4 ms·

Do you actually think preventing disruptions to the coronation is an indication the British government is becoming Fascist? Fascism has other attributes. Is the

Do you actually think preventing disruptions to the coronation is an indication the British government is becoming Fascist? Fascism has other attributes. Is there a dictatorial power emerging in Britain? Is there an increase in militarism? Is there even a right wing government (no)? Is the government expressing ideas of a natural social hierarchy (no...some of the opposition may be). Whatever is going on, fascism is not the right word.

spinningslate 3y ago
Definition of fascism from Merriam-Webster[0]: > 1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition > 2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control The current Uk government has introduced laws to limit protest as described in this topic; it's also looking to limit the right to strike (ref. current health service pay disputes). Both are consistent with the definition above. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Your definition is exactly what that poster stated it was. No it isn’t in line with that definition.
- runsWphotons 3y ago
  Where is the dictator or "autocrat"? It doesn't meet either definition at all. I am not here to defend these laws in general, but I don't think ensuring no disruptions to the coronation has much to do with them (they used them against maybe 6 people and didnt even charge all of them?). And I don't think it is indicative of anything like fascism. It might be indicative of something else bad that is happening in the UK political body.
  - trasz4 3y ago
    How is an unelected king not a dictator?
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Because he has no power to dictate anything?
      - trasz4 3y ago
        UK is not a constitutional monarchy. The king could have me executed. The only reason they don't is the lack of need vs the expected public backlash.
        defen 3y ago
        That's just the nature of power and not unique to the UK. Joe Biden could declare you an enemy combatant and drone strike you.
        trasz4 3y ago
        Sure, but he's an elected official, not a random hereditary dude.
        runsWphotons 3y ago
        Joe Biden could do this and get away with it. Arguably Obama did, as stated above---there might be better examples. If Charles tried, no one would probably listen, and even if he did, once word got out it would probably actually be the end of the monarchy. Charles is not a dictator, autocrat or anything else. And in fact the US president, though elected, is much further along the spectrum towards autocrat than the British monarch. Many actual autocrats are in fact elected, so this distinction isn't really important anyway.
        brightlancer 3y ago
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
They didn't prevent "disruptions" they prevented peaceful protests (non-disruptive). I've seen messages online heralding how great it is that everyone loves the king, their evidence being the BBC had no news of any dissent, and there was no evidence of dissent on the ground. The reality is police arrested people for planning peaceful protests, and the BBC provided their usual biased reporting. This is not good.
George83728 3y ago
[flagged]
Retric 3y ago
Banning the types of peaceful protests allowed based on the content of their message is deeply fascist. The British government is seriously leaning into censorship, surveillance, and nationalism which is a very dangerous combination. They have even vilified an out group namely immigrants and cracked down on decent. Add in propaganda with strong ties between the government and large private companies really does make me nervous, though I am not expecting things to devolve very quickly the historic left/right divide isn’t particularly important here.

spinningslate 3y ago

Definition of fascism from Merriam-Webster[0]: > 1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition > 2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control The current Uk government has introduced laws to limit protest as described in this topic; it's also looking to limit the right to strike (ref. current health service pay disputes). Both are consistent with the definition above. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

edgyquant 3y ago
Your definition is exactly what that poster stated it was. No it isn’t in line with that definition.
runsWphotons 3y ago
Where is the dictator or "autocrat"? It doesn't meet either definition at all. I am not here to defend these laws in general, but I don't think ensuring no disruptions to the coronation has much to do with them (they used them against maybe 6 people and didnt even charge all of them?). And I don't think it is indicative of anything like fascism. It might be indicative of something else bad that is happening in the UK political body.
- trasz4 3y ago
  How is an unelected king not a dictator?
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Because he has no power to dictate anything?
    - trasz4 3y ago
      UK is not a constitutional monarchy. The king could have me executed. The only reason they don't is the lack of need vs the expected public backlash.
      - defen 3y ago
        That's just the nature of power and not unique to the UK. Joe Biden could declare you an enemy combatant and drone strike you.
        trasz4 3y ago
        Sure, but he's an elected official, not a random hereditary dude.
        runsWphotons 3y ago
        Joe Biden could do this and get away with it. Arguably Obama did, as stated above---there might be better examples. If Charles tried, no one would probably listen, and even if he did, once word got out it would probably actually be the end of the monarchy. Charles is not a dictator, autocrat or anything else. And in fact the US president, though elected, is much further along the spectrum towards autocrat than the British monarch. Many actual autocrats are in fact elected, so this distinction isn't really important anyway.
        brightlancer 3y ago

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

They didn't prevent "disruptions" they prevented peaceful protests (non-disruptive). I've seen messages online heralding how great it is that everyone loves the king, their evidence being the BBC had no news of any dissent, and there was no evidence of dissent on the ground. The reality is police arrested people for planning peaceful protests, and the BBC provided their usual biased reporting. This is not good.

George83728 3y ago

[flagged]

Retric 3y ago

Banning the types of peaceful protests allowed based on the content of their message is deeply fascist. The British government is seriously leaning into censorship, surveillance, and nationalism which is a very dangerous combination. They have even vilified an out group namely immigrants and cracked down on decent. Add in propaganda with strong ties between the government and large private companies really does make me nervous, though I am not expecting things to devolve very quickly the historic left/right divide isn’t particularly important here.