Silencing Black Lives Matter: Priti Patel’s anti-protest law

Watch
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#41
(Original post by -Imperator-)
This could not be further than the truth. Fascism is a consistent ideology including: extreme nationalism; extreme populism; extreme authoritarianism; anti-capitalism; anti-communism; anti-establishment; extreme social conservatism etc. As an ideology, fascism is much easier to define than something like British conservatism, which evolves over time. If you think that fascism is defined by whatever's politically expedient then I guess I can see why everything you have to say about it so completely deluded.
I literally gave you examples on how this is true by explaining that countries like North Korea take words like: 'Republic' and: 'Democratic' completely via use of Newspeak flipping those meanings of their head in order to gas-light its populace during midst of a growing political rebellion against the state. Then another examples with how Nazis appropriated the aesthetics and rhetoric of Socialist just after they finished killing them despite then privatizing everything in the process. With merely just even these two examples in mind both historically as well as contemporary it'd be inaccurate for you to attempt to deny this.

Also mate our press and media thought the social democratic suggestions of Corbyn's Labour cabinet was: 'Communism' the way the right and to far-right perceive Communism is more like a monolithic esoteric metaphysical force rather than the actual political alignment involving a society in which where worker's own the means of their production as a value of their labour. It's also why more often than not a lot of Conservatives will equate both liberalism and socialism or communism (more so in America than here but it does happen) as somehow non distinguishable from each-other.

Conservatism doesn't evolve it's forced to capitulate to evolution through increasing progress of societal as well as educational attitudes. It's antithetical to evolution as Conservatism is about maintaining and usually with force to sustain a sense of ingrained tradition that's usually tied to some religious or class bias.

Fact recent studies show that brains influenced via Conservative mindsets and politics are less capable of understanding nuance. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rstb.2020.0424

Which would explain why world-wide it'd appear that almost no matter which country you want to focus on Conservative movements internationally are becoming more reactionary and authoritarian. Cause to a lot them rhetoric and or systemic might is often the best solution to any problem in their heads.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Also mate our press and media thought the social democratic suggestions of Corbyn's Labour cabinet was: 'Communism' the way the right and to far-right perceive Communism is more like a monolithic esoteric metaphysical force rather than the actual political alignment involving a society in which where worker's own the means of their production as a value of their labour.
This is literally exactly what you yourself are doing with "fascism".

(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Fact recent studies show that brains influenced via Conservative mindsets and politics are less capable of understanding nuance. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rstb.2020.0424
That study doesn't mention political nuance. If you want to compare the cognitive faculties of the left and the right, though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by -Imperator-)
This is literally exactly what you yourself are doing with "fascism".



That study doesn't mention political nuance. If you want to compare the cognitive faculties of the left and the right, though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666
Not at all. There's a difference. Fascism is an incoherent political identity as it draws from a position of religious irrationality from any and all political movements in order to establish itself as a dominant force. This is usually achieved through Newspeak and selective populism, i.e. divide and conquer of the considered outgroup that's labeled as: 'the plot' against the in-group. That's why whenever you ask a fascist to define: 'fascism' you'll always get a completely different answer almost every single time that's equally considered the most accurate in the minds of other fascistic leaning groups or individuals. Communism on the other hand is merely a state-less class-less society in which where workers own means of the production of their labour and the breakdown of the commodify form. That's it.

Furthermore the study I linked literally says Conservatives minds have reduced strategic thought process. It's the same thing as the research demonstrates Conservatives react more in a fight and flight response henceforth why said brains are less capable of internalising nuance as I explained as well as in areas demonstrated.

As for the 2012 study you've linked which MP's are talked about and are they more socialist or Neo-Liberal leaning that believed invading Iraq would benefit the economy for the average citizen in UK; also do you have a more recent study relating to something similar? Study I linked regarding Conservative brains having reduce strategic thought processes was published 22nd of February of this year. (Keep in mind this is not a means to dehumanise you I genuinely think this information can be used in future to understand the reality of Conservatism more and exploring ways to help people gradually get out of it.)
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
We seem to have gone from Patel's law on protests to freedom of the press to definitions of fascism.
If someone could find a way of bringing this back to the subject matter we started with (ie Priti Patel's policy) then that may be beneficial.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#45
(Original post by 04MR17)
We seem to have gone from Patel's law on protests to freedom of the press to definitions of fascism.
If someone could find a way of bringing this back to the subject matter we started with (ie Priti Patel's policy) then that may be beneficial.
Whilst I do think it's all relative you're right. Should try to keep it focused on the bill itself.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
can we all agree that restrictions on noise level is the most preposterous proposal of this bill? i mean how do you even measure that or whether it has caused 'intimidation or harassment' or 'serious unease, alarm or distress' to bystanders; personally no idea :dontknow:

i sure hope it's a high threshold cuz as the article in the op says the bill 'aims its sights at the entire purpose of protest.

'The point of a demonstration is to be heard, to make an argument, to encourage others – whether they are people passing by, or workers in a company, or MPs in parliament – to hear the protestors’ point of view. In other words, to have an “impact”. This is why we call them ‘demonstrations’. It is a demonstration of a political view, expressed so that it can convince others. That is what makes it a vital part of free speech.'

personally shake my head at a party and those who support it tbh who claim to be all 'anti nanny state' and 'pro free speech' while simultaneously adding more restrictions on how one protests. not to be repetitive, but the point of a protest is to be heard; or shall i just sit in my room and protest to myself(?).
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by Joleee)
can we all agree that restrictions on noise level is the most preposterous proposal of this bill? i mean how do you even measure that or whether it has caused 'intimidation or harassment' or 'serious unease, alarm or distress' to bystanders; personally no idea :dontknow:

i sure hope it's a high threshold cuz as the article in the op says the bill 'aims its sights at the entire purpose of protest.

'The point of a demonstration is to be heard, to make an argument, to encourage others – whether they are people passing by, or workers in a company, or MPs in parliament – to hear the protestors’ point of view. In other words, to have an “impact”. This is why we call them ‘demonstrations’. It is a demonstration of a political view, expressed so that it can convince others. That is what makes it a vital part of free speech.'

personally shake my head at a party and those who support it tbh who claim to be all 'anti nanny state' and 'pro free speech' while simultaneously adding more restrictions on how one protests. not to be repetitive, but the point of a protest is to be heard; or shall i just sit in my room and protest to myself(?).
That is kind of the point of the bill, to stifle your ability to dissent against the Government. Patel doesn't like protest or for anyone to be able to question her or her colleagues actions.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (190)
5.06%
Uncertainty around my education (552)
14.69%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (420)
11.18%
Lack of purpose or motivation (517)
13.76%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (187)
4.98%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (224)
5.96%
Loneliness (315)
8.38%
Financial worries (138)
3.67%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (145)
3.86%
Exposure to negative news/social media (168)
4.47%
Lack of real life entertainment (213)
5.67%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (335)
8.92%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (353)
9.4%

Watched Threads

View All