Rising fascism in the US

I did not willfully ignore the silly claim about Google. It is absurd on the face of it to compare market dominance to fascism. All of your silly thread is a reach, and none reaches further, and on less logic, than your Google claim.

Hard to tell just what it is that makes this rather absurd assertion appear true to Setanta. The political Term "Fascism" is widely and usually very loosely applied and cast about here and in other places to describe political movements that involve a good deal of thuggery & violence as well as government control of corporate and labor organizations, as in Mussolini's Italy. Beyond that, there's really not much in the way of political or economic theory involved. Both the Italian and German versions of the 1930s & 1940s were rather opportunistic in their political & economic policies, mixing elements of socialism and capitalism in systems that were essentially dictatorial and authoritarian in nature.

It appears that it was the thuggish physical violence shown in Berkeley by the self described "antifa" protesters against scheduled speaking events on the university campus by various conservative spokesmen that appear to have inspired its use. They certainly did use physical force and violence to silence and suppress political voices which they opposed, and in that truly mimicked the tactics of the Nazi and Fascist Thugs of Italian and German "Fascist" political movements in the 1930s.

It's a trivial matter, and I doubt they would answer anyway. A2K can suspend me whenever they want, and I can suspend A2K whenever I want. That's fair enough for me.

The point being that this is not a free speech platform. They are free to decide the sort of speech and pictures that are acceptable on their own private platform, just like google of facebook can. I'm fine with that.

Senator Flake of Arizona speaks the truth, WOW! It can happen. I am sure tRump will not even understand half of what he says, he will need a translator for sure. Never mine, he would not even have an attention span or care about most of what he says anyways. Denounces tRumps' fascism in many different ways!

It must be hard to tell for those who are not paying attention. Leaving aside your prolix, pompous pontificating--fascism can only arise where the government is taken over by fascists, or fascists are able to seize control in a liberal democracy. Right now, the executive branch and the legislative branch in the United States are controlled by the Republican party--the right. The Supreme Court currently has a right-wing majority. The only current threat of fascism can come solely from the right. If the Republicans lose control of the Congress (the presidency is not a powerful office, after all), then the situation is up for grabs.

Now waste a bunch of band-width on one of your signature fatuous attempts at an intelligent summary of the contemporary situation, mein fuhrer. Oh wait . . . I know, mention Berkeley, which is about the only shaft in the conservative quiver these days when they want to fulminate about fascism.

I just read an interesting article on VOX concerning college universities and freedom of speech. Basically it says Universities don't really consider "freedom speech" when deciding to let a controversial figure speak. Universities consider the educational value on the content of the speech and the civility of the content.

There is no 1st Amendment right to speak on a college campus

(an example:)

This might be fine for private universities but public funded universities should have no such way to "define" what they think free speech is.

I disagree, public schools are allowed to make their own decisions based on their educational goals. If they decide to have nobody speak, they can. There is a difference in having a right wing speaker such as Anne Coulter who might have offensive ways of talking or opposing political views and a white supremacist who espouses minority genocide.

I agree, Rev. The legislature does not run public colleges, the school Administration does. They are allowed to make decisions on who can use college facilities to speak based on a variety of criteria, one of which is the chance of violence breaking out.

The Supreme Court did away with that theory when they forced VMI to allow women to attend.

If conservative legislators choose to crack down on liberal colleges, then they will do so. (If they have the votes at least.)

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/googles-threat-to-democracy-continues-to-hit-alternative-media/

Google shuts out progressive voices.

Jimmy Dore is live streaming right now.

I don’t think that solves the problems of TruthDig, Truthout, or AlterNet, but thanks for playing.

Does a public school have the right to ban a left wing speaker such as the president of Planned Parenthood?

The problem is fairness... if a school can ban right wing speakers, they can also ban left wing speakers. Maybe we will have one set of schools for conservative students to be exposed to conservative views, and another set of schools for liberal students to be exposed to liberal views.

When you say "education goals", what exactly do you mean by the word "educational"?

I doubt very much that Planned Parenthood would be invited to speak to a student body at a high school and the likelyhood of enough college/students being interested in attending a PPH rally stricks me as unlikely. I suppose people opposed to birth control or women's health issues would prefer to badger people at women's clinics and elect like-minded people.

Really Glitterbag?

1. We are talking about public colleges, not high schools. There is a big difference between high school and college; both in court rulings and in common sense.

2. There are a lot of Americans, particularly in Southern states that are deeply opposed to abortion. They believe it is murder, and it is reasonable to think that they view abortion the way that you view White Supremacy.

My point is that in University of Kansas, and University of Mississippi the speakers that are banned might look a lot different than those banned in the University of Massachusetts. I don't think that banning speakers is helpful in either place.

In the interest of education, I think any college should allow any speaker that has the support of a Student Group... and the rules should be the same no matter who the speaker is. I have agreed that outside groups should not be able to sponsor a speaker. But if a real group of students wants to sponsor a speaker, a University should not be in the role of referee.

Probably right, but people who are opposed to birth control, should really welcome Planned Parenthood. That, or get out their checkbooks.

Let me say it again. The issue is abortion. Equating abortion with "women's health" is intellectually dishonest.

Oh for Christ sake Max, I thought the topic was Fascism. Now it's abortion? When did it become about abortion? Oh I remember, when you wondered if a public school would allow Planned Parenthood to hold a rally. I realize it's pointless to remind you that PPH primary mission is women's reproductive health. Legal abortions are only one service. Abortion is a hot button issue but I didn't bring it up, it's pointless to have a discussion and I seldom indulge in making the effort.

By the way, I did mention college....I can't think of any reason why Planned Parenthood would want to hold a rally or address the students at college or university or Trade Schools or Junior College or Cosmetology School.

Did I seem to disagree with that?