Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Most other prisoners of the early camps were soon set free again—not because of outside intervention, but because the authorities felt that a brief period of shock and awe was normally enough to force opponents into compliance. As a result, there was a rapid turnover in 1933, with the places of released prisoners quickly filled with new ones.
The duration of detention was unpredictable. Prisoners who expected to regain their freedom after a few days were mostly disappointed, but it was rare for them to remain inside for a year or more. Longer spells were served in the bigger, more permanent camps, but even in a large camp like Oranienburg, around two‐thirds of all prisoners stayed for less than three months.244
The result was a constant stream of former prisoners back into German society, and it was these men and women who would become the most important sources of private knowledge about the early camps.
It was at a private college campus and the dean suspended all the students protesting and requested to have NYPD come remove them. In other words, the property caretaker was being a dick and had them removed from the premises.
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.
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.”
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
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.
So punishing free speech and protest is not fascist provided that they are “only” in jail for a couple of days? Seriously?
Obviously cracking down on protests doesn’t mean it’s 1930s Germany but it’s part of the same playbook, surely?
(Emphasis added. Source.)
It was at a private college campus and the dean suspended all the students protesting and requested to have NYPD come remove them. In other words, the property caretaker was being a dick and had them removed from the premises.
Hmmm… well that almost sounds like capitalism in a Republic democracy. Shit, now what?
Keep doing it until almost the entire student body is suspended, or protest off campus?
Sounds like a plan! Can’t suspend alumni, so I’m game
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.
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.”
100% agree with you then.
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
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.
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
Removed by mod