all 12 comments

[–]StillLessons[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Welcome to the full flowering of fascism: the murderous irrationality of central planning. Kafka, Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury, Gilliam... they were all pointing at this. We're there.

[–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A centrally planned economy is communist. Are conseravtives blind? Or do you guys just really like commies? Every time people like antifa come around waving literal communist flags, openly saying they are communist, supporting communist policies, you cuckservatives say "hm yes these people are fascist neo-nazis!"

[–]StillLessons[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is why I don't like "-isms", and I should have stayed away from using one.

I did use it intentionally, meaning that under fascism, there is no "public" and "private" because the interests of business are the interests of the state. That's why Mussolini described it as corporatism. Corporate leaders are simply an extension of the power of the central authorities. Thus, when I see police being used to enforce corporate monopoly (forcing citizens to use supermarkets - i.e. centrally controlled production/distribution chains - is considered in the state's interest, and supersedes the individual farmers' rights to make a living), I see fascism: state power used to enforce corporate profit.

That said, as you point out, communist systems are also about central power being enforced on their populations at the expense of individual freedom.

Like I said, I should have stayed away from the "-isms". All terms that have such broad reach are inherently useless because of the amount they bleed into each other, describing the same negative elements of human nature with subtly different emphasis.

There is one overarching theme. When faceless bureaucracies mandate individual behavior which is counter to the individual's best interests, and they use the force of the state to do so, we are entering one form or other of totalitarian system. The raw insanity of police preventing citizens from being in a place that is almost certainly a safer environment in "Covid" terms to force them into supermarkets has zero to do with public health. This is about the state enforcing centralized economic power.

[–]Minedwe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the term "corporatocracy" is best, because it accurately describes the situation: The state runs itself like a business, and corporations are pretty much in control due to lobbying, bribes, propaganda, etc. The fact that democracy is so decentralized and allows for things such as lobbying and campaign donations allowing megacorporations like Google, Apple, the news/weapons/prison industry, and numerous others to control society and the government entirely.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

FFS: Breitbart scum are spinning this into rabid right-wing clickbait. You can see in the post to which they link that the problem was DUE ONLY TO COVID19 restrictions, and not to the rest of this incitement to hatred. What those assholes link to is a COVID19 issue:

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/anger-police-disperse-families-buying-19684617

It will pass. There is no Orwellian evidence here. You can find plenty of Orwellian problems in the UK quite easily, but not via Breitbart and other disinformation sites.

[–]StillLessons[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The fact that it is due to Covid restrictions is actually precisely the point.

Ignoring all the controversy about the numbers, there is one fundamental point on which all sides agree: the virus we are talking about is contagious via contact with other people either through airborne droplets and/or aerosols or through contact with mutual surfaces where those aerosols might collect. Can we agree on that?

If so, then the primary strategy for diminishing spread of the virus should be diminishing social settings with high density of gathered people. An equally important part of this strategy is that areas where people come together must be as well ventilated as possible to avoid developing high concentrations of the virus. The amount of virus a person is exposed to makes a difference in the likelihood of becoming ill.

Now I will admit to an assumption, based on the experience of my own life, but I don't think my assumption is particularly "far from center". I go to farmers' markets a lot. In my experience, farmers' markets are usually outside (outdoor air is the definition of the best "ventilation" available to us on the planet), and they usually involve far lower density of people/space than do supermarkets.

With that assumption behind my thinking (the stand photographed with the article is an outside location; if Breitbart is mis-using the photo, that would be a legitimate criticism, but I haven't seen that said), then the idea that moving people from an outdoor low-density shopping environment (relatively low transmission capacity) to a supermarket - an indoor more poorly ventilated and higher person/space density environment (relatively high transmission capacity) - is going to be worse for transmission of Covid.

This fits with the cops ticketing people out walking their dogs in parks far from any other people. There is zero logic to this kind of enforcement if the goal is to prevent transmission of an air/surface-borne respiratory virus.

Why bring fascism and state support of corporate entities into the argument? Well, given that I see no honest rationale to prevent disease spread, and the rules are there, then why? The de-facto effect is to advantage the corporate chains over the individual farmers. I give credit to those running the show that they are arranging things to their advantage. This is advantageous to them, and I credit them with the intelligence to say this advantage is intentional, not accidental.

Edit to add: Incitement to hatred? I have no hatred for any people. If incitement to hatred is incitement to hate the exercise of irrational and soul-crushing government power, then I plead guilty. I do hate the arbitrary use of state power against individuals acting in good faith.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for this. I actually agree with much of it, and argee that state power should not arbitrarily restrict individuals acting in good faith. The milk shop, like other food shops in the UK are not prohibited at the moment, but must arrange for masks and social distancing. Perhaps the cops screw-up, as noted by one of the customers, and people appropriately were socialy distanced. I'm not sure if they had masks, however. There are lots of people outside in the UK these days. If they gather around a milk shop, this may be a problem. What Breitbart has to say about this is however misleading.

[–]StillLessons[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for seeing where I'm coming from. What part of what Breitbart says about this bothers you? I prefer to be as suspicious as possible of any source of information; this is far more important, in fact, if I am sympathetic to the perspective they are presenting. So if you're willing, I'm happy to hear reasons to doubt what they say.

[–]Node 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There is a thing that should happen to people threatening your family.

[–]jykylsin2034 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes the thing

[–]Drewski 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Almost like it isn't really about safety, huh.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, we've had a problem with people overreaching their authority, and misunderstanding instructions. This is a prime example.

Two women got arrested for taking a walk in a national park while carrying Starbucks coffee, food told them the rules now prevented them having a picnic.

Pretty sure a coffee does not make a picnic.