dxdm

This sounds like an interesting argument, but it's damn hard to parse. I think you're saying that real democracy needs political (in the widest sense) engagement, which can't be got from the majority of people, so letting everyone participate without regard to such engagement gets in the way of real democracy, and therefore you suggest to "replace" (redistribute) power?

Anyway, this really needs an explanation of what your idea of "real democracy" is, and what "replace power" is supposed to mean.

Anyway, the answer to your question of "how" is likely: at your own peril. ;)

Well, I think that pointing to the direction of travel is necessary, because that's where these folks want to go - and if we don't end up there, it's not because they had a change of heart, but because not enough people jumped on their bandwagon.

As I said, I also think that "fascism" is overused as a label, but that it fits in this case and is one of the right labels. Calling the modern revenant by the name of one of its previous forms is not wrong, and should be goddamn possible, at the very least. That was my point. I won't pursue it here anymore, because I agree that it probably does not _work_. It doesn't work because it's wrong, but because it seems like there are simply no words at all that work. This name, that label, new, old, short, long - enough people just don't care, don't see, will not see what they are supporting and voting for. It sucks.

> things could get a lot worse! And they just might!

Looks like they will. Do you care to bet what sort of party will make them so? You can see them in action across the world and in our past.

> They just aren’t that similar.

That's where we disagree. I say they're similar where it counts the most, at the core. Where did the fascists come from?

There's a combination of xenophobia and populism, this tendency to offer simple solutions to complex problems that tend to involve blaming and getting rid of people that are "different". It usually goes hand in hand with a certain latent or overt brutality, doesn't it, the tendency to not care about the suffering inflicted, about the humanity of others. There's a generous streak of authoritarianism there, wanting to suppress differences, a hostility towards the mechanisms that allow these differences to be expressed and balanced and protected. A disdain for courts that don't rule the right way, for journalists that don't write the right thing, and a soft spot for what we call "alternative facts" these days and for "remigration" - I think the nazis entertained such an idea, too.

I agree that there's an inflationary use of calling out "fascism", but you don't need to look deeply into that Swedish party to see the similarities. From what I read, much more likely than not, somebody like their boss would have been an ardent nazi even before the 1930s, golden party badge and all - and if not, then only because he'd have a competing party for a while.

So yeah, sometimes it's right to call a spade a spade. Another one of the reasons that accusations of “fascism” fall flat is that people just don't want to be associated with _that_, and there are enough differences to talk about to avoid looking in the mirror of the past. You don't need to have arrived at the extremes for people to understand where your heart is, and what is at least the direction you want to go. It's the one that's consistently turned out to be worse.

My point is that the term "fascist" here gets used to draw attention to parallels in core ideology, and that this is unsurprising and indeed appropriate.

There will always be differences, and a narrower definition can be useful in a different discussion, but in general, I'd say recognizing the same patterns from the past is the opposite of historical illiteracy and something that we could use more of. Insisting on the finer points _in this context_ comes across as historical pedantry at best, or an inability or unwillingness to recognize the fundamental similarities otherwise.

It's not the "calls for fusion of corporations and state" you mentioned above that these people are the most famous for, and what you seem worried about others being associated with; but their ideology and the associated actions. It's no wonder modern forms of a similar ideology draw comparisons to its most famous proponents in recent history.

The association happens by way of that similarity. That's what they're getting called out for.

Opening up a discussion about technical differences in economic policy is completely beside the point, unless you want to distract from the rest of the rotten elephant in the room.

It's not about names, it's about using names as a shorthand for what these people said to motivate and justify their horrific deeds.

They were not the first, or last, but, as you say, among the worst. They serve as an excellent model of what can happen when you put people like that in control of a modern, organized and industrialized state.

And as such, I find it entirely appropriate to invoke their handle as a shorthand for modern ducks quacking a similar tune.

Ok, understood. It seemed like you were proposing an alternative to permanent-DST that should be worse by your own logic (unnatural standard), but if it's tongue in cheek, then I'm much less confused.

I thought we wanted to prevent imposing unnatural time standards? "China manages somehow" seems nowhere close to that.

The point of the article is that timezones solve practical problems that will keep existing if you remove timezones - no matter if you do it globally or only in one large geographic region.

People have a use for a time grid that is relative to when they're awake, and the article I linked to goes into great detail why. Don't worry about telephones, people can still interact without them.

Not entirely, if the country covers enough time zones, like China suggested above. 4 hours of difference is already half the working day, and a sizable chunk of daylight.

I can only repeat what I wrote before: There are no hard red lines, only mostly hard, mostly red, and mostly straight lines, not in law, and not even when looking at literal lines that somebody drew or printed.

Trying to define something simple and universally applicable is a fool's errand, because people will disagree, and even if it's just you, reality will hit you with exceptions and curveballs if you look hard or wait long enough.

The point of the constitution is not to satisfy a need for simple, unchangeable rules that need no interpretation whatsoever.

If you look for the point of the constitution, here's one explanation from the horse's mouth:

> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's ground rules. They will necessarily require interpretation, as all rules do. What that interpretation should be and how far it should go is part of that, and has been ongoing ever since, as would be expected.

So what?

> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

Note that it does not define what that means. At the same time, it is well established that some forms of speech do come with consequences. I'm sure you can think of commonly accepted examples.

Laws do not exist outside of courts who interpret them. They made an extra court to do that for the constitution. That's a feature!

Reality is fuzzy. The problem with insisting on "verbatim" readings of texts is that there is always wiggle room and edge cases, and nobody can agree on what that one, true reading is.

So, yeah, the first amendment might not say what you think it says, because it only says what it says, and not what it does, because it can only say, and it takes people to do.

Did you try your question on the website?