The assault on the first amendment (and the return of McCarthyism)
I believe this merits its own thread now. The first amendment is definitely under assault.
I just watched the head of th
Also I think this pretty much sums up the lefts outrage here. If you want to argue both sides are hypocrites, I agree. People are tribal. In most cases that tribalism overrides principle
The two situations are not at all the same. The government wasn't involved in the Roseanne case.
Are you people really this dense? You're trying to get me to renounce my opinion that posters here are all more intelligent than average.
Oh Crossnerd, you have scored a point!
So you believe that you are the only one in this forum who isn't fascist?
Weird, but at least you have proven that Trump and his administration are fascist, as they have not moved to shut down the FCC as they have many other agencies.
I believe i am one of the most if not the most antifascist user around here yes. Doesn't mean others are fascists if they are less against fascism that i am , it's not black/white.
But from 0 to 100 where 100 is "perfect fascism" and 0 is "absolutely 0 fascism" i am like 8 or 10 while most of you are far higher. My 8-10 points are related to some wartime exceptions, state secrets and the like which when abused can allow fascism, but that i think are necessary anyway to deal with actual rare and extreme emergencies.
You guys are routinely in favor of structures in society, of the existence of institutions and regulatory frameworks that can very easily be weaponized by a fascist wonnabe and used against the population. Including the FCC.
Ofc Trump is far more statist (ie fascist-enabler) than i would like, i'd put him at around 40. But all leftists are and were far more fascist enabling than him to be clear.
For example all tax increases are fascism-enabling all tax cuts are anti-fascist, because fascism requires a lot of state power and with less money for the state there is less state power. Under some thresholds fascism simply can't fund itself. You need a lot of money for the brown shirts, to bribe the masses to support you and so on.
IF all welfare was constitutionally impossible it would be very hard (basically impossible) for fascism to happen because populists wouldn't be able to campaign for gifts to the masses if they accept to give them power.
The opposite of fascism isn't the left, the opposite of fascism is minarchism, a weak and divided state that cannot physically be fascist because it doesn't have the resources to be fascist.
I believe i am one of the most if not the most antifascist user around here yes. Doesn't mean others are fascists if they are less against fascism that i am , it's not black/white.But from 0 to 100 where 100 is "perfect fascism" and 0 is "absolutely 0 fascism" i am like 8 or 10 while most of you are far higher. My 8-10 points are related to some wartime exceptions, state secret
AI
AI Overview
Mussolini's regime lowered tax rates for investors and industrialists to encourage investment and growth, while simultaneously raising taxes on consumption and introducing new taxes for peasant farmers and farm laborers to broaden the tax base and achieve a balanced budget. The Fascist government also abolished some wartime taxes on income and property, simplified the tax system, and used taxes to promote family policies.
u invent definition and correlation to fit your narrative but in reality it doesnt really work like that.
putting you the least fascist here probably confirm you are one....
AIAI OverviewMussolini's regime lowered tax rates for investors and industrialists to encourage investment and growth, while simultaneously raising taxes on consumption and introducing new taxes for peasant farmers and farm laborers to broaden the tax base and achieve a balanced budget. The Fascist government also abolished some wartime taxes on income and property, simplified
Mussolini increased tax revenues. That's fascist exactly. While cutting taxes is anti fascist. A tax cut is when the state takes in less money than before, overall. That's a tax cut.
So you are confirming what i said. Can you even read what you copy paste?
I mean... no. You often display an enormous appetite for state violence, unchecked executive power and often argue against checks and balances. I think the most charitable interpretation is that you see a tyranny of majority as politically just. This is a dangerous view, there is a reason early political thinkers often viewed the tyranny of majority as a greater threat to democracy than monarchs. Regardless, you're clearly very high on the "authoritarian" scale of politics.
That abolishing welfare programs is somehow the antidote to fascism seems dubious. Autocracies and the absolute monarchs arose from the ashes of feudalism and its limited monarchy, and it did so in a period of pretty much no government welfare expenditure.
