General Discussion

collective, not just government, any group that proceeds in that same manner in order to produce doctrinaire conformity.

Have you seen any of the research on internet-astroturffing projects? Don't religions do just about exactly the same thing as you describe above? Anyone can do it and that includes what calls itself "the Left" (or A - N - Y other label for that matter) and attach some very real in-group/out-group punishers to the lack of conformity, things like employment, such as internet content writers, for example. Now, that's fascism!

Whatever the label/window dressing, if it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it does what ducks do, it's a duck. And if you think words can't fool people like that, why do you care about song lyrics? If words worked the way wikipedia says they do, no one would give a rat's ass about song lyrics. There probably wouldn't even be any.

In politics: There are non-governmental groups for whom mortal risks to others, in the name of principle X (and that's principle X all implemented as your highlights above describe), . . . we are told risks for principle X are acceptable, without according those at risk the opportunity to be fully and honestly informed for their right to CHOOSE their own risks themselves for whatever principle or value. Advertising obviously does this too. That's fascistic because it takes power privileges and violates the rights of others for an agenda that it isn't necessarily sharing with those who are at risk. The assault weapons debate is also like this. People are claiming a right, in truth a PRIVILEGE, to war with our government and hurt lots of other people in the process, over a principle of their OWN exclusive definition, and without allowing others to avail themselves of their rights to make their own choices in the matter. And the people who are doing this are people that many of us had no part in choosing them to do that. That's the essence of fascism, power seeking for power alone. That's the purpose of all of those techniques that you describe above: power acquisition is the motive of fascism.

The drone debate is another example; we are supposed to conform to an anti-drone principle, because people are dying, and we are to blindly accept the risks of doing so, even though those same risks, that I/we are supposed to accept, are of the same nature as that which the anti-drone principle putatively opposes, the loss of innocent life. So, it's only okay for innocent life to die (a fact, btw, that our whole history clearly shows is not that unacceptable, whether I/you approve of that or not) ... it's only okay for innocent life to die when some unidentified group who claims to be against drones says it is.

Innocent people should not be killed, I'd like VERY much to go along with whomever on that, but, FOUR fingers, I cannot lie about what appears to be the lies that (only) SOME are propagating, intentionally or otherwise. Are we supposed to accept risks as though they are non-existent, even though, were 9/11 2.0 to happen somewhere in the world, the people who would lose their lives to that have as much right to life as those taken by our drone programs. Are YOU supposed to PRETEND it absolutely won't happen ("FIVE fingers! FIVE fingers!!&quot and, then, if it does, it doesn't matter that those people lose their lives wherever, as long as principle X is "honored", because someone (???) demands it or else??? Is this no less a prescription for Un-Ending War than the drone program is? Who says who and how many die and when?

When anyone pretends that isn't what is going on, THAT's fascism. BTW, I don't approve of drones either, but I'm not going to lie about why we should oppose them. FOUR fingers!!!

These examples and there are hundreds more (e.g. man-hating, anyone?), show how the purpose of all of the traits of fascism, which you sketch above, and which you see elsewhere is one: power acquisition for power's sake alone, because the propaganda about principles that is used to window dress fascism is completely inter-changeable. This doesn't mean that no one can stand for principles honestly, most people do stand honestly, but that honesty requires that they stand FREELY (not dependent upon rewards and punishers in clique culture) and they don't punish others who don't agree, or violate their rights to be free in their reality assessments, and hence responsible, for individual choice in any matter.

Regarding meanings: If words had the absolute kinds of meanings that you appear to think they do, if there was ONLY argument from absolutist authority, language would not work at all. period. If words worked ONLY the way that you appear to think they do, Noam Chomsky would be a nobody. Do you know what his Transformational Grammar is about? Can I get you to look that up? May I suggest that you read sources other than wikipedia? Wikipedia has been recognized for as long as I have known it as being not as unbiased in all things as some people seem to want to pretend that it is. If you are really interested in words, I suggest an un-abridged version of The Oxford English Dictionary and, also, a Roget's INTERNATIONAL Thesaurus.

Words have meanings and those meanings are associative/relative because of how language(s!!) evolved WITHIN human experiences. Language is a product of human experience. The words are NOT the same thing as what those words/any words ONLY, O - N - L - Y , refer to. Yes, a word reference can, when attached to empirical research, get pretty close to validity, but still no word = whatever it refers to and there happens also to be a whole universe of stuff, for which there is no or very little empirical knowledge, so even when a case is made from empirical authority it is still relative to that other context (just ask anyone who is authentically living in an indigenous culture).

Words are a very fungible HYPOTHETICAL system that works because we agree that it does, not because there is anything absolutely necessary about the system and what the system refers to. Don't agree to the word-hypothesis? Fine! but don't claim the PRIVILEGE of telling people they don't mean what they mean; don't claim a false right to pretend that words are something that they aren't.

Another example: If I put a bit of code here ________________ , a script, would that be a program? Or is the program what the code does within a context? and are not those contexts quite variable, some more or less the same, some similar, others more or less different, and still others VERY different from one another? Words are scalable code.

.............................

Yeah, this is kind of a riff here. Sorry about that; I'm tired & need to get away to something else. Please know that I'm not against people having their own opinion; I'm pointing out that your opinion is contextual, just like everyone's. Those FOUR fingers can be looked at from many different perspectives; they can appear to have different kinds of dimensions, some people don't see 4 fingers, they see a hand, on an arm; if we're interested in what things mean, it might be useful to ask a few questions about those other dimensions, especially before someones demand that people bleed or else.

That doesn't mean that all opinions/"knowledge" is necessarily equally valid, nor invalid, but no one is going to be able to identify how much of which, without beginning with the truth about all of that and the first step is a question, which questions happen also to be one's own personal inoculation against Big Brother, not matter what form fascism takes. That's kind of what my poll is about.

I'm also wondering how many of these people referring to Orwell have actually read him, for real (not what someone else ((another Big Brother by a different "mother"?)) is telling them about Orwell), all of the way through, and also, if they have read Orwell, how much else of literature and such they have read besides, because I just must wonder about opinions about semantics, such as what I'm seeing around here a few times lately could be grounded in anything but a rather narrow acquaintance with the subject matter. Again, all of that has a right to be whatever it is, but that right does not negate my right to ask a few questions about it.

FOUR fingers.