6 ms·

Got to love the fact that a large amount of users of HN still refuse to see the truth before their very eyes.

epolanski 7mo ago
The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning. The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian tendencies, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle. If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.
- KPGv2 7mo ago
  > when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically. Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto. So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another). The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity. It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents. So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement: - nationalism - right-wing - totalitarian - violence as a means of control etc. Personally, I like Umberto Eco's delineation of what makes fascism (because he was an intellectual and grew up in Mussolini's Italy): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci... He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism: 1. cult of tradition 2. rejection of modernism 3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value) 4. disagreement is treason 5. fear of difference 6. appeal to frustrated middle class 7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within) 8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong 9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight) 10. contempt for the weak 11. everyone is educated to become a hero 12. machismo 13. selective populism 14. newspeak I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point. At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    This is an overfit model that contains many basic parts of human behavior and then tags them part of fascism just because the fascists did it.
  - try_the_bass 7mo ago
    The trouble with this definition is that a large number of points fit the progressive left, too. Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well. I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".
    - hjkl0 7mo ago
      I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. But you can really say that “disagreement is treason” means the same thing in fascism and in “the left”? Are you saying, for e.g., that unions and universities execute dissenters as a matter of course? “Fear of difference” under fascism means that differences you can’t control put your life at permanent risk. In the context of tribalism, it means being embarrassed. So there’s really no comparison between a conservative feeling left out under liberalism to a minority feeling at risk under fascism.
      - try_the_bass 7mo ago
        > I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. See, this is where I disagree. You can argue that many of these things are "actually happening", but doing so often requires stretching the definitions of these things, or conflating speech with action. Take your example: I see all sorts of instances where folks on the right have accused others of treason, but there's a significant lack of actual charges. You're conflating rhetoric with action. Rhetoric is dangerous, yes, but the rhetoric we see from the right is just the next escalation in a constant game of escalating rhetoric from both sides. I mean, calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" isn't exactly nonviolent rhetoric, either, especially the latter. There are actual fascists and Nazis among Republicans, for sure, but they don't represent anything close to a majority. There are fascists among Democrats, too! The rest of your comment is just another great example of inflammatory rhetoric that isn't really representative of a reality that exists outside your own head, unfortunately.
- throwaway173738 7mo ago
  What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
  - epolanski 7mo ago
    You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies. Democracy is not an on/off light bulb, it's a material under constant stress that can bend a lot before breaking. But if you start calling it broken, while it's bending your thesis is easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
    - hypeatei 7mo ago
      > You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies. Okay, but that's beating around the bush and a very milquetoast way to describe it. > easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever. This is equivalent to being punched repeatedly by a bully and being scared that he'll cry "assault!" when you punch him back. At some point, you cease to exist if you don't act.
    - Hikikomori 7mo ago
      What's missing from the general definitions of fascism?
  - satvikpendem 7mo ago
    Authoritarianism? Dictatorship? Fascism is a specific form of those that doesn't necessarily map to current forms.
    - orwin 7mo ago
      Fascism is just a nationalism authoritarianism that is very hierarchical and believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state) that is the root cause of all their country isseus, and once it's purged the country can take its rightfull place at the top, and you with it. I agree that US is not fascist yet, the hierarchy isn't set, and the economy isn't close to an extractive autarky, but philosophically, it's close, don't you think? I mean, ranting against traitors all the time is to me a very, very big point in favor of this being fascism.
- donkeybeer 7mo ago
  Then better stop them before it comes to that stage.
  - epolanski 7mo ago
    How? I'm European, and from my point of view: - despite the current executive and its lackeys clearly stating they were going to do exactly what's happening (the dismantling of institutions, the violent, word-wise, targeting of any criticism, the tariffs, etc). - despite the open attack to US democracy on January 6th 2021 Americans voted for all of this to happen. What's happening isn't exposing a fault in a particular individual, that's way too convenient. Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system. Of all the countries that slid in authoritarianism during the last 4 decades (from the Philippines to Russia, from Nicaragua to Belarus, etc) not one was a parliamentary republic. All of them, literally all, where presidential republics.
    - donkeybeer 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 7mo ago
        You've been breaking the site guidelines quite badly in your recent posts. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop this? Since "by whatever means necessary" is usually a phrase by which people advocate violence, that's particularly not ok here.
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        Sorry, I deliberately left it open as while violence is a valid solution in extreme cases, but I meant it more as using all the faculties available to us. In any case, I will try avoiding statements that could be seen as violating site rules.
- joering2 7mo ago
  > You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies. I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
  - epolanski 7mo ago
    > I think you misunderstand fascism. I think you're projecting. Fascism, in political science, has some clear requirements: a government that controls all branches of power, lack of elections and effective ban of free speech and other political parties. It also requires ideological aspects such as nationalism and far right politics, otherwise fascism would apply to far left dictatorships which didn't have these traits.
