Say I want to forbid Islam in my country, for reasons. Would that be fascism?

Say I want to forbid Islam in my country, for reasons. Would that be fascism?

>also general free speech and it's limitations debate
>which restriction are reasonable?
>which are not?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ugmH6CIv3UU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Just delete this thread you limp dick. Are you scared of your own shadow too?

Is Nazism forbidden in your country? Well there you go.

What part of "hypothetical" do you not understand?

Does it involve taking over parliament with the goal of creating a corporatist system?
Then no

Wwell, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Maybe banning Islam is only the first step? Islam is a clear threat to the safety of our communities, obviously. After banning all other religions -how are they different anyway?- we can move closer towards the desired groupthink.

>dude if you ban all religions that aren't your country's then how will immigrants feel at home and break into your house?

Either you have free speech, or you don't.

Islam is completely against free speech and thus, can't be accepted.

Free Speech as a right should be allowed up the extent that it would not infringe on other human rights - all rights are equal in importance, and we should strive to effectively balance them to the best of our ability.

Free speech is ability to speak out literally anything you want.
When you impose things like "you can't say -nigger-", it's not free speech anymore.

It might be authoritarian but it isn't fascism.

Say I want to forbid fascism in my country, for reasons. Would that be fascism?

It would be anti-Islamism. It's hard to think of a non-fascist regime that would promote such a doctrine, but the doctrine in and of itself is not "fascism".

>Just delete this thread you limp dick. Are you scared of your own shadow too?

Islam has some fucking dope ass tunes m8 youtube.com/watch?v=ugmH6CIv3UU

Yeah, I had this thought myself recently, I was trying to reconcile my desire to rid Europe of Islam, while maintaining freedom of speech and religion. The solution I came to was to ban Muslim Migrants, and to pass laws which although not strictly anti Islam, would make being a Muslim much harder (in order to promote integration)

Banning a particular religion instead of particular acts is thoughtcrime

Free speech restrictions - None
You should be allowed to say whatever you want and it should be the job of the government to BYTFO should you decided to act on some of those words.

No it would be Stalinism.

What if I ban praying towards Mecca, fasting from dawn to dusk and building minarets around your religious buildings?

>banning Islam is fascist
"I don't shit about anything."
-You

Wasn't Mussolini rather big on the "Let them keep their religion as long as they want to be Italian" line?

Fascism is not "authoritarianism that's mean to people", although many uneducated people believe it is. It's a worldview based on recognizing natural law, which dictates that humans are naturally unequal, tribalist, and hierarchical. Applying these laws to politics, Islam would not be allowed in a non-Muslim fascist state, since it weakens the unity of the tribe. But there are many more requirements for fascism than the lack of freedom of religion.

"oooh I want to defend my principles and those of my country! oh but I d-don't want to be a fascist! it's fascist to defend European enlightenment values!"

Liberalism like this is so pathetic. All this timid mewing and tiptoeing because you're scared to reject Islam and ban Muslims from practicing their religion publicly.

Pretty much.

>it's fascist to defend European enlightenment values!"
Why the fuck would a liberal ever say that?

No, you can't ban Islam.

You can be a traditional leftist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

>oooh I want to defend my principles and those of my country!
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
How will I ever resolve this paradox

Yes you are a fascist and should be killed as a result.

No tolerance of intolerance

I have two friends, one is called Is and the other is called Ought and they need a talk with you

>Liberals
>calling the event that created Liberalism fascist
American detected. Do us all a favor and unplug your computer.

Clearly liberty is self-contradictory and therefore a meme

Even "American liberalism" is founded on Enlightenment values.

I'm in favor of basically absolute free speech, especially for marginalized views.
If we don't have freedom of speech for views we dislike, we don't have it at all.

How can you be in favor of speech that's against free speech?

They have every right to say it, just like they do on this very board. This also meanwhile gives me the right to call them moronic assholes and point out the idiocy of their policies while ridiculing them in public, so it all works out.

