Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

[sapphi_snake]

badgenome said:

First, I'll only say that you should read Steyn before jumping to any conclusions about the guy. In addition to being a damned amusing writer, he's about as affable and tolerant as it gets without being a braindead multiculturalist, while Krekar is an antagonistic fuckhead who was saying exactly what it sounded like: we're going to outnumber you one day sooner than you think, and then you'll have to do things our way or else.

As for hate speech, what exactly constitutes a majority for our purposes? (I think the term "ruling class" doesn't apply at all, as that assumes a certain amount of wealth and political clout, and we're not talking about Rhodesia or South Africa decades ago. A poor white person doesn't benefit from being white, and in many instances due to affirmative action they are actually at a greater disadvantage than a poor minority.) I'm a white male, the lowest man on the political correctness totem pole. But white males haven't been the majority in the US for a long time, if ever they were. For obvious biological reasons, there tends in just about any species to be more females than males unless they socially engineer themselves into a corner like the Chinese have, but political correctness favors women over men - and so would hate speech laws, if we had any of the dreadful things. Also, one can be a member of the majority in the nation as a whole but a minority in their particular neighborhood. Are they entitled to special protections, or aren't they, or are they but only when they're in their neighborhood?

It all gets to be pretty silly pretty quickly once you start trying to regulate speech, as if people need to be protected from fucking words to begin with. You seem awfully convinced that it is needed, though, and that such laws help do... something or other, but I don't see one shred of evidence to support that position. It's perfectly legal to run up and down an American street shouting "nigger nigger nigger", yet we don't have any greater epidemic of such behavior than any nation that is saddled with hate speech laws. (It does happen, of course, but it's almost invariably set to a hip hop beat.) In the end I think the best way to end discrimination is simply not to discriminate, and that goes double for the government. "Unequal protection is equal protection" is something straight out of 1984.

Regarding your first paragraph, I already said I'd have to read the article in question before being able to have an opinion on the matter. His article could've been totally misinterpreted, if just the words used were taken into consideration, and not the global message.

Regarding the 2nd paragraph, a majority is simply a group that dominates society by being more numerous than all others (50+%). I never said women are a minority, whatI said was that they're a historically oppressed group. They may outnumber men, but they have no real power within society. Society simply considers that men are more "valuable" than women and this starts from birth. Studies actually show that the birth of a boy is considered a much more joyful even in basically every culture (exception being some South American country, I think either Colombia or Venezuela). T This extends well after birth, and in society women don't really have any power (how many world leaders are women?), women being confined to the household and dependent on men for survival. he practice of the Chinese you pointed out being proof of how valued women are. You may be the lowest on the "hate speech totem pole", but that's because you're at the top of the society totem pole (especially if you're also a christian). Regarding political correctness, isn't it's purpose not insulting anyone in order to minimize conflict? I think that insulting a man is just as bad as insulting a woman, and I don't see a problem with being anti PC, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of insulting others.

Affirmative action was set up to protect minority groups from discrimination in universities (and to some extent assure that the number of educated people within these minority groups rises), no? Why are you bringing this into the conversation?

Regarding the 3rd paragraph, words can hurt people, and I'm not talking about feelings. Words spread ideeas, and ideeas lead to actions. I already mentioned that hate speech is speech that promotes violence and discrimination of high risk groups. If words weren't effective, there would be no problem, but reality shows that words have a great power over people. Tell people group X is evil, wants to outnumber them and steal their country, and you'll see lynch mobs forming. Ending discrimination requires treating the cause, not the symptom, as you propose.