    - joering2 7mo ago
      I suggest to learn what projecting means. You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power? During Third Reich neither press was banned nor elections. Look it up, Google is still free to research. Unless of course you want to endup at conclusion that Nazism and Third Reich wasn't fascism.
      - unmole 7mo ago
        > You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power? That must be why the Supreme Court struck down the primary piece of Trump's economic agenda.
        joering2 7mo ago
- monooso 7mo ago
  Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
  - TitaRusell 7mo ago
    Americans have forgotten that pieces of paper need to be backed up with threats of violence. I honestly don't understand US politicians. In my country politicians have egos the size of mountains- they would never let themselves be sidelined.
  - SoftTalker 7mo ago
    Presidents have been doing the undeclared war thing since the end of WWII. Nothing new there, the tariffs and other EOs have maybe increased markedly in the last few presidencies.
    - collinmcnulty 7mo ago
      George W Bush sought and received authorization for Iraq from Congress.
    - beej71 7mo ago
      It's not just the war, obviously. This time the President has immunity levels that are unprecedented. And his cronies in Congress and SCOTUS don't seem inclined to rein him in on much.
- lordnacho 7mo ago
  > If you start calling everything fascism Ok, but who is calling everything fascism? He's talking about one particular country at a particular time.
- Glyptodon 7mo ago
  The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working. On a different level I've been unsure whether it'sgood to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
- orwin 7mo ago
  Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place. Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies. Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
- kergonath 7mo ago
  > The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning. So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
  - epolanski 7mo ago
    Are you using fascism as an ideology or a governing structure?
- pickleglitch 7mo ago
  Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
  - z3ncyberpunk 7mo ago
    There have been more killed by trans mass shooters than ICE but I don't hear any complaining from the left on that one. Everything you listed we just went through with the last administration as well. None of it is new, you people are all just losing your minds now because its not your side doing it. Different colors, same cult, all crayon eaters.
    - pickleglitch 7mo ago
      I hope you enjoy those cherries you picked.
- Vegenoid 7mo ago
  > it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle. But the Trump administration (a.k.a. the executive branch) is trying to systematically dismantle these things. When people refer to fascism in the U.S. government, they don’t mean the entire government. They mean the Trump administration, which is the face of the U.S. government, has a great deal of the share of power, and is seeking more. The brand of far right nationalism, that the nation is in decline and violence must be used to restore it, along with the economic policies and deference to corporations and the wealthy, are things that make them more fascist than just authoritarian. Saying that we cannot call it fascism until the transformation is complete doesn’t make sense - if a group of people have beliefs and goals that align with fascism, and are taking steps to impose them, you can call them fascist, even if they have not yet realized the full set of conditions that make the government fully fascist.

The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning. The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian tendencies, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle. If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.

KPGv2 7mo ago
> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically. Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto. So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another). The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity. It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents. So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement: - nationalism - right-wing - totalitarian - violence as a means of control etc. Personally, I like Umberto Eco's delineation of what makes fascism (because he was an intellectual and grew up in Mussolini's Italy): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci... He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism: 1. cult of tradition 2. rejection of modernism 3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value) 4. disagreement is treason 5. fear of difference 6. appeal to frustrated middle class 7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within) 8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong 9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight) 10. contempt for the weak 11. everyone is educated to become a hero 12. machismo 13. selective populism 14. newspeak I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point. At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  This is an overfit model that contains many basic parts of human behavior and then tags them part of fascism just because the fascists did it.
- try_the_bass 7mo ago
  The trouble with this definition is that a large number of points fit the progressive left, too. Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well. I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".
  - hjkl0 7mo ago
    I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. But you can really say that “disagreement is treason” means the same thing in fascism and in “the left”? Are you saying, for e.g., that unions and universities execute dissenters as a matter of course? “Fear of difference” under fascism means that differences you can’t control put your life at permanent risk. In the context of tribalism, it means being embarrassed. So there’s really no comparison between a conservative feeling left out under liberalism to a minority feeling at risk under fascism.
    - try_the_bass 7mo ago
      > I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. See, this is where I disagree. You can argue that many of these things are "actually happening", but doing so often requires stretching the definitions of these things, or conflating speech with action. Take your example: I see all sorts of instances where folks on the right have accused others of treason, but there's a significant lack of actual charges. You're conflating rhetoric with action. Rhetoric is dangerous, yes, but the rhetoric we see from the right is just the next escalation in a constant game of escalating rhetoric from both sides. I mean, calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" isn't exactly nonviolent rhetoric, either, especially the latter. There are actual fascists and Nazis among Republicans, for sure, but they don't represent anything close to a majority. There are fascists among Democrats, too! The rest of your comment is just another great example of inflammatory rhetoric that isn't really representative of a reality that exists outside your own head, unfortunately.
throwaway173738 7mo ago
What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
- epolanski 7mo ago
  You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies. Democracy is not an on/off light bulb, it's a material under constant stress that can bend a lot before breaking. But if you start calling it broken, while it's bending your thesis is easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
  - hypeatei 7mo ago
    > You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies. Okay, but that's beating around the bush and a very milquetoast way to describe it. > easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever. This is equivalent to being punched repeatedly by a bully and being scared that he'll cry "assault!" when you punch him back. At some point, you cease to exist if you don't act.