No.
Fascism is a political ideology which can be difficult to define, especially in modern with liberals throwing it around at the slightest sign of mansplaining.
Fascism should probably involve elements of:
>totalitarianism
>fanatic militarism
>superiority of collective over individual
>blending of corporate and political power
>charismatic figurehead
>promote reactionary morals
>jingoistic, love of war
>involve cultural superiority (race, religion, language, etc.)
Having one of these policies or something similar wouldn't make your country fascist anymore than making your country atheist would make you communist.

>pass laws which although not strictly anti Islam, would make being a Muslim much harder
Such as?

Also, slippery slope?

No, it would be censorship.
A country becomes fascist when you start restricting private business to only be legal When they benefit the state, when you restrict free speech for the benefit of the state, when you instil a fuckload of militant nationalism into the populace of the state, and when you replace the democratic process with a one-party system for the benefit of the state.
I think that's all there is

A-user, isn't all that pretty much what we have today?

Why does the solution always have to be to forbid Islam? Why not corrupt it with western values instead to the extent that it becomes no different from protestantism in the scandinavian countries

You dont ask permission if you are free. Free speech excists nowhere since they are all regulated by the goverment.

Your understanding is extremely flawed.
>totalitarianism
Yes.
>fanatic militarism
Nope. Fascism is neither militarist nor pacifist, this falls under its "whatever works best for the state" way of thinking.
>collectivism
Yes.
>blending of corporate and political power
If you're refering to the economic ideology of corporatism, then you're fine. If you're repeating that meme where idiots think Mussolini was referring to modern, capitalist corporations, then you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>charismatic figurehead
Doesn't really play a part in the fascist doctrine. However, it was common enough to be considered linked with fascism.
>promote reactionary morals
Nope. The only thing resembling morals that fascists promoted was extreme loyalty to the state. If you're talking about fascist aesthetics, they borrowed a lot from Nietzsche and wanked on strength, resolve, youth etc. But "reactionary morals" was never a part of the fascist ideology.
>jingoistic, love of war
Nope. see point no.2. If war was considered beneficial for the state, they would welcome it. If it was considered ruinous, they would be against it. Realpolitik.
>cultural superiority
National Socialism. Actual fascism didn't involve "cultural superiority" nor did it consider race a factor in anything. However, they proposed monoculturalism, as they thought monocultural societies to be much stronger. That's why they sought to italianize Istria and Dalmatia, which they, following irredentism, considered rightfully Italian.

t. fascist

If you're interested in reading about fascism, the best essay would be Alfredo Rocco's "The Political Doctrine of Fascism".

That is pretty much the ideal, desu. Let Islam have its bloody Reformation, because they'll chill the fuck out after that.

That would require actual work which our politicians seem to be allergic to.

Jesus Christ, I wish people would stop using fascism as a meme encompassing everything that goes against the enlightenment ideas about the state and human rights. Fascism has its doctrine, it cannot be used as a term for anything you don't like, that's just idiotic name-calling and betrays a complete lack of knowledge about fascism.

"I educate myself using memes."
-you

No, fascism isnt a libertarian statist strawman.

>>charismatic figurehead
>Doesn't really play a part in the fascist doctrine
Well honestly it seems the contrary: fascism merely follows the charismatic leader, it simply suits his needs for more decisional powers and cannot be performed without a big support from the majority.
In recent years seizing money does almost more for decisional powers than seizing government though, so it's becoming antiquate

Banning Islam would be fascism yes. However simply not bending your rules to be compatible with Islam isn't, something western countries need to start understanding.
Making threats of violence and directly encouraging others to commit violence should be the only limitation to free speech.
It wouldn't for example be okay to just start shutting down mosques, but if you want to lock up a certain Imam who is preaching and calling for the killing of infidels that's totally fine.

see

On the contrary, Islam is the fascism.

Why would you defend freedom of someone who clearly wants to abolish it?