<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat<br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…<span style='color:black'>New terms and new uses for old terms arise all the time. Standardization happens when a term or new use of a term gains ground. That's just part of normal language change. (Don't believe me. Look up how the terms 'girl' and 'silly' changed over time.) Does this mean _you_ will eschew using any new terms or using any old terms in new ways? I doubt it</span>….Dan<span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dan it isn’t terms. There are underlying assumptions also written into these kinds of essays which are very foreign to plenty of us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But since you bring up fash, we have a term antifa, which we are told means anti-fascist. Sure, OK. But the way the term fascist (and perhaps fash) is being used today is for any political view with which the speaker disagrees.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To me historic Fascism is defined by the 1930s Italian revolutionaries, where the majority overruled everything. In that sense, the call in the USA to eliminate the electoral college is fascist, for it would mean the majority of the voters would always get their way. The minority states would have little say. It would fail to protect minorities.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In my view, the heavy lifting in governance should be done at the state level, for states have a lot more options for raising money than does the federal government. The rights of state government is preserved by the electoral college, which historic fascism does not need or want.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>