[drdrek]

It's funny how much democracies with free speech are always self critical with rampant doom saying while actual autocracies that crack down on this kind of speech are quiet and content when economic times are good only really cracking at the seams during distress.

I know its a healthy part of democracy but it is very draining.

[ajross]

> actual autocracies that crack down on this kind of speech

The ball is rolling. Action against media organizations is already underway. You already couldn't publish this message via CBS, WSJ or the Post, for example. They likely wouldn't even interview the author.

But yeah, it takes time, censorship is hard in practice, and random substacks are fairly far down the list.

But pretending that this is a "healthy" democracy at this point is pretty strained reasoning.

[Schmerika]

Just to be clear: Are you twisting the fact that America hits every metric for fascism into saying it must therefore be a healthy vibrant democracy full of free speech - because someone pointed that out? In a flagged story, that isn't anywhere near mainstream news?

... You know we have people getting thrown in camps and deported for saying maybe genocide is bad, right? And like, students and faculty in Ivy league schools getting beaten and/or fired for saying maybe we shouldn't be complicit in the mass murder of children?

Apologies if I've misread your remarks - deep and biting sarcasm doesn't always play well in text.

[drdrek]

No, I'm actually saying that while the US is getting worse, it is in fact not fascist. You obviously disagree, and the fact that you do proves the point that it can get a lot worse.

Did you know Germany has really fascist laws on regarding displaying Nazi symbols even more than the US? You can get deported for it!

In China you can disappear talking about Taiwan, In the UAE you can by saying something anti Islam. There is a long way to go until you reach real bad places...

You obviously do not like the USA, but just because you do not like it does not mean its fascist... its just clearly not perfect and free enough for you to be able to point it out.

[Schmerika]

> You obviously disagree, and the fact that you do proves the point that it can get a lot worse.

Are people being thrown in camps for what they say? Are they being gunned down in broad daylight in the street for peaceful protest? ... If so, maybe my disagreement is backed up by facts. And maybe "it can get worse" isn't pulling much weight here.

Right now we have a ~100% pro genocide party, and a roughly 90% pro genocide party. That's... not a good sign bro.

> Did you know Germany has really fascist laws on regarding displaying Nazi symbols even more than the US? You can get deported for it!

Did you know every day there's a new video of German police brutalizing peaceful protesters? Or that they're a major arms supplier to Israel; second only to the US?

> In China you can disappear talking about Taiwan

Citation needed. Let's compare people disappearing per capita too. Let's talk about the Epstein files, lots of people disappearing there.

> In the UAE you can by saying something anti Islam.

If your argument is that we're not the UAE, then buddy... What?

> There is a long way to go until you reach real bad places...

Oh America can fall very far from where it is, for sure. That's not what we're talking about though.

> You obviously do not like the USA

It's not about me, or my likes (freedom, truth, liberty, equality - the things the US says it's all about) and dislikes (genocide, forever wars, deportations, coups, extortion, blackmail, people getting shot in the back in the street - the things the US is actually doing).

This conversation is about fascism, and how the US is ticking every single box for it. You are claiming the US isn't fascist, as if that were just my opinion; but you're not engaging with any of the actual facts in the article, or any particular points about fascism, just claiming that people are free to critisize therefore we can't possiblybe fascist. Which is manifestly untrue from any number of angles.

If you like, we can also discuss how this community, the tech bros and venture capitalists, the DOGE cheerleaders and the Thielites, are deeply complicit in that fascism, and profiting from it.

> its just clearly not perfect and free enough for you to be able to point it out.

"Sure, we arm and enable genocide, but you're free to point that out as long as you don't mind the possibility of being thrown in a camp, shot, treated as a terrorist, deported, etc - because we're not the UAE"... I'm not sure those arguments are as strong as you seem to think they are.

[te_234343546]

The problem is that America is not in a terribly healthy democratic state, and pretty much all of the indicators show it. At best, America is a "flawed democracy" ala The Economist. The worst evaluations label America as a "hybrid regime" / "competitive authoritarianism" / "electoral autocracy" or many other terms to describe a democracy-on-the-surface that has, in reality, become heavily titled in favor of one party rule.

The problems extend well beyond one party (see: Citizen United), but to me, the "fascism"-ish stuff is mostly concentrated on one end. It has been clear for a long time that the Republican Party has embraced the "illiberal democracy" model of Viktor Orbán. Orbán's government never got to the full-on violent oppression used in actual autocracies, but instead used many of the tools that the Republican party uses today to attempt to stay in power. That being: gerrymandering and other aggressive vote meddling; media manipulation (not full on censorship, but attempting to ensure that dominant media voices were party line); propaganda using social / culture war rhetoric; and government pressure on institutions (schools, businesses, etc.) to destroy independence, and force conformity to the party line.

There are differences between the two -- Orbán never attempted anything like ICE or the immigrant detention camps, but Orbán was able to capture the judiciary better than Republicans have so far. But it's the closet comparison I can think of.

Some of the characteristics of the "Orbán style" do share some similarities with fascism... however the "Orbán style" lacks classic fascism (along with the more direct cousin of "the Vladimir Putin style")'s full on authoritarianism. But as the above demonstrates, there isn't a term right now that neatly encapsulates hybrid governments at the moment, so I guess that is why folks are running with the term everyone knows. Besides, there is always the danger of a hybrid regime backsliding into an authoritarian regime. Russia, who many do see as a modern flavor of authoritarian fascism at present, was rated as a "hybrid regime" in The Economist in 2006.

[ethbr1]

> Orbán's government never got to the full-on violent oppression used in actual autocracies, but instead used many of the tools that the Republican party uses today to attempt to stay in power. That being: gerrymandering and other aggressive vote meddling; media manipulation (not full on censorship, but attempting to ensure that dominant media voices were party line); propaganda using social / culture war rhetoric; and government pressure on institutions (schools, businesses, etc.) to destroy independence, and force conformity to the party line.

This. One of the characteristics of modern transitions into fascism seems to be intentionally avoiding and subverting the antibodies democratic states have developed to curb authoritarianism, to wit all of the actions you mentioned above.

Grey warfare against democracy is real.

Charitably, its practitioners probably think of it as "playing politics hard", but if the outcome of a course of action is eroding democratic norms then we (the people) need to be harsher in our appraisal of it. Anti-democratic forces know exactly what they're doing, even if they don't admit it publicly.

What's more worrisome is constituting a credibly alternative to MAGA+conservatism in the US that can:

   1. Win elections

   2. Avoid overly alienating the current MAGA+conservative supporters (to the extent they reject democracy)

   3. Restore and reinforce democratic norms and laws

The current "textualist" (read: when conservatively convenient) Supreme Court is likely the lynchpin in this.

   - Clarence Thomas 78
   - Samuel Alito 76
   - Sonia Sotomayor 72
   - John G. Roberts Jr. 71

Thomas and Alito are going to need replacing in the next presidential term.

Who controls the presidency and senate is going to matter a lot, in terms of unfucking the unbalanced court that Ginsberg's egotistical refusal to retire created.

[litoE]

Frightening thought: Alito and Thomas resign now, giving Trump two seats to fill with younger Justices of their "textualist" persuation who will be there for a very long time.