I mean... no. You often display an enormous appetite for state violence, unchecked executive power and often argue against checks and balances. I think the most charitable interpretation is that you see a tyranny of majority as politically just. This is a dangerous view, there is a reason early political thinkers often viewed the tyranny of majority as a greater threat to democ
This is 100% spot on. Luciom routinely treats totalitarianism, fascism, and authoritarianism as essentially the same thing. Then he argues that, because his views on the size of government are inconsistent with some of those things, he isn't any of those things.
I mean... no. You often display an enormous appetite for state violence, unchecked executive power and often argue against checks and balances. I think the most charitable interpretation is that you see a tyranny of majority as politically just. This is a dangerous view, there is a reason early political thinkers often viewed the tyranny of majority as a greater threat to democ
lol I routinely ask for division of power as the fundamental element to keep the state weak and unable to do too much (IE antifascism).
I said it's unconstitutional for the executive to set tariffs, regulate the environment (EPA), regulate anything about which substances are legal within the states (FDA) and so on.
that's 100% checks and balances. it's you guys who are ok with the FDA existing and abusing the freedom of states to legislate about what is legal to produce and consume in their territory.
and without centralization you can't have fascism.
tyranny if the majority? you are basically trolling me. I routinely ask for constitutional bans on a lot of things , that's very opposite to allowing the 50%+1 to do anything they want. i also ask for super majoritarian thresholds to enact any meaningful legislation (like the filibuster but with no way to go around it).
you are basically describing who is opposite to me
Also I think this pretty much sums up the lefts outrage here. If you want to argue both sides are hypocrites, I agree. People are tribal. In most cases that tribalism overrides principle
Ayo you stupid dipshit, point to me where the literal head of the FCC went on tv to say Rosanne must be taken off air the easy way or the hard way
If you can do that, I agree bOtH sIdEs
I believe i am one of the most if not the most antifascist user around here yes. Doesn't mean others are fascists if they are less against fascism that i am , it's not black/white.But from 0 to 100 where 100 is "perfect fascism" and 0 is "absolutely 0 fascism" i am like 8 or 10 while most of you are far higher. My 8-10 points are related to some wartime exceptions, state secret
If welfare spending leads straight to fascism, Scandinavia would’ve gone brownshirt long ago. Fascism isn’t about how big the budget is, it’s about authority ie the state having the legal power to override private rights. Which means you could have a fascist state that’s minarchist-sized on paper, but still absolute in reach.
It’s socialism that requires the massive welfare state. But what we’ve got now looks a lot more like corporatism with private ownership intact, but big business and government running hand-in-glove, with an authoritarian edge at the cultural level. Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany were corporatist states, too.
Ayo you stupid dipshit, point to me where the literal head of the FCC went on tv to say Rosanne must be taken off air the easy way or the hard way
If you can do that, I agree bOtH sIdEs
You are right I really do not think you can find an adequate comparison the closest ones may be Tucker Carlson were elected officials called for him to be removed or Joe Biden on cancelling Glen Greenwald to be removed or how the Biden admin used their power to silence any of the covid narrative . Saying that none of those can compare to what the FCC did with this can go easy or go hard .
The reality is the FCC could have done nothing and Jimmy would have been history as well as the affiliates were pulling his show and sponsors were pulling out after his comments this probably would have led to ABC suspending him till he apologized which I doubt he ever would .
Do I have any sympathy for Kimmel nope he laughed and joked when Tucker got fired. The funny thing is Tucker is standing up for him as well and hates what was done
If welfare spending leads straight to fascism, Scandinavia would’ve gone brownshirt long ago. Fascism isn’t about how big the budget is, it’s about authority ie the state having the legal power to override private rights. Which means you could have a fascist state that’s minarchist-sized on paper, but still absolute in reach. It’s socialism that requires the massive welfare sta
nope that's not the claim. The claim is that it helps create conditions for fascism to arise. A strong powerful state that manages a lot of resources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for fascism to exist.
