[extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 27, 2004, at 11:44 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Just to make sure we are all on the same page...
>
> The Mirriam-Webster online dictionary defines "fascism" as:
>
> 1. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (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 actual exercise of strong autocratic or 
> dictatorial
> control"
>
> I would guess the best example of (1) would be Saddam and his
> old regime.

Ok, fine.  Contemplating nuking Mecca and Jerusalem has to be right up 
there.   If that isn't autocratic and dictatorial to the Muslim world 
then I would be hard-pressed to understand what is.   It sure looks 
like elevating the US and other western nations and people above any of 
those muslim individuals likely to be killed and have their culture 
directly attacked.
>
> Now, if Natasha or any of the other moderators were to ban
> specific list discussions arbitrarily it would seem to be an
> example of (2).
>

This isn't amusing even as a blatant rationalization.   A discussion 
list is private space set aside for certain purposes and intent.  If a 
particular line of discussion is too far from that intent or is too 
disruptive of that intent in the minds of those charged with deciding 
such things then they are within their rights and duties to stop or 
attempt to modify that discussion.  It has nothing to do with 
"censorship", "dictating" or being "autocratic".   It can be exercised 
capriciously to be sure but it sure as hell not "fascist".   I have too 
much respect for your intelligence to believe that you honestly thing 
it is.

> I don't think my comments would fullfill the bill because
> they weren't really a "political", and certainly not a
> "movement" or "regime".  I also was not advocating a
> dictorial leader or an autocratic government.  I was
> arguing preemptive attacks that would have significant
> secondary side effects on people other than those guilty
> of targeting Western societies.
>


You were arguing the most unextropic means possible as being 
potentially better (with no real reasoning of exactly how) to 
supposedly protect us from terrorism and an presumed worldwide islamic 
danger to all we hold dear.   Such a proposal deserves what it gets 
imho.

- s