🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

I feel like I may be the only one who gets this double reference... but LAWL

As if i needed another reason not to vote for Biden (no i wont be voting Trump either).

@Hyolobrika

Are you suggesting that a fascist party that beleives in fascism and wants to bring it about would be allowed, but the actual "absolute authority" they want to execute would not? If so then I agree with you.

Or are you suggesting the very fact taht they WANT such a thing, should bar them from having office at all (that would be fascism and I cant support it).

Perhaps there was a miscommunication in your ask.

@volkris @realcaseyrollins

@esther Congrats on your new instance. Best of luck to you.

@markets Were we fighting for american freedoms in jordan again... how do all our freedoms keep getting overseas like that... weirdest thing

@Hyolobrika

Use a better dictionary, the free dictionary is one of the worst... try mariam webster or one of the more respected one.. the definition is similar but its a bit off here. Fashism doesnt need to be a dictator, only autocratic, which is usually dictators but not limited to it.

Also notice the part you highlight is listed as "typically" .. meaning it is **not** a required element of fascism, but common to many forms.

@volkris @realcaseyrollins

@Hyolobrika

Since you are using fascism to describe things that dont meet the definition of fascism this is a suspect statement. Also "force" would need to be depicted here.. I mean we are talking a democracy where the majority of people want it, how is that forced? I mean i suspect you are arguing that the minority are forced by the majority... so isnt the "forced" part just democracy.. the only other part left is the fascism, which is generally undesirable I agree but you are proposing a system of fascism as a solution to prevent fascism...

Fascism has two components to be fascism.. 1) it must be autocratic, as meaning there is an absolute authority that cant be challenged (this may be a dictator but may take other forms) 2) it must put the nation above the individual.

If you enact a system of government where there there is no democratic process allowed to choose what is or is not fascist, and express that through vote, then it is autocratic in nature as it is an absolutely authority not expressed through vote... It is also designed to put the collective best interests of the nation above the individual liberty to choose, so it satisfies the second condition.

So you are literally proposing we make governments fascist as a proposal to prevent fascism.

@volkris @realcaseyrollins

@Hyolobrika

> If I or someone else try to execute my view that you should die by attacking you, I think you are justified in self-defense, don't you?

I should be, yes, presuming I didnt try to kill them first.

> I don't think that contradicts the general principle of liberty.

When someone is charging at you with a knife shooting them in a facce would be a reasonable violation of liberty (choosing the lesser of two liberties to deny when both are mutually exclusive)

> Likewise if a *political movement* decides that *your kind* should die or otherwise be oppressed.

Thats not the definition of fascism. A political movement that wants a particular group dead may be fascism it may not, depending on if it has the other elements of fascism. A movement can be fascist and not have **any** group they want dead, likewise a movement can want a group dead and not be fascist.

So you arent going to advance your point for arguing for a completely unrelated point.

@volkris @realcaseyrollins

@Hyolobrika

But thats literally not the definition of fascism.. you keepy trying to wrangle words into meaning something it is not.. liberty is not limited to discussions and fascism is not limited to oppression

@volkris @realcaseyrollins

@Hyolobrika

Where in the definition of liberty say its limited to the ability to talk about things, rather than execute them?

@volkris @realcaseyrollins