[nine_k]

From Wikipedia: «Fascism ... characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy».

There are people who see the enforcement of the green agenda in these terms, like this: you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it, and it gets forced on the economy through the power of the state.

I personally think that such a view is a bit of a exaggeration. But we should remember that the danger of fascism is always around the corner, in the groupthink and in the enforcement of One True Way in anything.

[RobertoG]

>>"[..]you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it,[..]"

By this, I suppose you mean that, if you do it, you will get some angry answers in your direction, but, is that not true about anything deserving to talk about?

It works in the other direction too: I have heard pretty harsh insults against ecologist (yeah, sometimes they are even called fascists).

>>"[..] and it gets forced on the economy through the power of she state."

Yes, but all economic organization is forced through the power of the state, starting by property rights. So, nothing new there.

[nine_k]

I'm mostly talking about a PR suicide that is speaking against beliefs of majority, or even a vocal minority. This has real economic consequences, so it makes businesses stay in line with the accepted beliefs by talking the only language that matters to them.

Yes, a state is an instiute of enforcement, violent if needed. Nothing new here indeed. People just tend to see enforcement of ideas they like as good, and of the ideas they don't like, as evil. Nothing new here either.

I just tried to explain the train of thought that may have led to the original (flagged) comment.