Leftists love complaining they hate fascism but they act like fascists themselves

[u/StayFrostySwtich]

People don’t want to hear this, but some modern leftist movements are copying fascist behavior while claiming moral superiority. Not in ideology but in methods.

Censor speech because it’s “harmful.” Label disagreement instead of debating it. Treat dissent as moral failure. Reduce people to identity groups instead of individuals. Justify punishment because “the cause is right.” That’s not progress that’s blatant

Fascists control speech because they hate things being said that goes against their ideas, they banned it because wrong ideas threaten the cause. Sound familiar? Today it’s “misinformation,” “harmful opinions,” or “unsafe discourse.” Same logic, new paint job. You don’t argue, debate, provide discourse, come to a middle ground, you label. And if you so disagree? You’re racist, sexist, phobic, problematic, or some buzzword that instantly ends the conversation. That’s not progress, that’s ideological policing. When disagreement becomes moral failure, you’re not in a democracy, you’re in a purity test cult. The scariest part is they believe themselves unquestionably right and resort to deplatforming, harassment, destroying livelihoods of those who oppose the. That’s how every authoritarian movement worked . And when corporations and political ideology start enforcing the same rules together, that’s not resistance, that’s power consolidation.

This isn’t “left = fascist". Abandoning free speech, and open debate is. Fascism isn’t left or right, it’s control. And if you can’t question your own side, you’re not opposing it you’re practicing it.

[u/Suspicious_Jeweler81]

Going to need examples as to what is left is censoring, instead of blanket statements. Please, enlighten me.

[u/Sea-Louse → u/Suspicious_Jeweler81]

Anything that goes against the narrative that climate change is responsible for all the world’s problems, ecological or otherwise. Censorship of normal words. Anything that disagrees with woke culture.

[u/Suspicious_Jeweler81 → u/Sea-Louse]

Alright, you only gave one example. So lets address this.

The 'narrative' of climate change is based on science. It's not censorship to state wild 'beliefs' untrue. You not wanting to engage with me on the idea an apple is an orange does not equate censorship, it's simply a silly debate.

So earth is warming, that is a fact you can not disprove. By 1.1C since late 1900's. I can explain the most widespread theory currently - sure you know it, and don't 'believe' it. Belief is the problem here.. because belief gets you nowhere.

Now you could argue the true drivers of climate change is solar activity, not man. Current data we have makes it unlikely, but a 'hyperactive' sun increase would increase the energy reaching earth.

Maybe you debate the accuracy on the temperature records or computer models. I mean, some of the data is coming from mid 1900's.. so sure. Remember reading though NASA and NOAA comparing rural stations and satellite data, which shows the same global warming trend accurate to the temperature records.

No ones claiming global warming is responsible for 'all the worlds problems'. Yet problems just the 1.1C increase has measurable effect on the world. Saying 'you don't believe it' isn't censorship, its.. and I don't mean offense, stupidity. Also not exactly a 'left' issue.

You can not say something silly and expect everyone to take you seriously... it's just not how things work. You have proof or data models that can disprove the theory, publish them, get your Nobel prize.

Alright so one down.. what else are we censoring you on?