...I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[kodomo@lemm.ee]

I'll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I'll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh

This is a contradiction. Something isn't a right if you allow open season for others to actively target and suppress.

Otherwise, Stalinism is also technically "free speech": you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences.

Be clear about what you mean.

[kodomo@lemm.ee]

Okay, so terrorist beliefs like islamism as well?

Or maybe also terrorist beliefs like any show of support for Luigi Mangione? Or anyone who has read Ted K? Or anyone who advocates for radical change?

Great precedent for a government to selectively lock up anyone they want.

[holyginz@lemmy.world]

Show me you don't know what fascism is without actually saying it.

[lumisal@lemmy.world]

Thanks for the strawman, I see now you're arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)

[viking_hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

It's actually perfectly simple and not contradictory as long as you don't conflate basic rights and absolute impunity.

Having the right to say something abhorrent without the government punishing you for it ≠ having the privilege to say whatever you want and face no consequences.

Conflating the two to the point of censoring dissent is how fascism, anarcho-capitalism, Stalinism, and other inherently abusive ideologies that look attractive to some when not closely examined take root and thrive.

[viking_hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

With no wars, there's no "wars of mutual defense,"
wars and without oppression, there's no need for wars of liberation either.

So yeah, in the absence of the unreasonable, only reasonable number of wars IS 0.

[lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com]

Complaining about semantics isn't the argument you think it is.
Meanings & distinctions matter.

The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice.
If you're willing to undermine rights for expressions that won't actually harm/threaten, then I don't care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.

By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes?

No & already answered.

[remembertheapollo_@lemmy.world]

I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government.

[flashmobofone@lemmy.world]

Great precedent for a government to selectively lock up anyone they want.

Always fun to run into someone who legit isn't aware that other countries regulate speech and function well regardless, and even gasp have protest movements.

Then again, the US' whole brand is doing things differently than the rest of the world for shitty reasons.

[kodomo@lemm.ee]

Countries like the UK that lock of people for mean tweets, yeah.

Not so interested

[transfemghostface@lemmy.nz]

CNN has been like this ever since Zaslav took over and it’s EXHAUSTING to hear my parents constantly having it on in the background

[semjaza@lemmynsfw.com]

Seize power?
He was given power by Hidenburg to get a working Reichstag coalition to stop the Communists and other far Left groups from gaining ground.

The existing power structures were then very happy to work with him and saw him as a tool until it was clear he was unassailably in power. Then his annexations of Austria and The Sudentenland were massively popular domestically, even with people who didn't like him.

People were too happy to overlook the antisemitism, homo/transphobia, and racism in general (especially against Roma, Sindi, and other travellers as well as Slavs) in return for feeling their nation was strong again.

That said, I think I agree with your overall idea. Just being a "terminally online nitpicker".

[bamboodpanda@lemmy.world]

I am genuinely curious about your perspective—when you say the left can act in a fascist manner, could you provide some specific examples of what you mean? Also, how do you personally define fascism in this context?

[oceansoap@lemmy.ml]

Left-wing fascism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(simple.m.wikipedia.org)

[oceansoap@lemmy.ml]

Left-wing fascism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(simple.m.wikipedia.org)

[oceansoap@lemmy.ml]

It's hard because there's so much reshuffling going on. I personally have to clarify now that I'm a constitutionalist liberal, because liberal means too many different things to different people.

[oceansoap@lemmy.ml]

Yes, very true. Always.

[helixdab2@lemm.ee]

Oh, look, an ad hominem. Cool.

Firearms are not, themselves, the problem, despite however much people want to treat them as though they are. Likewise, in the UK, kitchen knives and scissors are not the problem, although the gov't treats them as though they are.

Guns, knives, sticks, cars, and yes, even explosives, are tools. If you eliminate the causes that turn people to violence, you eliminate the use of the tools to commit violent acts. But no one is willing to discuss violence as a result of things like economic warfare or systemic racism; they insist that violence exists because the tools used in violent acts exist.

[lumisal@lemmy.world]

The discussion was never about the guns, dumdum (this, btw, is an ad hominem)

[dx1@lemmy.world]

until it was clear he was unassailably in power

Yes, that part where power was seized.