Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

[osamanobama]

sapphi_snake said:

badgenome said:

You make it sound as if the left can't be racist, sexist, or homophobic. At least in my country, leftists routinely call any black, gay, Asian, woman, and anyone else they feel belongs to them by rights, every name in the book if they disagree with them politically. Women become sluts and cunts, Asians become gooks, Hispanics become coconuts, blacks become monkeys... all for simply finding left-wing social and economic policies infeasible. And talk about stereotyping... I can't think of anything more racist than to say that all blacks have to be economic illiterates.

So because you don't trust people to hear an irrational argument and not act violently, the government has to act not just against violence, but against speech in the first place? If it's already illegal to incite violence, why isn't that enough? Because political correctness trumps actual correctness every time, hate speech laws invariably end up criminalizing the truth. If someone points out an inconvenient fact, like that every instance of rape in Oslo last year was committed by a Muslim, you might think that's fearmongering and defaming an entire group of people. You may even be correct that those are the intentions of the speaker. But it's also the truth, and truth should be an absolute defense.

Gonna make some comments about your links (also read the original sources):

- "sluts" > he said "talk slut", and mentioned what that meant. He wasn't judging her based on her sexual conduct (which would have been a sexist and misogynistic thing to do);

- "cunts" > the problem with this is? Saying that calling a woman a c**t is sexist is a little overkill, don't you think? It's definately rude, and shows unsophistication, but I don't see why it's sexist;

- "gooks" > this one's valid;

- "coconuts" > He claims he did not know what that this term had that connotation, and he was using it as synonimous to "fruity" or "bananas". Now we'll never know the truth, but it's certainly a valid alternative. This one's questionable;

- "monkeys" > This is just simply taking quotes totally out of context. The article's author was describing how he thinks the black republican candidate is seen by the whites in the same party, and what his role in that party is (considering the ideology, policies etc.). He's criticising the black canditate for degrading himself for the delight of white conservative racists "because it pays so well". I think this is by far the most pathetic example of trying to present liberals as "racists" I've ever seen.

Also, when comparing conservative and liberal ideologies, it's quite clear which one is inherently racist. You're trying to paint liberals as hypocrites, but you'd need to back that up with scientific data, not some random examples (which are quite misleading and quite pathetic attempts by right wing media).

Regarding your second paragraph, I think you're underestimating the variety of speech that can lead to violence. It's enough to say "black people want to rape our women and kill our children" for lynch mobs to pop up. You don't need to add "we must kill them", for the effect to be the same. I do agree that if a particular information is true, it should not be considered hate speech. If all rapes were commited by muslims, then it should be noted (BTW, Norwegian men from Oslo should recieve some sort of medal or something). I think that the news report was very well put together (much more so than it would've been in the US, especially if it were reported by Fox News), and not trying to encourage violence or prejudice. Only people who support PCness and are irrational (or anti-PC activists) would make a big deal about this.

something tells me, you wouldnt be defending the things said, if they were said by conservatives.

but yes you are right, it is quite clear which ideology is inherently racists, liberal/ progressive, whatever you wish to call them