I think the main difference is that people who hold different political opinions are not randomly falling out of windows
The other difference is that you can have protests and still get what you want. Or you can vote and still have the change you voted for count.
If voting didn’t matter at all in the US or other democracies, psyop campaigns wouldn’t be targeting the citizens, but only the leaders or officials, elected or otherwise
When you say “randomly falling out windows,” I think you mean that the state is not assassinating its own citizens to protect the electability of the (small-F) fascist ruling party. That’s a pretty specific line to draw. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean because you continue to cloak your meaning in euphemism and irony.
You say that there are still elections where votes are counted fairly, and that public speech is still permitted. I would suggest that is not the minimum requirement for a fair election or political empowerment. It’s interesting that you suppose that psyops exist and are effective against voters, but that there are still free elections where people are able to enact the changes they have presumably been induced to want.
It sounds very much like you are saying, “yes, while it resembles fascism in every way, real fascism would be the same thing but worse.” You can appreciate I am sure that other people have other standards, and that yours are not really universally accepted. John Kelly gave a very good off-the-cuff definition recently. Rather than presenting my own, I invite you to refute his.
I think the main difference is that people who hold different political opinions are not randomly falling out of windows
The other difference is that you can have protests and still get what you want. Or you can vote and still have the change you voted for count.
If voting didn’t matter at all in the US or other democracies, psyop campaigns wouldn’t be targeting the citizens, but only the leaders or officials, elected or otherwise
When you say “randomly falling out windows,” I think you mean that the state is not assassinating its own citizens to protect the electability of the (small-F) fascist ruling party. That’s a pretty specific line to draw. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean because you continue to cloak your meaning in euphemism and irony.
You say that there are still elections where votes are counted fairly, and that public speech is still permitted. I would suggest that is not the minimum requirement for a fair election or political empowerment. It’s interesting that you suppose that psyops exist and are effective against voters, but that there are still free elections where people are able to enact the changes they have presumably been induced to want.
It sounds very much like you are saying, “yes, while it resembles fascism in every way, real fascism would be the same thing but worse.” You can appreciate I am sure that other people have other standards, and that yours are not really universally accepted. John Kelly gave a very good off-the-cuff definition recently. Rather than presenting my own, I invite you to refute his.