The state has the authority to override private rights in many countries that you don't consider fascist and people here didn't consider lockdowns with militaries in the streets fascism (even if they were literal fascism and the most glaring example of actual fascism in western countries since ww2).
So while i do agree that the state overriding unalienable rights is an element of fascism (and of all dictatorship), please realize that's already the case everywhere and your fellow friends around here don't agree france italy spain went 100% fascist with military enforced lockdowns during covid .
Also a minarchist state *would not have the resources to do fascism* and it would have to win wars against states, it would be civil war . And keep in mind in minarchism the feds don't have standing armies and states can just stop collecting federal taxes and that's it.
I believe i am one of the most if not the most antifascist user around here yes. Doesn't mean others are fascists if they are less against fascism that i am , it's not black/white.But from 0 to 100 where 100 is "perfect fascism" and 0 is "absolutely 0 fascism" i am like 8 or 10 while most of you are far higher. My 8-10 points are related to some wartime exceptions, state secret
It’s all well and good to invent your own political theory, but just don’t be surprised when people have no idea what you’re talking about. If you have to semantically load a term such that you need dozens of paragraphs to define and motivate it, when in common language the term has a usage that most agree with, you’re going to end up speaking a different language from everyone else.
Personally I think that’s a big issue with continental philosophy, almost no two writers use the same term to mean the same thing and the rest of us end up having no idea what you’re talking about.
Also I have been thinking a lot about freedom of speech in the age of Trump. It is definitely true that the biggest problem we have right now is these mobs of people that think they are doing something moral by ruining a random person’s life. That predates wokeness and the internet but it was certainly amplified by both.
Now that other ideologies have a mental map of what that looks like, they can use the same tactics people were endorsing to deplatform/demonetize (for content creators) and then also get fired/have their reputation ruined for normal people.
We actually saw one of the first waves of this against student activists who are anti-Israel. Yes some of them were unhinged, but people were creating databases just based off someone’s extreme criticism of Israel. Right now in CA, they just passed a law to create an “antisemitism task force” based off of “nationality” which many are suspecting is a ploy to silence criticism of Israel as well.
All in all, the way our country is moving liberals need to be the party of free speech consistently. Advocating for free speech for the people you like is not being an advocate for free speech. It’s when you advocate for people you don’t like that it really counts.
Also I have been thinking a lot about freedom of speech in the age of Trump. It is definitely true that the biggest problem we have right now is these mobs of people that think they are doing something moral by ruining a random person’s life. That predates wokeness and the internet but it was certainly amplified by both. Now that other ideologies have a mental map of what that
Yes we should have free speech though that does not limit the possibility of an outcome based on your speech. I think we all agree what the FCC did was a violation of freedom of speech. The government should stay out of it. I think we also agree that Biden's administration also violated freedom of speech by directing the FBI to censor folks on platforms
Sadly in countries like Canada and England you see the government jailing folks or cancelling them for a speech or post. England has gotten really crazy .
Were at a point were both parties are saying they want free speech unless they disagree with it
Sadly in countries like Canada and England you see the government jailing folks or cancelling them for a speech or post. England has gotten really crazy .
It has, though it looks as if this is going to get rolled back. The case of Robin Hood Airport Man, prosecuted for a Twitter joke and acquitted on appeal (R v Chambers --
), should have warned police and prosecutors off, but it seems they need a bit more telling.
The outcome of R v Linehan at Westminster Magistrates' Court late next month will be closely watched. But Stonewall, the activist organisation that 'trained' any number of public servants in a false understanding of the law, is now in retreat as the major government clients have dropped its Diversity Champions scheme. It's now becoming apparent that a lot of the trouble is due to police corruption, with the police acting as a private goon squad for a small number of obsessive and vexatious complainants, one of them a trans-identifying former police officer who was sacked not once but twice for gross misconduct, by British Transport Police and then Leicestershire Constabulary, but still knows which buttons to push -- he usually threatens judicial review if the police drop one of his idiotic complaints, and then certain Stonewalled senior officers and prosecutors say that they have to do what he says.
