← Back to context

Comment by moate

8 months ago

Let's use Wikipedia's definition, sure? "far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."

>>forcible suppression of opposition

There's the revocation of citizenship, the deporting people to foreign jails without full due process, crackdowns on protestors generally, opposition to trans existence. Do you want links to where this has happened or can we agree these are actions and policy the state has taken recently?

>>subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation

"We need an economic reset, so don't worry about the inflation", DOGE cutting services, tariffs as a means to...whatever the fuck the tariffs are supposed to fix?

6 comments

moate

Reply
dcow  8 months ago

A fascist is not “far right”. I think the dictionary definition is more accepted.

So far the people in power have not used violence to suppress opposition. They have not promoted one ethnicity or race above others. They have not made trump a dictator. Trumps authority has remained scoped to the executive office of the government…

I mean come on. Just because the party in power across the board is effective at pushing policies you don’t fully agree with does not a fascist regime make.

Every single president back to Clinton and probably beyond, including Obama, has spoken out against government waste and spending abuse. These aren’t new soundbytes. Everyone is just up in arms when it’s not their party getting shit done.

  • dragonwriter  8 months ago

    > So far the people in power have not used violence to suppress opposition.

    Forcible deportation for opposing views is exactly use of violence to suppress dissent.

    > Every single president back to Clinton and probably beyond, including Obama, has spoken out against government waste and spending abuse.

    And none of them have usurped Congressional spending power and mass violated civil service protections in law using that has a pretext, until the present Administration.

    It is extremely disingenuous to redirect from the controversial action to the less controversial pretext here.

    • dcow  8 months ago

      It’s not just “opposing views”. It was calls for violence and support of terrorists. I guess the media didn't include that detail.

      2 replies →