6 ms·

What a great writeup! This is an example of an issue 100% created by the media. To be fair though there is a culture of "outrage" that exists. The media may be

What a great writeup! This is an example of an issue 100% created by the media. To be fair though there is a culture of "outrage" that exists. The media may be implicit in propagating it but they don't always create it. For example, this recently happened: http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/ http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/ I think it's important to study the media's role in creating and extending the reach of outrage, but it's equally important not to deny that there is a growing movement of people who are interested in limiting free speech and get very outrageous about it.

ebola1717 11y ago
That's a very uncompelling argument, not to mention patronizing. The criteria he sets up is literally "it's fascist if you want anything done about the things you're mad about," which is ridiculous because it removes any ability to change the status quo. If there were a professor who were openly defending fascism, calling for him to be removed would be fascist. In fact, if you change "Calling for people to be fired for expressing their beliefs" to "Calling for senators to be voted out of office for expressing their beliefs" then that's fascist. You can play this game for all his examples: > Calling to defund a newspaper for publishing an editorial you disagree with Divestment from companies funding apartheid, something student protesters commonly supported in the late 80s > Tearing down fliers that you disagree with Removing neo-Nazi propaganda posters > Calling for students to be expelled for wearing offensive Halloween costumes Calling for people to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of its owner's anti-gay agendas
- jensen123 11y ago
  In the examples you are listing, the activists are using force to change the world into something they want, as opposed to using free speech to try to convince others. A while ago, I read the book Hitler - Memoirs of a Confidant by Otto Wagener. It really surprised me. From this book, I get the impression that Hitler was an idealist who really wanted to create a better world (at least for the Germans who he saw as being totally unfairly treated by France etc. after WW1). It can still be fascism, even if you see yourself as doing good. Actually, I think well-meaning idealists are sometimes some of the worst people out there. They see themselves as good and being correct, and they get really nasty and intolerant towards people who see things differently. There's the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but I often get the impression that many people don't really grasp this.
  - huxley 11y ago
    While many historians do consider them significant, take Wagener's memoir with a pinch of salt, the author was writing the hagiography of a man he was infatuated with: "Hitler turned his large, unfathomable eyes on me; once again, as they had in Nuremberg, they impressed me with their deep and infinite goodness, as if they constantly wanted to give something without saying anything." Even Hitler never painted as rose-coloured a view of himself as Wagener does.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  I agree that his argument is very thin in most cases. I linked to the original article more for the video of the students and professor being outraged than for the Harvard professor's analysis. His examples are all over the place. Boycotts most definitely aren't fascism. In fact, not allowing boycotts seems much closer to fascism than allowing them. The posters are a different story. I don't know if I'd call it "fascism" to tear down posters (neo-nazi, or gay rights... it doesn't matter -- decisions should be content agnostic). It's vandalism for sure. It's also super ineffective. There was recently a case where feminists defaced ads in the London tube that showed a model in a bikini and asked "Are you beach ready?". The end result was bringing international attention, support and sales for the company that made the ads. In short, speech including boycotts isn't fascism. Tearing down posters is vandalism, probably not fascism. Tearing down posters is ineffective whatever you call it.

ebola1717 11y ago

That's a very uncompelling argument, not to mention patronizing. The criteria he sets up is literally "it's fascist if you want anything done about the things you're mad about," which is ridiculous because it removes any ability to change the status quo. If there were a professor who were openly defending fascism, calling for him to be removed would be fascist. In fact, if you change "Calling for people to be fired for expressing their beliefs" to "Calling for senators to be voted out of office for expressing their beliefs" then that's fascist. You can play this game for all his examples: > Calling to defund a newspaper for publishing an editorial you disagree with Divestment from companies funding apartheid, something student protesters commonly supported in the late 80s > Tearing down fliers that you disagree with Removing neo-Nazi propaganda posters > Calling for students to be expelled for wearing offensive Halloween costumes Calling for people to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of its owner's anti-gay agendas

jensen123 11y ago
In the examples you are listing, the activists are using force to change the world into something they want, as opposed to using free speech to try to convince others. A while ago, I read the book Hitler - Memoirs of a Confidant by Otto Wagener. It really surprised me. From this book, I get the impression that Hitler was an idealist who really wanted to create a better world (at least for the Germans who he saw as being totally unfairly treated by France etc. after WW1). It can still be fascism, even if you see yourself as doing good. Actually, I think well-meaning idealists are sometimes some of the worst people out there. They see themselves as good and being correct, and they get really nasty and intolerant towards people who see things differently. There's the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but I often get the impression that many people don't really grasp this.
- huxley 11y ago
  While many historians do consider them significant, take Wagener's memoir with a pinch of salt, the author was writing the hagiography of a man he was infatuated with: "Hitler turned his large, unfathomable eyes on me; once again, as they had in Nuremberg, they impressed me with their deep and infinite goodness, as if they constantly wanted to give something without saying anything." Even Hitler never painted as rose-coloured a view of himself as Wagener does.
exstudent2 11y ago
I agree that his argument is very thin in most cases. I linked to the original article more for the video of the students and professor being outraged than for the Harvard professor's analysis. His examples are all over the place. Boycotts most definitely aren't fascism. In fact, not allowing boycotts seems much closer to fascism than allowing them. The posters are a different story. I don't know if I'd call it "fascism" to tear down posters (neo-nazi, or gay rights... it doesn't matter -- decisions should be content agnostic). It's vandalism for sure. It's also super ineffective. There was recently a case where feminists defaced ads in the London tube that showed a model in a bikini and asked "Are you beach ready?". The end result was bringing international attention, support and sales for the company that made the ads. In short, speech including boycotts isn't fascism. Tearing down posters is vandalism, probably not fascism. Tearing down posters is ineffective whatever you call it.