It seems unlikely that this grotesque circus can carry on much longer. One reason is that, when it comes to significant test cases, there is a particular person with very deep pockets who is prepared to meet the costs of a legal defence.
Oh, it was the ratings........
"They give me only bad press," Trump said. "They're getting a license. I think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr. I think Brendan Carr is outstanding. He's a patriot. He loves our country, and he's a tough guy. So we'll see."
"We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr told the conservative podcaster Benny Johnson. "These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcast Group – two huge corporations that own many local television stations including dozens of ABC affiliates – weighed in within hours to announce they would pull Kimmel's show indefinitely. Then, so did ABC. Nexstar, Sinclair and ABC's corporate owner, the Walt Disney Co., all have major deals pending that require approval by either the FCC or federal antitrust regulators.
"What he has done here - using the bully pulpit to essentially intimidate a major network into canceling one of its hours - there's nothing that comes close in the history of the Federal Communications Commission, "
Huge big wow! Was not expecting this.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/20...
Sen. Ted Cruz on his podcast Friday admonished Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr for demanding ABC suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show over comments regarding Charlie Kirk — calling Carr’s actions “dangerous as hell” and “right out of ‘Goodfellas.’”
“If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like’ — that will end up bad for conservatives,” said the Texas Republican.
lol I routinely ask for division of power as the fundamental element to keep the state weak and unable to do too much (IE antifascism).I said it's unconstitutional for the executive to set tariffs, regulate the environment (EPA), regulate anything about which substances are legal within the states (FDA) and so on.that's 100% checks and balances. it's you guys who are ok with th
You keep referring trump as a moderate ….and not to the right enough .
he obviously is, for the things i say he is. He is a normal leftist for deficits (he mostly disregards them) and for central bank rates (he just wants low rates because that lets the state spend more).
He likes tariffs which are a super lefty thing ("protecting workers" is a super leftist thing in general, taxes are a lefty thing in general, and tariffs are taxes). Which is why Sanders agrees with him on tariffs.
He didn't use the militaries to quell in blood all BLM riots in his first term (as some republican senators asked him to do).
Mussolini increased tax revenues. That's fascist exactly. While cutting taxes is anti fascist. A tax cut is when the state takes in less money than before, overall. That's a tax cut.
So you are confirming what i said. Can you even read what you copy paste?
Yeah don’t you think it look a lot like trump economic plan ?
Rich gets a break while everyone else pay more (tariffs) .
And fwiw , taxes as a whole isn’t increasing because if it would the deficit would be less .
he obviously is, for the things i say he is. He is a normal leftist for deficits (he mostly disregards them) and for central bank rates (he just wants low rates because that lets the state spend more).He likes tariffs which are a super lefty thing ("protecting workers" is a super leftist thing in general, taxes are a lefty thing in general, and tariffs are taxes). Which is why
Deficit got nothing to do with left or right .
You should know this by now .
It’s the intent that matters ….
I mean Clinton was far right , he made a surplus ? Gtfo …
Shedding blood can be made has much from the radical left or from the radical right .
The amount of generalization you make to push a certain narrative is why you are so messed up in your beliefs .
Huge big wow! Was not expecting this.
If they believe trump isn’t eternal it actually does make sense imo .
With the amount of bs Cruz and others like him says everyday, his looking at what a future democrat president could do at them ?
Yes I do believe Cruz is smart enough to perceive that .
Deficit got nothing to do with left or right .
You should know this by now .
It’s the intent that matters ….
I mean Clinton was far right , he made a surplus ? Gtfo …
Shedding blood can be made has much from the radical left or from the radical right .
The amount of generalization you make to push a certain narrative is why you are so messed up in your beliefs .
Clinton was very rightwing on the economy yes, is this even controversial?? ofc it was the republican congress that gave him the deficit cuts, when he had democrats he cut less, but still he wanted the deficit cuts which made him rightwing on the economy.
