I'm certainly not defending the silencing of protest. It's just that all fascism is authoritarian, but not all authoritarianism is fascist. Fascism has a specific definition and it's a whole other degree of bad.

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fair enough. It is being used more colloquially in this case, you're right. I retract the accusation of fascism and substitute "an unjust authoritarian crackdown on the right to freedom of speech and expression, undermining the very tenets of democratic society. A national embarrassment."

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

100% agree with you then.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

would you be able to link to a page that helps describe fascism as you say: that relies on severity of consequence?

asking because whilst i agree that fascism is specific - and this doesn’t cover it - im not sure that degree of severity is part of the definition and that could be a dangerous precedent to set because the other parts of fascism about control and quashing dissent enable the severe consequences once they are present

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I usually go by Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism essay for a definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

Suppression of protest would fall under #4 "Disagreement is Treason". Under fascism it is not enough to silence opposition. They must be treated as enemies of the state and be eradicated.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago

really appreciate you taking the effort! i see where you’re coming from with the “enemies of the state” part, and think that id agree there