  - Hikikomori 7mo ago
    What's missing from the general definitions of fascism?
- satvikpendem 7mo ago
  Authoritarianism? Dictatorship? Fascism is a specific form of those that doesn't necessarily map to current forms.
  - orwin 7mo ago
    Fascism is just a nationalism authoritarianism that is very hierarchical and believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state) that is the root cause of all their country isseus, and once it's purged the country can take its rightfull place at the top, and you with it. I agree that US is not fascist yet, the hierarchy isn't set, and the economy isn't close to an extractive autarky, but philosophically, it's close, don't you think? I mean, ranting against traitors all the time is to me a very, very big point in favor of this being fascism.
donkeybeer 7mo ago
Then better stop them before it comes to that stage.
- epolanski 7mo ago
  How? I'm European, and from my point of view: - despite the current executive and its lackeys clearly stating they were going to do exactly what's happening (the dismantling of institutions, the violent, word-wise, targeting of any criticism, the tariffs, etc). - despite the open attack to US democracy on January 6th 2021 Americans voted for all of this to happen. What's happening isn't exposing a fault in a particular individual, that's way too convenient. Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system. Of all the countries that slid in authoritarianism during the last 4 decades (from the Philippines to Russia, from Nicaragua to Belarus, etc) not one was a parliamentary republic. All of them, literally all, where presidential republics.
  - donkeybeer 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 7mo ago
      You've been breaking the site guidelines quite badly in your recent posts. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop this? Since "by whatever means necessary" is usually a phrase by which people advocate violence, that's particularly not ok here.
      - donkeybeer 7mo ago
        Sorry, I deliberately left it open as while violence is a valid solution in extreme cases, but I meant it more as using all the faculties available to us. In any case, I will try avoiding statements that could be seen as violating site rules.
joering2 7mo ago
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies. I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
- epolanski 7mo ago
  > I think you misunderstand fascism. I think you're projecting. Fascism, in political science, has some clear requirements: a government that controls all branches of power, lack of elections and effective ban of free speech and other political parties. It also requires ideological aspects such as nationalism and far right politics, otherwise fascism would apply to far left dictatorships which didn't have these traits.
  - joering2 7mo ago
    I suggest to learn what projecting means. You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power? During Third Reich neither press was banned nor elections. Look it up, Google is still free to research. Unless of course you want to endup at conclusion that Nazism and Third Reich wasn't fascism.
    - unmole 7mo ago
      > You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power? That must be why the Supreme Court struck down the primary piece of Trump's economic agenda.
      - joering2 7mo ago
monooso 7mo ago
Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
- TitaRusell 7mo ago
  Americans have forgotten that pieces of paper need to be backed up with threats of violence. I honestly don't understand US politicians. In my country politicians have egos the size of mountains- they would never let themselves be sidelined.
- SoftTalker 7mo ago
  Presidents have been doing the undeclared war thing since the end of WWII. Nothing new there, the tariffs and other EOs have maybe increased markedly in the last few presidencies.
  - collinmcnulty 7mo ago
    George W Bush sought and received authorization for Iraq from Congress.
  - beej71 7mo ago
    It's not just the war, obviously. This time the President has immunity levels that are unprecedented. And his cronies in Congress and SCOTUS don't seem inclined to rein him in on much.
lordnacho 7mo ago
> If you start calling everything fascism Ok, but who is calling everything fascism? He's talking about one particular country at a particular time.
Glyptodon 7mo ago
The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working. On a different level I've been unsure whether it'sgood to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
orwin 7mo ago
Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place. Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies. Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
kergonath 7mo ago
> The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning. So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
- epolanski 7mo ago
  Are you using fascism as an ideology or a governing structure?
pickleglitch 7mo ago
Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
- z3ncyberpunk 7mo ago
  There have been more killed by trans mass shooters than ICE but I don't hear any complaining from the left on that one. Everything you listed we just went through with the last administration as well. None of it is new, you people are all just losing your minds now because its not your side doing it. Different colors, same cult, all crayon eaters.
  - pickleglitch 7mo ago
    I hope you enjoy those cherries you picked.
Vegenoid 7mo ago
> it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle. But the Trump administration (a.k.a. the executive branch) is trying to systematically dismantle these things. When people refer to fascism in the U.S. government, they don’t mean the entire government. They mean the Trump administration, which is the face of the U.S. government, has a great deal of the share of power, and is seeking more. The brand of far right nationalism, that the nation is in decline and violence must be used to restore it, along with the economic policies and deference to corporations and the wealthy, are things that make them more fascist than just authoritarian. Saying that we cannot call it fascism until the transformation is complete doesn’t make sense - if a group of people have beliefs and goals that align with fascism, and are taking steps to impose them, you can call them fascist, even if they have not yet realized the full set of conditions that make the government fully fascist.