5 ms·

One of Gentile's elements defining fascism is "a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, including through the use of

One of Gentile's elements defining fascism is "a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, including through the use of organized terror." Sending in the military against protesters would be literally a textbook example. Cotton's OpEd was a prominent member of government advocating for fascist actions. The irony here is palpable.

ping_pong 6y ago
He specifically said rioters, not protesters. Read the actual op-ed.
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  I did, when it came out. Labeling them as rioters did not make the piece any less concerning. Read up on the Reichstag fire and how it was used to justify suspension of civil rights. The parallels are striking.
  - ping_pong 6y ago
    You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said. I don't agree with him, but I am vehemently against people twisting others' words to spread lies and misinformation. He said "rioters". Don't lie and say he said "protesters" because then you are implying he is trying to quash free speech with the military. In this case, you are the one in the wrong. Spreading misinformation purposefully to trick people into agreeing with you is what is destroying this country right now and you are doing this.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      In context, many had, and continue to, misconstrue protests as riots. As such, a call to send in the military against rioters cannot be differentiated from a call to send in the military against protestors, unless you can get cotton and the protestors to agree on what the differences between protest and riot are.
      - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
        Yes, it was a calculated move to try to paint ALL the protests as riots and justify potentially deadly use of force.
    - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
      > You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said. This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters and drum up support for treating them as such. Even without reading into it, Cotton was advocating for bringing US military troops into US cities to put down the protests because some of them turned violent. That is NOT normal, and NOT something we should see in a healthy democracy. I might add that once the police stopped attacking protesters violently, the protests calmed down pretty quickly. > Spreading misinformation purposefully to trick people into agreeing with you is what is destroying this country right now and you are doing this. Projection is such an ugly thing to see.
      - nkurz 6y ago
        > This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters I don't think this is true. Quoting from his piece: "Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes... He clearly says in plain words that the majority are law-abiding protestors. I suppose you could argue that the piece actually means something other than the plain words that it uses, and you could certainly argue that he's drawing the line between protestors and rioters in the wrong place, but at no point does the op-ed make the claim that all protestors are rioters.

ping_pong 6y ago

He specifically said rioters, not protesters. Read the actual op-ed.

CogentHedgehog 6y ago
I did, when it came out. Labeling them as rioters did not make the piece any less concerning. Read up on the Reichstag fire and how it was used to justify suspension of civil rights. The parallels are striking.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said. I don't agree with him, but I am vehemently against people twisting others' words to spread lies and misinformation. He said "rioters". Don't lie and say he said "protesters" because then you are implying he is trying to quash free speech with the military. In this case, you are the one in the wrong. Spreading misinformation purposefully to trick people into agreeing with you is what is destroying this country right now and you are doing this.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    In context, many had, and continue to, misconstrue protests as riots. As such, a call to send in the military against rioters cannot be differentiated from a call to send in the military against protestors, unless you can get cotton and the protestors to agree on what the differences between protest and riot are.
    - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
      Yes, it was a calculated move to try to paint ALL the protests as riots and justify potentially deadly use of force.
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    > You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said. This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters and drum up support for treating them as such. Even without reading into it, Cotton was advocating for bringing US military troops into US cities to put down the protests because some of them turned violent. That is NOT normal, and NOT something we should see in a healthy democracy. I might add that once the police stopped attacking protesters violently, the protests calmed down pretty quickly. > Spreading misinformation purposefully to trick people into agreeing with you is what is destroying this country right now and you are doing this. Projection is such an ugly thing to see.
    - nkurz 6y ago
      > This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters I don't think this is true. Quoting from his piece: "Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes... He clearly says in plain words that the majority are law-abiding protestors. I suppose you could argue that the piece actually means something other than the plain words that it uses, and you could certainly argue that he's drawing the line between protestors and rioters in the wrong place, but at no point does the op-ed make the claim that all protestors are rioters.