascist to disrupt his speech, even without knowing where his career was headed? I certainly don't think so. Anyone stopping him would be allying him or herself with the plight of the Jewish people and against the threat of fascism. So clearly in some circumstances speech abridgment isn't fascist. I don't know a few of those people, but for the ones that I do know, I think their speeches would be applicable circumstances.



I know you mean those to be terrifying things, but they already happened in other countries and they don't live in a fascist state. Those countries are still just like the US. There were no real consequences.

On the other hand, countries where they legally codify ideas like giving as much power as possible to the wealthy or limiting the rights of minorities don't turn out very well.

what about "free speech" do you not understand? Do you think the first amendment only protects speech you think is "good?"

The whole purpose of the first amendment is to protect the speech that you might find offensive. There is no reason to protect speech that everyone agrees with.

So yes, if Hitler was an american and wanted to give a public speech, then he is allowed under the first amendment to do so. Just like the KKK is allowed to do so now. You can use your free speech to oppose him. But you are not allowed to stop him from speaking using violence or force. Especially if you are representing the government.

[Sparko]

Just because humans don't exist in biological races (something we've known solidly since at least the fifties), doesn't mean that there's no such thing as ethnicity and culture, and people getting unfairly treated, and a history of such things. It just means that race is a social construction. Doesn't mean racism isn't real. It just means its something done by people for people reasons.

sigh.

1. You want there to be no races and still be races. Whether you want to call them "races" or "Ethnicities" or "Socio-economic divisions" or "cultures" it is the same thing. The "there is no such thing as biological races" is just a distraction. It's a way to have your cake and eat it too.

2. There are actually physical differences between races that anyone who is not blind can recognize. You can tell an Asian from a Caucasion from a Negroid. Anthropologists can tell the difference by the shape of the skull and teeth. Sure there are blends between them and it isn't based on purely skin color. But saying there is no such thing as biological races just because there are no clear cut lines is like saying there is no such thing as colors because there are no distinct lines in a rainbow.

[JimL]

A great example of fascism from the liberal utopia known as California. I hope our resident low-information morons appreciate the irony:

Source: Breitbart

A new bill being considered by the California State Senate would punish people who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse “to use a transgender resident’s preferred name or pronouns” in a public health, retirement or housing institution.

The bill, SB 219, was proposed by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). It includes several other provisions that require a health facility, for example, to honor the gender identity of a patient, meaning that the patient must be admitted to a room that comports with his or her chosen gender; allowed to use whatever bathroom he or she wants to use; and wear whatever clothing or cosmetics he or she decides to wear. It has gone through several amendments.

CBN News notes: “Fines for repeat offenders could be as high as $1,000 and a jail term of up to a year.”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ender-pronoun/

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, California wants to throw people in jail for exercising their right to free speech. Isn't that wonderful? And yet liberals are wetting their diapers over what the "alt-right" might be up to.

Obviously neither you, nor your favorite fake news site, know what Fascism is.

[Mountain Man]

Obviously neither you, nor your favorite fake news site, know what Fascism is.

Idiots like you keep saying that, but so far nobody has explained how this isn't fascism.

[Sparko]

Obviously neither you, nor your favorite fake news site, know what Fascism is.

Please, educate us.

[seer]

Obviously neither you, nor your favorite fake news site, know what Fascism is.

Jim do you think it is a good thing to prevent people from speaking under the thread of violence or by violence?

[One Bad Pig]

Tons of communist countries did that too, were they fascist? No, of course not (fascists actually despised communists). Sure, suppression of free speech is part of fascism, but it's part of authoritarianism/totalitarianism in general, of which fascism is just one example.

Fascism and communism are quite similar; it's one reason why they hate each other so much. Same tactics, slightly different ideologies; communism is also authoritarian and militarist. Il Duce was a communist in his youth.

[Darth Executor]

Fascism and communism are quite similar; it's one reason why they hate each other so much. Same tactics, slightly different ideologies; communism is also authoritarian and militarist. Il Duce was a communist in his youth.

This is a libertarian view which makes no sense because overwhelming majority of people don't view things in libertarian terms. Just because they are both authoritarian and militaristic doesn't mean they are similar in any meaningful way.

[One Bad Pig]

This is a libertarian view which makes no sense because overwhelming majority of people don't view things in libertarian terms. Just because they are both authoritarian and militaristic doesn't mean they are similar in any meaningful way.

Let's see: the two common examples for fascism are Nazism and Italy under Il Duce. Mussolini started out as a communist, had a falling out, and ended up fascist. Hitler started the National SOCIALIST Party. Communism is a flavor of socialism. Yeah, huge difference there.

[Darth Executor]

Let's see: the two common examples for fascism are Nazism and Italy under Il Duce. Mussolini started out as a communist, had a falling out, and ended up fascist.

Why did they have a falling out? Could it be that their perspectives were irreconcilable? That sounds like an important detail to gloss over.

Hitler started the National SOCIALIST Party.

What Hitler means by socialism and what Lenin means by socialism are very different things. By this standard North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. After all it says that in the title.

Communism is a flavor of socialism. Yeah, huge difference there.

Communism isn't a flavor of socialism, it's the final state of Marx's ideal state (with socialism being an earlier necessary transition state). Amusingly enough, it's the same as the libertarian ideal: stateless. Is libertarianism then a flavor of communism?

[Jedidiah]

Tons of communist countries did that too, were they fascist? No, of course not (fascists actually despised communists). Sure, suppression of free speech is part of fascism, but it's part of authoritarianism/totalitarianism in general, of which fascism is just one example.

Except that's not the definition of fascism. Again, fascism may have involved suppression of speech, but it was also extremely militarist and nationalist (not the case here) and was also quite conservative in regards to sexual mores, which is exactly the opposite of this edict.

Two sides of the same coin.

[Darth Executor]

Tons of communist countries did that too, were they fascist? No, of course not (fascists actually despised communists). Sure, suppression of free speech is part of fascism, but it's part of authoritarianism/totalitarianism in general, of which fascism is just one example.

Except that's not the definition of fascism. Again, fascism may have involved suppression of speech, but it was also extremely militarist and nationalist (not the case here) and was also quite conservative in regards to sexual mores, which is exactly the opposite of this edict.

Fascism is often used as a rhetorical bludgeon, no need to take it so literally.